Mr. Hume's Last Speech, on the First Proposition.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS - LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
My friend, Mr. Franklin, has acknowledged the truth at last. He now admits that infants suffer and die because of sins entailed upon them by their parents. This is a very fatal admission for my friend, at this time. He told us in his second speech that they were holy as the angels of heaven, and as such they did not need regeneration. He has, throughout his arguments so far, denied hereditary depravity, and now (being so closely pursued upon this subject) he comes out and acknowledges the doctrine of hereditary depravity in full, by admitting that children suffer and die because of the sins of their parents. We hope, my audience, that you are fully prepared to analyze the gentleman's argument here. He has told us that they were holy, free from sin; that they did not need regeneration. He now tells us that they have to suffer misery and death, because of the sins of others (to wit), their parents. O, consistency, thou art a jewel. Abraham said, God would not punish the innocent for the guilty; but my friend is not ashamed to contradict him, and publicly declare in the face of this respectable audience, that the great and eternal Jehovah does punish the innocent for the guilty, and not only the innicent but those that are so holy that they do not need regeneration to prepare them for heaven. Such a contemptible view of the character of a holy God should never be cherished in the bosom of any man, for if we really entertained such views, we would be ashamed to acknowledge them. But such are the consequences that must necessarily follow every attempt at defending a doctrine that is untrue in itself. We have often heard it remarked, that drowning men will catch at straws. The truth of the remark is clearly manifested in the case before us; but we feel disposed to excuse the gentleman, inasmuch as this is the best he can do. The only thing that we can blame him for, is for attempting to defend a system fraught with so much error and inconsistency as to drive him to such measures for its support.
The gentleman in order to make some show of sincerity in his views upon this subject, refers you again to the xv. chapter of 1st Corinthians, where it is said, for as IN Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive; and the gentleman tells us that IN and BY in this text mean the same thing, and that we are to understand the apostle to convey the idea that the race die BY Adam's transgression, and the race were all made alive BY Christ when he rose from the dead. This is very strange logic indeed to come from a Greek scholar. Now we do not profess to know anything about Greek, and we are lead to doubt our friend's knowledge of it, from the fact that his definition of the terms IN and BY are contrary to good sense. Boys and girls ten years old, know better. If I should say I was in this house, when I only walked by it, all who know the facts would very justly accuse me of falsehood; and not only so, but if the gentleman's definition of those terms be true, he will forever fail to prove that saints will finally get in to heaven. They may go BY heaven, but they have no assurance that they will get IN to heaven. Sinners may go to hell, but not go into it. We hope we shall ever be saved from such Greek as this.
But why does the gentleman labor so hard to make the audience believe his definition to be true? Simply because he dreads the consequences of admitting that IN means IN; because we have shown you in a former speech that none could be made alive IN Christ but such as were intrinsically and substantially IN Him; and to be made alive IN Christ, was all the sinner needs to qualify him for the enjoyment of the paradise of God. And we also challenged the gentleman in a former speech, and we now repeat it, with all his wisdom and learning, to show that there were any more brought to view in his favorite text, than Christ and those that were Christ's at his coming. Well, you are aware, my audience, that my friend did not attempt to show that there were any others brought to view in this quotation. Well, why did he not attempt it? Because he well knew that he could not succeed without butchering good language and common sense, both; and if he did this, there would be some even down here in the swamps of Indiana, where ignorance stalks abroad at noon day, that would detect him, and consequently he could not palm off such a theory upon the people. Hence it is evident to this audience, and we believe to the gentleman himself, that he has made a signal failure upon the subject of showing to this respectable audience, that in and by are synonymous terms in the text referred to.
But the gentleman seems determined to make you believe that we deny the power of moral reformation to such as are not born again; but he will find himself as much mistaken upon this subject, as he has with regard to compelling us to avow Calvinism. We in this country are so profoundly ignorant, that we will not let others think and believe for us, we are determined to believe for ourselves. And such obstinacy may, by some, by considered criminal, but we glory in the privilege. We have already positively declared in the hearing of the gentleman and audience, that we do verily believe that unconverted men who indulge in licentious and wicked conduct have the power to reform their lives, or refrain from such acts of wickedness and debauchery, and live a moral life. And we have also said that they ought to do so, while at the same time we have been very particular to impress upon the minds of the people the important truth, that this moral reformation is by no means the religion of the Bible. The religion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has to do with the heart, producing therein love to God and hatred to sin. Such persons reform their lives from very different motives to what those are influenced by, who reform from the fear of future punishment, or for the purpose of rendering themselves more respectable in life. Hence, as we have before remarked, all truly pious men are moral men, but all moral men are not truly pious.
