Joel Hume's Second Speech.
MR. HUME'S SECOND SPEECH,ON THE FIRST PROPOSITION.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:--I have arisen before you this morning for the purpose of further prosecuting the negative of the proposition, read in your hearing, since the opening of the discussion. This morning, I humbly trust that this audience, as well as myself, are influenced by the desire to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth upon this deeply interesting, and vastly important subject. Such is the importance of the doctrine of the proposition before us, that upon it is suspended the salvation of sinners. All other parts or particles, however interesting in connection with the great system of salvation, must center in, and be drawn from, the doctrine of the atonement, as presented in the proposition you heard. The doctrine of this proposition has deeply interested the wise and the learned of all ages. Very much has been both said and written upon this subject, and I do not suppose, for a single moment, that I shall be able to introduce much that will be new upon the subject, or that I shall be able to accomplish that which much wiser heads than mine have failed to do, to convince the world of mankind of the truth of the position that I advocate, in regard to this proposition.
The religion of the Son of God, as well as its author has never met with a kind reception among men in general. The truths, as taught by him, were believed by but few. The very fact of a system of theology, taught and believed and received by mankind in unregeneracy, is evidence of itself conclusive of its fallacy, of the untruth of such a system, for mankind in nature do not know God; neither does mankind believe the revelation that God has given concerning his son; consequently, as remarked upon yesterday, I am aware of the prejudices I have to combat. I might remark here, that nine tenths of the Christian world are arrayed in opposition to the doctrine I advocate.
I would ask you, dear friends, what could induce a man to advocate such a doctrine? Can you believe for a moment that any other than the purest motives, could induce him thus to come in contact with the world of his fellow men, upon a subject of such importance? Elder Stinson has given me credit for being a conscientious man in religion, and I must say, that if no other man believed with me, I am compelled to hold, these my views, till I get a different understanding. Consequently, believing it with all my heart, I advocate it with all the sincerity of my soul, believing that my eternal salvation is suspended upon the truth of the doctrine I advocate. Not only my own salvation, but of them that will be saved. I presume that my exception to Brother Stinson's remarks, were understood by the congregation. I admitted the necessity of an atonement, but I did not admit, neither do I now admit the necessity of an atonement to the Adamic law, for the whole race of man; for the very best of reasons, whenever I admit the doctrine of an atonement for the race of men (giving Webster's definition of the meaning of the term atonement), I have reconciled man to God, and made a heaven alike for the whole race of men, and, if reconciliation is made for the race, how can they be under the law and its claims. I know of no ground upon which God can remain just, and ever punish any of that race against whom he has no legal claim. I remark, also, that in the absence of violated law there is no condemnation. Whenever that violated law obtained satisfaction, justification naturally follows in its train. Consequently, when justification follows that satisfaction, the individual condemned by the law, is as free from condemnation, as though he had never been guilty. Now, you know this to be the case in common law. Let us illustrate this. The laws of our country say, that for penal offenses of a minor sort, the individual shall be fined in such sum, and imprisoned for such time. This is the penalty attached to the violation. Now, where the fine is paid, where the length of time has been served out, I ask you if the very law that put him in prison will not instantly become the defender of that individual? The man has made satisfaction to the law, consequently he stands justified, as much as he did before his violation, and he must remain so till he becomes again an offender. For this reason I can't believe the doctrine of universal atonement, advocated by my friend, for so surely as the condemnation has been removed by the death of CHRIST, and as surely as God remains just, man is saved, because there is no condemnation resting upon him. And if they are justified, heaven is their home.
Another objection I have here is, that if his theory be true, we have presented to our minds an idea that every impulse of nature revolts at, revolts at the very thought of it. If this doctrine by true, then Jesus Christ died for CAIN as well as for ABEL; died for the rich man in hell as well as for Lazarus; as much for the wicked SODOMITE as for the Jews. Is there a lady or gentleman here who can bring their minds, for a moment, to believe that Christ died for the sins of individuals then in hell? Where is the propriety of such, where the necessity of such, what good can possibly grow out of it? You know that the rich man was in hell; now, if that class of men and women were redeemed from the curse of the law; if that was the case, then out of hell they must be brought. If the law was satisfied, there is no claim to keep them there. Like the man in prison, when his service is rendered, when his time is out, or the law satisfied, then the same law that put him there brings him out; so in the case before us, if God's law was satisfied, out of hell they must come, or God fails to be just, and from his Divine character he can not be unjust. This he can never become. Now, these are some the reasons why I can not receive the doctrine.
Another thing I can't persuade my mind, that our Heavenly Father, who is infinite in wisdom, should set his affections upon a portion of the race, that Jesus should die for that portion of the race, that God in his divine wisdom knew when that was done would not benefit them by it. There is not a father here, with all his love and tender affections for his children, that would suffer one of them to go through such a scene of agony and pain, when they knew it would never benefit those for whom they did suffer.
