Mr. Hume's Third Speech, First Proposition.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ---
My friend Mr. Franklin, is determined to have nothing to do with the proposition. Indeed he seems determined to war with John Calvin, throughout this discussion; and would fain make the people here believe that he was debating with one of Calvin's disciples, and if we were not personally known to the greater portion of the audience, he might succeed, but as it is he will find it very difficult. He was pleased to tell us when he was last up, that our doctrine was taught many hundreds of years since, by one Augustine, and at a more recent date by John Calvin. Consequently our doctrine is Calvinism, and as such, involves the damnation of Infants. Now our views on this subject, have already been given, and we can see no necessity for referring to it again, we must suppose however, that our opponent is entirely out of argument; he must fill up his time in some way, hence his efforts to arouse the prejudice of the audience against us, and our doctrine, by repeatedly charging us with believing what we NEVER HAVE BELIEVED, and what we have positively denied in the hearing of the Gentleman, and the audience. We again repeat that we have not called upon Mr. Franklin, to explain our views for us, we believe with all our ignorance, we can so explain ourself as to be understood, and my worthy friend will find this out by the time he is done with us. We now must positively affirm that neither Augustine, nor Calvin, ever believed the doctrine of the Regular Baptist, and we challenge this Gentleman to show it, if he can. It is true, we believe some things that those men believed; but is this any reason why we should be called by their name? It is also true, that we believe some things that my opponent believes, but who, in their sober senses, would ever think of calling us Franklinites. I presume the Gentleman would not acknowledge us himself, and we are sure that we do not claim him as the founder of our sect or faith; we claim much higher authority for both. But my friend's argument; he tells us that there is no guilt attached to Infants, that they are as holy as the Angels in Heaven, and that they were made so by the death and sufferings of Christ, and consequently remain so, until they cross the line of accountability, and become actual transgressors. Now, the fallacy of this argument, must be apparent to all candid persons, upon one moment's reflection. We have no account of the sufferings of Holy Angels, and why, because they are clear of sin. Can misery, pain and death, exist where there is no sin? All must answer no. Do Infants suffer misery, pain and death? To our sorrow many of us are compelled to acknowledge they do. Now, if they are not sinners, how, or upon what principle do they thus suffer. Will a holy, righteous, and just God thus punish the innocent? We are sure he will not. We now appeal to parents here, who have like ourself, been so unfortunate as to loose some of their children, have you ever witnessed more severe, and heart-rending sufferings, than you have seen in small children? We know the answer will be no. Let us now enquire what can be the cause of all this wretched suffering. My friend tells you they are without sin, that they are holy, (O, My God, what a contemptible idea of thy divine character to thus charge Thee with such gross injustice). There is not a parent in this audience, no, nor one on earth, who loves his offspring, that would thus punish one whom he knows to be perfectly innocent; and will our Heavenly Father, act more unjustly than we, be less merciful than we, surely it cannot be true. This is a grave subject, and should be treated as such, if touched at all. But we should not have been here, had our opponent attended to the proposition before us, but as we are here, we shall make the Gentleman sick enough of it before we leave it. We now call upon him, to show us in his next speech, what is the cause of all the sufferings and death of Infants, if they are not sinners. Here will be ample room for our friend to make a display of his learning and talents, and will even then find use for more profound logic, than is given by Mr. Hedge, and after all will forever fail to show the justice of their sufferings and death, if they are not sinners. Here we would remark that the opinion prevails almost universally, that if Infants are sinners, if they die in infancy they cannot be saved. This notion grows out of an incorrect idea of the wisdom, and perfections of the Holy Lord God, and the almost universally received opinion, that we have something to do, in order to our salvation. Now we hold that all who die in infancy, are finally saved, because the all wise God, could just as easy make an arrangement to save them all, as to save one of them that would die in infancy, and consequently such were embraced in the glorious plan of redemption, treasured in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and manifested in his sufferings an death, and revealed to all the redeemed, by the Holy Spirit, by which Spirit they are quickened into divine life, made partaker of the divine nature, and qualified for the enjoyment of a heavenly or spiritual world; without which qualification, none can dwell with God in glory. In this way we believe both infants and adults are saved, consequently they will all sing the same song, praise the same Jesus, and dwell in the same Heaven. We will now examine our friend's theory; and in the first place we remark that Infants are either natural, or spiritual beings. If spiritual, death can never touch them; but if they are natural beings, and die without regeneration, they die natural beings, consequently can only enjoy a natural Heaven, and if this be true, they only required a natural Saviour; and