CP.00 Cayce - Penick Debate

The Cayce-Penick Debate

on the Atonement and Operation of the Spirit

Held at Martin, Tennessee, Beginning on Tuesday,
July 9, 1907, and Continuing Four Days 1908

Eld. Harold Hunt P O Box 5352

Maryville TN 37802

INTRODUCTION

According to appointment and previous arrangement. The discussion began Tuesday morning, July 9, 1907, and continued four days. We had agreed to be governed by the following rules, which were read at least once each day:

1st. The terms, in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.

2nd. The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself, and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be wrong, and his adversary in the right.

3rd. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided.

4th. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged.

5th. No one has a right to accuse his adversary of indirect motives.

6th. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him, who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.

7th. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.

8th. No new matter shall be introduced in the final negative of a proposition.

The following pages contain the speeches as delivered by us as nearly correct as the stenographer could take them. This being an oral discussion, many of the sentences do not conform as strictly to the rules of grammar and rhetoric, as would have been the case had the speeches been first written.

We, as the speakers, have read and corrected the manuscript and proof sheets of our speeches, and in order to more clearly bring out the points emphasized in speaking, we have had many words printed in italics and capitals.

Our time being limited on each proposition, of course the subjects were not exhausted, by any means; but we send this work forth in the humble hope that truth may be advanced. We request all to read and compare what was said with the Holy Scriptures, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

C. H. CAYCE.

I. N. PENICK.

STENOGRAPHER’S CERTIFICATE

Granbury, Texas, September 6, 1907.

This is to certify that I am an expert stenographer, having had considerable experience in verbatim reporting; that I was employed to make a stenographic report of the religious debate between Elder C. H. Cayce and Elder I. N. Penick, at Martin, Tenn., during July last; and that I have made an accurate and impartial report of the speeches in this debate, to the best of my ability.

(Signed)John C. Sligh,Stenographer.

PROPOSITIONS

I. The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven.

C. H. CAYCE, affirms.

I. N. PENICK, denies.

II. The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam.

I. N. PENICK, affirms.

C. H. CAYCE, denies.

III. The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means.

C. H. CAYCE, affirms.

I. N. PENICK, denies.

IV. The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means.

I. N. PENICK, affirms.

C. H.’ CAYCE, denies.

CP.011 First Proposition ELDER CAYCE’S FIRST SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE’S FIRST SPEECH.

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I appear before you in the affirmative of the proposition which you have just heard read, "The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven."

This proposition is so clear and so definitely expressed in the language of the proposition that it needs no definition. It is so clear that each of you can readily understand just what I expect and will endeavor to prove on the proposition.

I suppose it would not be out of place, however, in the beginning to make some mention as to what brought about this discussion; and in order that you may understand what brought about the discussion, I read a little clipping from the Baptist Banner of December 12, 1906:

"INFORMATION WANTED---Does anybody know, of a church of the Disciples, commonly called Campbellites, that will endorse one of their representative men in denying that there is immediate touch, or contact, of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and salvation? And can any one tell us of an anti-mission, or Hardshell, church, that will endorse a representative man who will deny that the Lord uses means in the regeneration and salvation of sinners? There may be yet some of each kind; but where are they? No, we are not seeking debates, but simply wanting information, and rejoicing at the coming back to the truth from both of these extreme and erroneous points. However, we will say that it is possible that we can find a man who will be present and make feeble remarks in case all parties should want a clean discussion of the truth."

In answer to that call, on our side of the question, I am here to represent our people---the people who in that clipping were called Hardshell, or anti-mission Baptists. As this discussion is being taken down to be published, I want to state that I am not before you to make a display of oratory. I am not here to trim down on nicety of language; but the truth is what I want. That is what I am going to search for, and what I expect to try, with the ability that I possess, to sustain.

Before I proceed to introduce any of my affirmative arguments, I wish to say that it will just take this to disprove the proposition that I am here to affirm. Remember the proposition, “The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven." To disprove that proposition, Brother Penick must find a certain, specific character, and prove by the Bible that Christ died for that man, and then prove by the Bible that that same man for whom Christ died is in hell. Anything short of that---I want that placed before you ---anything short of that will never disprove this proposition. Until he finds one certain man and proves by the Bible that Christ died for that man, and that this same man is in hell---until he proves that, my proposition will stand sustained.

Now, before I forget, I want to ask Brother Penick a question. It may not appear to be pertinent to this proposition upon which we are at present dwelling, but it is pertinent to the whole discussion. That question is: "How many ways does God have of saving people? Brother Penick, there is the question written down for fear you would not have time to note it. (Hands paper to Elder Penick.) I insist that he answer that question: "How many ways does God have of saving people?" Does He save them one way, or two ways, or three ways, or four ways, or five ways, or six ways? How many ways does God save people? That is what we want to know, and I insist that Brother Penick answer that question in his next, or first speech.

I will now proceed to introduce my affirmative arguments.

My first argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven, because their iniquity was laid on him.

In support of that argument, I call attention to Isa 53:6-8. I will read 6th, 7th and 8th verses: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."

As to the term us, it does not devolve upon me to say how many there are. Let it be one-half the race, or three-fourths of the race, or all of the race---let it be many or few---just so many as the term us all embraces, just that many had their iniquities laid on the Lord Jesus Christ.

So that you may understand that in arguing this passage, I shall argue, not the extent of the atonement, but the sufficiency of it.

If Brother Penick wishes to argue in the negative of the proposition that Christ died for all of Adam's posterity, and that all the iniquities of all Adam's posterity were laid upon Christ, then I would call upon him to tell us what can send one of Adam's race to hell.

It could not possibly be iniquity. All their iniquities, the number that is embraced, in this text, were taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

If their iniquities were laid on Christ, their iniquities were taken off them; and if their iniquities were taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ, I argue that iniquity could not send one of them to hell. If so be that iniquity could send them to hell, their iniquities must be taken off the Lord Jesus Christ, and shifted back upon them, and that would involve the brother in the doctrine of apostasy, and, of course, he does not believe that.

Then it must necessarily follow that every one of these characters whose iniquities were laid on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. Otherwise, they go to hell without iniquity. Their iniquities are taken off them.

If you start out to look for one who is without iniquity, you would not think about going toward the lower regions. You would not think about going in that direction to find one who is without iniquity. These characters for whom the Lord Jesus Christ died had their iniquities taken off them. The Lord took their iniquities off them, and laid them on Christ. Hence they are without iniquity. Their iniquities all being laid on Jesus Christ, all of them will finally be landed safely on the sunny banks of sweet deliverance, without a single exception.

The eighth verse says, "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken"---the very same people who are embraced in the sixth verse as us all. "For the transgression of my people was he stricken."

If His people embrace all Adam's posterity, then the brother must show that their iniquities were shifted back upon them after being laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He was stricken for their transgression; he was stricken to render satisfaction for their transgressions, their iniquities being taken off them and laid on him. Hence, every one of them, their iniquities being taken off them and laid on Christ, will be saved; else they go to hell without iniquity.

My second argument is, All for whom Christ died will be saved, because he bore their sins in his own body on the tree, 1Pe 2:24: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed." "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree," If he bore their sins in his own body on the tree, it follows that their sins must necessaryily have been taken off them and laid on him.

 

Now, there are two points that I want to argue from this text. We see, by the language of the text, the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, the spotless and immaculate Lamb of God, bare the sins of these people for whom he died.

We see him bearing them on the rugged tree of the Roman cross, suffering the penalty due for their sins, to render satisfaction for their sins. Now then, I maintain that in his bearing their sins on the cross he rendered satisfaction for their sins. He paid the debt that they owed to the demands of divine justice. So, if one of these characters whose sins he bore on the tree sinks down to hell, then God the Father is demanding payment of the same debt twice. That debt has been paid by the Son of God when he bore their sins in his own body upon, the rugged tree of the Roman cross---there, bearing their sins, suffering for their sins, paying the debt that they owed to the demands of divine justice.

If that is for all of Adam's posterity, and one of the race of Adam sinks down into eternal night, and is plowing the fiery regions of an endless hell, it follows that he is suffering for the very same, identical sins that Jesus Christ has suffered for, the very same sins that Jesus Christ bore in his own body on the rugged tree of the Roman cross. And I am going to state this right here, that Brother Penick or any other man can never make it appear that the justice of God remains untarnished and yet one sinner sink down to eternal night for whom Jesus has died. In order that he make it appear that one of these characters for whom Christ has died, whose sins he bore on the rugged tree of the Roman cross, sinks down to a yawning hell, he must show that God is unjust. He must admit that God is just; and as God is just, He does not demand the payment of the same debt twice.

As Jesus bore their sins in his own body on the rugged tree of the cross, paid the debt that they owed to divine justice, it follows that: every one of those characters whose sins Jesus bore in his body on the tree will finally be saved in heaven without the loss of one. Hence my proposition is sustained, that all for whom Christ died will be saved in. heaven.

Now, I want to notice this; Let this book here represent those for whom Christ died. Their iniquities are upon them. This book right here represents the Lord Jesus Christ. Remember the first argument: "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." All their iniquities were taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, remember the next argument and the language of the text, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." So that he bore their sins in his own body on the tree. He is not standing there hard by, so that their iniquities may be shifted back upon them some time, and they sink down at last and plow the fiery regions of an endless hell, but he bore their sins in his own body on the tree.

If any of these characters go to hell, they go there without iniquity, they go there without sin, their iniquities having been taken off them, and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus himself bore their sins in his own body on the rugged tree of the Roman cross.

The next argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved because he put their sins away by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 9:25-26, "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others ; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he; appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

“Once in the end of the world"---surely that was not in the end of this natural world, but in the end of the Jewish world; in the end of the Jewish dispensation. "Now once in the end of the world." Note, it is in the end of the world. He does not make two offerings for sin. He does not make an offering half a dozen times for sin. But "once in the end of the world hath he appeared"---what for? "To put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Their sins---their iniquities---taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ. He bore their sins in his own body on the tree. He put away their sins by the sacrifice of himself. Whose sins did he put away? Every one of those characters for whose sins he suffered---every one of those characters who are embraced in the offering that he made for sin. All their sins were taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ. He put them all away. Not one of these characters can ever go to hell on account of sin.

Hence, I argue that all for whom Jesus Christ died will be saved in heaven; the last one of them will finally be gathered around the great white throne of God, and be given to sing the song of redeeming grace as long as eternity rolls her ages round.

How many will fail to be there? Not one of these characters whose sins Jesus has put away. They will all be there. If you go to look for one without sin, you would not think about going to the lower regions. No sir! If you go to look for one without sin you would not think about going to the lower regions to find one whose sins have been put away, You can find one there without sin just as well as you can in the glory world, if one of these characters for whom Jesus died sinks down to an eternal night.

My next argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved, because the Apostle Paul plainly says so.

Of course he certainly knows what he is talking about. We ought to be willing to take his word for it. We ought to be willing to accept what he says about it; and if he tells us that these characters that Christ has died for will be saved, why, we ought to accept it. If he makes a plain statement of a fact, we certainly cannot afford to refuse to accept it. I am going to say that to argue that one for whom Jesus Christ has died goes to hell, fails to enter the portals of eternal glory, is to argue that the Apostle Paul did not tell the truth.

Let us see what he says about it. Ro 5:8-10, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." "We shall be saved from wrath through him."

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." "We shall be saved from wrath through him."

Who shall be, saved from wrath through him? Those who are justified by his blood. Who are justified by his blood? Those for whom he died---these characters are justified by his blood. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his. blood." These characters who were justified by his blood are the characters that Christ died for. "Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

Please hold my time a minute, I will have to rest my throat.

(Speaker's time is suspended. In a moment he continues)

The argument was that all for whom Christ died will be saved, because the Apostle Paul plainly says so. "But, God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we, were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

The Apostle tells us in the tenth verse that these characters who were reconciled to God are those for whom he died; "being reconciled to God by the death of his Son." These characters, then, for whom Jesus died are reconciled to God. If one of them goes to hell he does not go there an enemy to God---he goes there reconciled to God, because Paul tells us in this that they were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

It must be, then, that those for whom Christ died are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. If they are reconciled to God, then it follows that, if they go down to an endless hell they go there reconciled, to God. If one of these characters for whom Jesus died goes to hell, he goes there reconciled to God.

And is that all that the Apostle teaches us in that language? No, he positively says that these characters are reconciled to God by the death of His Son; and in the ninth verse says, "much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be: saved from wrath through him." And then he tells us, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Who shall? These characters who are reconciled to God by the death of His Son shall be saved by his life. Who are reconciled to God? Those for whom Christ died. Then who are going to be saved? Every one of these characters for whom Jesus Christ died. He reconciled them to God by his own death. "Much more, being reconciled" by the death of His, Son, we shall be saved by his life. Every one for whom Jesus Christ died is reconciled to God by that death, They are justified by his blood.

If they go to hell, they go there justified. If they go there justified, they go there reconciled to God. They are not guilty. They are not enemies of God. They are not enemies to righteousness, they are not enemies to holiness; they are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Hence the last one of them will be saved in that heaven of eternal bliss and glory, without the loss of one, and the Apostle Paul plainly says so. "We shall be saved by his life." To argue that one of these characters for whom Christ died may go to hell, is to argue that the Apostle Paul falsified. If one of them goes to hell, you must remember that the Apostle Paul told a falsehood when he said, "Much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

If you believe that one of these characters for whom Christ died goes down to hell, you must believe that the Apostle Paul falsified, that he did not know what he was talking about, that he was not a true teacher.

My next argument is, all for whom Christ died will be saved because he obtained eternal redemption for them.

Heb 9:12. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Now mark, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place." Not as the high priest under the law entered into the holy place every year to make atonement for the sins of the Israelites." No. But just one time "by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place."

What had he done when he entered into the holy place? Having obtained eternal redemption for us." Obtained eternal redemption for whom? For every one for whom that blood was shed; every one for whom that offering was made. He obtained eternal redemption for them; he shed his blood, he made the offering for sin, and obtained eternal redemption. When he made that offering by that blood, he obtained the redemption that was sufficient to render satisfaction for sins.

"He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." He did not enter the holy place in heaven to obtain redemption; if so, the apostle has it wrong. He says, "Having obtained eternal redemption for us." He did not enter there in order to give us a chance to have redemption he did not enter there in order to give us an opportunity to have redemption; he did not enter there in order that we might possibly get redemption provided Brother Penick would come where we are and preach to us. No! Nothing of that kind. "He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." He obtained eternal redemption for all of those characters for whom he shed his blood; every one for whom he made the offering.

And having shed his blood and obtained eternal redemption for them, he entered into the holy place, having obtained that redemption. Now, mark you, it is not a redemption which may not last longer than a week, or a month, or a year or two, but eternal redemption; "having obtained eternal redemption." ETERNAL REDEMPTION! I would emphasize this, that this redemption Jesus Christ obtained is ETERNAL REDEMPTION.

Redeemed from what? Surely you would say, redeemed from the curse of the law. If they are redeemed from the curse of the law, and they go to hell, then they are suffering the curse of the law, and the redemption is therefore not eternal. But: as the redemption is eternal, and from the curse of the law, it follows that the law has no more demands against a single one for whom Jesus Christ made the offering. It is satisfied eternally! eternally satisfied. ETERNAL REDEMPTION. He has obtained it for those for whom he shed his blood.

My next argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved because they are healed by his stripes.

Isa 53:4-5: "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

This (pointing to a book) represents those characters for whom Christ died; those characters for whose benefit the stripes were laid upon him. That text says, "With his stripes we are healed." If one of these characters for whom Jesus suffered on the cross goes down to a yawning hell, he goes there healed. What do you think about people healed of their iniquities plowing the fiery domains of an endless hell?

What do you say? If the negative of this proposition is true, then there will be some plowing the fiery domains of an endless hell, who are healed of the awful disease of sin. So hell would be as much a heaven as around the throne of God---it would be as pure as the throne of God in the glory world, if the negative of this proposition is true.

So that there is no such place, there can be no such place, as a hell if the negative of this proposition is true. Not only that, but I am going to show that there can be no such place as heaven if my proposition is not true.

Why do I say that? I say that from this standpoint, that if one character for whom Jesus Christ died sinks down to a yawning hell, it must be because the offering Jesus made has failed to render satisfaction for sins; it must be because he has failed to pay the penalty that the law demanded. Then, if the Father refused to accept the payment of the debt, that the Son has made, it follows that all for whom he died will sink down with that one, and so there will be no heaven; so far as you and I are concerned. If one of these characters for whom Jesus died goes down to a yawning hell, then all for whom Jesus died will go to hell, and no one that he died for will be saved.

1Pe 2:24 says, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, * * * by whose stripes ye were healed." So the apostle says, "By whose stripes ye were healed," and the prophet says, "By whose stripes we are healed." The prophet says "we are," and the apostle says "ye were" healed. So if any of these characters for whom Jesus died go down to hell, they go there healed; they go there without iniquity; they go there without sin; they go there redeemed, eternally redeemed, all the way to God, every last one of them; they go there without sin, with all their sins having been put away by the Lord Jesus Christ, by the offering that he made. They go there with all their iniquities satisfied for in the person of Jesus Christ; and now we see one of these characters, if my proposition is not true, plowing the fiery domains of an endless hell, paying the very same debt again that Jesus Christ has paid for him on Calvary's hill.

Oh, blush for shame! The God of the whole earth is just and right, and all His ways are judgment and truth; He is righteous altogether. Is He demanding payment of this same debt twice, and sending that sinner to a yawning hell, to plow the fiery domains of an endless hell, to suffer for the very same sins that Jesus has suffered for when he died upon the rugged tree of the Roman cross? When nature was wrapped in mourning, and yonder sun that rules the light by day refused to see the Son of God die and shut his glories in, darkness reigning over this earth from the sixth to the ninth hour, the Son of God in the agonies of death saying, "Oh, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit," and bowed his head and gave up the ghost, he satisfied for the sins of those characters for whom he died. Now, after he suffered thus, we see one of these characters for whom he died plowing the fiery domains of an endless hell, suffering for the same sins that the Son of God suffered for---God the Father demanding payment of the same debt twice.

Justice cannot remain enthroned, and one of these characters for whom Jesus died sink down to eternal night. As sure as God is a God of justice, just as sure as God is a God of judgment, just as sure as He is a God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right, just that sure my proposition is true that every one of these characters for whom Jesus died will be saved in heaven without the loss of one. I am going to try to introduce another argument:

Every one for whom Christ died will be saved, because he redeemed them from all iniquity.

Tit 2:14: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

These characters for whom Jesus died, he died for them to redeem them from all iniquity; not a little of their iniquity, not simply the Adamic sin, and place them back where Adam was in the garden before the transgression; but to redeem them from all iniquity. That will not simply embrace the Adamic sin, inherent, or depraved nature---that sin of Adam, as it is sometimes called---but it will also embrace their actual transgressions. "To redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto` himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

He redeemed them from all iniquity, not simply a little of their iniquity, to "purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

Thank you for your kind attention.

CP.012 First Proposition ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Brethren and Sisters :

It is with a great deal of pleasure, I trust, that we are all gathered here this morning, for the blessed privilege of studying God's word. Your very presence here indicates the fact that you have at least some interest in this matter. I hope no impure motive has brought any one to this place. I take it that our religious liberty is the greatest boon that we enjoy in this age, when, as neighbors and brethren and friends, we can meet, according to our own arrangement, and study honestly, in the light of God's word, by the presence and power of His Spirit, to know what the Lord has said, and then to try, as best we can, to accept the truth.

I am sorry this morning, in one sense, that neither of us as speakers seems to be enjoying first-rate health or strength. I take some comfort, however (I suppose both of us do), in some promises in the Bible like that in 1st Corinthians, where we are told that God chooses, or selects, the weak things with which to do His work; and Brother Cayce and I are both able physically to offer upon the altar of service some exceedingly weak things. You will be patient, of course, with us, and manifest the Spirit of God in long-suffering and forbearance, and allow us to get the issue and difference, for the limited time we may occupy, fully and squarely before you.

The first rule demands that the exact point at issue shall be brought so very clearly before the minds of the people that there shall be no misunderstanding. It is our ordinary custom to use a blackboard, and I think we will try to get one, because one great trouble that comes from discussions, and that sometimes follows them, is because so many people will fail to get the exact point at issue. As he rightly stated, his proposition is stated in very clear, simple terms.

Of course, words are not only the signs of ideas, but they are the vehicles of thought, and they are also the measures of thought. Just what you and I want to put in a word will have to be determined by ourselves. It is supposed that every man understands what he wants to say and tries to say; hence every man has the right to define his terms, and they ought to be clearly defined.

