Mr. Hume's First Speech on the Second Proposition.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN---
I wish you to bear in mind the important fact that my friend, Elder Franklin, entirely failed on yesterday to show under what influence man was led into sin, notwithstanding he was twice called upon to do so. Some information from him on this subject may be of great service to us all before the close of this discussion. We are now, my audience, about to enter into the investigation of a certain point in theology in which the whole religious world is deeply interested. We are fully aware of the powerful weight of popular prejudice, against which we have to contend in taking the negative of the proposition now before us. We are also aware that the doctrine of our proposition today has been the subject of controversy among religionists in all ages. Much time and talent has been devoted to discussing its merits; while the religious world at this time appears to be as much divided upon the subject as at any period of the world's history. Consequently we approach this subject with but little ground to hope that we shall be able to settle a controversy that has so long agitated the Christian world; but notwithstanding all this, we feel willing, God being our helper, to bear our testimony to God's eternal truth, as we understand it to be revealed in the sacred Scriptures. My friend, Mr. Franklin, has been engaged for the last hour in endeavoring to establish what perhaps three-fourths of the audience already believe, that the eternal salvation of sinners is suspended upon conditions to be performed by themselves, while we feel in all good conscience to take an entirely different view of the subject, and consequently you will find me in the negative of the present proposition, contending with the ability that God giveth, that the eternal salvation of sinners is alone suspended upon the eternal and unchangeable love of God in Christ toward them. We hope that the audience will endeavor to listen and determine as for eternity, and remember that all your prejudice in favor of error will never make it the truth. If conditional salvation really is taught in the Holy Bible, no doubt but our learned opponent will be able to show it. This is what he has been engaged at for the last hour, but we have not as yet heard anything from him that tends to convince us that the doctrine of his proposition is true. The first thing the gentleman said in his speech that was worthy of note was in these words, Man's salvation is in his own hands. Now, if this be true, surely he is much more independent than we had supposed, and cannot be under obligation to any other. Hence if the gentleman's views are correct, salvation is by works, and not by grace, which position is positively denied by an apostle, as we will show before we are done with thi subject. But again, if man's salvation is in his own hands, what use has he for the adorable Savior? We suppose none at all; consequently he can stand aside; for the sinner is perfectly independent upon the subject. If he chooses to save himself, he will do so; but if not, he will take a different course, and go down to misery and ruin. But once more, it is not only true that Christ has died for them, but it is also true that the Holy Spirit has done his duty in giving light to every man that cometh into the world, according to my friend's theory. Now my audience will pause one moment and consider. See the blessed Jesus suffering and dying, rising from the dead, ascending on high, and then interceding for sinners: behold him so engaged for the salvation of poor sinner that he sends the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, gives his word to instruct them, sends his gospel to invite them, and after all, they are not saved. O, what a poor, disappointed Jesus! Yes, he loves poor sinners, and greatly desires to save them, but the sinner will not be saved; consequently our dear Redeemer has done all in vain, and has the mortification to behold the travail of his soul, the purchase of his blood, sink down to pain and woe. Now, my dear audience, can you persuade yourselves to believe such a system as this? Ask yourselves the question, why is it so? Is not Jesus able to save them? Surely he is. Well, is he not willing to save them? You all acknowledge he is. Then if he is both able and willing, why will it not be done? I suppose my friend will tell you it is simply because the sinner will not be saved. But stop one moment and inquire, will the sinner's "will not" destroy the love, the mercy and goodness of God, together with the sufferings and death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the influence of the Holy Spirit, the power of the gospel and written word --- all? Most assuredly such a theory cannot be true. But more of this in another place.
My friend acknowledges that God had an eternal purpose, and that this purpose will be accomplished. He was pleased in his wisdom to tell us what that purpose was, and referred to Ephesians, third chapter and ninth verse, to prove it, which was, as he says, to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God. But the gentlemen is very much mistaken with regard to what the eternal purpose of God was. If you will read the tenth verse and examine it closely, you will find what the purpose of God was in this particular. The Apostle says, "to the tent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God." Well, what is this according to? Read the eleventh verse - "According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
My friend's error upon this subject is so plain that we feel assured that the audience will see it. He tells you it was the eternal purpose of God to make all men see. Paul tells us it was that the Church might know the manifold wisdom of God. Truly, there is a vast difference between the views of Elder Franklin and the Apostle Paul. The audience can believe which they choose; for our part, we are disposed to believe the inspired Apostle.