My friend appears determined to make us believe that his religion consists exclusively in a rigid course of morals. He seems to have no idea of any other. Well, we told him in our last speech, that if this was all the religion he knew anything of, we were sorry for him. And we would here remark, that we can but indulge the hope that he will yet be instructed in the knowledge of vital piety more perfectly. We would be glad if our friend could be persuaded to pay some attention to our proposition, for truly it is one of importance; and if true, all should acknowledge it, and if false we ought all to know it. We verily believe the truth of the doctrine of our proposition. My friend says he does not believe it. If he does not, why does he not give us some reasons why he does not believe it? He has, so far, failed to introduce one text to disprove our affirmative, and we presume he will not at this late hour of the day, attempt it. But he tells us that he did not come here to make Scripture rebut Scripture, or to make one part of the Bible contradict another. Well we have not asked him to do this, we only wish him if he can, to show one text that disproves the doctrine of our proposition. We had supposed he came here for that purpose, but perhaps we have been mistaken. We judge, however, the reason why our worthy friend has not yet given us some Scripture on the subject, is from the simple fact that he has none to give. Well, if he has not, let him come out like a man and acknowledge the fact. This audience have already made the acknowledgement for him; and we have no doubt but they, like ourself, feel considerably disappointed in finding the learned gentleman so far delinquent in point of Scripture testimony.
There is another matter that astonishes us somewhat, and that is, my friend has not as yet, and we suppose he will not attempt to reply to one of the many passages we have introduced to prove the truth of the doctrine of our proposition. Hence we are compelled to believe that he accords to us the justice of interpreting those Scriptures correctly. Hence his tacit acknowledgement of the truth contained in our proposition; for be assured, friends, if he could have brought any testimony against it, he would have done so before now. And let it be remembered, that the gentleman himself acknowledged this morning that if we succeeded in establishing the doctrine of total depravity, he might as well give up his first affirmative, for if our affirmative was true, his first affirmative was not true. Well, if we have not sustained fully the truth of the doctrine taught in our proposition, it is simply because the Bible is not true; for there is no point in theology more clearly taught in the sacred Scriptures than the doctrine of total hereditary depravity, and we know the Bible is true, and teaches nothing but what is true.
Mr. Franklin admitted in his last speech, that children suffered and died because of the sins of their parents. Here he admitted the very doctrine for which we are contending. Hence we have proven by the Bible, by common observation, by Christian experience, and by my honorable friend from the Queen City, that the doctrine of total depravity is true. This is evident to all present, and as such we feel that we are fully sustained in all we promised to do. It is true my friend, Mr. Franklin, has roundly denied the doctrine of our proposition, and has often told us that it could not be true, because it would destroy his favorite theory, to wit, conditional salvation. If the bare assertions of our friend were to be taken as evidence in this case, we have had an abundance. But we have not yet agreed to be governed in this discussion by the sayings of Elder Franklin, for we receive not testimony from men, but are alone to be governed by what is written in the sacred Scriptures.
But the gentleman has surely forgotten that we are today discussing the doctrine of total hereditary depravity, and is deeply engaged in discussing the doctrine of conditional salvation, which we have agreed to discuss tomorrow. Well, if he has fully surrendered the point on the subject of depravity, we suppose he had as well be at that as any thing else; for sure it is, he will need more than one day to prove what he has agreed to prove on tomorrow. But we don't intend to be enticed away from our proposition until we are done with it; and then we shall be ready and fully prepared to give him close chase on tomorrow. We had fondly hoped that having the embodiment of the wisdom of the Christian church, in the person of Mr. Franklin, to contend against in this debate, that we should have heard something more against the doctrine of depravity. We had a right to expect this, under all the circumstances. What then, my audience, must be our astonishment and disappointment, to find nothing more in him, or to hear nothing more from him, than we have often heard before; and from those too, who were not so favorably situated as the learned gentleman from Cincinnati. Is it not enough to convince every one present that truth is mighty, and must prevail; and notwithstanding the wisdom and learning of the age, even the most talented among the opposers of God's eternal truth, prove themselves mere cyphers, when they undertake to establish a theory which is positively contrary to the oracles of eternal truth.