The proposition reads, "All for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven." The Scriptures teach this; that is, it is plainly declared, or it comes as a logical conclusion from inspired premises, which would follow naturally, and justly, and truly. My opponent is very candid and frank in saying to you that I believe the proposition is erroneous, and hence our discussion.

Now, let us get the issue just as fairly and squarely before us as we may be able. There is no sort of controversy between us as to whether Christ died for the saved, or for the elect, as we may call them, or any other term that you may want to use to denote the ones who are saved, or who will be saved in glory. Both of us, and all of us alike, are agreed upon the question that no man will enter heaven, except by Jesus Christ, and only through his atoning blood, by HIS merits. I suppose that we are agreed upon that point.

Hence he is not expected to affirm the negative; but his is a restricted proposition. As he has very clearly brought it out, he believes that the saved, or elect, are the only ones for whom Christ tasted death. It is the question of LIMITED atonement; that is the question as I understand it, and I think we both understand it that way. Now let me get the issue clearly, and fairly before you.

The question is that the lost of this age, and of all ages, have had no provision made for their salvation whatever. Christ did not remember them; he did not take upon him their sins in any sense. He was not and is not related to them in any way as the sacrificial offering. He, as priest and sacrifice, was not thinking of them, nor did he have it in his mind or purpose that they should get any blessing from his life of obedience, or his death and suffering. Now, if I understand the proposition, that is about the simple, clear issue.

My opponent takes some time at the beginning to tell you how he understands the debate originated, and reads from an editorial in the Baptist Banner. I don't remember the date. I think I wrote the editorial in a very pleasant kind of way. I had not known before, however, that he attributed this as the cause of the debate. I understood that it came from some little joking or pleasantry among our brethren. But if that is the case, all right, let that be as it will. I have no sort of inclination to raise any question on that point. I believe he read in that article that should somebody be found to discuss these issues, that possibly the Banner would see to it that some man would be present to "make a few feeble remarks." In view of that promise, your humble servant is before you to examine, as best he can, the argument brought before you, and to make some modest suggestions as to the interpretations of God's word that he may think are erroneous and misleading.

Now I want to get before your minds this one thought, and keep it there: That the doctrine of atonement is clearly and fully expressed in the original Hebrew about seventy-nine times. I believe it is used the first time in Nu 29, where two goats were selected to represent it.

Of course it takes many things to represent the many-sided work of Jesus Christ. There was the one goat that was to be slain, and his blood was to be used upon the mercy seat, representing a covering, as expressed in the Hebrew, and the corresponding Greek term. Scholars are in doubt as to whether it means a covering of our sins from the sight of God, or whether it means to shelter our poor, defenseless head from the on-gathering tides of divine wrath. But the mercy seat covering the tables of stone was sprinkled with blood by the high priest to represent the cleansing of the blood of Jesus Christ.

But that was not all that was to represent the atonement. There is another goat brought forward. It takes TWO in the divine wisdom to represent his atonement. The other goat is brought forward, and over his head the sins of the people are confessed. He is then sent away into the wilderness, to Azazel. I suppose the later researches have developed about this thought, that it means to pass out into the regions of some particular person who has charge, or dominion, over these regions. To illustrate. In Heb 2:14, we understand that God has permitted the devil to have power or dominion in death.

Much of my opponent's argument, and most of his passages refer to the application of' the blood, the sprinkling of the blood, instead of the offering it before God as the satisfaction for our sins. He is on the wrong point. There is where the trouble comes; there is where his whole trouble is. The death of the one goat is one thing, beloved, and the application of the blood is another thing, and the confession of the sins is still another thing. Of course, it is hard to bring out all this, but God has given us these types he referred to Heb 9:13, "Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself," and goes on with that long statement, that he should purge our guilty conscience from dead works to serve the living God. That is the application of the blood.

Now, let us get it. The offering of the Son of God on Calvary, when he satisfied the Father in His demands of justice upon the race of Adam, was made nearly two thousand years ago, but the virtue of that blood was not applied to the heart of my beloved brother until this century, possibly just a few years ago. The shedding of the blood was one thing; the application of it to his own heart was indeed quite another thing.

If you will turn to Ro 3:25 you will see there that God has set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past---not our righteousness, but his righteousness, and the believer is the one that receives the application of the blood of Jesus Christ. When the sinner is led by divine grace to come to the foot of his cross, and to surrender all to the loving Saviour of men, then God's own Spirit passes through the realms of inner consciousness, and cleanses the heart from the guilt and stain of sin, with the blood of Jesus Christ, and the soul looks up with brightness and joy and says, "God is my Father."

The shedding of that blood was nearly two thousand years ago; but the application of it is today, that is if you are saved through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

My brother asks me a question---thinks it is germane to the proposition---well, I shall try to answer it. He says, "How many ways has God of saving a sinner?" "How many ways does God have of saving people?" Let me get the answer clear, on your mind, if I understand his question. When we speak of intelligent, accountable people of this age and all ages, people who are responsible, that is, old enough to be accountable and responsible, I know of but one way. I know of but one way in all ages, from righteous Abel until the last moment.

When we speak of salvation from sin of infants and idiots, I know not whether they are saved in that way, or a different way; but it is only a matter of conjecture or speculation. If he is able to tell us exactly how they are saved, I shall be glad to have the benefit of his judgment. I have made some research upon the question and am prepared to give what the best scholars have said upon this point.

Now, I will ask him one. Now will he tell us, Is the sinner lost in hell on account of his own sins, or is he lost in hell on account of Adam's sin, or is he lost in hell because the Lord. God made no provision for his salvation? Is, it because of Adam's sin, or is it because of the Lord God? Just where does the cause rest?

I shall maintain without the fear of any successful contradiction, that my brother's position rests the cause of the damned in hell absolutely in God Himself and makes God primarily responsible for the damnation of the lost. Throws it wholly upon him.

Now, you will notice my opponent's arguments, as he was able to introduce them as best he could. He reads Isa 53:6, "On him was laid our iniquities." My sins were laid on him. . . . "and with his stripes we are healed," and so on. Now, will you get the idea? This verse, "With his stripes we are healed," talks about the application of the remedy. He is getting the question mixed very much.

He says, would I have any question to raise with these passages? Whenever, and wherever, my opponent shall find any rightly, or correctly, translated passage of Scripture supporting his position, I need not take the time, and waste my breath replying; but you may understand that Penick in his heart says one loud Amen to it. Yes, sir. I have got NO controversy with the Word of God. Not one bit. My controversy is with you, beloved.

God's Word is all right. You are the man that is wrong. There is where the trouble comes in. And you think the same thing about me.

About the sheep led to the slaughter, and on whom were laid our iniquities. Now he gets the idea that if these, stripes and iniquities were laid upon Christ for the men that are lost, then some for whom Christ died are in hell, and God's purposes have failed, and they are there after having been healed. I beg pardon, because that leads to a contradiction. You know the Lord did not make this contradiction at all. No, not one single bit of it.

Now, will you get the question clearly and fairly before you? He would insist that this fifty-third chapter of' Isaiah would restrict it to the saved; that only the saved are included. Will he look at the sixth verse? "All we like sheep have gone astray." So the poor, lost sinner in hell has not gone astray at all. And will you say, beloved, that the lost in hell and those on the road, have not gone astray? Now if that be true, then the Lord God is going to save the sinner, and damn the righteous.

Again, in 1Pe 2:24, "Who himself bare our sins in his body on the tree." Amen. I want to say, for both of us as Baptists, that nothing but the Word of God shall hamper, or limit, our consciences. We pay no attention to creeds, or what they, say. If he will find where that statement is used by the Apostle Peter in any sense to contradict other statements from him and from other writers, then his argument may amount to something.

Is there an intimation in that text, just one single intimation, that he did not bear the sins of the lost on the tree? No, sir. Where did you get it, I say? Have to put it in there. That is the trouble, you have got to put it between the lines. If there was no other text in God's word, or anything else with respect to the lost, then we might reason as he reasons. My position shall be, from beginning to last, here and everywhere else, God being my helper, to have my creed, my faith, my ideas, my notions, broad enough to take in everything God has said.

Suppose I offer you 1Jo 2:2. "He is the propitiation," that is the Greek word only used two or three times in the New Testament, that is equivalent to the old Hebrew expression for the atonement. "He is the propitiation for our sins." Now the fourth chapter propitiation for our sins," and it stops there. But does the Lord stop here? NO. Shall I make some of these passages contradict themselves? NO. Did God write them all? YES. Will my brother believe them all? Yes. Then he will surrender his position. Now read 1Jo 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

Now let me look at the English and the Greek, and compare with 1Jo 5:19, "The whole world lieth in wickedness." Now, then, is that proposition correct? Does he put 1Pe 2:24 against 1Jo 2:2? It was not simply what Peter and John thought about it, but it was the Spirit of Inspiration guiding the pen and ruling the brain of each; and hence it is what God says on the question.

Read Heb 2:9, "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor, that he"---notice the purpose of that "by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Hence my opponent thinks, if anybody is found in hell for whom Christ died, there has been some failure somewhere. The trouble with my brother's proposition is he leaves out a whole lot that God has put in.

Let me see now. "In his own body on the tree," he bore our sins. All right. Does that refer to the saved? He thinks so, and he will say so. Does he exclude and deny that he bore the sins of others? He thinks so. Do you think so? No; when God says just the reverse at some other place, I do not think so.

Again in Heb 9:25-26, it says, "He put away sins by the sacrifice of himself." Bore them once. Amen. But, brother, was that blood applied to your heart at the same time it was applied to John Calvin's heart, if he was a saved man? Or the Apostle Paul's heart? I hardly think so. The provision is one thing; the application quite another. There is a distinction that my brother may not be able to see.

Again he says that Paul declares this fact plainly in Ro 5:8-10, and insists that I shall be arguing against God, if I shall even raise any question against it. But I want to insist that I haven't the slightest disposition to argue against God, in any sense, nor to make one verse seem to contradict another. I have an idea that if the brother had read right on in the same chapter, he would have found his position was entirely untenable.

Opening now at Ro 5:9, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

Now that last verse would indicate to us that he is talking about those who receive the atonement. You will see that there is a wonderful difference between the sacrifice that satisfied God, and the receiving of the benefits of that atonement. Now, let us pass right straight on, and see if my opponent can get the fact that it limits and restricts itself wholly to the saved, and that nothing is said with respect to Adam's race.

Now, Paul introduces at the twelfth verse, the texts which are considered by theological writers as the anthropology of the race. It is where every writer goes to get his doctrine of man, his relations to the federal head, union with Christ by Adam, etc.

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of .Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Adam violated a positive commandment; these people all down through these ages had no positive commandment; hence they had not sinned after the likeness or similitude of Adam's transgression: but they sinned because they had a sinful nature, and they lived according to that nature. "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if, through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if, by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

“Much more they which receive abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness." Now he is going to urge, that it is only those who receive the gift; do you get it? Now is there anything said of Adam's race? Where is the contrast? Where is it? It is between ADAM as the HEAD in this sense, and between CHRIST as the SECOND ADAM. "Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification."

"Therefore"---here is your logical application of it---here is the inspired premise and the inspired conclusion, and it is Paul's language. "Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation." Does that mean all men? The English and the Greek is the identical same. Both Greek expressions are the same. "Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men .unto justification of life."

Which is the bigger term? Which is the broader term? "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, even so, by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound."

According to my way of thinking, I cannot see how my opponent can use the conclusion to save his life, and maintain his proposition; but instead of using that accumulative particle, he would say, "Much less did grace abound, and only for a few;" but the Lord put it that grace abounded, or super-abounded.

Now, I have a paraphrase, gotten out by scholarship in the language of today. You can use it for what it is worth. It is called the Twentieth Century New Testament. Beginning at the twelfth verse: "Well, then, sin came into the world through one man, and through sin came death; and in this way death spread to all mankind, because all mankind had sinned. Even before the time of the law there was always sin in the world.” But sin cannot be charged against a man where no law exists. Yet death reigned between the times of Adam and Moses, even over those whose sin was not a breach of the law, as Adam's was. And Adam is a figure of the one to come. But there is a great contrast between Adam's offence and God's gift of mercy. For if, owing to the offence of the one man, the whole race died, it is still more certain that God's mercy, and the gift given in his mercy which found expression in the one man Jesus Christ, were lavished upon the whole race."

Does the whole race mean all? Yes. Does the whole race mean all in the larger sense? Yes. What are the words of contrast---as all the race suffered by connection with Adam, so there are blessings provided by Jesus Christ for all the race, for while he was God, he was man. Briefly then (18th verse), "Just as a single offence resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree setting man right with God, resulted for all mankind in righteousness and life. For as through the disobedience of the one man the whole race were made sinners, so, too, through the obedience of the one, the whole race will be set right with God."

If my brother will come down to the question as to where the cause for man's condemnation is, he will find such texts as that in the way of his proposition. Here is a text covering one side as well as the other. As I said, in the eighteenth verse, every expression is just as broad one way as the other.

Again, my opponent dwells upon Heb 9:12. "Obtaining eternal redemption for us." Does that indicate or deny that any provision was made for the others?

In Ro 3:25, he said, "It don't depend, brethren, simply upon us getting the preacher there. In Ro 3:25, "He is the propitiation through faith in his blood." Who gets the benefit of the propitiation through Jesus Christ? The believer. Does the man believe without a preacher? Let him take the same book, tenth chapter, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." So Paul had some preacher in mind.

Again, my opponent brings us the fact that he redeemed them that are under the law. Will we turn to Ro 3:9-19? Will you understand there that the conclusion of the Apostle Paul's argument is he makes the statement clear, that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are under the law? Let the whole world stand guilty before God, and every mouth be stopped. Who is under the law? ALL MEN. Whom did Christ come under the law to redeem?) ALL MEN. To redeem them that are under the law? Yes.

In Tit 2:14, I want to notice the point that he brings out there where "Christ has redeemed us." That is correct. No controversy with the text. I will ask you, just begin about three verses above at the eleventh verse. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." Has the grace of God that bringeth salvation appeared to all men? Yes. Does he have a controversy with God? We will see, right here out of the very text.

Now, I only have a very few minutes, and I will insist that my brother will address himself, as best he can, to the real issue. I will recapitulate a moment. The shedding of the blood of the goat that was slain and the offering of it to God to appease His wrath is ONE thing; and the application of it is entirely ANOTHER thing. That the application is by the eternal Spirit, I agree. As in Heb 9:14, and Ro 3:25. And that faith in his blood is the way that they have been saved.

Now then, in 2Co 5:18-20, "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation"---literally, "has deposited in us the word of reconciliation." "Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." The idea of an ambassador is a high representative to another government. Paul says he was an ambassador of Christ. God was reconciled in Christ to the world. "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

CP.013 ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am before you to resume the affirmative of the proposition. Perhaps I had better read the proposition to you; possibly you have forgotten just what it says, considering the speech you have just listened to. The proposition says:

"The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven."

Do you remember what I told you must be done to disprove that proposition? To disprove the proposition he must prove by the Bible that Jesus Christ died for one certain, specific person, and prove by the same Bible that this same man that Christ died for is in hell.

Has he done it? No sir. Instead of endeavoring to do that, the speech has been one, from the first to the last of it, to draw your minds away from the proposition, to the application of the blood of Christ, the work of regeneration; that has been the entire effort of that speech, and I will say to you, my brother, that you are not going to get away from the proposition to discuss the subject of regeneration until we get there. But just about day after tomorrow morning we will have a little fun with you along the line of regeneration.

The proposition is that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven. Whenever he proves by any passage of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of Revelation, let it be from whatever book, chapter, or verse, he may, when he will show from any passage in the King James translation that Jesus Christ has died for every one of Adam's posterity, I will prove by the language, or the context, that every one of them will be saved in heaven. But it will land you, my brother, on the Universalist platform.

So, it is not for me to say on this proposition whether Christ died for all the race or a part of the race. If you say that he died for all the race, and prove it by the Bible, I will take your text and prove that the last one of them will be saved in the glory world without the loss of one.

But I want to notice some expressions used by him in his speech. He says we all believe that no one will ever enter heaven except through the merits of Christ's blood. Well, I don't know so much about that, whether we all believe that or not. You say you believe that, but I am going to say that you cannot stand by it and stand by the position you take in this discussion. You cannot do it, sir. Just as sure as the sinner enters heaven by the merits of Christ, it follows that every one for whom his blood was shed will be saved in heaven, for, if every one for whom his blood was shed does not enter heaven, it cannot be by the merits of Christ that one is saved.

It follows that every one for whom his blood was shed is saved in heaven. It doesn't make any difference when it was applied, whether yesterday or a thousand years ago. Whenever it may be applied, if they are saved by the merits of the blood of Christ, it follows that every one for whom the blood was shed will be saved in heaven.

Otherwise, if the character goes to hell for whom Jesus died, why does he go there? Why? Is the blood of Christ shed as much for him as it is for the saved in heaven? Is it? Then, if it is, why is he damned in hell? CAN YOU TELL ME? Does he go to hell because of a lack of merit in the blood of Christ? Why is he damned in hell then? Because of his failure to believe on Christ?

According to your position, according to the arguments that you have made, it must be because he fails to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, or fails to do something for himself, that he is damned in hell. Then, if he is damned in hell because of a failure to do something for himself, and the blood of Christ has done just as much for him as it has for the saved in heaven, why is the character that enters the glory world saved in heaven? He is not saved because of the merit of the blood of Christ.

If he is saved because of the merit of the blood of Christ, it follows that the damned in hell would be saved because of the same, thing, if Christ has done as much for the one as He has for the other.

Then it is not because Jesus Christ saves him that he is saved, but because of what he does for himself. Jesus Christ, on your proposition, sir, is left out.

Perhaps you have heard tell of such a man as Christ. Brother Penick, tell us, where does his work come in, anyhow? Tell us, will you? Will you tell us what he does in the salvation of sinners? You have a job on your hands, my brother; as sure as you live, you have.

Then he comes to Leviticus and the two goats. When the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat, and confessed the sins of the people over that goat's head, then that goat was carried away into the land of forgetfulness. That goat never returned bringing those sins back. If that goat never returned bringing those sins back, and he carried them away into the land of forgetfulness, please tell us what can damn one of them? It can't be sin, for their sins were all carried away.

Not only that, here is a question: Don't forget to tell us, how many of the Gentiles had their sins confessed on the head of that goat? Tell us, how many of the Amorites had their sins confessed on the head of that goat? How many Amalekites? or Jebusites? or Hittites? or any other of the Ites around there, except the Israelites, had their sins confessed on the head of that goat? Don't forget to tell us that.

These characters had their sins confessed on the head of that goat, and that goat was carried away by a fit man into the land of forgetfulness. Mark you, it was carried away by a fit man. Any sort of fellow would not do for that. The offering that Jesus Christ made could not be made by any sort of man; it must be made by one that was prepared. So this goat was carried away by a fit-man into the land of forgetfulness, bearing the sins that were confessed on its head.

Now, remember the text, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." That goat that had the sins of Israel confessed on its head represented the body of the Lord Jesus Christ in his offering for sins---he bore their sins in his own body on the tree ; and the goat was carried away into the land of forgetfulness, never to return bringing back the sins that were confessed on its head. It follows that when Jesus hung upon the tree, bearing the sins of those characters who were represented: in his offering, that all their sins were carried away into the land of forgetfulness and will never be brought against them any more. Their sins have all been put away by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You must show us some time or place when that goat, came back, my brother, to get out of that text what you were looking for. So you have the wrong text.

Now then, I never referred to Hebrews where it says, "How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." You just got the wrong citation, my brother. I don't think I offered that in support of any argument, so all the argument that you made about that needs no reply whatever, for it is not to the point.

Then he wants to know, is the lost sinner lost in hell, because of his own sins, or Adam's sin, or is God the cause? I believe he has it written down here: "Are sinners lost because of their sins, or Adam's sin, or simply because God made no provision for them?" I will say that they are lost because of their sins. Now, then, get all out of that sugar stick you can. Sinners are damned because of their sins. I reckon, my brother, you can understand that. That is plain enough, I guess.

Now, then, if you want anything out of that, why, proceed to help yourself. That is all I am going to say in regard to that now. But we will have use for that in this debate afterwards.

And then he charges consequences. I am with you; if you want to begin to break the rules at once, here I am, to follow you; if you want to, go to the jumping off place, and if you jump off you will see, here comes Cayce pretty close behind you. You talk about consequences! I am going to say that your doctrine makes the death of Jesus Christ the ministration of damnation, not of salvation; Jesus Christ died to damn sinners, not to save them.

I will quote from the Baptist Flag of January 31, 1907. I guess that is a pretty good representative of the Missionary Baptist fraternity. Let us see what the Flag says: "On whom will Christ take vengeance? Will it be on those who obey not the gospel, or those that have obeyed not the law? If the doctrine of a ‘limited atonement,’ and ‘unconditional election’ be true, on what grounds could Christ ‘take vengeance’ on the non-elect? On what just plea can the man for whom no redemption was prepared, and no atonement made, be responsible to him who made the atonement for another class, and left him out entirely?"