as such, their Saviour is not the Jesus of the Bible, and we have no account of any other Saviour, but the Jesus of the Bible, consequently, if my friend's views are correct, Infants have no Saviour, and as such you see my friends who it is that sends Infants to hell. But again, he tells us that there is no salvation without reformation, faith, and immersion; if so, do Infants reform, profess faith, and receive immersion, you know my audience they do not; hence we prove by Mr. Franklin himself, that not only all infants, but every one else who do not reform, believe and be immersed, are all damned together. So much for my friend's repeated attacks upon us, about preaching infants to hell. Surely he is the last man that should ever dare to accuse any one of teaching such a doctrine, for they who live in glass houses should not throw stones, but my friend tells us that all commentators, and Biblical scholars, agree with him, in his views upon the subject, that he is found in good company, and also that common sense would teach us that his views upon this subject are right; but thank the Lord, commentators, Biblical scholars and common sense all to stand aside as proof in this discussion, for the Bible and the Bible alone, is the umpire here, the evidence by which all our views are to be tested. My friend thinks our book would have made a much better appearance, if the first two propositions had been blended together; well, perhaps it would, but we have not propositions enough yet, for my worthy and learned opponent's convenience. This is evident from the fact that he is continually after something altogether foreign from the propositions we have agreed to discuss. His objection to the discussion of the first two propositions was, that there would necessarily be considerable repetition. Had the gentleman's course been such as to make me believe he was honest on the subject of repetition, we would have been glad; besides, it would have been a great saving of time, but what are the facts in the case. It must be evident to all present that without much repetition, my friend would have been put to silence by our first speech, and his repetition causes much repetition on our part, for we intend to follow him, if he will not follow us, and we intend to show the people that he exhausted his stock of wisdom in his first speech, and that all he can now do, is to repeat what he has already said, in each of his speeches now delivered, what has he done, but stigmatize us with calvinism, infidelity, universalism, and fatalism, and the restoration of the race by the death of Christ. I now appeal to the audience if all those parts have not been properly answered, and yet notwithstanding he comes up near the close of his second speech, and repeats what he twice declared in his first speech, that Christ redeemed the race from Adamic transgression. Now in the name of all that is sacred, I ask what has this to do with the proposition before us. Suppose the gentleman could prove all he has said upon this subject, would it disprove the doctrine of total hereditary depravity, certainly it would not. Well, suppose he could prove that we were a calvinist, that we were an infidel, universalist, and fatalist, all, would it disprove our proposition; every one knows it would not. Why is the gentleman so afraid of the proposition? It must be evident to the audience that he is perfectly satisfied that the doctrine of our proposition is true according to the Bible, and that he cannot overthrow it, and that he would only be insulting the good sense of the audience to attempt it.
We will now again answer his remark that the race were restored by the death of Christ, to all they lost by the transgression of Adam. Well what did the race lose by the disobedience of Adam? In the first place they lost uninterrupted peace, and happiness in the garden. Were they restored to it by the death of Christ? In the second place they lost daily intercourse, and conversation with God their Creator. Were they restored to it? In the third place they lost moral goodness, and uprightness. Were they restored to it? My friend Mr. Franklin, knows better than to affirm these things in the presence of this intelligent audience, as much as he has said about the swamps of Indiana, and the blue stocking Baptist. He cannot persuade them to believe such bombast as this. But once more they forfeited life, "For," said Jehovah, "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." The only question here to be settled, is what kind of life did the race forfeit. If my friend says material life, every person present will know he is wrong; because the race had died from creation down to the present generation; hence they were not restored to material life. Well, perhaps my friend will say they fell from a state of moral rectitude. Have they been restored to that? No! For they go astray from the womb, speaking lies; they have together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one; they have altogether become filthy. Here it is evident that they were not restored to a state or moral rectitude. What shall we say next? Perhaps my friend will say, they were restored to spiritual life. We deny this position most positively, because they did not possess spiritual life in creation, and as such they could not forfeit such a life. What saith the scriptures, I. Corinthians, 15th chap., and 46, 47 verses, "Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is NATURAL. The first man is of the earth, earthy." Here is positive proof, that the first man was natural and of the earth, and consequently was not possessed of spiritual life; therefore could not possibly forfeit that which he did not possess; hence all my friend's logic about restoration, is found to be bad logic, and wholly without foundation in truth.