We are now near the close of our last speech, upon this subject; and we wish to rivet it upon the minds of this audience, that the gentleman has entirely failed to introduce scripture to disprove our proposition. He has also failed to reply to those introduced by us; and we venture now to prophesy that in his closing speech, he will pursue his former course; never touch the proposition or the scriptures we have relied upon for proof of the doctrine of our proposition, but will endeavor to draw your minds away from the subject by appealing to your sympathies on the subject of Infants; and giving you a touching lecture upon the awful consequences that must necessarily follow, if our doctrine be true. But, dear friends, you ought to be honest before God, and with yourselves; and be determined to know what the scriptures teach upon this subject, for a correct understanding of this important doctrine is alone calculated to lead the mind to rely wholly upon a power greater than our own for salvation. For just as long as we believe we can do anything ourselves toward our own salvation, just that long we will be unwilling to trust our salvation in the hands of another. We will now spend the remainder of our time in recapitulation, in order to more deeply and powerfully impress your minds with what we have said, and the positive scripture proofs we have introduced. The number of texts you can ascertain by reference to my first speech. You will doubtless remember that my first position, was that Adam the natural father of mankind, became a corrupt and sinful being, in consequence of the violation of God's most holy law. This we proved most conclusively from what is said in the 5th, 6th, and 8th chapters of the book of Genesis, and also in the 5th chapter of Paul's letter to his brethren at Rome. We showed you the awful curse that Jehovah, God, pronounced upon man for his disobedience. We showed you that sin entered our world by this one man; that by him condemnation came upon all men; and that by his disobedience, many were made sinners. And now upon this single fact, we take the ground that all who have descended from him, are corrupt and defiled like him; and consequently are totally depraved. We have shown you from the language of the book of God "that every imagination of the thought of the heart is only evil continually; that all flesh has corrupted its way before God; that the heart is hard and deceitful, and above ALL THINGS DESPERATELY WICKED." We have also shown you that "the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies." Yea, more, that this awful corruption, depravity, and sin is traced back even to conception. Hence David says, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and IN SIN DID MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME." Have you, dear friends, ever before heard such an array of pointed scripture proof to sustain one single point, as we have here given; and yet we have only hinted at a few of the many passages that the Bible furnishes to sustain the doctrine of our proposition. We have referred you to the language of Job, where he enquires, "Who can bring a clean thing, out of an unclean?" The answer is, Not one. Now if Adam was unclean by reason of sin, then it is evident that nothing clean has ever descended from him. We have also referred you to the language of the Apostle James. He tells us that "the same fountain cannot send forth sweet water and bitter," and the Savior declares "a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Hence it is evident that all men everywhere, are alike corrupt and depraved, for they have all sprung from the same corrupt fountain, and consequently partake of the nature of the tree or fountain, from which they have descended. This being true, it necessarily follows that hereditary depravity is also true; and if so, we have fully sustained our proposition, which all present must acknowledge. We have promptly met the gentleman upon all his assaults upon us, about Infant damnation; and we believe have shown you to a certainty that he is the man that teaches that doctrine. We have also met him promptly in his labored effort to make us acknowledge Calvinism, universalism, and infidelity. How far we have met him successfully is for you to determine. But the most important matter for you now to determine is, whether we have sustained the doctrine of our proposition. Yea, or nay, whether the holy scriptures do teach the doctrine of total hereditary depravity or not. If you say they do, then my friend's affirmative tomorrow he acknowledges himself to be untrue; and that it is untrue, we shall be able fully to show at the proper time. We now in conclusion beg of you not to let your minds be diverted from the real point at issue, and in your retirement this evening ask yourselves the solemn and important question, is the doctrine of total hereditary depravity true? do the scriptures teach it? and remember, if this doctrine is taught in the Bible, all your prejudices against it, cannot overthrow it. No, it will stand as firm as the pillars of Heaven, and in the midst of the wreck of nature and crash of worlds, this doctrine taught in God's holy word, will shine brilliantly; and God himself will acknowledge his own eternal truth to the utter confusion of all his enemies.
Time expired.