You see he is trying to charge the consequences on us ---"if the limited atonement is true, on what grounds could Jesus Christ take vengeance on that character?" In other words, Jesus Christ had to die for this man in order to send him to hell. That is your doctrine, sir, just as sure as you and I are here today. Jesus Christ had to die for the damned in hell; otherwise he could not send them to hell!

Then, if he could not justly damn them without dying for them, he could have saved them without dying for them; so in order that anybody be damned, Jesus Christ must die for them. So your doctrine makes the death of Jesus Christ the ministration of damnation, not of salvation. So that, if your position is true, if Jesus Christ had not died for anybody, God must have saved them ; but when Jesus died for them then God is just in sending them to hell; so that those Jesus died for are sent to hell, and those he did not die for go to heaven. THAT IS YOUR DOCTRINE.

Isn't it pretty? The Flag further says: "What right has Jesus Christ to say to the non-elect, `And these shall go away into everlasting punishment,' when those trembling millions can justly reply, `Why send us into such terrific doom when no way of salvation was provided for us? We have not violated the blood of atonement because it was not shed for us.' "

Then, in order that they might violate the blood of the atonement Jesus Christ must die for them. Jesus could not be just in sending them away into everlasting punishment unless they violated the blood of the atonement. Then Jesus must die for them so that they can have the opportunity of violating the blood of the atonement, so he can be just in saying to them on the last day, "Depart from me, ye cursed."

God could not be just in damning the sinner unless Jesus died for him. So Jesus' death does not save sinners, but damns sinners. That's your doctrine---isn't it sweet?

He speaks of the scriptures that I quote. "All we, like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."He is here talking about Israelites. "All we like sheep have gone astray; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." These Israelites were separated from God by reason of sin and transgression, and so they had gone astray in sin, but the Lord takes their iniquity off them and lays it on the Lord Jesus Christ. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." My argument is, that if Jesus Christ bore the iniquities of all Adam's race, all Adam's race are without iniquity---if their iniquities are taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ. These characters for whom Jesus died have their iniquities taken off them and laid on Jesus Christ. "He bore our sins in his body on the tree;" and so I affirm again, in order to disprove my proposition, you must show that one of these characters whose sins Jesus bore is now suffering in hell for the very same sins which Jesus suffered for---God is demanding payment of the same debt twice; Jesus has paid it, and now He is making the sinner pay it again. Do you see?

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

I argue from this that they are healed with the stripes of the Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn't make any difference when that blood is applied, whether now, or yesterday, or a thousand years ago. Whenever it is applied, it is because of his stripes; that is the reason why they are healed. The chastisement of their peace was upon him, and by his stripes they are healed. Who are healed by his stripes? Everyone that the chastisement of their peace was upon him; every one whose iniquities he bore; every one whose sins he bore in his own body and put away by the sacrifice of himself---they are healed by his stripes. The apostle says, 1Pe 2:24, "By whose stripes ye were healed."

He did not answer the argument, because he cannot. I knew it. I have had them try to answer that before today. And then he says, "1Pe 2:24 does not say that he did not bear the sins of the lost in hell." No; 1Pe 2:24 does not say that he did not bear the sins of the lost in hell, but if there is one in hell whose sins he bore, there is one in hell that is healed by the stripes of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so, that is what you want to find out---if one of that kind is there.

Then he goes to 1Jo 2:2 and Heb 2:9. I expected that in the first speech. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Please tell us what the word "propitiation" means. Does it not mean satisfaction? Then "he is the satisfaction for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

If the "whole world" means all of Adam's posterity, if Jesus Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of all Adam's race, and one of the race is suffering in hell, then he is rendering satisfaction again, suffering for the same sins that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for. These characters for whose sins Jesus Christ is the propitiation, all these characters will be landed safely on the sunny banks of sweet deliverance.

Then you are on the Universalist platform; and there isn't any telling what platform you will be on before this thing is over.

Heb 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." Brother Penick, will you please turn to the original, and see if you can find the word man in the original? And then don't forget to tell us if it is there.

He refers again to Ro 5:8-10. You remember that the argument was that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven, because the Apostle Paul plainly says so. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in. that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." These characters that shall be. saved by his life are those characters that are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. It makes no difference, so far as this proposition is concerned, when the blood is applied to them. My proposition is that those for whom he died will be saved in heaven.

The apostle says here that those for whom he died are reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more being reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more being reconciled to God by the death of his Son, they shall be saved by his life.

Do you see the argument? You will never answer it till "doomsday." It follows that every one for whom Jesus died will be saved in heaven. I will read the eleventh verse: "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement"---the at-one-ment. When was the at-one-ment made? When Jesus Christ reconciled us to God by his death. Then we were made at one with God. Now we have received that at-one-ment.

So it doesn't make any difference when they received the atonement, so far as this proposition is concerned. This proposition is that the atonement is sufficient to save every one for whom the atonement was made.

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift." Brother Penick would have it, "As the offence was, so also is the free gift." Brother Penick says one is just like the other. The apostle says it is not that way. "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

If one is equal to the other, the last one of them will be saved in that heaven of eternal bliss and glory; but the Apostle Paul says not like that. Just as Adam involved his posterity in sin by disobedience, so Jesus Christ takes his children out from under the curse of the violated law. That is the way the apostle teaches it, and the way I believe it, Elder Penick to the contrary notwithstanding.

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." Who shall reign in life? They which receive abundance of grace. Certainly, my brother, those who receive the abundance of grace shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

Who is going to receive the abundance of grace? The apostle tells us back here in the tenth verse: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Those for whom he died are going to receive the abundance of that grace, and hence they are going to reign in life by one.

Not by their works, not by Elder Penick's works, but "They shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." And every one that he died for is going to receive it.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound : that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

If this text is teaching the universality of the abounding of sin and the universality of the abounding of grace, it follows that all will be saved by it. If this text teaches the universality of the abounding of grace, it follows that every one that Jesus died for will be saved in heaven.

If it teaches the universality of the death of Christ, then all of Adam's posterity will be saved, and you are a Universalist, my brother.

Then he refers to my quotation, Tit 2:14, and goes to verse 11. Let us see what he gets out of that. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." Whom does it bring salvation to? It brings salvation to every one to whom it appears.

"The grace of God that bringeth an opportunity of salvation to all men." Does it each that? No; it brings salvation, not simply an opportunity of salvation. Not only so, but this grace teaches somebody. Whom does it teach? It teaches every one that it brings salvation to, and it brings salvation to every one that it appears to.

"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." So, again my argument is sustained in that text, that he gave himself for them to redeem them from all iniquity and purify them unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Another affirmative argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved because he suffered for their sins for the purpose of bringing them to God, and he shall not fail.

1Pe 3:18: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." He was the just one; he had no sins of his own for which to suffer; then he must have suffered for the sins of others.

As he suffered for the sins of others, it must have been to render satisfaction for the sins of every one for whose sins he suffered. If he has failed to render satisfaction for the sins of one of those for whose sins he suffered, it follows that the offering was not an acceptable offering. Then it follows that he has done no good by his death, and the last one of Adam's race will be lost. But he suffered for their sins to bring them to God. He suffered for the sins of somebody. What did he suffer for? To bring them to God.

Isa 42:4: "He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

"He shall not fail." He is going to accomplish the purpose for which he died. He suffered to bring those characters for whom he died to God. "He shall not fail, nor be discouraged." We may be discouraged sometimes; we may fail sometimes; but Jesus Christ does not fail. He suffered for their sins to bring them to God, and the prophet says he shall not fail. If he shall not fail, they will all be brought to God.

Thank you for your kind attention.

CP.014 ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen

Your continued patience in such tremendous heat is evidence of the fact that you are trying, at least, to get some good out of this discussion, and I trust that you are not to be wholly disappointed. I will try to reply to every point in my opponent's speech that I could catch, and as I caught it. Of course, if I misunderstood him on any point, he will do me a kindness if he will correct me. I believe he corrected me on quoting one passage that he did not refer to, Heb 9:14. Possibly I got the passage wrong.

He said he called attention to the fact that he suggested that for me to make his proposition untrue, that I would have to find a man for whom Jesus died, and then find that man in torment, and he insists that I failed to do so. Well, you are to be the judges. We will see just a moment on that question. Did Christ taste death for every man? Heb 2:9.

He calls my attention to the Greek to see if the word man is expressed in the Greek. Will you insist that it is not understood? And that all the known translations in the world are wrong on it? We will just see what is in that statement.

"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." "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."-1Jo 2:2.

He said he expected these; of course, well they are in the Bible. Now, then, if these statements be correct, not referring to others, then it seems to me you are compelled to have the whole world saved. Does he believe that? No sir. Will you take 2Pe 2:2? There were false teachers who denied the Lord that bought them and brought on themselves swift destruction. Will you take Joh 3:18? "He that believeth not is condemned already." Joh 3:36 "The wrath of God abideth on him." Re 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone : which is the second death."

Do the scriptures say that Jesus is the propitiation for their sins? It does. Are some of them lost in hell? The Book says so.

He says Penick doesn't believe that we are saved by the righteousness of Christ. If I know my heart, I certainly do believe it; and don't see that we can be saved any other way. Never have dreamed of any other way. Haven't got any patience with any other way. But he insists that there must be some works in it. Then he dwells on Ro 5:11. If you will turn to 2Th 2:10 you will see some who are damned because they received not the love of the truth. In Joh 1:11-12, "He came unto his own and his own received him not."

And they are condemned because they received him not. Is the man saved that don't and won't receive him? Will he say so? Well, receiving is something that he does by the grace and help of God, and that is all the work I have, and I don't have that simply by the man's self at all.

Again, my opponent insists that I had violated a rule by charging consequences. I am wholly unconscious of charging consequences. In the first speech he argued the consequences from the adverse proposition, which is legitimate. I simply did the same thing. I have not the least disposition to violate any rule, and I will make him or his moderator the judge any time; just snap a finger, and I will withdraw the proposition.

Again, on the two goats: One was slain, the blood was sprinkled. There is the slaying of the goat, and its death, there is the shedding of the blood, and there is the confession of the sins of the people over the head of the goat that goes away into the wilderness---goes away into Azazel. My opponent says, is there any return of that goat? Each year on atonement day the sacrifice is repeated, calling the minds of the people to the one atonement God would give for them. My position does not demand that there would be a return and a dying over and over again. Not by any means.

In answering my question, my opponent says that it is for the man's sins that the man is lost in hell. So then, there is nothing in the goodness of God and the provision of Jesus Christ, according to his own statement, that keeps every man in the universe from going to heaven. It is the man's own sin that damns him. All right, then the man is at fault and not God.

Again he quotes the Flag and insists that Christ died for the condemnation of the wicked, because they could only be damned as they rejected Christ. They are condemned because of sin, as he says; but where they have the opportunity and presentation of the truth as it is in Christ, but "receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved," they perish-2Th 2:10. Wherever the sinner rejects the Son of God, this is heaping up on his other sins the rejection of the offered mercy of God.

Again, 1Pe 2:24; Isa 53:3, on the application of the blood. I am unable to understand Brother Cayce any other way, than that because Christ bore OUR sins on the tree, he bore NOBODY ELSE'S sins except the ones that will ultimately be saved in heaven; but still, there is the poor fellow that is condemned because of his own sins, with no sort of provision made for his escape and salvation by the goodness of God.

I shall not assume or presume to dictate what he will say in his next speech. He seemed to indicate that he knew what I would say before I spoke. Well, I am glad that he is well posted on the question, and is able to have a little of the foreknowledge that belongs peculiarly to the Almighty God.

In Ro 5:9-11, my opponent makes the argument on the receiving of the reconciliation, that they are the only ones referred to, when the very text itself shows you that those who get the benefit are those that receive it, and not an intimation about those that reject it. And still my opponent argued, because he believes it honestly, and I have the greatest possible respect for his opinion about the matter, he argues that because these receive it, they are the only ones for whom it is provided. There are thousands of blessings provided for all the race, but many of us do not receive them. There are blessings provided for the children of God, but many of us do not receive them.

Again, my opponent either misunderstood me, or did not get him correctly on Tit 2:11; he gets the idea that it is not to offer them a chance. Well, it appears to all men, and what is it for? To aggravate their sense of sin, for which they shall be damned? It is for you to make the interpretation in order to get something in the premises you can include in the conclusion.

Again, on Ro 8, and 1Pe 3:18, I have no question to raise with God in any sense whatever. If Jesus Christ tasted death for every man's sin, if he is the propitiation for the sins of the world, as God says, if some are saved and some are lost, has God missed His plans? No sir. Let him get the premises, from which he draws his conclusion, written by inspired men's hands. That is what I want him to do. I have referred to his statement.

I will turn to Heb 9:12: "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Amen! I have no objection to raise to it, none in this wide world. Every man in this world that receives the reconciliation and atonement, receives that which is provided for him. If he can make it any longer than eternal, I will accept it.

I understand his comment on Ro 5:12. He seems to get the idea that Penick would not have the contrast brought out. I emphasized the NOT clearly. There are points of analogy, and there are points of dissimilarity. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." All men have sinned, now we agree upon that statement. "For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if, through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

I call attention to those accumulating particles here, that we would have to read much less, to get any shadow of ground for his theory. "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if, through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." How is the much more? Now he says himself, that it is man's own sin that damns him. He doesn't believe that it is the Adamic sin. Now then, if he is damned on his own sin, and Christ has done much more, why, everybody is provided with salvation. Christ saves the child himself from the Adamic sin. Much more he raises to the heights of joy and glory every man that will receive the love of the truth.

But upon his theory I cannot reason except you change the phraseology of the Holy Spirit and put it "much less." I notice the next point of contrast. "But the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if, by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which RECEIVE abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

Did Christ taste death for every man? Yes. Is he the propitiation for the sins of the world? Yes. Will anybody be damned in hell for Adam's sin? My opponent says, No. He will be damned in hell only for his own sin. Then, beloved, how are those infants going to get in, except through Jesus Christ, and every man is born into the world as an infant? ,

Eighteenth verse: "Therefore;" here is the inspired conclusion from the inspired premise, "therefore as by, the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Were all men under the law, would all men have suffered the consequences had not Christ died? I believe both of us say, Yes. Is a provision made for all men to be saved? I think so. Who will be damned then? My brother says only the man who commits transgression. So you have got universal provision for all men as they start out in this life in infancy.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Looking to the point of the rejecters of the truth as those who shall be lost, it occurs to me by the inspired conclusion that the Lord God put down, that my opponent has surrendered the ground in this passage.

Again: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

The shedding of the blood is one thing; the application of is entirely another, in whatever age of the world. We all get the idea clear, that this is done to the man that believes. See this in Ro 3:25. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." It is THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD. Well, what is faith? Faith is receiving---the very point that is used there in Joh 1:12-13.

There is the active and the passive element. There are about eleven verbs used for faith, seven of which are active verbs, and four have the receptive or passive idea. He not only gives himself to God, but God gives himself to him as the comforting, cleansing Spirit. Now let us take a few passages. I am not proposing to charge consequences upon him, but making negative argument.

See the general provision now, that is made as we go along in Ro 5:11, "And not only so, but WE also joy in God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have NOW received the reconciliation." There is a class that has received it, and there are many that will not. Where is the fault?

2Co 5:18-20: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." Paul was sent as an ambassador to represent God, to beseech them in the stead of Christ that they shall be reconciled to God. There is the representative coming out to offer the terms.

Now, let us notice the logical results that follow the limited atonement. It puts a low, commercial value upon the blood of Jesus Christ. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him might not perish but have everlasting life."­Joh 3:16. God loves humanity, we will agree upon that question. Now, let us get the clear statement as I see it in reasoning upon this proposition. If Christ could have shed his blood and made that to include all the race of Adam, and did not, then his willingness to save is limited, and you would then have an infinite being limited by himself.

If he would, and could not, then you would have his power limited. On either position, you would have THE WILL of God, or THE POWER of God limited. He did the best he could, but according to your conclusions, it will represent God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, going to the limits, just so far and no more. But notice how God talks about the question : Eze 18:23,32, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live?" "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves and live ye."

2Pe 3:18, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, NOT WILLING that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance." These passages represent the willingness of. God, the desire of God. God has made man what he is and God has not proposed to force, or coerce, or drive, but TO OFFER the truth, and free grace, and free mercy to all who will accept.

The limited atonement would limit God's attributes, as truth, and love, and holiness. But His truth and warnings are for ALL, and his promises for ALL. Whosoever will, every man, UNLIMITED, whosoever will let him come.

In Ac 17:30, ALL MEN EVERYWHERE COMMANDED TO REPENT. There are no limits there. There is Joh 3:16. His love is for ALL. Notice again, by the grace of God he tasted death for every man, or one; Heb 2:9. Again, notice it limits the UNLIMITED propitiation, as in 1Jo 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins, of THE WHOLE WORLD."

I call attention to the statement, "The whole world," in 1Jo 5:18, "The WHOLE WORLD lieth in the wicked one." Ro 11:32; His mercy is over all---all concluded in unbelief, that God might have mercy upon all. ALL included in unbelief; ALL included in the sin. "He gave himself a ransom for ALL." 1Ti 2:6. The Father sent him that ALL might be saved. Joh 3:17; he came not to condemn the world but that the world through him MIGHT be saved. Again you have the same statement made in Joh 12:47. Again, he will that all men shall be saved; 1Ti 2:4. Again, his commands are to ALL. I call your attention to "All men commanded everywhere to repent."

Why should the Lord God in anything like good faith call upon all men everywhere to repent, when there is no provision for their salvation? His commission is unto ALL as recorded in the great commission. To EVERY CREATURE in ALL the world preach the gospel. What good news has my opponent to any lost sinner that goes, on rebelling against God? What good news has he for him?

The Spirit is for all. Notice the promise in Joh 16:8; when the Spirit is come he shall convince the world of sin and righteousness and judgment.

Again; the invitations are to all. In Re 22:17, the Spirit says, Come, whosoever will let him come. Everybody that will is invited to come and take the water of life freely, universal invitation, because there is a universal provision.

Who will not get the blessing? The man who will not receive it. Let me see the proposition a little further. The warnings and the punishments are for all; all sin. That promise is for all. Whosoever will are the promises of God, hence our duty is to preach the gospel to all, and Eze 3:17,19, brings out our responsibility where the watchman is held responsible for the blood of those who are destroyed by his carelessness.

If his proposition is true: there would be nothing left but for every man to march straight into glory. Put in logical order it would be about this way: All men for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven. Christ died for all, tasted death for every man, therefore all (every man) the whole world, will be saved in heaven. It would be universal, unconditional salvation for all.

Now, let me notice a little bit further. Should he disprove these scriptures then we would have unconditional damnation of the non-elect, while at the same time it would be just what God wanted for me. But it is only the elect who can do His will. The lost unbeliever is not condemned for his unbelief in Christ ---still he said he is lost for his own sins. I want to know then what that sin is? If Christ is the offering for sin; then is the real cause for his damnation to be found in the decree of God or as he says in man's own sin? I want him to tell us about that, and how and where he gets it.

CP.015 ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you to resume the affirmative of the proposition, "The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven." If you were to judge by the speech listened to last as to what the proposition is, I am persuaded you would think we were debating most anything else except the proposition we have before us. The brother has tried in both of his: speeches to place before you the doctrine of election, the operation of the Spirit, and the plan of salvation---whether sinners are saved conditionally or unconditionally on their part; and most any other Bible subject except the one we have before us.

I wish to say that so far as the Scriptures he has quoted are concerned, they nearly all have reference directly to the work of the Spirit in regeneration. I am not going to notice that, so much now. We have two days in which to discuss the: operation of the Spirit. I am not going to take up time, now to argue those passages.

I wish to say to the brother, as he intimated this morning something about my claiming to have some foreknowledge, that it is not altogether foreknowledge that I came to know something about what course he would pursue, for I heard him debate these same propositions once before; the notes are at my office now, which my father took from him in debating the propositions. No longer ago than last week I went through those notes and examined every proof text that Elder Penick introduced in that discussion. A great many of them---several of them---he has already introduced in this debate. So that from now until Friday night he will be going over and over---we will have hash and rehash in every speech Elder Penick makes ---you see if we don't.

Then he tries to indirectly apologize for charging consequences, and says he didn't mean to do that. All right, Brother Penick; it is strange to me that you did something so plainly and positively that you did not mean to do.

I am now going to notice just the things that are necessary to notice, or that it may be necessary to notice in this speech. He wants to know if I will insist that a man is not expressed in Heb 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." I asked him to tell us if the word man was in the original.