But again, suppose the race did forfeit spiritual or eternal life, and Christ restored it to them by his death, and they possess it until they cross the line of accountability, and again forfeit it by actual transgression. How are they to be restored the second time? We learn in the sacred scriptures that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin; that Jesus dieth no more; and without spiritual life they cannot be sacred. So we see that according to the gentleman's restoration plan, all who cross the line of accountability, and commit actual sin, are forever gone. Now my audience, we wish you to reflect one moment, and think seriously. We have just shown you that the gentleman's theory damns Infants, and all unimmersed persons. Here we show that all who commit actual transgression are lost, irretrievably lost. What think you, my friends, of such a system as this? Does not the blood run cold in your veins, in view of such gross error being palmed upon the people, for gospel truth? May almighty God save me and the people, from such awful delusion as this. So much for the gentleman's repetition of the foul charges, made upon us in his first speech.
Well, what next. The wise man from the Queen City, charges us with being an apologist for the wicked conduct of the ungodly. That we tell the sinner to go on in your mad career; get drunk, swear, lie, cheat, and defraud all you can. Yes, to debauch yourself in every species of crime, and base prostitution that your wicked nature desire, for you cannot avoid it. God has ordained and decreed that you should do so; you are only doing the will of God, and consequently you are doing right, for God will never punish any man for doing his will. Now my audience if you thought you had not sufficient of the depravity of the human heart before, surely you have evidence enough, and strong to the point before you now. From what heart but one totally depraved, could such base charges, and foul misrepresentations flow? The people here have known me intimately for a number of years; they have been well acquainted with my course, and they know the whole catalogue of charges named above, are slanderously false. Yes, those of the gentleman's own order, will not sustain him in such heavy charges as he has here made; and should he reiterate those charges until the close of this discussion, he could not make the people here believe it. Nay, verily we offer no apology for the wicked conduct of any man, or set of men, for we hold that all men are under the greatest possible responsibility to God that made them; they are also responsible to the laws of the country, and each one in his own individual capacity, is responsible for his conduct to his fellow man. Well, we are asked, can the wicked reform his life/ We answer he can! The drunkard, the profane, the liar, the tattler, the gambler, the adulterer, and all others guilty of a violation of the laws of the land, can reform or refrain from such conduct; and they ought most assuredly to do so. And why? First, because such conduct is contrary to the laws both of God and man. Secondly, it is contrary to our own best interest. Sober, honest, industrious, quiet men, are much more respectable, and consequently more honorable than the base and profligate. Such men made better statesmen, better legislators, better citizens, better husbands, and better fathers; hence you will perceive that all the gentleman's fiery darts have missed us; that we go strongly both by precept and example, for moral reformation, and not for encouraging crime, and debauchery, as my friend has told you.
We will now say, that God has not decreed that any man should sin, far from it, man sins because he is a sinner; and the spirit or principle that caused man to sin, did not come from God, but from Satan the enemy of God and men. I hope therefore, that we shall have no more about our believing that our heavenly Father influences men to sin, for we believe no such thing; and those that accuse us, know better when they do it. But be it distinctly understood, and never let it be forgotten, that notwithstanding men have the power to reform their lives in a moral point of view, nevertheless as we remarked in our last speech, morality is not religion; at least it is not the religion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as taught in the Bible; and if this is all the religion my friend has, I pity him in my very soul. We awfully fear there are thousands who are deceived upon this very point, supposing morality is religion.
But my time is nearly out, and we now make the enquiry, has the learned gentleman attempted to answer one of my proof texts in any way? He has not, neither will he attempt it. He knows well they are unanswerable; indeed, they never can be satisfactorily answered by any man who denies the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. It is no wonder that Elder Franklin together with thousands of others, want a new translation of the Holy Scriptures; for sure it is they never can sustain their doctrine from our present translation or common version of the Bible. We think it must be evident to all present, that if the scriptures we have introduced could be explained in any other way, than we have explained them, a gentleman of Mr. Franklin's learning and talents, would have made some effort toward it. His entire silence on this subject, is conclusive evidence to all that those scriptures cannot be so construed as to prove the gentleman's theory.
We now pledge our honor as a gentleman, and our character as a Gospel Minister, that if we fail to attempt to give some explanation of the scriptures introduced by our friend, to disprove our proposition, that we will surrender the point, and acknowledge ourselves completely defeated in this discussion. We again affirm that the doctrine of our proposition is taught in the sacred scriptures; and so clearly taught as not to admit of a single doubt upon the subject. It is taught in almost every page of the Bible. We could refer you to many other passages equally pertinent to the point. But until those we have already introduced be replied to, we deem it unnecessary. For if the proof now before you, fails to convince you of the truth of the doctrine of total depravity, we presume you would not be persuaded although one should rise from the dead.
Time expired.