We now inquire, if it was the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus to manifest his wisdom to the Church, will he fail to do it? Will He purpose and be disappointed? We feel confident He will not. We therefore maintain that whatever the all-wise God purposes to do, He will do; because He is infinite in wisdom and almighty in power - that is to say, He know all things and has all power; therefore, knowing all things, He is never deceived or mistaken with regard to what He wants done, neither does He lack the power to carry all his will into effect. Then we inquire, if He neither lacks wisdom to see what He wishes done, or power to have it done, will He not do it? It does seem to me that every lady and gentleman present will have to answer, surely He will, and more especially when you hear the mighty God himself declare, by his servant the prophet, I am God, and there is one else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure - Isaiah 46: 9, 10. Here we have the testimony of God himself that his counsel shall stand, and He will do all his pleasure.
Now if all means all, and our friend says it does, what part of the pleasure of God will not be done? Or, in other words, will He not do all He desires to do? We think there is no getting round this position without giving Jehovah himself the lie.
Well, He also says his counsel shall stand. Now we suppose that purpose and counsel are synonymous terms, as used in the Scriptures. Here the eternal counsel or purpose of God is admitted by my friend, Mr. Franklin. Well, the Lord Jehovah says it shall stand. We have shown you from the third chapter of Ephesians, what that eternal purpose was - that the church should know the manifold wisdom of God, and not that all men should see, &c. Now if our views are correct, and we think they cannot be gainsaid, the whole fabric built by the gentleman on the text in Ephesians comes down with a mighty crash, while he must look out for other testimony to sustain his proposition, for sure it is he has none in this text; and now, while upon this point, we would inquire, did Jehovah purpose to save sinners before he did save them, or did He save them first and then purpose to do it?
We hope our friend will be very particular in answering these interrogatories, for they will be of special benefit in this discussion. If it be admitted, and surely it must be, that the Lord God purposed at any time to save sinners, we think it must also be admitted that He purposed to save some sinners; and if so, did He not also purpose how many sinners? To deny this would be equivalent to a denial of the God of the Bible.
We would here remark, that according to our views of the character of the God of the Bible, He does nothing without first determining to do, and that He is certain to accomplish all He determines; hence He never meets with any disappointment whatever, but accomplishes his sovereign will in the armies of Heaven as well as among the sons of men. This is the character of the God of the Bible, who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.
The gentleman referred us to Acts 17:26, 27, and quoted only a part of the seventeenth verse. Had he quoted the whole verse, the text would have explained itself; but he was very careful to leave out the following: "If haply they might feel after him and find him." Now we ask the candid mind in this audience if there is any thing here that sustains the gentleman's proposition. He has undertaken to prove that any person of adult years and sane mind can repent, confess the Lord Jesus, turn to God, and be finally saved, and to prove this he quotes a text that says, "if they should feel after him and find." If this is the best the gentleman can do, he may as well surrender the point now, for he will never make this audience believe the doctrine of his proposition with such proof as he has yet introduced, and we do not believe he will be able to do any better, but we will patiently wait and see the result.