Then he wants to know if I will insist that it is not expressed in the original. Yes, sir, I will. It is not expressed in the original. He said that if I take that position I contradict every known translation. Let us see whether I do or not. Here is the Interlinear translation---will you accept that, Brother Penick? Let us see what it says: "But we see Jesus, who was made some little lower than the angels on account of the suffering of death with glory and with honor crowned; so that by the grace of God for every one (or everything) he might taste death." Man is not there. "For every one he might taste death."

Now I am going to put this question to you: Every one of whom? Now, you please answer that. Will you take Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott? Dr. Penick, is that good authority? Is that a known translation? How does Mr. Wilson translate it? "But we behold Jesus, on account of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, having been made for a little while inferior to angels, so that, by God's favor, he might taste of death on behalf of every one. For it was becoming him, on account of whom are all things, and through whom are .all things, in conducting many sons to glory, to perfect the prince of their salvation through sufferings."

Will you take that? Does that sound like I am contradicting every known translation? What do you say? Man is not there. Every one of whom? Don't forget to answer that, if you please, sir.

He quotes concerning those characters who receive not the love of the truth, after having quoted in Romans, "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Is the receiving of the truth obedience? Is it a righteous act? If by the obedience of ONE many are made righteous, and if receiving the truth is a righteous work, if receiving the truth is an act of obedience, then they are not made righteous by receiving the truth.

It is not by the obedience of one that many are made righteous, if they are made righteous by the receiving the love of the truth. Receiving the love of the truth is not that which gives them a home in heaven. They having first been made righteous by the obedience of Christ, the application of his blood having been made in their hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit, then when the truth is preached to them and they receive it because of the love of it, it evidences the work of grace that has already been performed in their hearts by the Spirit and power of Almighty God.

He refers to Heb 9:14. You remember that is the one that he got wrong. Heb 9:12 was the one I quoted. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Then he says, "Amen to that. No objection at all." No objection, therefore, to the argument that I made on it, for he made no reply to it, and hence he has admitted my proposition, "The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven." Yes, admitted it. What was the argument? All for whom Christ died will be saved, because he obtained eternal redemption for them. When he entered in once into the holy place he had obtained eternal redemption for those for whom he shed his blood. Elder Penick says, "Amen, no objection to that." Then you are ready to give me your hand, aren't you ?

Then he quotes "God is not willing that any should perish." I wonder why he did not commence at the first of that verse? He did not need it in his business. 2Pe 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness ; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Not willing that any of whom? Any of us---not willing that any of us should perish. You remember how he dwelt on God's will, and said that we were limiting God's will. You are the man that limits God's will. You say it is God's will that all of Adam's race go to heaven, but that some of them are going to hell. So God's will is not done; God cannot do His will. It is God's work to save. You will not dare deny that it is God's work to save. If it is God's work to save, and the prophet told the truth when he said that "he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth," He will save all that it is His will to save. If it is God's work to save, and if His will is to save all Adam's race, then He will save all the race, and you cannot say why He will not do it.

You cannot, sir, not to save your life. If you admit that God does His will, and that it is God's will to save all the race, then you land on the Universalist platform. Where will he be before this thing is over with?

"Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Now, in connection with that, let us see Ro 2:4, "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" Now, put the other language with it, "God is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness ; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance." Ro 2:4 teaches us that it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance. Now let this book here represent all of those that Peter speaks of, that God is not willing that any of them should perish, but that all of them should come to repentance.

God's will is that all these characters should come to repentance, and Paul tells us in Ro 2:4 that it is God's goodness that leads them to repentance. Then will He not lead every one of these to repentance that it is His will should come to repentance? If not, why not?

If He does not lead all of them to repentance, He is not able to do His will. Then the will of the sinner is stronger than the will of God; and as the will of the sinner is corrupt, as the sinner in nature is defiled, as the will of the sinner in nature is sinful, then it is a universal condemnation of the race, and nobody will be saved in heaven at all.

For a little while Elder Penick is on the Universalist platform, And then for a little while he is over on the universal damnation side. Will you tell me where he will be before this thing is over?

Let us notice Ro 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Now there they are, not regenerated, they are not repentant, but over here is the place of repentance. Now, Ro 2:4 again, "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" The Lord begins leading the sinner there to repentance; and when He has led him half way to repentance Paul comes in and says in Ro 8:14, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

Then because they are the sons of God they will be led over here to repentance; and repentance, therefore, is evidence of the fact that they are children of God. Elder Penick gets the cart before the horse---that is the trouble with him. I think Brother Penick is honest about it, but he is honestly mistaken. He has just honestly gotten this thing up backwards.

And then he speaks about universal invitations, and so on---Whosoever will! WHOSOEVER WILL!! WHOSOEVER WILL!!! Brother Penick, does will spring from life? Does it? Can a man have a will for natural things unless he first has the natural life? If no one can have a will for natural things unless he first has the natural life, is it not also true in grace that no one can have a will for spiritual things unless he first has the spiritual life? No one can have a will for holiness, or a will for righteousness, unless he first has the righteous life. Now, then, when the Lord says, "Whosoever will," does he invite the one that has not the will? What do you say about it? Is there any difference between the man who has the will and the man that has not the will? Now, then, you must show us, along the line, something about the difference.

Then, he wants to know why should God call upon all men to repent and no provision made for them. Since you have introduced that I want to quote just a little from a pamphlet on the atonement, published by Elder H. A. Todd, who now stands identified with the Missionary Baptists. I want you to notice the question, "Can God damn a sinner justly without Christ dying for him?"

You know we noticed that this morning. The conclusion of the Elder's doctrine is the very thing they have argued themselves, as I showed in a quotation from the Baptist Flag, and the question is answered in that quotation, that God could not justly damn the sinner, because he had not violated the blood of the covenant, unless Christ died for him.

Now then notice what Elder Todd says: "Can God damn a sinner justly without Christ dying for him? If so, would it be unjust in God to send His Son to die for one, or a dozen, or half, or any number of the guilty lost race of man?" Let me pause here to put the question before you this way: If God could not justly damn the sinner unless Christ died for him, how could God justly send His Son to die for that sinner? You see the point. Elder Todd further says: "If it would not be an act of injustice for Him thus to do, could He not die for a part by mercy and save them for his glory, and by His justice damn the ungodly whose sins were unatoned? or finally, if God could not damn a rebel sinner without Christ dying for him, I ask, will all be saved for whom he died? If they will not, and God could not have damned them without His Son suffering for them, and since he died for them, some will be lost, would not this make the atonement the angel of death, and the ground cause of man's damnation?"

You know, I showed you that this morning. Let us see what the Elder said further:"Now, Mr. Preacher, you will never with all your twisting and misrepresentation, get from under these unalterable and eternal truths. They will goad the neck of all the Missionaries. I accuse your theory of debauchery and & crime. It incriminates God and makes Him meaner than the devil, and His soul black in hypocrisy for offering to save by giving His Son to die, knowing they would not accept it; and knowing He could not damn them without it, He gave His Son in order to damn them. Oh, angels, blush that men would thus defame the holy name of God."

God offering to save the sinner, and at the same time knowing that the sinner will not accept the offer! God could not send the sinner to hell unless Jesus dies for him, so He sends His Son to die for him, thus making the death of Jesus Christ the angel of death and the ministration of damnation and not the ministration of salvation. That is what your doctrine has in it.

Let us see a little more. He goes to the question of regeneration before faith---another proposition; and since he has gone off on that, I will quote from an article written by J. H. Grimes of Frost, Texas, and published in the Baptist Banner of April 4, 1907, headed "Pre-regeneration:"

"By pre-regeneration, is meant regeneration before all other Christian graces, especially before repentance and faith. The question is: Is regeneration, or the new birth, the result of repentance and faith, or are repentance and faith the fruits of regeneration?" Now that is the question. What does Elder Grimes say? "First, is pre-regeneration a Baptist doctrine? I answer most emphatically that it is. The contrary is held by the Free-will Baptists, and we have some in our ranks who side with the Free-wills."

Who does this? Elder Penick does. Mr. Grimes says again, "You ask me about the one who believes that regeneration is conditioned on repentance and faith? I answer that he is not a regular Baptist in doctrine, but a Free-will Baptist." That is what Elder Grimes says. Brother Penick, do you want this book to look at? (Handing the book to Penick.)

Now I am going to resume my affirmative arguments. All the other scriptures and arguments that the brother introduced were on another question altogether, hence I am not going to notice them further at this time. The last argument I was on was the eighth, but I pass that and go to the ninth.

All for whom Christ died will be saved, because he gave himself for them to cleanse them and make them holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:25-27, "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

I argue from this that Jesus Christ gave himself for these characters, that he died for his church---it says so in this text---that they should be holy and without blemish, that they should be cleansed from all unrighteousness, that they should be cleansed from all sin. If he gave himself for them, that they should be holy and without blemish, it follows that all these characters shall be made holy and without blemish and be saved in the glory world, or else Jesus Christ has failed to do that which he died to do.

Will the Elder argue that Jesus has failed? Will he endeavor to stamp failure on the work of the Son of God, and argue that he is put to an open shame, by declaring that he has failed to do the work that he died to do? Will he do that? He must do it, sir, in order to disprove this proposition.

All for whom Christ died will be saved because they are sanctified through the offering of his body once for all.

Heb 10:5-10, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, 0, God. Above, when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

What did Jesus Christ come to do? He came to do the will of the Father. Now then, I want to know if anybody is embraced in this will. Certainly; it was God's will that somebody should be saved.

Joh 6:38-39, "For I came down from heaven, not to 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." He came to do the Father's will; "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Every one of these characters that it was the Father's will that Jesus Christ should save is embraced in the will. Jesus came to do the Father's will, and the apostle tells us here that by that will they are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Not once for a little while, but sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. They are sanctified forever, set apart by the will of God to a holy or religious purpose or religious use, if you please. They are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ and that sanctification is one time for all time. It is for all eternity.

Eternity may continue to roll her ages around, yet they will remain set apart to the glory of God, and will be in the glory world over yonder ; "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

My next argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved because he made them perfect by one offering.

Heb 10:12-14, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."

If one of these characters for whom Jesus Christ has made the offering sinks down to an eternal hell and fails to enter the glory world, Jesus Christ's expectations will never be realized; he will be disappointed, he will be fooled; and the will of the man is stronger and greater than the will of God; and it would be a universal damnation of all the race of Adam, just as sure as Jesus Christ is disappointed. "For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."

Who is it that are sanctified? Every one that is embraced in the Father's will. Every one that the Father wills that Jesus Christ should save is embraced in the Father's will, and they are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, and the apostle tells us that they are perfected forever---"perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

If one of them goes to hell, he goes there perfect---and you could find perfect characters in hell. If you can find one in hell that Jesus Christ has died for, you can find perfect characters in hell. Has he found that? It is necessary to do this to disprove this proposition.

My next argument is that all for whom Christ died will be saved because he has purged their sins by himself.

Heb 1:3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

This is what the Lord says Jesus Christ has done---has purged the sins of those characters for whom he made the offering. He purged the sins of those characters for whom he died. I maintain, sir, that unless Jesus Christ purged all the sins of those characters for whom he died, unless he put away all their sins, unless he rendered perfect and complete satisfaction for every sin of every one for whom he died, he could have never arisen from the grave; he never would have come out of the grave, or ascended to the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Having purged our sins, having put away our sins, having made complete atonement and perfect satisfaction and reconciliation for all the sins of every one for whom he died; he comes forth from the grave as a mighty conqueror over death and the grave, and ascends to the right hand of the Majesty on high. He does this, having purged their sins, having obtained eternal redemption for them; but he never would have entered the portals of eternal glory had he not done that.

My next argument is, all for whom Christ died will be saved because he was to finish transgression and make an end of sins.

Da 9:24, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

Does the prophet say, "To make it possible for somebody else to finish transgression, or to make a way for transgression to be finished after awhile, or to make it possible for the sinner to accept what I have done and then get to heaven after awhile?"

No, sir; the prophet does not say that. "To finish the transgression" is what the prophet says. "To finish the transgression and make an end of sins;" not simply the Adamic sin, not simply one sin---but to make an end of sins, in the plural. It follows that if he made an end of sins, all their sins are put away, all their sins are removed---taken off them and laid on the Lord Jesus Christ. He has made an end of sins. If he has made an end of sins, it follows that he has made an end of sins for every one represented by him in his death.

It follows, then, that every one for whom Jesus died will enter the portals of eternal glory, or else they will go down to hell without sin.

Does the prophet teach that Christ was simply to make it possible for us to be reconciled to God provided we would accept Jesus Christ as our Saviour? No! That is Elder Penick; that is not the way the prophet taught it. He says, "To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness." Seventy weeks are determined." Surely this is prophesying, or telling us of the time that Jesus Christ was to suffer on the cross for the sins of those characters for whom he did suffer. Then he tells us that he is going to "bring in everlasting righteousness, and seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

So this refers to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, what he is going to do in his suffering and in his death. It says here that he shall finish the transgression, make an end of sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. If he brings in everlasting righteousness, he brings it for those, or in behalf of those, for whom he makes an end of sins and finishes transgression. If he brings in everlasting righteousness for them, it is eternal righteousness; so that if any of these characters go to hell, they go there with everlasting righteousness, they go there righteous characters.

All for whom Christ died will be saved because he was offered to bear their sins, and will appear unto them with him.

All for whom Christ died will be saved, because they are redeemed to God by his blood.

Elder Penick says they must come part of the way by accepting, and if they come part of the way that will take them the other side of where the Lord is, and that will get them too far.

Re 5:9: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." John saw them by revelation gathered around the great white throne of God, giving the glory and honor and praise of their salvation to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I want you to notice a little article I have here, clipped from the Gospel Missionary of June 8, 1905, written by G. P. Bostic. Mr. Bostic says concerning Mrs. T. P. Crawford, a missionary in China: "She has not had the privilege of seeing any great numbers accept Christ openly, but I believe that many will rise up in the judgment day to call her blessed whom she had never If somebody over there in the judgment day, in the glory world, is going to rise up and give Mrs. Crawford the honor and glory for their salvation, then all the glory and honor will not be given to Jesus Christ, who has redeemed us to God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. Who is in line with the apostle? Elder Penick is not, if you please. He is just over on the other side of the question. God's word is on one side and Elder Penick on the other.

All for whom Christ died will be saved because he redeemed them from the curse of the law.

Ga 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

These characters, then, for whom Jesus hung on a tree, are redeemed from the curse of the law. Who are redeemed? These characters for whom he hung on a tree. He redeemed them from the curse of the law. Elder Penick says it is all the race. If all the race are redeemed from the curse of the law, there is nothing that can condemn a single one of Adam's race. Nothing can condemn one of these characters for whom Jesus hung on a tree.

Ga 4:4-6: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

Those he came to redeem were under the law. You can say it was as many as you please.

Thank you.

CP.016 ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Beloved Friends:

I trust we are all happy in this opportunity that God has given us to study the word of truth. I shall notice as best I can each point suggested. Of course much of it has been referred to. It is the last opportunity I will have to get in some fresh negative arguments because of that rule that we rightly observe which forbids anything new in my next speech.

My opponent suggested in the beginning, and has taken the occasion to suggest time and again, to you, that probably you do not know what question I am, on. You understand I am following my opponent and the probabilities are that if you are unable to tell where I am, it is because I am just following my opponent. That is all. He insists that we are not going to talk about regeneration and the work of the Spirit, and then just went right into that subject straight. I thought, well, my brother is undoubtedly very much confused.

Again, my brother insists that I am violating the rules. Is it a violation of the rules to make a negative argument? He began to make negative arguments in the first speech. Penick's doctrine is not on trial today, we are after somebody else's doctrine today, beloved.

Certainly it is not out of order for me to make a negative argument. I am not charging the consequence on you. You make negative arguments, though it is gratuitous for you to be arguing against my positions today.

Now the people will be able to see these questions. If his distinguished moderator over there will raise his finger indicating when I violate a rule I shall be glad to have his point. I do not want to violate any rule at all. I am only making NEGATIVE arguments. My opponent failed to get my reply, as I understand him, and I have no disposition in the wide world to misrepresent him on Heb 2:9. He asked if the original had the word man. I said, No, but it is understood and so used by all translations. He comes back with a translation that substitutes one instead of man.

One what? Are the people to understand that it is one mule, or one horse, or one cow? Does he not understand that it is used for the personal in the original and in English both? "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 one."

For whom did Jesus die? He says for man, and he insists that man is not there. Well you must take man out and put in horses, cows, or something of that kind. Every one of whom? Every one of all Adam's race. That is it.

My dear brother, if I can understand you, or read you exactly on that position, you say that man goes to hell for his own sins. What becomes of Adam's sin? Christ takes that away. So Christ did make a universal atonement, took away Adam's sin, you yourself being the judge.

Again, my opponent says on Heb 9:12, "He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." "And Penick came to that and said, Amen." Well, I will say amen to everything in the old Book. You said that gives up my arguments. Well, I didn't say amen to your arguments.

Don't beg the question. Of course if you get it you will have to beg it, but I said amen to what the scripture says, and your argument is not in it at all. It makes not the remotest hint at the point that my opponent is trying to prove by the passage. In almost every text he dwelt on in his last speech, the reference, or connection is to the application of the atonement, and he himself knows there is a world of difference in the death of Christ and in applying it to us.

Now, there is where he is dwelling, just all the time on that point.

2Pe 3:9 he indicates I haven't any use for, "can't use," the first part of the text. All the words of this text suit me exactly. The trouble is, they do not suit him. I do not believe HIS proposition. I trust it is not out of order for me to make negative arguments. If it is, and if my brother can't stand a little negative argument we will just give him all the time to prove his proposition.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Now, his interpretation, if I get it, is that those should come to repentance for whom Christ died, which, according to his idea is for the elect only, that nobody else is referred to in this. "God is not slack concerning his promise, but is longsuffering to usward not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." What has that text to do with it?

Ah, there is a text over there in Lu 13, which says, "Except they repent they shall perish." Maybe that was the trouble. What does it mean to command to repentance at all? Well, he says time and again, that Penick would have them taking reconciliation by faith. The very passage he counts on, Ro 5:11, "By whom we have now received the atonement," he asks, "Did they have it before they received it?" Only in provision, and when they RECEIVED it, it became theirs. There is the application again. Now what about these for whom it was provided, but who never received it?

Is it a meritorious work to simply accept what God gives? Ro 2:4. He turns to Ro 7, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God," and so his interpretation is that the man whom the Lord God is leading in the way of repentance is already saved. But if he does not repent he will perish. So you will have some apostasy beginning right early.

And again, he would insist, as I understand him, that there is no receiving, just not anything of the kind. He makes his whole argument rest on this. Has God failed?---Has God failed? Now he said this morning that man was condemned for his own sins, but what took away Adam's sin? The universal provision of Christ.

If God is not responsible for the man, if it is only his own sins, then you've got a clear case of it that God has made no provision for him, and if he should repent there is nothing for him, so the ultimate cause of the damnation of the lost is to be found in God. I say that this is the way that I see it, but I don't say that he sees it that way at all.

The invitation, "Whosoever will,"---he asks, Does the will spring from the life? Let me ask this question, Is it a universal invitation? That is the point for you to come to. Is it a universal invitation that God gives? Does the Spirit say come, the church say come, and whosoever will come? Is that broad and universal? Is God in good faith in making it? The trouble is this: a limited atonement is a limited gospel.

On Ac 17:30; he reads Brother Todd, and he says that Brother Todd has gone over to the Missionaries, and he has, it seems like, in his proposition, plenty of time to read from this paper, and that paper. Well, you can bring them in anywhere you please. What about Brother Grime? Brother Grime is a Baptist; you understand that. And he said all that on pre-regeneration, but I thought, beloved, you said you were not discussing that point today.

Again, Eph 5:28: "He loved the church and gave himself for it."

All right. He is the propitiation for the sins of all that are saved, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. Now, you have only one speech. If you compare "whole world" with Joh 5:19 you will see the "whole world" lying in the wicked one---this is the question.

Now notice Heb 10:5,10, where it is the application again, "sanctified by his blood." Heb 10:14-15, he talks about the will of God, he came to do the will of God, but it doesn't bear upon your question in the least. He came to do the will of God, but what is the will of God? Is it God's will that any should perish? If he came to do the will of God, then he made provision for all.

Heb 1:3: When did he purge your sins---two thousand years later than his death? Are you not getting very far away from your proposition? You are two thousand years away.

On Da 9:24 he says it is "To finish sin," not to make it possible for them. Not "that they might be saved." Well, see Joh 3:17, "But that the world through him MIGHT be saved:" Wonder where that MIGHT belongs? Talk about possibilities, can you find one single solitary case in the entire Bible that has been saved, or that will be saved, but what has received the benefits of the atonement? Can you find one single one?

