Mr. Hume's Second Address.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS - LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
I suppose, from the course the gentleman pursued in his speech, that he has forgotten the proposition. My understanding is, that we on this day were to discuss the doctrine of Total Hereditary Depravity, and that my friend Mr. Franklin was to negative that proposition. But where do we find him? Strange as it may appear to this audience, he commences his speech with an essay on his favorite theory - free moral agency, and tells the people that all men are free moral agents, and that all agents are free. Now, can any man in his senses tell what this has to do with Total Depravity? But the gentleman is wrong in his view with regard to the freedom of an agent, and everybody and gentlemen here present know it; for an agent is bound by certain restrictions, beyond which he cannot pass. So much for my friend's free agency.
But he tells you that our doctrine destroys human responsibility. I wonder how the gentleman found this out. We have said no such thing; neither do the Regular Baptists believe any such thing; but we believe that all the race are under the strongest possible responsibility to their Great Creator. But he has also found out somehow, that our doctrine is Universalism - it is Fatality - it is Infidelity. We suppose he has been so informed by some one, or he has made these charges upon his own responsibility. When the Regular Baptists want an exponent of their faith, they will not call upon Elder Franklin, for the very best of reasons - Mr. Franklin, we perceive, is wholly ignorant of what they do believe; and, beside all this, they are of age, and can answer for themselves. Listen then to their answers to these charges: They are not Universalists, because they do not believe that all the human race will be saved. They are not Infidels, because they believe in one, only, living and true God; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in one Holy Spirit, and that these three are one. They are not Fatalists, because they do not believe that God fore-ordained and decreed all things whatsoever come to pass.
Perhaps the gentleman came here to oppose a people that hold this doctrine; but he is not now among such, but among a people of a very different faith, as he will find out before he is done with them.
The gentleman has thought of one text at last. It is this: "I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." If my friend had quoted the passage right, I should have been better pleased; for the text reads WITH him, and not OF him. Well, does this passage prove that total depravity is not true? Surely it does not, for it says nothing about it. We now ask, what does the text teach? We answer - it teaches that certain characters are accepted with God. Well, who are they? We answer - such as fear God, and work righteousness. We prove from the third of Romans, that there is no FEAR of God before the eyes of the unconverted; then who is it that fears God, (for it is such, and such only, work righteousness.) We answer, it is such as know God, as have been born of God, and taught by him. Well, how many, and who are they? We answer, it is ALL the family of God, in every nation; and this fear of God produces works of righteousness, and nothing short of it ever did or will produce it. The gentleman was gracious enough to develop another sentiment, which he said his opponent believed, (to wit), that God ordained that Adam should sin, and consequently he is a Calvinist. Now we believe no such thing. We believe that God knew Adam would sin, but we do not believe that God ordained he should sin; but the principle that influenced man to sin came from a very different source. We no doubt believe some things that Calvin believed, but this does not make us Calvinists by any means; but my friend must say something, and having neither Scripture nor arguments to the point, he must play off on something, and it might as well be Calvinism as any other Ism.
The gentleman complains that we have not shown Total Hereditary Depravity in the Bible. We have never affirmed that these terms were in the Bible; but the doctrine expressed by these terms. This we have clearly proven in our first speech, which the gentleman has not attempted to disprove from Bible testimony, nor will he attempt it, for well does he know that it cannot be done. But my friend would greatly alarm the audience by telling them that we said there were no pious men from the fall of Adam to Paul's day. Now, my friends, I said no such thing, neither do we believe any such thing, for we do verily believe there was as much piety among the saints before Paul's day, as there has been since. Piety is the same both in ancient and modern saints, and their faith centered in the same Savior that was to come. Modern saints look back to a Saviour that has come. Hence, their faith originates in the same great cause, and centers in the glorious Lord Jesus, as the only Savior.
But my friend has kindly informed us, that none of the race of man is condemned for Adam's sin. I hope our position is not forgotten upon this subject, that all the race of man was created in Adam, and consequently were a part of him. Hence, his act was their act. If this position is not true, we would be glad to be informed why it is that the children of men go astray from the womb, speaking lies. If the gentleman can set aside such hereditary depravity as this, he will possess eloquence far beyond that which he has yet displayed, and will introduce proof from the Bible which he has not yet introduced; and we are sure he will not, simply because he can not.
No doubt my friend will have use for Hedge's Logic many times, before he gets through with this discussion. But my friend is lost again, and is now discussing the doctrine of the atonement. Hear what he says: the atonement is as broad as the condemnation. We will now see who wears the Universalian cap. What is atonement? It is, strictly speaking, an acquittal from guilt. Now, if all the race of men were in a state of condemnation, and that condemnation removed by the sufferings and death of Christ, we ask, were they not acquitted from guilt? And if so, how are upon what principles will they be finally lost? If Jesus Christ has paid the debt once, will God the Father require a second payment of the sinner? Most assuredly he will not. Consequently, my friend has endorsed Universalism to the fullest extent. But let us hear my friend's logic a little further. He says, the life lost in the fall, was restored by the death of Christ. We will examine this subject briefly. If the gentleman is disposed to say that the life lost was of a moral character, it is evident that this was not restored; for we have shown that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Yea more, that they are estranged from the womb - they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Hence moral principle or life was not restored. But perhaps the gentleman will be disposed to say that it was spiritual life; if so, that life was holy, and as such we needed no more to fit us for Heaven. But we have just shown you that the race of men have no such spiritual holy life about them when they come into this world, but precisely the opposite; hence, they were not restored to spiritual life. Hence my friend must take the ground, that the life lost in the fall was physical or natural. But we will show the audience that this cannot be true; for men have died from the days of Adam until now, and will continue to die, until the last one is dead, consequently, we see they were not restored to physical or natural life. The truth is, they were not restored at all, to anything lost in the fall, for the sufferings and death of Christ were designed to effect something more glorious than to restore man to his Adamic purity.