The gentleman also referred us to the gospel by John 15:22, "If I had not come and spoken to them they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for for their sin." Here the Savior was speaking of the wicked, unbelieving, persecuting Jews, of whom the prophet said, "He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:40. But suppose we admit the gentleman's argument founded upon this text, that the condemnation of sinners grows out of their rejecting the teachings of Christ - and what will be the result. It must be evident to all that the coming, sufferings and death of Christ, together with his subsequent teaching, is the greatest curse that has ever befallen the race, for if rejecting Christ and his teaching is the condemnation of sinners, then nothing else is; consequently, if he had not come and taught them, they would not have been condemned, and as such they would all have been saved; for without condemnation none could be punished forever. But all now admit that far the greater portion of the human race will be finally lost, and my worthy friend has thought proper to impart to us a knowledge of the reason why sinners are condemned, and that is because Christ has come and taught them. Now, my audience, do you not see that if my friend's theory be true, it would have been decidedly better for the race if He had not come at all. Can any man in their sober senses believe such nonsense as this. Surely they cannot. But notwithstanding the astonishing and unheard of doctrine taught by the gentleman on this subject, he in the next place introduces an argument more positively at war with common sense and the Bible than anything he has said during this discussion, or than I have ever heard drop from the lips of any man, much less from one who possesses the talents and learning of my friend, Mr. Franklin. Indeed it does seem to me that it must have made the good sense of this audience blush. Well, what is it? It is this - God has given every man power to be regenerated. Now let us inquire one moment, what is the meaning of the term regenerated? It is simply this - reproduced, renewed - born again. Then the gentleman's idea would be this - God has given every man power to be reproduced, renewed or born again. Now we acknowledge that our friend is really smart, but we do not believe he is sufficiently smart to make this audience believe what he has said upon this subject. No, he will have to go beyond the swamps of Indiana, and get entirely out of hearing of the blue stocking Baptists, before he will find people who are so profoundly ignorant as to believe such a palpable and gross insult to common sense as this.What, that which is not, have power to be? That which does not exist have power to bring itself into being? My audience, just look at the gentleman's theory one moment, and I feel confident that you will reject it with utter contempt and disdain. A man have power to reproduce himself, renew himself, and, worse than all, to born himself again! Surely this must be Hedge's logic, or the logic of some one who has never studied common sense. Now, it is a self-evident fact, that can never be successfully denied, that man has not the power to produce himself in the first place, and surely he has not the power to reproduce that which he could not produce. Again, there never can be a birth without a begetting and quickening, after which comes the birth. Now, as ask all candid minds, has a man that does not exist the power to beget and quicken himself, and then bring himself into being? Every intelligent mind here knows better. Yes, children ten years old know better. Mr. Franklin himself knows better, and we hope in his next speech that he will apologize to the audience for such a willful departure from the principles of sound philosophy and common sense.
Our attention was next called to Hebrews 2:9--"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Here you see, my audience, the gentleman wants still another proposition, one that embraces the atonement; for this passage strictly belongs to that subject, and has nothing at all to do with the proposition now before us. But we can attend to the gentleman's wanderings, in order to accommodate him, not because it belongs to our subject today. We would then remark that, had the gentleman read the connection following the ninth verse, the whole matter would have been explained. We will now read it. "For it became him by whom are all things, and for whom are all hings, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering; for both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee: and again, I will put my trust in him: and again, Behold, I and the children which God has given me. Forasmuch then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood," &c., &c. Here the "every man" in the ninth verse is clearly defined to be the many son, the sanctified, the brethren, and the children that God had given him, and no more. So much, then, for my friend's dodging off on the atonement.
But we are again referred o Galatians 3:8,9. We have already replied to this connection, and we shall not reply to it again.
But our attention is invited to Acts 10:23-43. The forty-third verse, which is the important text, as the gentleman supposes, reads as follows: "To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." This is precisely what we believe - that "whosoever believeth," 7c. But what does this text say about any man of sane mind and adult years having power to turn to God, &c.? You know, my audience, that this text, as well as every other one introduced by the gentleman, has nothing to do with the proposition.
But my friend has made another wonderful discovery indeed, and that is, that the apostle Peter was a Calvinist up to the time that he went to the house of Cornelius, after which he changed his opinion and became more liberal in his views. Now if this should be true, we are truly under great obligation to the gentleman for his instruction; but if it is not true, then Mr. Franklin is under great obligation to offer an apology to us for thus attempting to deceive us. Well, that he is wrong is evident from the simple fact that Peter lived and died long before Calvin was born; consequently Peter knew nothing about Calvin. Well, my friend is wrong from another consideration, and that is, Peter did not at any time, that we have any account of in the Bible, teach the whole of Calvin's system. No doubt he taught some things that Calvin believed and taught, but not because he learned them from John Calvin; for we have just shown that Peter never knew Calvin; hence all the gentleman's boasting about Peter being a Calvinist, and about his changing his doctrine, is found to have originated in the confused brain of my worthy friend, which imagines many things equally without foundation in truth.
But we are referred to Colossians 1:23. By reference to that passage, you will find the Apostle is talking about the gospel having been preached to every creature under heaven, and not about all men having power to repent, turn to God, and be finally saved.
But again, we are directed, to Isaiah 45:22 -- "Look unto me, all the ends of the earth, and be ye saved; for I am God, and there is none else." Here the prophet is reprobating the idolatrous practice of his brethren the Jews; for God had said unto them, "Thou halt have no god beside me," and they were now engaged in making for themselves idols, gods of their own make, and Jehovah is simply calling their attention to the fact that there is salvation in no god beside him; consequently they should look to him, and not to those dumb idols.
