Mr. Hume's Third Speech on the Second Proposition.
SECOND DAY.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN --
When my time last expired we had just introduced some of our proof texts, recorded in the 2nd chapter of 1st Corinthians which we wish you to bear in mind, particularly the 7th and 14th verses. The 7th verse reads as follows, to wit: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory." Here it is evident that the great God had the salvation of sinners in contemplation, before the world began; that he had ordained their salvation, and in the great scheme or plan thus ordained, is revealed the hidden wisdom of God. Now ask yourselves the question, could the Lord God, have thus in his wisdom ordained the salvation of sinners, without having regard to personal identity, or in other words without having in view definitely, the number and persons whom he in his wisdom thus ordained unto glory? We think this fact must be evident to every candid mind, for we cannot suppose for one moment that the all-wise God would ordain a plan, or system of salvation before the world began, without regard to those who were to be saved by it. This is in perfect harmony with the eternal purpose introduced by the gentleman in his first speech, which we wish you to bear in mind while we introduce the14th verse which reads, "but the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Now my friend says that any man of sane mind, and adult years, can understand, believe, turn to God, &c. Are not all regenerate men, natural men? surely they are. Well, the Apostle says they cannot know the things of the spirit of God. My friend says they can. Here he contradicts the Apostle again.
But once more, my friend says there is no influence of the spirit until we get into the kingdom. Here according to the gentleman's theory, we have to repent, believe, turn to God, and confess the Lord Jesus; all, without the Holy Spirit, and indeed be immersed without it; for we must be immersed into the kingdom when we first find the influence of the spirit. Now let us try the gentleman's theory, when he receives a member, he makes him profess faith in Jesus Christ. This, according to his theory, they must do without the influence of the Holy Spirit. Paul says no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Hence my friend requires before baptism, what the Apostle says no man can say without the Holy Ghost. Here we think our friend will forever fail to show any consistency in his theory. Paul says they cannot receive the things of the spirit, Mr. Franklin says they can. Now my audience do you not see that my friend's can, would be more scriptural if it had a NOT attached to it. We think our friend will have to labor hard to reconcile such palpable contradictions. We now pass on to notice the gentleman's last speech. He thinks we would be much more in our duty if we would preach the gospel to all men, to every creature, and not be so selfish as to confine it to a little few. Now we suppose our learned opponent is not acquainted with the practice of Regular Baptist Ministers. We were convinced in his first speech that he was not at all acquainted with either the doctrine or the people against which he was contending. We think it very doubtful whether the gentleman, or any of his brethren, travel as far, or preach to as many people every year as do many of the ministers of our order. We would be willing ourself, to compare notes with the gentleman on this subject; and we have never yet refused to preach to a congregation because they were sinners. No, verily it is sinners we preach to, every time we do preach, for we preach to no others, while we feel assured that God must give the hearing ear, and the understanding heart, or there will be no good done, for God alone giveth the increase. So much then for the gentleman's burlesque upon us about our preaching to a little few. I might here add that there is no people in this country, who are favored with larger or more respectable and attentive congregations than the Regular Baptists, and they are willing at all times to try to preach to all who wish to hear them. But we are referred to the gospel by John, chapter 3, 5th verse. We again declare most positively that this text does not touch the proposition, which reads that any man of adult years, and sane mind, can repent, believe, confess the Lord Jesus, turn to God and be saved. We ask, is there one word of this? In the text referred to, there is not. We will, however, try to accommodate the gentleman, by giving some attention to one of his favorite texts. We expected to meet this argument tomorrow, for it properly belongs to the subject of debate on the third proposition. We will now read the text, and have the audience to determine what it has to do with our proposition today. It reads thus: "Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now the gentleman has told us that this birth of the water is baptism or immersion, consequently there is no way into the kingdom but to be born into it, and this is to be immersed into it. Now, my audience, we deny the gentleman's whole theory upon the subject, because Christ and Nicodemus were not talking upon the subject of baptism. Secondly, because baptism is no where in the scriptures, represented under the idea or figure of a birth, and thirdly, because it is contrary to the principles of sound philosophy and common sense. This we will try to show by reference to the first 21 verses of the third chapter of John, which contains the whole of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus. You will see that the subject of baptism was not named or referred to in the first instance. What then was the subject matter of their conversation? We answer, it was simply the subject of the natural or fleshly birth and the spiritual birth. Hence the Savior in the early part of the conversation said to the Ruler, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Now if the Savior did mean here that the new birth was water baptism, and a man must be baptized before he can see the kingdom, the idea is clearly presented that the man goes into the kingdom blind, and if so, surely he cannot know when he is going, or what he is doing. Now the gross error presented in this view of the subject, is so plain that every one present must see it; but the truth is, the Savior had no reference to water baptism in this conversation, but alone referred to the natural or fleshly birth, under the figure of water. Hence in the 6th verse he says that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. We will now read this text to suit the gentleman's theory, when we would have this strange and nondescript idea presented. That which is born of water is water. Now every lady and gentleman here knows the text cannot mean any such thing. But again, if the Savior did mean water baptism, why was the matter so profoundly mysterious to Nicodemus? Hear him ask in the 9th verse, how can these things be? Now you all know, my audience, that there is no mystery in baptism, hence it is evident that the wise ruler did not understand things as my friend Mr. Franklin does. It is self-evident therefore that the Savior simply conveyed the idea that there was an absolute necessity for the natural and spiritual birth in order to the enjoyment of the kingdom of God. We now challenge the gentleman to show one text in all the Bible, where baptism is compared to a birth. We are sure he will not do it, because he cannot, for the reverse is true - baptism is represented under the figure of a death and burial, but nowhere under the figure of a birth.