Making atonement is one thing, and its application is another. My brother gets into trouble on this question by not getting the right end of the question. There is not a single bit of relevancy in the brother's argument, for the real point he is trying to prove.

Re 5:9: "Redeemed unto God by his blood." Indeed, and so are those false teachers bought, in 2Pe 2:1, but they have denied him and brought on themselves swift destruction. Where are the true believers that shall be condemned, and shall be damned? There are your cases, a whole lot of them.

Again, Ga 3:13. Now who is under the law? He took the very scriptures that will show that all are under the law. Read also Ro 3:19, where all the world must stand guilty, every mouth be made stopped, and all the world become guilty before God, and all are under the law of condemnation. They are right there under law. How is this universal sin of Adam taken away? "We are not condemned by it," you say. "You are condemned for your own transgression," you say, and so your whole theory is gone just as sure as everybody is under the law.

Christ came to redeem everybody under the law. If you are not under the law you are not responsible to the law, and God cannot condemn you. If you are under the law and amenable to it, then Christ came to redeem them that are under the law, but you must remember that only a part of them are under the law if your proposition be true. The passage itself is double death to your position. It is not true because some that were bought deny him.

See 2Pe 2:1, "They deny him who bought them." 1Pe 1:18,20, He shed his blood for them, and they are condemned. He died for all. 2Co 5:14; 1Jo 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

Now let us see if they are all saved? In Joh 3:18, the believer is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already. Condemned because he believeth not on the Son of God.  Joh 3:36 says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Mark's commission, last part, if you accept that, says, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned." Ps 9:17, "The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God." Is he the propitiation for the sins of the world? Yes, he said so.

If he don't mean what he says, how in the universe are you going to tell what he does mean? Where is the distinction between our sins and the sins of the whole world? Are some in hell for whom he died? Yes, Jesus Christ says so. In Matthew twenty-fifth chapter and last verse, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."

His proposition, as I understand it, plainly contradicts many statements of God's word. It denies that Jesus Christ did taste death for every one, which means the same thing as every man. There are some that I have just referred to that are in hell. It denies that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that all who believe shall be saved. It denies, if I understand it, that the Spirit will enlighten and convict the world, Joh 1:9, and that he should enlighten every man that cometh into the world.

Joh 16:8, "He shall convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment." Throwing the responsibility absolutely at the hands of man, and God has gone beyond the limits of ordinary processes in His love and wisdom to save men from sin. No man in this wide world will have anything like the following words to poultice his aching heart with and say, "God did not make any provision for me" and "did not love me."

He denies that the Lord commanded the gospel to be preached to every creature. What sort of a gospel have you got for every creature? Is it good news to say to one sinner, There is no provision made for your salvation? You have sinned by virtue of the sin in you, but God did not love you, Christ did not die for you, the Holy Spirit did not write any gospel for you, and I have no message for you. The limited atonement causes these contradictions.

He denies that all men everywhere should repent, or could repent. How will God's goodness lead him to repentance if there is no provision for him? But it is all men everywhere, nobody is left out there. It is like that passage over there in 1Jo 2:2, "Not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

Ac 17:30. How would my opponent look preaching from that text? He says, no you can't repent unless you are first a child of God, and if you are not in the special atonement of God will not make you His child. It puts the cause of man's damnation on God for not making provision for his salvation, instead of making man responsible for rejecting provided mercy.

It excludes or nullifies the promises to the lost as in Isa 55, and such promises as "come unto me all ye, that hunger and thirst;" the church says come, the Spirit says come, and whosoever will let him come and take the water of life freely. It says add nothing to it and take nothing from it. I shall not knowingly and intentionally accept a theory that it seems to me like runs in the face of God's words. He denies that the lost are invited, or that the Lord is acting in good faith while making the invitation to them.

What sort of good faith is it in God to make an invitation to a man if there is no provision made for him? It leads ultimately to the doctrine that the saved are saved anyhow, anyway, and that the condemned are lost anyhow. It is against praying for all men everywhere.

1Ti 2:1.  Paul, in Ro 10 prayed for the salvation of Israel. What, didn't he know anything about this limited atonement? Why pray for anybody? He denies that our Saviour will have all men to be saved, as l Tim. 2:4. "Who will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."

He denies 1Ti 2:6: "Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time." He denies that "he tasted death for every man." His idea is, if I get his idea at all, that the elect, every one of them is in the limited atonement. But the Book doesn't say anything about it that way.

1Jo 2:2 has not been touched. Look at the Greek and English in 1Jo 5:19, "All the world lies in the wicked one." He denies that he is the propitiation for the world. He denies that he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. He can say if he wants to what that sin of the world is that Christ takes away.

He says man will be damned on account of his own sin, not on account of Adam's transgression. That is his position, if I understand him. Then his own admission is that in the universal atonement God touched the life of every man through the death of His Son, but still he denies that the world might be saved through him, as Joh 3:17: "He came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."

Now, beloved, I want you to keep the issue square before the people. I say this is simply a search for the truth. I have no axe to grind. My conscience is bound by nobody's creed, or confession. It is a Baptist affair, and whoever gains the victory it will be a Baptist victory. The question with me is, What is God's word? I say, plainly and emphatically, and deliberately, that there is provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of the race, and the man who goes to torment will never have it to charge upon God, the Father, Christ the Son, or the Holy Spirit, that no provision was made for his salvation. He is left without excuse.

Will you get it clear in your mind? I want you to see it clearly, that if all for whom Christ died will be saved you exclude all preaching, repentance, and faith; you exclude everything in the wide world. It is absolute certain salvation for them, but absolute certain damnation for the others, on the ground that God so arranged it that way before the foundation of the world. There is no place for God's calls, promises and gospel in the entire provision for salvation.

I say emphatically, that every one of his texts bears simply upon the application of the atonement, which may have been made two thousand, or four thousand years before Christ came, or it may be applied two thousand years since. All these passages about "with his stripes we are healed," and laying on him our sins, etc., have reference only to the application of the atonement and not to its provision.

I want to insist that he go right along and tell us about Heb 2:9, what that every one means. Bring some proof; tell us about 1Jo 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins." Whose sins? He puts himself in there, it seems like, and then says, "not for ours only," flatly contradicting my brother's proposition. I would not know how to make a sentence to contradict his proposition better. "And for the sins of the world." Is that it? Yes. "For the sins of the whole world." How does that statement refer simply to the elect, and leave out the ungodly and everybody else?

I want to say to you, beloved, in the light of the gospel, God loved the world, He gives us a commission; He gives us a gospel that will send us under that universal provision, to every man of Adam's race. It teaches us that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. As ambassadors, not to make terms, but to state God's gospel, as He would have it stated, to all the enemies of God everywhere, and to stand as Paul put it, in Christ's stead, and to pray the lost that they be reconciled to God.

These are some of the consequences from the two positions as I see them. To be sure we differ in the way we see these premises. I want to say that with a limited atonement, with a limited gospel, limited promises, limited rewards, limited invitations; that all this would be to limit God, and Christ, and the Spirit. But he cannot get his limitation on any such limitless Beings. God is glorified in the salvation of those who accept, and He is glorified in the damnation of those who reject, The lost are monuments of His justice, that He ministers to them, the saved are monuments of His grace, of His love, that He pours out upon them, if they accept the love of the truth. The saved were brought to see the truth, and to understand the truth, as God's gospel came to enable them and they took hold of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and there they received the benefits of the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I want you to keep the issue clearly before you. I haven't had the remotest intention or desire to lead you away from the simple issue of the provision that God has made. I speak upon regeneration, the work of the Spirit and the application of the blood simply because I understand every passage almost that my brother has relied upon deals with that part of the subject.

At this last hour he has not made a reply on "All we like sheep have gone astray." He would have the sinner not under the law, not going astray, for Christ came under the law to save those under law, and the iniquities of those who go astray are laid on him. So all would be saved if his proposition be true. But if non-elect sinners have not gone astray, and are not under law, then they would be saved, but according to his proposition they would have to be saved without having any provision made for them. This would be monstrous indeed.

CP.017 ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am before you to make my last speech in the affirmative of the proposition, "The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven." I want to notice, first, some things the brother has said in his speech you have just listened to. In the beginning he says he is following his opponent, but if he is, he is following a long way off; he is following so far off that he will never catch up.

How does he answer the arguments? He will turn to my proof texts, as in Heb 1:3, upon which I make arguments, and will read the quotation, and say it has nothing to do with the proposition; therefore, Christ died for somebody that is going to hell. That is the kind of argument he has been making in his speeches all the way through; that is the way he has replied to my arguments and the proof texts I have introduced.

Now, if they do not mean what I say, if they do not mean what I argue from them, then you should show that they do not, that is what you are here for; but you are not doing it. In debating, Brother Penick, we need something more than bare assertions. Dr. Penick says my proof texts do not touch the proposition; therefore, you must all take it for granted that it is so. Will you? No. Read for yourself. This discussion is to be published, as a man is taking it down as it falls from the lips of the speakers. I suggest that when this discussion is over, if you can't buy one of the books, that you borrow one, and read and study it and see how he has answered these arguments---just by saying the texts don't mean anything about the proposition. That is the way he has answered them. He should have shown why they do not, but it is too late now; he can't catch up; he is following a long way off. Heb 2:9, So it doesn't mean every man. I read to him from two translations which say. "every one."

Then he asks, "Every one, who?" That is the very question I asked you, sir. Instead of your answering the question, you come back at me by saying, "Every one, who." Well, it is every one that he tasted death for. Do you want to know how many there are, Brother Penick? I haven't time to work the example now. It seems like you want to know how many are going to be saved on this "limited atonement" platform, that you talk, about.

Do you want to know, Brother Penick? All right. I will give you a little example and you may work on it while I am making this speech. First, put down one hundred and forty and four thousand. Put it down, Brother Penick; put down one hundred and forty-four thousand. Now put down an innumerable company that no man can number. When you get that added up, let me know, and I will give you some more. Every one that is embraced in the death of Christ, every one of them will be saved.

Let us turn to Heb 2:9 and see a little something about that. "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"---for "every one." Do you not know, my brother, that when a word is supplied in the translation the word supplied must be one that agrees with the context? Don't you know that this is so?

Now, then, man is not in the original, and we must have a word that agrees with the context. Let us see what the context is. "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." I am going to say, sir, and you cannot deny it---you cannot overthrow the argument, and I defy you to do it---I defy you to overthrow the argument that if Jesus Christ has become the captain of salvation for this man here, and this man goes to hell, the captain of his salvation is not a perfect captain ; but just as sure as Jesus Christ is a perfect captain; just that sure every one whose captain he is will be brought to glory, without the loss of one. That person by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, made "the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified"---Who are they that are sanctified? The "many sons."

I showed you that this morning in my affirmative arguments; "by the which will we are sanctified." Here they are, the "many sons" brought to glory at the last day, in the final consummation and wind up of all things, are the ones that are sanctified, "are all of one." "For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren"---not ashamed to call all Adam's race brethren, not ashamed to call the damned in hell brethren, according to your position; but he is not ashamed to call them brethren---those that he has sanctified by his own blood, by the offering that he has made.

He has made them spotless and white, and the law holds no demands against them. The law cannot condemn, for Jesus Christ has satisfied the law. "He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren;" "In the midst of all Adam's race will I sing praise unto thee"---that is the way it would have to read to suit Elder Penick, but it does not read that way; it says, "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 hath given me." That is what the Son of God is going to say when he comes before the Father in the glory world with all his redeemed host, "Behold I and the children which God hath given me"---I was made the captain of their salvation; I was made perfect through sufferings; and I have brought the last one of them to glory.

Father, here they are---Every one for whom Jesus Christ died will be saved, without the loss of one. Your own text proves it, sir; the text shows it. "Behold I and the children which God hath given me." "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil."

If Jesus did this in behalf of and for every one of Adam's race, it follows that the devil cannot drag one of them down to eternal ruin. If they "refuse to accept the offered mercies" and go down to hell, it must be because of the influence of the devil; then, as Jesus has destroyed the works of the devil, he has destroyed the influence of the devil in behalf of and for those characters for whom he died. So the devil's influence cannot drag one of them down to an eternal hell. "And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

What people? The many sons that are brought to glory; the children which God hath given him; the church that he is going to sing his praises in the midst of. The every one for whom he tasted death will be there, he having made reconciliation for their sins. Their sins have been reconciled for in the person of Jesus Christ, hence the last one of them will be landed safely on the sunny banks of sweet deliverance, without the loss of one.

He then referred again to Heb 9:12, which I introduced. He says he did not say amen to my argument. Let us see the text and argument again, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." I showed from this that he obtained eternal redemption for those for whom he shed his blood. If he obtained eternal redemption for them, it follows that all of them will be saved, or else somebody will go down to hell with eternal redemption having been obtained for them. He says my argument is not in it. A bare assertion, my brother, doesn't count for much.

Then he comes back again to 2Pe 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." He goes on endeavoring to make it appear that I am arguing a limited atonement or the extent of the atonement. I haven't said anything about the limited atonement. The proposition is, as I told you in the beginning, "The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved." It is not for me to say, on this proposition, whether Christ died for a part of the race or all the race.

If you are anxious for a dispute on the doctrine of election, I am ready for you any time when we get through with this. We are not arguing election now. The proposition is on the sufficiency of the atonement, that all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven. But I showed you that according to his position the damned in hell would go to heaven. He argues that it is God's will that all the race should come to repentance, even the damned in hell. I showed you that it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance; so if it is the will of God that all the race come to repentance, and the goodness of God leads to repentance, then all the race would be led to repentance.

Then I showed you from Ro 8:14, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," it would land him on the Universalist platform. Now he says that there, is nothing in it about a limited atonement. Who said there was? And then he quotes the language of the Saviour, "Except ye repent ye shall all perish." That is the way he quoted it, but this is the way it reads, "Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish."

He was talking to Jews. The Jews were typical of God's people spiritually. If you take the position that when he said to the Jews, "Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish," he meant that they would be sent to an endless hell, it follows that you are the man that is standing on the platform of apostasy. You are now with the Campbellite brethren and the Methodist brethren on the subject of apostasy. But you are with the Campbellite brethren on another point, as I will show before this speech is finished. You say those characters shall go to hell to whom the Saviour says, "ye shall all likewise perish;" but he was talking about those upon whom the tower in Siloam fell.

Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish;" you shall perish like they did, and theirs was a physical perishing. The tower fell upon them and their natural lives were destroyed, and they perished nationally and physically, and those Jews he was addressing should perish the same way unless they repent. God's people spiritually were represented by national Israel; so he was not talking to the unregenerate or alien sinner, and the language cannot be applied to them; but the language may, now be applied to the church, or to his people spiritually, and they perish in different ways.

There is more than one kind of perishing. You seem to think that every time the Bible says "perish" or "condemnation," it means an eternal hell, but it doesn't. There is another kind of perish spoken of besides that.

Then he wants to know of me, "Is whosoever will, a universal invitation?" No, sir; it simply applies to those who have the will, no more, no less. That is just how universal it is. Brother Penick, I thought you ought to know that without asking me. But he has so much to say about hearing and "whosoever will," over here in Revelation; "Whosoever will, WHOSOEVER WILL."

Re 22:17: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." I say, "Whosoever will, let him come here and take this water freely; it is here." But you say, "I am not thirsty." Well, you be right still, I am not talking to you. "

Whosoever will;" "everyone that is thirsty" ---that is the character. Does thirst spring from life? I .ask the same in regard to the will---Does will spring from life? That character that has a will for righteousness, and a thirst for righteousness, has a will and a thirst that spring from the righteous life that God has implanted within the soul.

This has nothing whatever to do with the proposition under discussion. You are only trying to get away from it. You began that right in the start, and. you are trying to draw me away from the proposition.

Then he goes to the commission, "He that believeth and is baptized shall, be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." I told you he was with the Campbellite brethren. If this proves anything for him it proves too much. What is going to become of the man if he is not baptized? What about it, sir? If belief is in order tor his salvation, according to that text, so is baptism in order to it. So you are standing on the Campbellite platform now. That is where you stand.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." If he has to believe in order to get to heaven, he has to be baptized too in order to get to heaven. Just as sure as the belief is necessary in order to get to heaven so is the baptism necessary. So it puts you on the Campbellite platform, and proves too much for you, and anything that proves too much is as bad as if it did not prove anything.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." According to that text, then, if he believes and is not baptized he cannot be saved, because the one that believes and is baptized is the one that shall be saved; and he will not be damned, because he believes, and it is the unbeliever that is damned. Then tell us what becomes of that fellow who believes and is not baptized.

1Jo 5:1, Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott: "Every one who believes that Jesus is the anointed one, has been begotten by God; and every one who loves the begetter, loves the one begotten by him." The word translated "has been begotten" may be correctly translated "has been begotten," or "has been born." The character who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.

Elder Penick says, No, he is not; he has to believe first. But John says he has been born of God. Then it is the character that has been born of God that it pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save. Save them from what? Save them from false ways; save them from believing that somebody is going to hell that Christ died for.

"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Does that text teach that God gave His Son that all Adam's race might have everlasting life, or that it is for the benefit of the believer that God gave His Son? He so loved the world of believers that He gave His only begotten Son, that this same world should not perish but have everlasting life.

Then he quotes: "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." I dare you to say that he lights all the heathen. If he does light all the heathen, I want to know why you are raising such a cry for more men, more means and more money, to send the gospel over there to enlighten the heathen. What are you doing it for?

Does he light every man that comes into this material world? If so, why do you say that all the heathen are in darkness? Why do you say that? Elder Penick's system is out of joint from one end to the other. In fact it is so limber I don't know whether it has any joints or not.

And this is offered by him in contrast to that: "The whole world lieth in the wicked one." He has them all in the wicked one---the whole world; and then after a little while he has them all lighted by the Lord Jesus Christ---"that was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

Now, then, Joh 1:4, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." If he lights all Adam's race, and the life is the light of men, then all Adam's race have the life. Now, you are on the Universalist platform. A little while it is universal damnation, and then universal salvation; and then a little while on the Methodist platform, and then on the Campbellite platform. Where. will he be when this thing is over? He follows so far away that I have run around and about to catch up with him again.

He wants to know what sort of gospel I have for the sinner. Well, what sort of gospel have you for the man that dies without ever hearing the gospel preached? What sort of gospel have you got for him? You have a gospel about like this: You are condemned to an eternal hell because you have not heard the gospel and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, but you could not hear the gospel and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, because the enlightened people in America were so close-fisted that they squeezed the dollar until the eagle squealed. God is damning the heathen because of their covetousness, and their wickedness.

I. have a gospel that beats that, yes I have. I found a saved man over there in heathen lands, a praying character, praying to God, and giving alms, working righteousness. He was accepted with God, but did not know the way of salvation until Peter went there and preached to him.

He quotes Ac 17:30, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." Let us read the twenty-ninth verse: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God." "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of Adam?" No. He doesn't agree with Elder Penick. "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God." So he is talking to those who have been born of God. They are the people that God commands to repent and turn away from the false theories and false doctrines taught by the teachers of this world. "We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." So I have shown you that it is those characters who are called the offspring of God that he is talking to.

He says I have absolute certain salvation for one class, and absolute certain damnation for the other class. If my position were not true that Jesus Christ died to satisfy the law in behalf of, and for, and in the room of, poor, lost and ruined sinners, we would have had absolute universal damnation of all the race of Adam; but my position being true, that Jesus Christ left the shining realms of eternal glory and came down into this world of sin and sorrow, having the sins of the people for whom he died taken off them, satisfying the demands of divine justice for them, all by his mercy and grace, some of the race of Adam will be saved in heaven, and it is by the merits of what Jesus Christ has done for them.

We have no demand against God. Elder Penick's doctrine is that God could not send us to hell unless Christ died for us. Then we have demands against God, and it follows that salvation is not a matter of grace, but God is under obligation to the sinner; He had to send His Son into the world to give the sinner a chance to be saved in order to send the sinner to hell.

He comes back to Isa 53:6, and says I made no reply. I did not mean to make any. He is the one that has made no reply; he has passed over scripture after scripture and made no reply to it.

I think I have answered all, in fact, am sure I have answered all. He refers to Eph 5:25---says it does not touch the subject; Heb 1:3; Da 9:24; Heb 9:27-28; Re 5:9; Ga 3:13; 4:6---says they don't touch the subject.

Nearly every one he has noticed he has answered by just simply claiming that they don't touch the subject.

I want to notice Re 22:15 right here. It says, "Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." I want to know if they were invited to come. You tell us. Were they invited to come? "Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." I want you to tell if they were invited to come.

I proceed now to introduce my seventeenth affirmative argument:

All for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven because those for whom he died have redemption through his blood and forgiveness of sins.