But the gentlemen wishes to enlarge our Christian philanthropy, and induce us to embrace a more liberal system, and not confine the benefits of salvation to the little few that are identified with ourself. We now propose to show the audience that, as narrow contracted as the gentleman would fain make you believe we are, we are much more liberal than himself; and if he is honest, we will make him acknowledge it. We do verily believe that there are saints of the Most High God scattered among the different orders of professed Christians, and thousands of them in the world who live and die without being immersed or belonging to any church. This my friend dare not acknowledge; for if he does, farewell to his proposition tomorrow; for he then intends to try to make you believe that without immersion there is no salvation. But be it remembered that the people of God are a little few, so brought to view in the Bible; for Moses says, "The Lord thy God did not choose thee, nor set his love upon thee, because thou art greater than all people; for thou art the fewest of all people." Deut. 7:7. And again, the Savior says, "Fear not, little flock." Hence you see that both Moses and Christ testify to what we have above remarked, that the Lord's people are comparatively few. So much, then, for my friend's burlesque upon us for want of Christian benevolence.
But the worthy gentleman tells you that we differ very widely from John the Baptist, that we are no relation of his, and refers to John 1:9, to prove it, which reads: "That was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Now, my audience, just read the tenth verse, and then ask yourselves the question -- Can Mr. Franklin's views be true? That verse reads thus: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Now, we ask you, what good did his lighting do them? For, says the text, they knew him not. Hence we remark, it was not the light of divine grace, or surely they would have known him; for, saith the prophet, "all thy children shall be taught of the Lord." We now intend to show this audience that there is no relation between my friend and John the Baptist, no, not so much as second cousin. Read, if you please, the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, and you will be convinced at once that they do not belong to the same family. Hear it, if you please: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Now has not the gentleman been engaged for one hour laboring hard to prove that man had to do this work himself? Yes, he even went so far as to tell this audience that every man had the power to be born again. Now compare what John say with what Mr. Franklin has said, and we cannot suppose they are of the same family; for surely if they were, there would be more of an agreement in what they aid. So much for my friend's denying the relationship between ourself and John the Baptist. We told the gentleman yesterday that we would pursue him closely today, and we intend to do it; and when the artillery of heaven is let loose against the mud walls of the city of delusion in which he dwell, they will be shaken to their very center, and finally demolished.
But the gentleman told us, when last up, that Christ, by his death and suffering, had taken away the sins of the world. We should have been glad if he had more fully defined his position here; for the world "world" in the Scriptures is a very indefinite term, and indeed it is indefinite as used among us, for we speak of the religious world, the political world, the profane world, the moral world, &c. We should be glad to know which of the any worlds brought to view in the Scriptures the gentleman refers to. If he means the world spoken of in I. John 4:14, we believe it substantially. That passage reads thus: "For we have seen and do testify that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Savior of the world;" and we believe the Son did what He came to do, and consequently did save that world. We dare the gentleman to take this ground. If he does, we will show you that it is he that is the Universalist; for if the word "world" means the whole race of mankind, and Christ did what He came to do, then the race of mankind are saved, and we and our friend are both wrong.
Again, if Christ did remove condemnation from the race, I defy the gentleman, with all his talents and learning, to show how any man is to be finally lost, and God remain just. We hope he will attend to this point in his next speech. The gentleman is very anxious, it appears, that we should be more benevolent in our feelings and more liberal in our views. We have already proven to this audience that we are much more liberal in our views than our worthy friend, for we save multiplied thousands of unbaptized persons, and he saves none. But he want us to do some good, to make proselytes, we suppose. We read in the Bible of certain men in ancient times that compassed sea and land to make proselytes, and you perhaps remember the result. We have no desire to make proselytes, and especially such as have recently been made not far from here. We have now replied to all the gentleman's arguments and proof-texts, and we must positively declare to you that we are unable to see any proof in all the quotations he has made to sustain his proposition.