But once more, every one here knows perfectly well that the thing born necessarily partakes of the nature and substance of the parent of which it is born. Here if we are born of water, the water is our parent, and consequently we must partake of the nature and substance of water, which every one knows is not true. Indeed, an attempt to impose such an idea on the people here, is nothing short of telling them that they are a set of dupes and wholly without understanding. We feel confident this audience cannot possibly believe such nonsense as this. The gentleman tells us that he can show from the library of any gentleman, who has furnished himself with the standard works of the age, that his views of the above passage are correct. But he supposed that we and our people, had no standard works. The gentleman is very much mistaken indeed. We acknowledge one standard work, and but one; the Holy Ghost is the author of it, and we call it the Bible. We would not exchange it for all other works upon earth. No, we rely more certainly upon one plain "thus saith the Lord" revealed in his word, than all the works of men ever presented to the public, for what the Lord God has said we know to be true, but what wise men have said may be wrong. We are willing for God to be true, but every man a liar. If we were now engaged in discussing worldly matters, then we might receive testimony from men, but as we are engaged in discussing matters which involve eternal interests, we are only willing to take as evidence what Jehovah has been pleased to reveal in his word; and we feel inclined to interpret for ourself, and not suffer Mr. Hedge, or any one else to interpret for us. This point is guarded well in our rules of debate. You will there learn that nothing is to be admitted as evidence here, but King James's version of the holy Scriptures. My friend, however, is not to be blamed for trying to get evidence outside of the Bible, for sure it is, he has not as yet found any in it.
But the gentleman complains that we do not reply to his proof texts. And why do we not? Simply because he has introduced none. We now appeal to the audience if we have not replied to many more of the gentleman's texts today, than he did to ours on yesterday. Out of the host of texts that we introduced as proofs of our affirmative on yesterday, he in his wisdom condescended to notice three of them, and no more, while we have today noticed every one that he has introduced that touched the subject of his proposition, and several which did not, and this we feel sure the audience has observed. But our friend sticks closely to his favorite theory of salvation by works, hence the remark that any man can love God, and keep his commandments, which will secure their eternal salvation. Now in reply to this argument, we would remark that no man in an unconverted state can, or does love God, for all unconverted men love sin, while none love God, but such as are born of God, and get a discovery of the beauty, the glory and the grandeur of his holy character. When this is seen and understood, the individual loves God for what he is, because he is lovely, hence the language of the Apostle John, "Every one that loveth is born of God, for God is love," and now under the influence of this holy principle of love, the soul is led to obey God and keep his commandments, and at the same time to hate and abhor sin, because it is sin and contrary to the holy character of God. Therefore the greatest grief of the true christian, is because they cannot live more free from sin than they do; hence their frequent cry, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me," &c. We heartily concur with the gentleman in his views with regard to the effect of the gospel upon our actions, producing reformation in the external or outward man; but this reformation flows from an inward work upon the heart, which we have just shown you. The man or woman is born of God, and in this birth they are possessed of a holy principle or nature that is like God their Father. This principle exerts a powerful influence over their actions; hence the outward action is under the influence of an inward principle, which leads such as are under its influence, to endeavor to walk humbly and circumspectly before the Lord. We explained to you, in our last speech, why men sin - it is simply because they are sinners. The reason why Christian people sin, is because they are only converted in part; they have a wicked corrupt nature to contend with, and will have until the death of the body. Hence the apostle says, "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that ye can not do the things that ye would;" and again, "to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not." This every Christian understands, but hypocrites know nothing at all about it.