Col 1:14, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." These characters for whom he shed his blood have redemption through his blood, and they have forgiveness of sins. It follows, then, that sin cannot condemn one of them, sin cannot send one of them to hell. Hence, my proposition is sustained.

 

Eph 1:7: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."

Eighteenth affirmative argument: All for whom Christ died will be saved because they are reconciled to God by his death and shall be saved by his life.

Ro 5:10: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Who are reconciled to God? Every one for whom Jesus Christ died. They are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The brother tries to get away from that and argues about receiving the atonement. It makes no difference about when the application of the blood is made to the heart in the work of regeneration---these characters were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, and the apostle says, "Being reconciled' by the death of His Son we shall be saved by his life." Who shall be saved by his life? Those that were reconciled by the death of His Son; those for whom His Son died. They shall be saved by his life.

And so my proposition stands---all for whom Christ died will be saved in heaven.

As I have shown you, it does not make any difference whether it is all the race or only a part of the race---the apostle says they are reconciled to God by the death of His Son and shall be saved by his life---every one that is embraced in his death. 2Co 5:18-19: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

Mark you, not that he has committed unto us the work of reconciliation, but the word of reconciliation. See the great difference one little letter would make in the text! He has committed unto us, not the work, but the word of reconciliation. He calls His ministers and sends them out preaching the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, proclaiming what he has done, and that those for whom he died shall all be saved by his life.

You are not preaching that doctrine. I do not know whether God called you or not. If so, you ought to prove it by preaching His gospel.

My next affirmative argument is, that, all for whom Christ died will be saved because it was said that the pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his hands.

Isa 53:10, "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."

If the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, and he shall see his seed when he makes an offering for sin, to render satisfaction for sin, it follows that every one for whom he died will be saved in heaven. The pleasure of the Lord prospers in his hand in behalf of every one of those characters for whom Christ died,

Thank you for your attention.

CP.018 ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

This is the last speech of the day, hence the last on this proposition. I shall try to observe the rule the best that is possible, my brother opponent will please hold up his hand to indicate that I violate the rule. I shall try to speak only to such things as are before your minds. Of course the time is very limited. He has introduced several new arguments to which I must reply. My opponent insists that I have digressed from the point.

Well, I am perfectly willing for you to be the judges. It is not necessary for me to presume to tell you when I am doing this and to say when my opponent is doing the same or failing. Your intelligence will help you to decide to your satisfaction and I am perfectly willing to leave it to you. My opponent insists that he has been sticking to the question and right to the point at issue. I suppose he thinks that. I am not questioning his convictions, and I am sure if I know anything about the relevancy of an argument he has been exceedingly far from it.

And many of his texts, for instance Heb 1:3, and others, every one of them refers to the purging and sanctifying, which is the application of the atonement. Well, the words say, "Purging our sins." That is the work he does for us in sanctifying us. That is the work done here, not two thousand years ago, but this is the work done now in the application of it. And it is just Penick calling your attention to the very verse he has quoted. He has been working on the wrong end of the question much of the time all the way through.

2Co 5:18, Well, he introduced this in his argument. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"---not the WORK of reconciliation. I have never insisted on the works of reconciliation, but the WORDS of reconciliation.

Then he speaks of himself as an ambassador, praying you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. The whole connection is flatly and clearly against the position of my opponent. It looks to the application. Those who are reconciled to Christ. It puts the Apostle Paul as an ambassador for God representing God pleading with those who are unreconciled.

Now let us study the text in the light of my opponent's argument. If his argument was true, all for whom Christ died will be saved, and there are no means for anything particularly in it. When God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself he forever settled every man's salvation, and there is no need of Christ, or Paul, or you, or me, or anybody being an ambassador for Christ. The whole text is out of place in, his theory.

When God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, according to him, then and there the thing was settled forever. And why have an ambassador to come to us when we were enemies and under the dominion of sin? We will get to heaven, reconciliation or no reconciliation.

Again, let me say my opponent has overlooked some things. He could not get it all, but until this last speech you have overlooked 1Jo 2:2. This WHOLE WORLD proposition. "He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD." I called his attention in the first speech to 1Jo 5:18, and to this good hour it remains untouched. There it stands in God's word absolutely contradicting all the gentleman's positions.

I would like for him to try his hand to write out a better contradiction. 1Ti 2:4-6: "Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time." Not God's will that any should perish, praying for all men that all men should be saved. My opponent overlooked that and these others have been before him all day long.

Again, my opponent in arguing on Ro 5:10, right in the connection of the eleventh verse---he insists right there---for I was listening, I had nothing to do but to listen---but he made this statement---yes, he can take it down and correct it ---he said, "makes no difference when they receive it," and right in the very text, talking about receiving, he says, "I am not arguing on limited atonement---it is not my part to talk about who is lost."

What in the world is the gentleman arguing on today---can you tell? Not arguing on limited atonement---makes no difference when they receive it"---right in the very text Paul plants his argument, and says NOW that we have received the reconciliation or atonement. What is my opponent arguing? Does anybody know by his own admission?

Again, on Ga 1:14: "Redeemed us through his blood." Eph 1:7: "In whom we have redemption through his blood." Now, who is the in whom? There is nobody but those who are in him by faith. What is the point here? He is talking about the application of it again. He has received the reconciliation or redemption which is by his blood, and that blood is not applied until he trusts in Jesus. Ro 3:25. How is it that the reconciliation comes to be yours? Through faith in his blood. You cannot have faith in his blood two thousand years before you were born. He is clear away two thousand years from the very point he starts in to try to prove, and then he rests the benefits of it upon the preaching of the gospel.

Ro 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." And the faith that comes by hearing is just where the blood is applied. He makes the statement that Penick teaches that Christ must die in order that God must damn somebody. Penick did not teach that at all. He read some statements of somebody that was making some arguments of that kind.

I said plainly this morning that men were condemned that never heard tell of Jesus Christ, but when they hear of him and willfully and deliberately reject him then that is another sin added to it. I brought that point out clearly.

Isa 53:6: "All gone astray like sheep." He did not reply to it, that if sinners had not gone astray they are all right. That is the point that I am endeavoring to show you that he had a misconception of the text. "All we like sheep have gone astray." Is the sinner in that crowd that has gone astray, or is the sinner living right up with God?

If we are all under the law, Ga 3:13, the law says what it says to those who are under the law, then you have got your universal provision as clear as anything can be. Are all under law? Yes. Did Christ come under the law to redeem them that are under the law? Yes; he came to redeem all then who are under the law.

He says it would be their condemnation if Christ did not die for anybody. Yes; certainly so. Nobody had ever thought of anything of that kind. This morning, in his speech, he says that men were condemned, for their own sins. I have been asking, What then goes with the Adamic sin?

Where is Joh 1:29? Has that been looked at? Now, if the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world and man must be condemned for his own sin, then unless he commits sin, then there is universal provision for him, and the penalty is for the sin he commits, not for somebody else's sin, and my argument stands to this good hour.

He calls my attention to Ac 17:29. I want to read, and call attention to Ac 17:29: but begin at Ac 17:23, "Hath made of one blood, all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us, for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for ye are also of his offspring."

He is quoting one of the three quotations in the New Testament from foreign authors. Now, then, we will see where your doctrine will logically lead. I do not charge you with it, but I do not see anything, but what it leads absolutely to eternal children of the devil and eternal children of God. Is not every man in this world a child of God in a certain sense? God is his Creator. Now there is your whole context. But he did not read that part of it. But Paul adopts the language and means to say that heathen poets told the truth in the statement.

There is a sense in which we are all the offspring of God. "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device; and the times of this ignorance God winked at, but NOW commandeth all men everywhere to repent." His idea is that all these were the sons of God, and hence, all these everywhere were commanded to repent. Why, you have got in universal salvation right there, the thing you have been charging me with. If all men are the offspring of God, and these are called to repentance, all men everywhere, no man anywhere left out, then you have a clear case, according to his own interpretation, of UNIVERSAL salvation, because Paul adopts the language where they are all the offspring of God and takes it as his text.

What sort of gospel, he says, have I for the heathen man that dies in his sins. Well, I have the gospel that the Lord Jesus Christ tasted death for every man. What is the gospel that I have for the man that dies without hearing the gospel preached? I will show you his condition exactly. Ro 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." That is just where they are. We add to that the light of revelation and the guilt is doubled of all who reject it. Joh 3:17.

In that same connection where he came "into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." Joh 1:9, That he lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He says, or dares me to say, that he lights the heathen man. Now, you hop on to Paul and try him a while.

Joh 3:16. He says, "Save them from false doctrine." Let us see. I don't believe that. I don't believe his statement. I think he is a converted man, but now let us see, if that be true, he made that apply to me, "God so loved the world," etc., be saved from what? Saved from believing such false theories, he says, as that, a man would go to hell for whom Christ died; but, beloved, there is 2Pe 2:2, on these false teachers that. Christ bought, and they denied him and brought on themselves swift destruction.

If that salvation, that you read in this connection, is to save from false doctrine, then if you are saved from sin, you had better give up YOUR false doctrine.

My brother says, Penick will stand with the Campbellite brethren. If the Campbellite brethren are right on anything, I am glad he put me there with them. Now, if I understand him, he will deny Mr 16:16. I doubt very seriously whether Mark wrote it or not, but he says, if I take that Scripture I will have to believe the other and raised the question, where is the man that believes but is not baptized? Read and see; in Ac 16:30-31, "What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." There is where he is. The Lord is not going to send men to hell for not being baptized. But there is the point of the text in that negative statement. Read it, "He that believeth not shall be damned."

There is one of your men right there. Did Christ taste death for every one of them? Yes, sir. Was he the propitiation for the sins of the whole world? Were the sinners part of the whole world? Are some of them going to be damned? Yes, sir. Then your proposition is broken into a thousand atoms by the word of God.

In Lu 13:3 to 5, "Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish." He says here that literal national Israel represents spiritual Israel. Nothing said about that in this place. Many places bring out that typical and anti-typical relation. His point is that they should perish in some other sense except in hell. The question comes, though, that my opponent wants to prove that in that place it doesn't mean perish in hell. Did we hear something about somebody begging the question? In what sense will they perish? Shall they perish in temporal death? Every man will die a temporal death. What is the sense in which it is used---is it this broad sense? And why should all men be commanded everywhere to repent, and then except they repent perish? Did you know that refers to spiritual Israel?

And then he has a clear question, and that is, If the failure to repent is why you will die temporally, then if you will keep on repenting, you will never die physically, you will just prolong your life indefinitely on and on forever and ever.

It is God's goodness that leads men to repentance. Ro 2:4. His idea would be that His goodness leads those only who are in the limited atonement, those only who are in the church---he reads these passages in Eph 5:22, just making it the church only. What does His goodness amount to, what figure does it cut? According to his view it is of no value to sinners out of the church.

Before the debate has been closed, maybe he will get time, and tell us one single, solitary case that goes to glory without the act of RECEIVING. Just tell us in the morning one case that goes to glory without RECEIVING.

I am just reminded of another matter that my opponent has overlooked. 2Th 2:10, where they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved. There was their power of rejection. And in his comment on Heb 2:9, he insists that it is only the saved. There is no such statement in the text, if I can read correctly.

He read a good many verses of the context, the sixth verse says, "What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him."

All the work has not been accomplished. Now we come to the text, "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 one." He goes on then and reads, "For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect from or through suffering."

There is not a thing anywhere to indicate that the ninth verse limits the atonement to those only who are in Christ. The whole inference must be injected, read between the lines, put into it. Is it true or is it false? But remember that my opponent is on the surrender of his whole position, and has not replied today as I gave him a chance to do, on the point of Adam's sin being taken away, and the man damned for his sins.

Again, I note Heb 1:3, where it is purging sin, it is the purging and the applying in the offering of the blood. When you through faith trust in him the blood is applied and the guilty conscience is purged. See Ro 3:25.

Now, I review some of these negative positions that I have offered here as objections to his negative argument. Of course he did not take time to take them up.

It denies that the world through him might be saved. Joh 3:17, I have referred to this text time and again. What comment has my opponent made on it? "He came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him MIGHT be saved." There is the statement of the inspired writer.

Again it denies that it took away the sin of the world. What sin of the world did he take away? He is bound to make it the Adamic sin. If Christ took away that, then truly the man goes to hell for his own sin. For every man and woman in this world is a descendant of Adam. Now notice the text, in Joh 1:29, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."

Look at him, put your eyes on him, and your heart on him. Again, I call attention, and I want to represent his proposition clearly, that denies this provision which was made for the world which is in as plain language as you can get it. I am going to ask, in my last speech, if God wanted to teach what I teach, and to deny what he teaches, can He write a statement any clearer for me, and against him than is Joh 2:2, "the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the WHOLE world?"

Any three year-old school boy can see the distinction as clear which is as clear as it can be made. If it doesn't contradict what he teaches, and if it doesn't teach what I teach, let him show what it does teach.

He denies that Christ tasted death for every man, just only tasted death for a few that will be saved. He denies that Christ gave himself for all;

1Ti 2:6. He denies again that our Saviour will have all men to be saved; 1Ti 2:4. He denies that prayer should be made for all men; 1Ti 2:1-2. So it leads ultimately to the doctrine that the saved will be saved anyhow, and the lost will be lost anyhow, just no provision made for them.

I leave it with you, beloved friends and neighbors, if there is no provision in this wide world made for them, how can you get around the position that the ultimate first cause back of all other causes for the damnation of the lost is the fact that God made no provisions for them, sends them no Spirit, sends them no gospel, and so they go to hell by the decree of God.

He denies that the lost are invited, or that the Lord is in good faith when He makes the invitation, On what kind of ground would I stand to make an invitation to a man when I have made no provisions for his coming: but you remember these broad, universal commands and invitations. His proposition excludes, or nullifies the invitations and promises to the lost, and leaves them clear out.

The man who is included in the atonement that he is arguing for need not hear, need not thirst, need not come, need not drink, need not eat, he just must be saved in heaven. It was all settled back yonder---that is his position precisely. There is a very clear proposition pressing on him for an answer. For his proposition puts the cause of man's damnation in God for not making any possible provision for man's salvation, instead of making man responsible for rejecting the light, even though he die in the heathen lands, or rejecting the light of the glorious gospel, where it is preached; Jas 2:10.

He denies that believers are condemned or will be condemned for unbelief, as Joh 3:18,36; Mr 16:16. He, I, nor anybody else, has any commission or right to make any offer to the world at large, and hence there is no responsibility or guilt upon them for rejecting and they are under no obligation about the matter at all, no obligation in the world to repent, no obligation in the world to believe, no responsibility for them to repent, and none for them to believe. If they are in the death of Christ they are provided for; if not, they are gone, lost forever.

Then he denies that the Lord commanded that the gospel be preached to all the world, as the gospel commission teaches by Matthew and Mark, "Go preach the gospel to every creature." Now upon what grounds shall I go? Shall I send the gospel to anybody? Where is your gospel provision, upon what ground will you put it? As I understand my brother, and I was raised among them, my grandparents belonged to them, it is no strange doctrine to me, I have come up with it from the cradle, I want to say it is the cause, as I understand it, with all honesty on their part, of their making no effort to try to preach the gospel to the lost world in sin. You persuade a man to think that proposition, and there is nothing to lead him out into the work. This is one of the greatest objections I have to his proposition.

It denies that the Spirit will enlighten and convict the world of sin. Now, then, get it again: Upon what ground can you harmonize with the Scriptures the convicting of the Holy Spirit, as in Joh 16:8: How are you going to convict the world? How in the world is any man going to believe on him if he is not in the atonement? Will he be condemned for believing the truth if it be the truth that Christ did not taste death for him? and yet here is a sentence that makes his condemnation rest upon that point, and brings that point forward as the cause for his condemnation.

Upon what principle can the Holy Spirit do His work in all the world, of convicting every unbeliever if there is no provision made for them and no offer of Christ to them? How can they believe in him? They would believe a falsehood if they should believe in him. Are they lost for doing just what it was the will of God that they should do? If they do the will of God it looks like they ought to be saved.

 

THE END

CP.021 Second Proposition ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

SECOND PROPOSITION

The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam.-I. N. Penick, affirms; C. H. Cayce, denies.

ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Brethren and Sisters and Friends: It is with a great deal of pleasure this morning I trust on the part of all of us that we begin the delightful duties of the hour and of the day. It is strange to me why every pretended lover of God does not have a keener relish for the truths of God's Word and a stronger desire to know, and a fixed purpose to do the will of God as best we can. The question today is supposed to be a statement of the same issue that we discussed yesterday from the other side of the question---from a different standpoint. The wording of the proposition is supposed to convey in the shortest, simplest way the issue as discussed by those who differ with respect to the doctrine involved.

"The Scriptures teach," you notice the statement of the proposition, "that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race." I want to get, as the rule demands, a very clear presentation of the exact issue before you. In the arrangement of these propositions a little over two years ago by the father of my brother he insisted that we discuss this issue first because it was so intimately associated with the question on "the word of God as the means" which is to follow.

Two questions rather, we may say, almost involve each other. I thought it would be preferable, as I suggested to him, to arrange our propositions without overlapping or intermingling the two thoughts. In the discussion yesterday you notice that necessarily the question of means was involved. This being the basis, or the background, it would naturally creep out. We shall try to steer as clear of that issue as possible today.

Now it will be necessary for me to give some definitions. Of course the proposition as stated is very simple, but the rule demands that I define the terms. Everybody, I suppose, understands what we mean by the Bible---the sixty-six books of the Bible---not any interpolations, or mistranslations, that man may have made; but simply, only and wholly what the Holy Spirit wrote. We want to get that truth, by any and all means that we may have available.

In the death of Christ we would include all of his life obedience consummated in the supreme act of his death. Certainly we would not separate in these discussions his death from his life, or from his birth and resurrection. But we look at his death simply as the one great point including all others, as the mighty link in the chain of his work, where possibly the burden of this issue rests, but not to the exclusion of the others.

"Sufficient," that it is adequate, all sufficient, all that is needed; as a modifier, we mean all the provision needed. No other, or no more provision is needed, or could have been made. Speaking reverently I say, God the Father, Christ the Son, God the Holy Spirit, went to the limits of the limitless God, to make provision for the salvation of the race of Adam.

"Provision made" to provide with means to meet a future want, to furnish with a future supply. By "salvation," we mean deliverance from sin, which includes, of course, salvation in heaven. Not that by the death of Christ would we indicate, at all, that all the race would necessarily be compelled to be saved---that is not it, that is not it at all. It is a PROVISION for the race.

Now let me use a simple illustration or two to get the question on your minds clearly. Suppose we use it in this sense. A man has a sufficient amount of money to meet his needs or his debts, but that does not necessarily say that he will pay his debts. The application of that to the right purpose is another thing. A man may have an abundance of food to supply his wants, but that does not say at all that the food has been, or will be so used. The food must be used, or the man starve, though a mountain of bread overshadowing him. And so on.

I might illustrate it in other ways. We do not mean that the death of Christ is so immediately connected with the salvation of the sinner that there is no determining means between the death and the application of his blood. The proposition does not mean that at all. I tried to bring to your mind yesterday the difference between these two great points. Some two thousand years ago the provision was made, in this century it has been applied to our hearts.

Now, see the absolute need of this atonement, or satisfaction; it is necessary because of the SINFULNESS of man and the HOLINESS of God. Do I need to stop and dwell longer? It is made necessary, yes absolutely necessary, because of the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. These two attributes, the holiness of Divinity, and the sinfulness of the humanity, have made the great breach between man and God. I say, without the death of Jesus Christ, it is not possible for God to be reconciled to the world; much less is it possible for the world to be reconciled to God. All have sinned; all are included in the guilt and in the condemnation; hence, while all the race is involved in sin, the Trinity of God is involved, on the other side, for the attributes are one and the same, of the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

And I want to say that the entire Godhead is offended at sin, and that the entire Godhead has taxed His resources in providing a plan for• the salvation of the race. Now, a few scriptures---notice this as a fundamental background, if you are inclined to doubt the unity of the Trinity. You might read such scriptures as the commission in Mt 28:19-20, where you are to go as God commands, where you are to make disciples as He demands, where you are to baptize these in the name and by the authority of Father, Son, and Spirit; all alike interested in the work, having contributed to the work, all alike are to be recognized and honored as we go out to do His work.

Again you see the same Trinity referred to and brought on an equality with respect to the work to be done, in such passages as

2Co 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all, amen."

Again, in Joh 14:26: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." There is Father, Son and Spirit.

Again, in Heb 1:3: "Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." There you see the entire Trinity involved again. 2Co 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." There is Father, Son and Spirit involved in all these works of grace.

Many other passages might be referred to. See Col 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God." The attributes of each and all are the same. Note all the relative attributes are in harmony with my proposition as the Bible clearly reveals them.

