Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-09
For the Yorkville Enquirer.
GODS ESSENTIAL HOLINESS DEN1El

For the Yorkyille Enquirer.
GODS ESSENTIAL HOLINESS DENIED.
Mr.. Editor The principle assumed and put
forth by f. A. Crenshaw, as the fundamental doc.
trine Of his faith and practice, as has been stated
is: "For there can be no moral right, nor wrong
without written rule" This absurd deduction
of his wayward reason forces him, to be consistent
to affirm that the moral law is not right in ITSELF
but because it is commanded. This declaration
presented to my mind so obvious and glaring an
absurdity-so clearly and msufestly d"nied the
immaculate nature, the inherent attributes, and
essential being of the Christians God and so fat-
ly rejected and'repudiated the purity, rectitude,
and spirituality of the moral law, that my sur
prise is great, to find that, after time for reHec-
ton, he repeats and re.afirms the unscriptural
and skeptical dogma. But his intelligence or his
peryerseness has done so. Whether so designed or
not, the principle tends far towards atheism.
II is ridiculous in E. A. Crenshaw TO assert, in
effect that Scott, in using the language, "isintsf
right" employed words without meaning, or did
not comprehend the Specification Of the words
However E. A. Crenshaw's habit may be, intelli-
gent theologians endeavor to express the truth,
and employ language appropriate to convey their
conceptions of truth. Conscience, not good policy,
is their standard. The good sense Of every man
moderately conversant with the Scriptures per-
ceves at once, that Psul's reasons, given in diff
ferent Epistles, viz ''is in itself right and 'fs
,reH pleasing unto the Lord" are in themselves con-
sistent, and the words used are only diferept
modes Of expressing the same great truth-that
the obedience of children to their parents is the
,ciU of God. Why should not that which "is in
itself right" be the a0iU of holy God, as that
4. 1t H. o01r oonlt hat
which lis in itself right" But to give authority
of Thornwell, and others, as heretofore seen. we
now present the unmistakable remarks of THOMAS
DICE. Ii, D., who says:
ut is an opinion which very generally prevails,
even among the more respectable portion Of man.
kind, that the moral laws given forth to men are
the mere dictates Of Sovereignty, and depend solely
on the oM of the Deity, and consequently, that
they might be modified, or even entirely superse-
ded, were it the pleasure Of the Supreme Legisla-
tor to alter them or to suspend their authority
But this is most absurd and dangerous position.
1t would take away from the inherent excellence OF
virtue. and would represent the Divine Being as
acting on principles similar to those Of an Eastern
despot. If such position were true, it would
follow, that all the mmoraties, crueltes, oppres-
sions, wars and butcheries that have taken place
in the world, are equally excellent and amiable as
truth, Justice, virtue, and benevolence, and that
the character of Internal felds is just as lovely
and praiseworthy rs that Of angels and archagels,
provided the Deity aoilled that such O change
should take place. We're such change possible,
it would not only overturn all the notions We are
accustomed to entertain respecting the moral at
tributes of God, but might ultimately destroy our
hopes of future enjoyment, and endanger the hap
piness of the whole moral universe. But, there is
an inherent excellence in moral virtue, and the
Deity has wed it to exist, because it is essential
TO the happiness and order Of the intelligent sys-
tenn. 1t might be shown, that not only the two
Fundamental principles of religion and morality
stated above, (Love to God and love to man) but
all the moral precepts which flow from them, are
founded on the nature of God, and on the rela.
tions which subsst among intelligent agents, and
that, were they reversed, or their influence sus
pended, misery would reign uncontrolled through
the universe, and in the course Of ages the whole
moral and intelligent system would be annihila-
ted"
Similar sentiments to these given are again eX.
pressed by the same distinguished writer in his
work, "The Philosophy of Religion" Let US now
hear the Rev. DR.. FULLER. He says:-
"The distinction.of obedience into moral and
positive is far from being novel. 1t has been made
BY the ablest writers, and must be made If we
would understand the Scriptures. Without 1t, we
should ooufouud ths eternal standard Of right and
,vronq given to Israel at Sinai (the sum of which
is love to God and our neighbor) with the body Of
"carnal ordinances imposed on them until the
time of reformation" We should also confound
those precepts and examples of the New Testa.
ment which arise from the relations we stand in
to Gud and to one another with positive iustitu.
tiops which arise merely from the sovereign DiH Of
the Lawgvsr, and wopld never have been known
had he not expressly onjoiued them. Goqcerning
the former, (moral precepts and ezamples) an in
spired writer does not scruple to refer the prmi-
tive Christians to that sense of right and wrong
which is implanted in the minds of men in general
saying, Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever
things are honest, whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are
lopely,. EhatsoeyeP things are of good report; if
there be any virtue, and if there be qEy praise,
think on these things" But concerning the latter,
positive sttptions he directs their whole atten-
ton to Christ, and to those who acted under bis
authority. "Be ye followers Of me ss l am also OF
Christ" "Now praise you, brethren, that ye
remember me in all things, and keep the ordi'
nancss as l delivered them to you" The one is
commanded because il is right; the other is right
because it is commanded The great principles Of
tho formop are Of perpetual obligation, and know
no other variety than thst which aFSes FROM the
VARYING of relations and conditions; but tnose OF
the latter may be binding at one period OF time,
and utterly abolished at another"
HBus this is not the sole, nor perhaps the prin-
,ipsl use to be made Of the distinction. We are
not only taught by it to look for express precepts
or example, in things positive, b4t not to look for
them In thtnqs moral In obedience of the latter
description there is not that need of minute rules
or examples as in the former; but merely OF gen
eral principles, which naturally lead to all the
particulars comprehended in them" ""
awe doubt not but the Apostles acted under di'
vine direction; but in things Of moral nature
hat direction consisted, notI In providing them
with q model or pattern, in the manner of that
yiyep to Moses, but in furnishing them with gen. |
sral principles, apd epdHilg them with holy WIS.,
dom 10 apply them as occasion required
These remarks of DR.. Fuller explain themselves.
may hereafter reeur to them. 1t Will prove
iificult task to misrepresent them.
Again, let US attend to Rev. JAMES McCoGH,
who, in his great work, The Divine Government,
,ays:-
"All who have made ethics q subject of study |
must know ho,c perousit is to found virtue on the
oiu Of God An action is holy not because God
Wills il, but he wills it because 1t is holy. Ihe
,erson who rsysrses this maxim may intend to
benefit the cause Of religion, but p reality be Is
ioing 1t serious damage. We found virtue not on
he mere will of God, but on his holy will, his Hlll
.egulated by Righteousness, an attribute as essen.
ial to him as his will. The conscience In man 10
he representative of this, the holy will OF his
Governor" |
When E. A. Crenshaw in last weeks paper, as
,erts that "a Prssbyterian has quoted Rom. z:
a, l5: For when the Gentiles which have not |
he law, &c., to find a zuls Qf moral obligation,
Sc."-when he sfirms that, "From this gcriptnrel
Pres6yterian contends is proved that the light cf
,nture. conscience and reason becomes rue OF |