We now intend to do what, by the rules of debating, we are not required to do; that is, to prove a negative. We intend to show from the Bible, that the gentleman's theory is not true; that sinners are alone saved by grace, and not by works; and we will do this by a discharge of the artillery above referred to, beginning with the 21st verse of the first chapter of Matthew, which reads as follows: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." Here we have the testimony of an angel, that Jesus shall save his people. Not one word here about accepting terms and using means, or of repenting, believing, and turning to God, but the language is plain, definite, and to the point -- he shall save his people. Matthew, 18th chapter, 11th verse, the adorable Jesus himself positively declares, the son of man is come to save that which was lost, not to make a way possible whereby the lost might be saved, no, but to save the lost. Now he either did what he came to do, or he did not. If he did not, where was the use of his coming; if he did do what he came to do (and we maintain that he did,) then the lost are saved, and we are right in our views.
But read, if you please, Luke 19th chapter, 10th verse, where the Savior uses the same language verbatim, with the addition of the word seek, and surely he knew for what he came. And he never, upon any occasion, said he came to make salvation possible to any, but to do the work, and that was to save the lost. We now refer you to the gospel by John, 6th chapter, 37th, 38th, 39th, 44th, and 45th verses, which read as follow, to wit: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out; for I came down from heaven not go do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God; every man, therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me." Here are at least four important points brought to view in this connection. First, that the Father gave some to the Son; and secondly, that those given should all come; thirdly, that none could come but such as were drawn by the Father; and fourthly, that they should all be taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh to Jesus Christ -- not some of them, but every man. Not that they can or might come, no, but they do come. And why? Simply because they are drawn by the Father. Now, if my friend say that all are drawn by the Father, I prove, by the dear Savior that all who are drawn come. And my friend is again dressed up in Universalism, and he does not like this dress very well, but he has to wear it or turn his coat. We wonder which he will do.
But again. John 8th chapter, 43rd, 44th, 47th verses: "Why do you not understand my speech, even because ye can not hear my word." Now the gentleman told us in his speech this morning, that the truth of his proposition turned upon the word CAN; they CAN repent, believe, turn to God, &c. We told you, since we were up, that we would show the gentleman about his CAN. Here it is. Jesus tells certain people they can not hear his words. Now, Jesus and the gentleman is at variance here. My friend says they can, and Jesus says they can not. I leave you, my audience, to determine between them, while I proceed to show you why they could not hear the words of the Savior. Jesus says in the 44th verse, "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do." This is the reason that the Savior gives, and we suppose he knew. But read the 47th verse, and you will find the same idea confirmed. He there says, "he that is of God heareth God's words; ye, therefore, hear them not, because ye are not of God." What do you think, my friends, the gentleman will do with his CAN along here? We rather guess he will have to put NOT to it, or be found contradicting the Savior, and this would not go down well with the people. Once more. John 10th chapter, 26th verse, Jesus says to certain characters, "but ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." Now the gentleman says, the reason why sinners do not believe, is, because they will not. Jesus says, it is because they are not of his sheep, and we are so simple that we believe Jesus tells the truth about it. But again. John 12th chapter, 39th and 40th verses, Jesus says: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart," &c. Here you find the Savaior contradicting my friend in most positive terms. In the text above, we showed you that they could not hear the WORDS of the Savior; in this connection we show you that they can not believe, they can not see, neither can they understand. Now I ask every candid mind here, if we were now to stop and proceed no farther, if we have not redeemed our pledge, which was to prove a negative. The proposition says, any man of adult years and sane mind CAN hear the word of the Lord and believe; we have showed you that the Master says there are those that can not hear the words of the Lord, and can not believe.
I have no doubt the gentleman would like, by this time, to have a NOT attached to his CAN, but he is too late. The battle has advanced too far, and is waxing hotter and hotter, and will continue to do so, until the gentleman's Arminian nest is entirely burned up. And for the purpose of increasing the fire already so rapidly burning, we invite your attention to the 2nd chapter of Acts, 39th verse, "For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, (and who are they?) even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Mark the language - "even as many" - clearly showing there are some which he does not call. Hence, my friend's theory receives another fatal stab here. But once more. Acts 13th chapter, 48th verse -- "And when the Gentiles heard this they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Mark the language here again -- "as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed," but no more. This language bears strong testimony to the fact, that there are some who were not ordained to eternal life. I hope my friend will tell us in his next speech who these are, and whether his CAN will embrace such as God has not ordained to eternal life. But as our time is just out, we refer you to Romans 9th chapter, 15th, 19th, 18th verses, which is strong to the point. For he saith to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth." Here my friend had as well surrender, for he never can make those Scriptures fit his system.
Time expired.