But my friend is off upon another subject, as entirely foreign from the proposition as anything yet introduced. Well, let him go, as he is determined not to reply to my arguments or answer my scriptural proofs. I am determined to follow him, and rout him from every place where he may feel disposed to shelter. What has he brought up now? O, lamentable to tell; we are Calvinists, and of necessity believe that infants go to torments. And the worthy gentleman tells you, that forty years ago the Baptists all over this country preached infants to hell not a span long. Now I was not here forty years ago, neither was Mr. Franklin, but I take the liberty to positively deny the charge, while I challenge the gentleman and all his friends to name one preacher of our order that does now, or ever did, preach it. They cannot produce the man. Why then this base charge that has been so often denied? The motive is obvious to all; it is to effect a purpose, to arouse the sympathies and raise the prejudices of the audience against myself, and those with whom I have the honor to be identified. But my audience, we will try to set our views fairly before you on this subject, while we will also show you who does teach a doctrine that damns them by wholesale. We do verily believe that such of the human race as die in infancy, are saved through the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That they are pardoned through the blood of Christ, without which no human being can be saved. This is truly what we believe. Now, what does Elder Franklin teach? He teaches that outside of the kingdom there is no forgiveness of sins, and without immersion we cannot get into the kingdom; consequently, all, both infants and adults, who are not immersed are forever gone. Now out of this dilemma the gentleman never can get, unless indeed he has one way to save adults and a different way to save infants. And if he takes this ground, then we argue there must be different Saviors, and of course different Heavens, which would be a foul slander upon the whole Christian system. But what has all this to do with the proposition? Nothing at all. All must see that the gentleman has surrendered the point, or he would say something about it.
The gentleman has just found out, what every one here knew before he came - and what is it? It is that we are so ignorant, that we do not understand good language. Well, we acknowledge the fact, and we are truly sorry that our situation in childhood was such as to deprive us almost entirely of education. Being a poor orphan, without any means to educate myself, consequently, I never ciphered to the rule of three, or studied English Grammar a moment in my life; but thank God, I can read the Bible, and by its holy contents is this discussion to be tested. There is one thing that I exceedingly regret, and that is, that the friends of this learned gentleman have so imposed upon him, as to bring him so far to discuss a theological subject with such an ignoramus. I really think there is due him an apology, and should be certain to make it. But we pass.
The gentleman still contends that the human race is restored to life, by virtue of the death of Christ, and ventures to give one more text of scripture to prove it. Ist. Corinthians xv. chap., 22, 23 verses: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive; but every man in his own order, Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." Now we ask every intelligent mind here, if there is anything in this scripture to disprove the doctrine of total depravity, all are no doubt ready to answer no. Why then is it introduced? Evidently to lead the mind of the audience away from the real point at issue. But we are ready to meet the gentleman on this text; and if it will be any accommodation to him, we will show this respectable audience that this text, does not mean what he says it does. In the first place, if all the family of man are made alive IN Christ, they are all qualified for Heaven; for eternal life in Christ, is all that any poor sinner needs to secure his eternal salvation. Here my friend has again clothed himself in universalism, which doctrine he denies. But what is the prime meaning of the text? It is this, that the all in this text is CHRIST, and they that are Christ's at his coming and no more, and I defy the learned gentleman from the Queen City, to show any others brought to view in it. My friend is determined not to meet the issue between us, hence we find him back on the atonement. He says, the Adamic sin only involved men in temporal death, from which Christ redeemed them. Now friends, I have already shown you, that if Christ redeemed the race from temporal death, then all the race would have been now living, because death could not have preyed upon them, if they had been redeemed from it, hence you see my friend's argument upon this subject will not do, because we all know that men do die, ("for dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return") but the gentleman has found out, as he says, that we are deficient in our proof texts. This is a remarkable discovery; indeed, I presume no other person has discovered it, but himself; and could he have found anything else to have said, doubtless he would have been silent upon this subject. Now the truth is, I have given in my first speech, some 32 texts, directly to the point, not one of which has he attempted to reply to, and I suppose it is simply because he cannot; for if he could, he surely would have done so in an hour's speech. How many has my friend introduced to prove his negative? Not one! It is true he has quoted two or three texts, but I have shown you that they have no reference to the subject whatever. But the gentleman tells you that we deny the power of men to live a moral life. This is also a misunderstanding of our views, for we believe that men can live moral, and they ought to do so, because it makes them much more respectable and happy through life; but we say that morality is not religion, and we further add that all truly religious men are moral men, but all moral men are not religious men. I have now answered every argument and text of scripture my friend has introduced, while he has failed to reply to a single one of my proof texts.
Time expired.