The gentleman's remarks upon the passage in the ninth of Romans, we have no objection to. He admits the people are the clay, and God is the potter. This is just what we believe, and that the potter makes such vessels as seemeth good in his sight -- some to honor and some to dishonor; vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory. This is his sovereign right, and we have no business to enquire why it is so. But the gentleman continues to boast of the great extent of God's love. He says, he loved the race as well as he loved either of us. This we have not disputed, but we have said, and we say again, that what God loves once he loves eternally. If there ever was a time when he loved the race he loves them still, whether in heaven, upon earth, or in hell, for the God of the Bible undergoes no change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is the same or of one mind, and none can turn him. Hence it is said, "I am God; I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Now be it remembered, and let it never be forgotten, that my unshaken faith is, that every one of the objects of God's unchanging love will as surely rest with Him in glory, as they are loved by Him, for they are a part of Him. And no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. But the gentleman makes another effort to prove that any man of adult years and sane mind can repent, believe, turn to God, &c., and what do you think, my friends, it is? Surely it is like all the other attempts he has made. Well, what is it? Listen: "Let no man say when he is tempted, he is tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." James chapter 1, 13th verse. Now it will surely require Hedge's logic and my friend's both, to squeeze any proof out of this text to sustain his proposition. But we suppose it is the best he can do, and we therefore excuse him, knowing the audience cannot be thus easily imposed upon.
We have now followed the gentleman through al his meanderings, and we must say we have never witnessed a more signal failure at any time. we had supposed a gentleman of Mr. Franklin's talents and experience, would have known better than to have undertaken to prove from the Bible the doctrine of his proposition. We hope the people will bear in mind the language of the proposition, which is -- "Any man of adult years and sane mind, can repent, believe, confess the Lord Jesus, turn to God and be finally saved." We now say, fearless of successful contradiction, that there has not been one text to the point introduced, and we are sure there will not. We told you in our first speech this morning, that we would prove by pointed Scripture testimony, that the doctrine taught in the proposition was not true. We feel that we have redeemed our pledge already; but we intend now to give you a little evidence, as strong to the point as any we have yet introduced. We will commence with Ephesians, chapter 2, 8th and 9th verses: "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, least any man should boast." Now my friend has been doing his best to make us believe it was entirely by works of our own that we were to be saved. Here the apostle says, positively, it is not of works, but by grace, that we are saved. Now grace means free favor bestowed upon an unworthy object, and if I, by my act, bring God under obligation to me, then it is a matter of debt and no more grace. This is plain to every honest mind; but read the 10th verse: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Now the terms, His workmanship, and created, in this text, throw it entirely beyond the power of the creature, and places our salvation entirely in the hands of the God of Israel, where it ought to be, and where we are truly glad that it is; for says the text, we are His workmanship. Whose workmanship? Why God's workmanship, and not our own, created in Christ also. Well, who possesses power to create in Christ? None but God alone, and my friend dare not deny it. Hence his whole work-system is nothing but a thin linsey woolsey garment, that cannot possibly hang together, but must be entirely torn away by such a heavy discharge of heaven's artillery, and its utter worthlessness made manifest to all. We now refer you to Titus, chapter 3, 5th and 6th verses: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior." Here the apostle says, emphatically, that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done; Mr. Franklin says it is. But again -- 1st Peter, chapter 2, eight verse: "Being disobedient whereunto they were appointed;" 2nd Peter, chapter 2, 12th verse -- "These as natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed, shall utterly perish in their own corruption." Now we should be very much pleased, indeed, if Mr. Franklin would tell us whether his CAN embraces those who were appointed unto disobedience made to be taken and destroyed, and the apostle says shall utterly perish in their own corruption. We rather guess the gentleman will have some trouble here.
We now intend to show that the gentleman has to make it appear that the apostle bore false testimony, before he can sustain his proposition. Read, if you please, Galatians, chapter 4, from the 23rd verse to the end of the chapter, in this connection. We have an account of some who were born after the FLESH, and what they would do, to wit, they would persecute them that were born after the spirit; these were the children of the bondwoman. Now read the 30th verse, particularly, which says -- "Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman." Now we ask, does not the gentleman's theory give the apostle the lie? He says, any man of adult years and sane mind can repent, &c.; the apostle says, positively, the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir. Here is not only a CAN NOT, but a positive SHALL NOT. Now we are not disposed to be any more benevolent than the apostle, for we know he was right, and understood well what he said.
Time expired.