Consequently, I can not believe for a single moment that our Saviour, in his death and resurrection, designed to benefit a portion of the race, that never would be benefited by that suffering, and that, so far as they were concerned, it was all in vain; all the suffering was lost. I, in connection with my brother beside me, rejoice that we are yet in a free country; we are here giving our different views upon this great doctrine, he affirming its truth, I denying it, for the reason you see, because I can't believe it. I will just say that I will make this admission, as on yesterday, to the full extent, that so far as the wisdom of God and his power is concerned, it is unlimited; he is omniscient, infinite in wisdom, God everywhere and over all, blessed for evermore; nothing lacking upon that ground. We are told, however, that if my views are true in regard to the will of God being accomplished, then every thought, every word, every action of the sons of men are in harmony with God's will. Now that is a very strange conclusion. I can understand the object in view by an argument of that sort. It is to endeavor to enforce upon the minds of this audience, that I have been advocating the doctrine of the predestination of all things. But I do not believe it, not a word of it. I, being no scholar, may not quite understand how to present my views upon the subject. I would simply say this, as the best I can do, that in my judgment there is a vast difference between the foreknowledge of God and the predestination of God. I might thus present the matter: God has a permissive will, and he has a positive will. By that will, all the wickedness, sin and rebellion that has ever cursed the earth has been allowed, but not decreed. He has a positive will, if he so desires, which can stop the sinner from cursing and swearing. Can not God stop the thief and murderer on his way to do his deeds? Now I do not wish to be understood, when I speak of the will of God being accomplished, as having any reference to this permissive will; for I want you to understand that all wicked actions of the sons and daughters of men come from a different source, from the wicked one. God has no hand in directing to evil, but he has a hand in directing the minds of men to do good actions. But individuals who act wickedly, act in an opposite spirit from the Lord Jesus Christ. I have special reference to God's positive will, what he designs to be accomplished. Now, will our brother tell us in what other light we are to understand the quotation made from Isaiah xlvi., 10, in which Jehovah says, "My counsels shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," etc.
Now, will you be kind enough to tell me if God did not mean what he says. Now turn to Heb. viii, 10: "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."
Now I ask you, can you believe if there is a possibility of failure in that covenant being carried out? He is making a new covenant with them, and says, "I will be to them a God, and they shall be my people;" "their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more;" this is what I mean then by God's will, so far as it affects the final and eternal salvation of God's family. His will is fixed, his purpose is to reign, and it is in reference to that, in which he says my counsels shall stand. I know, my friend, that there is a confession of faith, that has this clause in it, "We believe that God foreordained and decreed all things whatsoever comes to pass." Now, I would have you understand that the Regular Baptists do not believe the doctrine, at least I can say I do not believe that God, in any sense of the term, is the author of evil, neither original nor personal evil. In reference to the violation of God's will, in the garden, by our first parents, I would have you understand, I believe God knew what Adam would do; but, at the same time, I would have you understand further, that I do not believe God influenced Adam to those acts, but he was influenced by the opposite spirit, the spirit of Anti-Christ. I trust I am understood upon that subject. We were next told that Adam's sin involved the race. I am delighted to hear him admit that (which is true) Adam's sin involved the race, involved them in what shall I say in condemnation (I do not think of any better term just now), that the race of men became condemned in consequence of the violation of God's will by the first man. This is the very gist of this discussion--of this question at least. If this is so, what is needed for salvation but his redemption from that transgression? And my friend has undertaken to prove that that was the mission of the Son of God. Not only to redeem them from that particular sin, but from all sin. Now, I differ very widely with him on these matters. The grounds in some measure have been presented, and I propose to show that if the theory of our friend is true, then God is changeable. There are passages of Holy Writ that will fully and satisfactorily explain this; and be it remembered, that God does love his people, that he is the same to-day and to-morrow, of one mind, immutable and unchangeable. Consequently, what he loves to-day, he will love eternally. Now, if we can show from the scriptures the existence of some people that God did not love, and we have it in Matt. vii, 22, 23, "Many will say unto me, thy name done many wonderful works, and then will I profess into them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity," Now I ask my friend if the Saviour did really die for these men? Did he die for a people he did not know? Does he not say he did not know them? If you admit the fact that the Saviour did not know these individuals, would that not be limiting his wisdom and his power? Yet there is a sense in which he did not know them. I will suppose that it means he did not know them in the covenant, that they did not belong to the covenant, for in that covenant God says, all shall know me from the least to the greatest. Yet here he says he did not know them. This, no doubt, will appear like a very hard doctrine to some of you. Many people here will, no doubt, be disposed to say, as some said in ancient times, "If these things are so, God is surely unjust." Oh no, no. Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, "why hast thou made me thus?"
(Time expired.)
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