Now let me present them, as I am to get the background of this picture from the Triune God. The attributes of God are, first, spirituality; first, personality; second, infinity; third, perfection, as involving truth, love and holiness. Now notice the relative attributes as related to time and place. Eternity as to time; immensity, as filling all space. Relative, as to creation; omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. Here is God's omnipotence, omnipresence, and His all-wisdom involved in creation. Now, get a little nearer to this question. Attributes relating to moral beings, that may be transferred or may be transmitted from God the Father, Son, and Spirit to some object that is a moral being capable of receiving, and responsibility for rejecting. Hence they are called transitive attributes, such as mercy and goodness which are transitive. Peter says the divine nature is imparted through the exceeding great and precious promises into the soul that is saved. Notice again, justice, righteousness, and transitive holiness imparted to us to give to us the love of the truth, the love of man, and to enable us to hate sin and to want to do right.

Now notice the holiness of God as revealed in His justice which is the basis. The justice of God righteously demands of the human race what God demands. It is not an UNJUST demand; I want us to get it. GOD'S DEMANDS ARE RIGHTEOUS AND JUST. Notice how the Lord God speaks of these demands, as in 1Pe 1:16, "Because it is written, be ye holy, for I am holy." And that is not an unjust demand that God makes of us, for He supplies the means and provides the remedy by which man can ultimately be brought into fellowship with God and into the image of the Son of God. Notice His demand again. In Heb 12:14, "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." You and I are absolutely unholy, but the riches of grace in Christ Jesus provided by the love of God, and the sacrifice of the Son applied by the Spirit, and then our sins and imperfections will be transferred to him,

He will come under law, and by his living and dying put us under grace, cause us to have love for him and his commandments. Our sins transferred to him and his holiness transferred to us. And hence for us to live is Christ to live.

Notice He rightly demands repentance, because He provides for the conviction, and the conscious guilt of sin. He rightly demands that all men everywhere shall repent, and as moral beings, the light of conscience, and the light of His Word, brings the consciousness of guilt, and makes us feel responsible, as God gives enabling grace.

In many such passages as Lu 13:3; Joh 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already, and the wrath of God abides on him, as Joh 3:36, and he shall ultimately be damned, as Mr 16:16. Now notice such other passages, saying that God deals with us as moral, as accountable, as intelligent beings. He made us, and He is able to make and provide salvation, with all the means to it, and exactly suited to the man He made.

Read 2Th 1:6,10, "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."

How is this? God is going to administer justice in the eternal punishment that shall fall upon the wicked, by virtue of the fact that they will not obey God. The demand is made, and it is made in justice, and it is made upon principles that God has arranged, which are wise, just, and holy.

In the light of this doctrine we may find the answer to the question of the ages, "How can God be just and the justifier of any man?" I want to read to you just from one scripture, third chapter of Romans. I turn to my Bible and read it that you may get it clearly on your minds and see the inspired argument. The book of Romans, as Phillip Schaff has said, is the masterpiece of inspiration on the plan of salvation. He begins with the fact of sin. His argument is to get Jew and Gentile on the same level before God. In the beginning of the third chapter he raises the question as to any advantage the Jew may have had; which was "much every way," but the chief advantage is "to him was given the oracles of God."

He comes to the ninth verse: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin ; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one : there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness. of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference : for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him. which believeth in Jesus."

There you have God's answer on the provisions of Christ. God is just when He saves the believer and just when He damns the unbeliever for rejecting the light he has, whether it be under the gospel or among the heathen. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

Here you have a part of the inspired argument showing you that by nature all of Adam's race have committed sin, not only in him, but by actual transgressions, that we are all under the law. Now, you put the passages in Ga 3:4, where Christ comes under the law to redeem them that are under the law, which makes him a curse for Adam's race; hence it is that his grace superabounds to counteract the sin brought into the world by Adam to save all who will accept him, high up into the heights of glory; and to offer to the entire race of Adam salvation through Christ.

The death of Christ, then, says to all it is right and free to all who will accept; and it says that it is just to punish all who refuse. Do not get the idea in your minds that those who know not the light of the gospel cannot be punished---they are sinners against the light of conscience and of nature. His love rises above the demands of holiness and justice, and in the struggle, God's love, HIS GREAT TRUE LOVE, transcended the invisible heights and sounded the abyss of the blessed hope of God for man and provided salvation at the expense of the Trinity, for lost humanity by the death of His Son. He met all the demands that God had made. These were met and satisfied in the death of His Son.

Hence you have that wonderful statement, the whole gospel in epitome, in Joh 3:16-17, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." There is God's plan and purpose, God's purpose revealed, and the cause is ultimately found to be in God's love. Christ came to do the will of the Father.

Notice such passages as Joh 12:47, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."

Notice again on the attribute of God's love. In Ro 11, "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Here is God's conclusion, that every man, Jew and Gentile, is under sin, and He shows their sins by His argument, and presentation of truth in view of His holiness and their sinfulness, that He might have mercy upon all.

Notice, God's will referred to, "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." Ro 2:4. Notice where God proposes to rest the weight of responsibility upon humanity for being drawn and attracted by God's provisions of goodness that has ever abounded towards the human race.

I want to notice this goodness is manifested through providence as well as in revelation. When Paul and Barnabas were at Lystra, on their second missionary journey, they said, "Nevertheless he left not himself without a witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." God left not Himself without a witness in these great providential arrangements; God manifested His goodness, by which He would check the man that rushes madly down toward hell and destruction.

Notice many passages, Mt 5:43-48: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Any discrimination in providence? No, none. Who gets the greater benefit? Those who will appropriate and use it rightly. Those who abuse it suffer the consequences, and there is no charge to be laid against God. "For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Thus transmitting His holiness and His love and His righteousness unto us through regenerating grace, He would have us live up to the standard He has set, even doing good to the world because we represent God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God has not excluded the unrighteous in His provisions of temporal blessings and mercy, and He makes them the basis for His exhortation to us.

Notice again, the apostle Paul uses that same argument again, this same universal providential, provision made for mankind, and he appeals to them because of this goodness to heed the Word of God. Ac 17:22-31. Paul on Mars hill, that wise, aristocratic, learned Athens, where the philosophers and thinkers of the age gathered to discuss things new and old. "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

Notice he is trying to bring them under the universal obligation to recognize God as the giver of life, and the giver of all good things. "And hath made of one blood"---notice the purpose---"all nations of men." All nations or just a part of all nations? "All nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"---what purpose is this for?

Notice the purpose clause---"that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." He shows there that God's goodness in creating, scattering and distributing mankind, and bringing them under the universal temporal blessings of providence is for the purpose that they should seek after God, if haply they might find him. Why seek after a God who cannot be found? If no provision was made for salvation? Notice further: "For in him we live"---no discrimination, none---"for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Every human being is the offspring of Adam, and in a sense God is the Creator and the progenitor of the race. In view of that fact, what does God say? "Forasmuch as we are the offspring of God." My brother will not attempt to say that all the nations of earth are the regenerate sons of God, for this would be universal salvation. "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent."

Have you any reason for that, Paul? Notice : "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Every single one of Adam's race shall stand before that Judge of all the earth, because God hath showered upon him temporal blessings and offered spiritual blessings through riches of grace in Christ Jesus.

If men reject these, and also the light that God gives, they are to be judged by this man Jesus Christ. Hence there is the moral obligation that God lays upon the entire race of Adam. If there is a moral obligation, that concedes the whole point. There must be provision or the injustice of the punishment will rest upon God and not man.

Now notice a few texts in which God represents His: will. 2Pe 3:9: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Does my brother mean to say that it is not His will at all, and that God does not want the ungodly, the lost, to come to repentance? Will he pretend to make such an argument?' Would he exclude God's provision of grace even in wanting, or in purpose, or in preferring, that the rebellious sinner should repent? Is there any provision made for repentance? Yes, in placing promises before them. Because abundant provisions have been made for the salvation of all.

Notice again, the will of the Son, in

1Ti 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." Notice again, Did Christ die for only just a few? No, sir. Take the passage again, that bears so intimately on the question, Heb 2:9, "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."

My opponent suggested yesterday, sarcastically, that other translations had put in there every one, instead of man, and then turned right around and made it man, as every three-year-old child knows it must mean. He tried to exclude from your minds that it really means man, and then says it only means the elect man.

Where did you get the idea? You had to add it to God's word. The death of Christ, as inspiration writes about it, shows that it was meant for the world. See, "He is the propitiation for our sins," said John in 1Jo 2:2. Just our sins? Covered anybody else's sins but ours? "And not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." Could you make a passage that could convey the idea any clearer, that the Bible teaches, or that more flatly, more completely, and more conclusively and absolutely denies the doctrine that my brother is arguing? No, you cannot make one. Notice 1Ti 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

Notice again, 2Co 5:14-15: "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead : and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." He will not deny that all men are dead in trespasses and in sins. But did Christ die for all these? "And that he died for all, that they which live"---notice it---"that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

Did he die for all these? Yes. Are some living? Yes. Are some living in Christ? Yes. Are they a part of this all? Yes. These living ones should live to the praise of God, the glorious Christ, consecrated to a life of service to God, but all rejecters shall be punished. Again, 1Jo 4:10, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Yes, but, "not for ours only, but for the sins of the world." I want to suggest here today, beloved, that I would not be afraid to leave the question to any unprejudiced man in the universe. Notice this propitiation, in 1Jo 4:10, "for our sins." That is the covering for our sins. Read again Ro 3:25, and we get the same idea that the Hebrew word is used for, "the covering of our sins;" "the protection from our sins." His death shelters us and protects us. I care not how limited your view may be, if you are saved it will be by the propitiation made by Jesus Christ, as the same word in the same sentence affirms the very same of the whole world lying in sin. See 1Jo 2:2.

Thank you for your good attention.

CP.022 ELDER CAYCE'S FIRST SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S FIRST SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you in the negative of the proposition: "The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam."

I wish you would notice closely the very wording of that proposition. "The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam." Mark you, the proposition does not say, "The Scriptures teach that sufficient provision was made that all the race of Adam might have a chance to be saved," or "that all the race of Adam might have an opportunity of salvation." But that sufficient provision was made for the accomplishment of a certain purpose, a specific purpose; that certain, specific purpose was the salvation of all the race of Adam.

If in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the accomplishment of that purpose, if sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam, I ask my honorable opponent to please tell us what it is that can prevent the salvation of a single one of the race I shall demand and insist that he answer this.

Let me put the question again this way: If, in the, death of Christ, sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam, what can prevent the salvation of any one of the race? I ask you to please answer that question. Do not forget it. He has, in defining his proposition, illustrated it this way: Here is a table, and there is a sufficiency of food, sufficient provision on the table to feed all, but yet that doesn't feed everybody.

I am going to lay this down as a premise: If one is saved from starving he must eat. The salvation does not consist only in the food being on the table, but the salvation consists in the partaking of the food, or the eating of it. Now, here is the food on the table, and plenty of it, and yonder is one that does not eat. You ask, Why doesn't he eat? Because he is not willing to.eat. Is not that the reason why he does not partake of the food?---Because he is not willing? If the sinner is not willing, and there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for his salvation, then it follows that there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ to make him willing; and unless there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ to make the sinner willing, then there is not a sufficiency in the death of Christ for his salvation.

Again I put the question, If, in the death of Christ, sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race, what can prevent the salvation of any one of the race? Now, while I am on that question, I want to ask two questions: First, Can a man be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel? Second, Do you preach the gospel? (Handing paper to Penick.) My brother, do not forget to answer those questions. Can a man be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel? He has already been arguing that question during this discussion, that a man cannot be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel.

Now, the brother will surely not say that he does not preach the gospel. He will surely tell us that he does preach the gospel. My brother, I believe you think you preach the gospel; I believe you are honest about it; I am willing to accord all honesty to you on that. Then I want you to not forget to tell us, Do you preach the gospel? Now, do not forget that.

He says it was necessary to reconcile God, and that all were in sin. Then, if all were in sin, and the death of Christ has reconciled God to all that were in sin, I ask you what can prevent their salvation? If God is reconciled to all of Adam's race, can it be that one of Adam's race goes to hell because God is not reconciled? No, you would say, it is not because God is not reconciled, but because the sinner is not reconciled. Well, if it is because the sinner is not reconciled, and there is sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, then there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ to reconcile all the race. So it cannot be that one of the race will go to hell because of a lack of reconciliation of either God or the sinner, according to your own position. Now, what is it that can send one to hell-WHAT IS IT?

He says the entire Godhead has taxed their wisdom in providing for the salvation of the race. Perhaps the god Brother Penick worships has. But I want to tell you that the God we propose to worship has not gone to the limit of His power and the limit of His wisdom endeavoring to accomplish the salvation of one poor sinner and failed to do it. Will you stand before the intelligent people of this town, my brother, before our neighbors, where you and I live, and tell them that the God of the whole earth, that God who spoke this world into existence, who in the morning of creation created yonder sun that rules the light by day, who said "Let there be light," and there was light, who brought into existence this earth upon which we live and move and have our being, who created the vegetable kingdom, who brought into being the animal kingdom, who brought into being the kingdom of man,---that the God of this earth is not able to save a poor, little, weak, insignificant sinner? Will you say God has taxed His wisdom, trying and endeavoring to save one little insignificant sinner and can't do it?

My brother, surely you will not do that. Surely you will take that back. Surely you will. Think about it! The nations of the earth are accounted as but the small dust of the balances. If you should go to a merchant in this town and buy a dollar's worth of coffee from him, and he should blow the dust off the balances for fear he would give you a grain of coffee too much, you would not buy any more coffee from him. You would not patronize a man who is so picayunish as that. You would say, "If he has to blow the small dust off the balances before he will weigh the coffee, for fear he will give me a grain too much, I will not trade with him."

The nations of the earth, in the sight of God, are as small and insignificant without the work of the Lord Jesus Christ as the small dust of the balances ---so small, sir, that they are scarcely large enough to be blown off this earth; and yet the three-one God has taxed His wisdom to save a little, insignificant particle of dust like that and can't do it! How weak is your God! Not only are the nations accounted as the small dust of the balances, but as a drop in the bucket. This vast nation of ours, consisting of eighty millions of people, is accounted as but a drop in the bucket. It would take many drops to fill the bucket, wouldn't it? But this nation is just like one drop in the bucket, in the sight of God, without the work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, then, divide this nation of ours into eighty million parts and find one man; then divide that drop of water into eighty million different parts and see how small one-millionth part of that drop of water is, then you will see how little, how insignificant, one man in this nation is in the sight of God. And then Elder Penick will tell you that God, the three-one God, has gone to the limit of His wisdom in trying to save a little speck like that and can't do it! CAN'T DO IT !

He quotes several passages to prove that the three persons in the Godhead are included or engaged in the salvation of sinners. Let me lay this premise down just here: I believe the three-one God is engaged in the salvation of sinners, and that there is a unity in the Trinity. If God the Father, the first person in the Trinity, has designed to save all the race, and there is a unity in the Trinity, then God the Son, the second person in the Trinity, died for all the race; and if there is still a unity in the Trinity, then God the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, regenerates all the race. If the Holy Spirit does not regenerate all the race, and the Son has died for all the race, then there is not a unity in the Trinity. If the Father has designed the salvation of all the race, or if the Son died for all the race, and there is a unity in the Trinity, then your argument falls to the ground, or else you will have to admit that the whole race are saved. It proves too much for you.

Heb 1:3, "When he had by himself purged our sins." This ought to have read this way to suit Brother Penick, "When he had by himself made sufficient provision for our sins to be purged when we heard and believed the gospel." That is the way it ought to have read to have suited Elder Penick. But it doesn't read just that way. "When he had by himself purged our sins," what did he do? "When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of God." When did he sit down on the right hand of God? After he had purged our sins. If the Lord Jesus Christ has not already purged our sins, then he has not yet sat down on the right hand of God.

If that has reference to the work of God in regeneration, and he is now purging our sins, then the Apostle Paul was wrong when he said that he "sat down on the right hand of God;" for if that work is going on now, then he has not yet sat down on the right hand of God. But if he has already sat down on the right hand of God, then he has already purged our sins. For, "when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." So that text is not at all in line with his proposition.

Then he says the justice of God demands what God demands of the human race and quotes from Peter, "Be ye holy;" and from Hebrews, "Follow after peace and holiness," and so on. My brother, these expressions are all to the regenerate character, every one of them. To make it apply where you would have it, and to suit your theory, you must find something that is addressed to the alien, the unregenerate, the ungodly sinner, commanding him to do something along that line.

But we are not on the plan of salvation. Do you not know I told you we would have hash and re-hash? You have had some more re-hash this morning along the line of the plan of salvation.

Then he says God rightly demands repentance and refers again to Joh 3:18. He will go to that often---he has been using it quite a good deal. Let us notice again from Joh 3:17-20, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation,"---what is the condemnation? "that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

If men love darkness rather than light, will they go to the Saviour? What do you say about it? Here is what the Saviour says, "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." The condemnation does not rest in the fact that they do not believe, but the condemnation is that men loved darkness rather than light. That is what the Saviour says the condemnation is. But in connection with that I wish to call attention to Joh 6:38-39, "For I came down from heaven, not to 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 bath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." Will you put any more into it? Will you dare say that the Saviour didn't know what his mission into this world was? Whenever you attempt to add anything to that, there is a woe pronounced upon you; and when you attempt to put any more into it, you say that Jesus Christ didn't know what he came into the world to do. "I came down from heaven, not to 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."

He says God is just in punishing the wicked for disobedience. That is all true, but God's law is violated. If God is just in punishing the wicked for disobedience, could he not have been just in punishing the wicked for their disobedience without the death of the Lord Jesus Christ? Please answer that. Could He not have been just in the punishment of the wicked without the death of Christ just as well as He can after Christ has died? Could he not?

Then he goes to Ro 3:9-31. Let us notice that just a little. It is not worth while for me to read it all. "What then? are we better than they? No in no wise." "There is none righteous, no, not one." The apostle is here describing the condition of the human family as they stand related to Adam and under the law. If there is none righteous, and none that seek after God, and it is necessary that the sinner hear and understand the gospel and believe it and seek after God, in order that he be saved, would not the last one of Adam's posterity land in an endless hell? You can see that this is true. If you say the sinner must hear and understand the gospel and seek after God in order to be saved, while the apostle lays it down as a universal fact that none seek after God, then you shut heaven's door against the last one of Adam's race. But let us notice a little further: "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."

If the mouth is full of cursing and bitterness while the sinner is in nature, unregenerate, will you please tell me if there is room in that mouth for praise and honor to God? God is perfect; God's word is perfect; God is perfect in what He says; and He says that in nature the sinner's mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. So, in order that there be room in his mouth for praise to God, as "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh;" the heart must be changed first, and then the praise and honor to God will proceed out of that mouth.

Nineteenth and twentieth verses: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

If all the world is guilty before God,, by reason of sin, then God could remain just and allow the whole race of Adam to sink down to a yawning hell without the death of Christ. As He could remain just and allow them to sink down to hell without the death of Christ, then every thing that God does in the salvation of poor sinners is an act of mercy. God is under no obligation to the sinner, because all the world is guilty before God.

Now, then, if God saves a portion of the race, by His mercy and grace, He leaves the others just where they are placed by reason of sin---not where God put them, but where they are placed by reason of sin. God is under obligation to none of the race. So if He saves some, it is an act of mercy; and if He leaves the others to die in their sins and be punished for their transgressions, they have no demand against the Lord; they cannot say truthfully that God is unjust.

Whenever you argue that God is under obligation to the sinner to give him a chance, then you argue that salvation is not a matter of grace. The very idea that God must give every sinner a chance undermines every principle of moral law. To illustrate: Here is a man that walks out and in cold blood, shoots down his neighbor and friend; the officer comes and arrests him, and he is placed in jail. There we see him behind the prison bars, a criminal; but the lawyer comes before, the judge and says, "Now, here, it will not be just to punish that man unless, we give him a chance for his life. It will not be just to put that man to death unless we give him a chance for his life." The judge agrees with him, that they must give him a chance for his life. So he turns the keys of the jail over to the lawyer, and the lawyer turns the keys over to this criminal, and says, "You are condemned to die, but we know that we cannot justly punish you until we give you a chance for your life. So here are the keys. If you do not take the chance, remember, we are going to put you to death."

Now, what would the criminal do? He would go and kill another man, and get another chance; and kill another man, and get another chance; AND KILL ANOTHER MAN, AND GET ANOTHER CHANCE; and thus your system undermines and destroys every principle of moral law and moral government.

Now YOU STAND ON THE FATALISTIC PLATFORM. Where will you be before this thing is over with? You seem for a little while to be on one platform, and after a little while on another. Let us notice more of what the apostle says in Ro 3. I read Ro 3:24-26: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

This justification through faith, the apostle says, is to declare his righteousness. Then it is declarative justification which is through faith, it is not actual justification. Go on down to the second verse of the fourth chapter, and read that: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Brother Penick has been arguing that the sinner must do something in order to be justified. Then, if he must, and if Abraham was justified that way, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. So Elder Penick's position is in harmony with the quotation from Mr. Bostic, that somebody is going to have whereof to glory but not before God; they are going to thank you, and not thank God, for their salvation. That is your system, sir. That is the way you argue it.

He quotes Ga 4:4-5, "To redeem them that were under the law." This teaches us that those Christ Jesus came into the world to redeem were under the law. Being under the law they needed redemption; but it does not necessarily follow that he redeemed all that were under the law. If he redeemed all of Adam's race from under the law, then they are no longer under the law; and if it is the law that condemns, and all the race are redeemed from under the law, then there is no way to justly send a single one of Adam's race to hell. Universalist platform again.

He says, "Jesus Christ has met all the demands against you and me." If so, will you tell me what it is that can send you and me to hell? There is no demand against us, if he has met all the demands. If Jesus Christ has met all the demands that were against all the race, then there is no demand against any one of the race. Then I repeat the question, What can prevent the salvation of any one of the race? There is no demand against any one of the race.

He quotes again, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in "him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And a little further on in his speech he again quoted

1Jo 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." He says I haven't answered it. The people know I have answered it one time, and I know I did. I don't question your honesty. I am going to admit that you honestly thought I didn't answer it, but the people know that I have answered it. You must have been awfully befuddled some way; you must have been very much bewildered some way.

Another text that you said I didn't answer is in 2Th 2:10, "Because they received not the love of the truth." I also answered that once. I want to call your attention now to the fact that I answered that. But I want to notice 1Jo 2:2 a little further, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." What does Brother Penick argue from this? That the term whole world embraces all mankind; that the term whole world embraces all of Adam's race.

My brother, if that embraces all mankind, will you please tell me who are embraced in the term our? "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." If the term whole world means all Adam's race, then what does the term our mean? Does it mean some who are not of Adam's race? Does the term our embrace the horses and cows and other cattle? If the term world embraces all of Adam's posterity, then the term our must embrace somebody else besides Adam's posterity.

So, you see, in your own text there is a division or limitation. The term our embraces his people among the Jews; "not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"---the saved among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews. What does propitiation mean? It means satisfaction; it means expiation. He is the satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. If you say that means all Adam's race, it will land you again on the Universalist platform, for it cannot be sin that would damn one of them.

But Jesus is the satisfaction for our sins, he is the expiation for our sins, he "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I want to give you a few quotations here to show that the term world does not always embrace all mankind. These quotations will answer every argument that the brother has made, so far as universality is concerned. Lu 16:16, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Did King Herod press into the kingdom of God? If not, then the term every man cannot mean all Adam's posterity.

Again, Lu 2:10, "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Was it good tidings of great joy to King Herod? When he heard of it he got mad and wanted to kill the Saviour. If it was not good tidings to King Herod, and King Herod was a part of Adam's posterity, then the term all people does not embrace all of Adam's posterity.

Lu 2:1-3, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city." Brother Penick, were you taxed? Is there one here who was taxed back there? If so, hold up your hand, I want to see you. But he says the whole world was taxed. What is embraced in that term all the world? The Roman Empire; no more, no less. "All went up to be taxed." Did you go? Brother Penick, did you go? Did any of the brethren here go? Did any of you go? Then it does not embrace all of Adam's posterity.

Php 2:21: "For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."

Joh 12:19: "The Pharisees therefore said among. themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold the world is gone after him." Here it is said that the world is gone after Christ. Now then, he had the whole world lying in the wicked one, and here we have it that the world is gone after Jesus. If the term whole world or the world always means all Adam's posterity, and

1Jo 5:19 says the whole world lieth in the wicked one, and Joh 12:19 says the world has gone after Christ, I want him to harmonize those Scriptures. He cannot harmonize them, and make it appear that the term whole world always means all Adam's posterity.

1Jo 5:19 says, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Here are some, then, who are of God; and there is another class, the whole world, that lieth in wickedness. There is a world that lieth in wickedness, and there, is a world that does not lie in wickedness.

Thank you for your attention.

CP.023 ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

I rejoice at my opportunity, and at your opportunity and at our privilege. I want to say that I think it is one of the greatest blessings that can come to us in this free land, when we can meet together by our own arrangement and study the Word of God, and make it the man of our counsel to seek its light and its information, for our personal welfare. My opponent was closing on his reply to my argument made on Heb 2:9 and 1Jo 2:2. He insisted that he replied to l Joh 3:2, "The propitiation for our sins, but not for ours only," yesterday morning and seems to think that I was so befuddled that I didn't hear him.

I never got so bewildered, beloved, that I did not know what proposition I was arguing on, and you stated yesterday that you were not arguing the limited atonement. Now you say again you are not trying to draw me away. Your questions all belong to the question for tomorrow. Talking about being befuddled, it is for this intelligent congregation to judge of these things.

In the meantime, let me suggest what place has such things as these in a controversy? Will it exalt in the estimation of the reader the books he is going to bring out? No, I believe it will be best for my brother to leave them out. I believe you will all appreciate it if such things are left out. I am going to treat my brother right in spite of himself. If I should lose my head, and insert anything of a personal nature, I will ask him not to reply to it. My brother, in replying to this amuses me very much, but I give him credit for honesty. In dwelling on 1Jo 2:2 he refers to some passages about every man, and the whole world. Now let us see how this appears according to his own statement.

He says, 1Jo 5:18-19, I will read the passage: "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

According to my brother's own statements, is there anybody left out? No. In the thought, we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness, have you got anybody left out? See the we that are saved, and the whole world that he made provision for in the wicked one. Have you another race of beings living besides the saved, and the lost? If you have, bring them out, and let us see what they look like.

In Joh 12:19, I understood him to say that "they were all gone after Christ;" he referred to the Roman world. It is the comparative use of the word. He himself stated it was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire then was the whole world before the mind of the speaker. Was there anything left out of the whole world of the Roman Empire that was to be taxed? There you are, tied. You did say the whole world was referred to in the taxing? You said the Roman Empire. Anybody left out? No sir. But my brother, under the strain, and the pressure, said, "Are you included in it?" Were any of the Romans left out, you yourself being judge? They were not.

Take the passage "all the world is gone after him." From the standpoint of the writer he spoke of those he knew about. Was anybody left out? He takes the liberty of applying it to the saved. You don't have any of the Romans left out then, do you? You say it means the whole world of the saved. But when it says the whole world lies in the wicked one, it may mean a third, or the fourth. Ah, such a play upon words ! Such a dallying with God's word! It is a result of a theory that an honest man, and good man, my neighbor, that brings him to such straits. Anything left out? If so, you have got some of your elect going to hell. When it applies to the saved, then it takes in every last little fellow. But when it refers to the whole world in Joh 2:2 it leaves out two-thirds or more. He asks the question, "Was it good news to Herod?" Yes, sir. Good news, but Herod would not accept it, and just as you and I would be if we reject it. My brother had his man neither accepting nor rejecting; "cannot resist God," you say? But the Book talks about people "resisting," and "receiving not" the Holy Spirit; Ac 7:51: "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit : even as your fathers did, so do ye." And many other texts might be given that touch the very same doctrine.

Again, did you notice that he said that "the whole world" in 1Jo 2:2, that "the our sins" was the "ours of the Jews that were saved," and that the sins of the whole world were the sins of the Gentiles that were saved? Of course, if you just take it any way you please, hand out God's word any way you want to, just take it out where it suits you, you can make God's word fit any doctrine. Where did he get that? He did not get it out of the text, for it is not there, unless man's hand put it there. I think he mixed the passage in his haste.

On Joh 3:16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He says, "That it is the world of the elect." Well, then it speaks of those who do not believe. So then you will have a lot of your elect perishing and going to hell. So just take it and let it mean your elect. Now, then, if that be your elect, "whole world," then those of your elect who don't believe will perish, and not have everlasting life.

According to the scriptures Christ met all the demands of the law against you and me. My brother does not believe that. He don't believe that the claims of God's justice have been met in the death of Christ against a lost world. Then you see his position comes back to limit God, the Father, and Christ's death, and his provision, and his mercy. He says that is not the God he worships. How limited is He? So limited that He will not execute those who had no chance. He says "they have no right to complain."

In his illustration of his prisoner, justice will have its way. Indeed, I have said that all the time. But he could complain of "no love" and "no mercy" for him. It is love and mercy that saves us. Where is the love and mercy of God for the lost world? Excluded, yes absolutely by the position the gentleman takes. There you are precisely. Again in Ro 3:24-25, you see the manifested righteousness of Christ, he was set forth to declare. Yes, indeed, whom God hath set forth as the propitiation, to declare his righteousness. Indeed, who gets the benefit of it? It is the one who through faith in his blood receives it. Can you find a single one in this world who is saved without taking the benefits of the reconciliation; and the very text shows that both elements of faith, and both the committing and receiving are without the works of the law.

Let me read on the case of Abraham, to which my brother referred. "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Indeed that is correct.

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God." There is the very text that Paul quoted from the Hebrew in Ge 15th chapter. "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not." What does he do? "But believeth," surrenders, accepts, yields, and quits his working to save, and lets God save.

All through the Bible faith is put in contrast to all outward works and ceremonies. "To him that worketh not, but BELIEVETH on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed, is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Yes, without works, but not without faith. Now will you get the inspired conclusion again? "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ. Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past."

My brother is putting himself emphatically on the ground that he has no gospel for anybody in this wide world that is lost, and that right in the face of the great commission that thunders duty as God gives it in His book. "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." It is with you, beloved friends, to be the judge as to the reply. I do not need to prejudice your judgment at all. There is the argument that Paul uses.

On the Trinity, God so loved that He gave His Son for the world. So loved that He gave himself a ransom for the world. If I got his point, and I have no disposition in the world to misrepresent him, his point was that there was want of unity in the Trinity if the Holy Spirit did not regenerate the world lost in sin. The Son of God has made the provision and there is the work of the Holy Spirit in the proclamation and conviction of the whole world in sin. The Holy Spirit is not to be charged. He is doing His work, and doing it as He pleases, and according to the agreement made before the casting down of the world It is not God's fault. You can't get around the position by charging the damnation of the lost to the will of God for not providing, and for not demanding, and for not wanting them saved.

My brother made another suggestion yesterday and repeated it this morning. I want to call attention to it and eliminate it. We all make these mistakes. "Hash and re-hash." I suppose that will look well and help the sale of the book. I might reply by saying, that you have listened to his argument, and that it is hash, ingerns and flies. Well, cut that out. These things are not worth the space and they are beneath our dignity as neighbors and friends.

In Joh 3:18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already." Now, my brother read "no" into the other text on rejecting the light, and made the statement that he was not damned because he believed not, when that is positively right in the face of the text. Listen at the text: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already." Now, what does God say is the cause? You said he will not hear God because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Notice John goes on there to say, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Every man that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

He that rejects, will not receive the light of the truth, shall be punished with everlasting fire. His idea takes out of man all the obligation to respect God, and to respect His work. Then, he says, if I am able to read him intelligently, that my God is so limited, and makes such a wonderful failure in carrying out His plans, that He does not worship such a God that makes such a failure. So he assumes that God neither wills, nor plans, nor desires repentance and faith and right doing of man in the law. God cares nothing about him. They are condemned, not according to justice, but for the want of love and mercy. You talk about that being our gospel. No, no. He says his God is not weak. How weak in will power to bless, how limited and narrow in his heart to love. God says He is no respecter of persons, but this makes Him the supremest respecter. Man can neither do the will of God, nor want to do the will of God, nor reject the will of God. It makes him an absolute machine. The saved are eternally saved and cannot help it; the damned are eternally damned and cannot help it.

He denies the conclusion, but if it don't go back to your old eternal Two-seedism I cannot reason upon an intelligent proposition. I can see no other conclusion from the premises my brother lays down. I am glad he rejects the conclusion, but the premises will furnish the conclusion if he will let logic have its way. I might say, by way of reply, that I am exceedingly glad that our God, because we worship one and the same---is not so limited in love, and not so weak in will power that He would not if He could, provide blessings in grace for every son of Adam's race, as my brother would represent Him.

I am glad to have the gospel that is good for every man in the universe, and its invitations, calls, promises, warnings, and obligations are to every son of Adam's race. Of course, you will see that this question comes clearly under the other proposition, "Can a man be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel? I suppose you have reference to the hearing and believing on Christ. I don't know of any other way, do you? You say, "Are you preaching the gospel, Penick?" YES; DON'T YOU THINK I am doing so?

Again, my opponent, in dwelling upon the term sufficient raises the question, "What will prevent the salvation of anybody?" Man's persistent rebellion against the truth day in and day out, rejecting the light of truth---God will be just in damning that man for the rejection of the truth. You can get no just cause for charging the sin against God, nor the failure upon God. God in the riches of His grace has gone to the limits of infinite wisdom, righteousness, holiness and love, and offers salvation, full and free, for all.

It is not something for a price. No, nor can you get it on credit and pay for it in good works afterward. But as a beggar, like the drowning man saying, "Save, or I perish." And every one that has an experience of salvation knows it comes in just that way. Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood ye shall have no life in you. Must take hold of Him by faith. So you have no life unless the soul feeds on Him, receives Him into the spiritual being, just as you would receive bread and water into the body.

Now, I hasten on to notice the point of resisting the Holy Spirit. Notice the Holy Spirit has written the gospel for all the world, has, moved upon men to write it, He is saving men, putting that love in their hearts that Christ had. Experience will show that God does love the world in sin. My opponent will testify that the moment salvation came into his heart he loved the ungodly. It is the love that God transmits through regenerating grace. It is very weak in us compared to this love in God, but it is in us. He sheds it abroad in the heart by His Holy Spirit. Ro 5:5.

The Holy Spirit is to convict the world, the world that don't believe, convict them of sin because they believe not. Ac 7:51: "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit ; as your fathers did so do ye." I want you to notice, as I may be able to get my argument before you, that Christ becomes united to the world in many ways. I want us to get some of these before our minds. He becomes united to the world by his human nature. He is the second person of the Trinity.

Ga 4:5: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Who is under the law? Ro 3:19, "That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Are they all justly condemned? Every man stands before God con­demned, his mouth closed. Then did Christ come under the law to redeem them? He did. Do you want to add, or subtract anything from God's Word to make room for a theory? No. What does it mean? Every man is under the law of God, under the demands of the law, and those demands are just and right. All men are under the law as moral beings, accountable beings, and shall be judged before the Lord God for their sin against His holy law.

Who did he come to redeem? These that are under the law. Did he take the nature of only just the saved, or of all mankind? I want to keep continually before your mind the two points in the great subject we are arguing. That it is universal provision, and he argues all the time on the special application, which is to the believer. The Scripture teaches the special application to all infants, and idiots, and to every believer in Christ. But the trouble with my brother, is because of this universal provision. I have been trying to get him to see this. I hope that you are able to see it clearly. You have to twist, to add, and to subtract, of course unintentionally, or the point will be clear. Now, notice the relation Jesus Christ sustains to all mankind in his death. Ro 5:15: "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many"---same words for "the many" in Adam, and for "the many" in Christ. "But the free gift is of many offences unto justification."

Notice there the same relation is sustained toward the one, Christ, as, to the other, Adam. "Therefore as by the offence of one (Adam) judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one (Christ) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Did God say that? He did. Does He mean all men? Yes. Does He mean all men under condemnation in Adam? Yes. Then, does He mean all should come into, justification of life? "No, He didn't mean it;" you say. That is the trouble. We are bound to have a little suspicion that the man has the wrong idea in his head, who will not receive the same thing, in the same words in the identical construction in the same sentence.

Thank you.

CP.024 ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you to resume the negative of the proposition. I feel like, possibly, it might be a good idea to read the proposition to you. You might conclude that we are debating the question of the plan of salvation instead of the atonement. So I read the proposition: "The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam."

Before taking up and noticing the other arguments that were made, I want to call your attention to those questions I asked, as the brother said they were relevant to the proposition to be discussed tomorrow. That is true; in a way they are relevant to that proposition. While that is true, they are also to the point on this proposition. How are they to the point on this proposition? In this way:

If no man can be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel, then there is not sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of the man who dies without hearing the gospel preached. If there is sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, then there is sufficient provision for the salvation of the man who dies without hearing the gospel preached. If there is not sufficient provision for the salvation of the man who dies without hearing the gospel preached, then his proposition falls. And if no one can be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel, and all the race do not hear and believe the gospel, then there is not sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race.

So, you see, he is in a dilemma. Now, you can understand whether the questions are pertinent to this proposition or not. He himself admits that he knows of no other way by which people may be saved, except by hearing and believing the gospel. So you can see that question is pertinent to the proposition. If a man cannot be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel, and a large number of the race die without ever hearing the gospel preached, then there is not sufficient provision for the salvation of a large number of the race.

If there is not sufficient provision for the salvation of a large number of the race, tell me why there is not sufficient provision? Brother Penick says that God the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is doing all He can. Then there must be some one who is not doing all he can. Who is it that is not doing all he can? It must be the people who preach the gospel.

Brother Penick claims that he preached the gospel. He says these people who preach the gospel are not doing all they can to send the gospel to a large portion of the race who are dying every day and going to hell without the gospel. They are going to hell without the shadow of a chance of salvation. And yet sufficient provision was made in the death of Christ for their salvation. Why can't they be saved? Because the people who preach the gospel are so covetous that. they will not let the dollar go to send the gospel over there.

That is the reason why. So that these millions. who are dying every day and going to hell, according to the "brother's doctrine, without the gospel of the Son of God, are damned because of the covetousness, and the stinginess, and the pride of the American people, who have the gospel and will not send it to them. That is the reason why the heathen are going to hell.

Are they going to hell for their sins? No; they cannot help not believing the gospel, because they have never heard the gospel. It is not wickedness and rebellion on their part that they reject the gospel, because they have never had an opportunity to accept the gospel. Then it is on ac­count of our rebellious wickedness, and the rebellion of Brother Penick's people, who have the money to send the gospel to them and don't do it---that is the reason why the heathen are condemned. Is it pertinent to the proposition? You can see. It does not take a Solomon to understand that. He says concerning the heathen that they reject the light that they have. He also says there must be provision for a man's salvation or the moral ob­ligation rests on God. I have answered this time and again. But he says the heathen reject the light that they have, and as they reject the light they have they are damned on this account.

If the light they have is sufficient to damn them, because they reject it, then the light that they have is sufficient to save them if they accept it. And if it is sufficient to save them if they accept it, then why all this cry about wanting money to send the gospel to the heathen to give them the chance of salvation?

I will notice some things that I did not reach in the first speech. He quoted 1Ti 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto a knowledge of the truth." I think I answered that yesterday, but I will notice it again. The salvation mentioned in that text is, that they come unto a knowledge of the truth.

There is no intimation that he would have all men to reach the glory world. The saving mentioned is from things that pertain to this world, and not a single thing said about going to heaven. You must pray for governors, and for rulers, and for those in authority, in order that you get to heaven, if the salvation in that text means being saved in heaven. That is what you have to pray in order to get to heaven if that is the salvation mentioned.

1Ti 2:6, "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." If he gave himself a ransom for all the race then he purchased all the race. A ransom is the purchase price that is paid. Then "you are not your own ; you are bought with a price." Then the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the ransom. He has paid the redemption price for all the race of Adam, and all belong to him. Now, then, the Lord's portion is his people." If the Lord's portion is His people, and "Jacob is the lot of His inheritance," and they are all bought with the precious blood of Christ, and he gave himself a ransom for all of them, what will cause one of them to sink down to eternal night?

It cannot be because they are not bought, not redeemed. It cannot be because they are not His portion, His people. The Lord will search out and find every one of His people, all His portion, so that they will be saved---every one that is embraced in that number. You may make it as many as you please. It will land you on the Universalist platform if you say it is all the race.

"If Christ died for all, then were all dead." The teaching of that text is that those for whom Christ died were under the curse of the law; but he died for them to set them free from the curse of that law which they were under, and unless he fails to accomplish the purpose for which he died the last one of them will be saved. You will have to stamp failure on the perfect work of the Triune God, in order to make it appear that one for whom Christ died will sink down to a yawning hell.

1Jo 4:10: "Sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Propitiation, I argue again, is satisfaction; it means expiation, purging, taking away sin, reconciliation, satisfaction for sin. If he is the propitiation, satisfaction, reconciliation, for the sins of the people represented by this book, then he rendered satisfaction for their sins, and I maintain that sin cannot send them to hell; and if one of them goes to hell on account of sin, there is one suffering in an endless hell for the very same sins for which Christ suffered on the rugged tree of the Roman cross. And this would again involve the idea of the injustice of God requiring the payment of the same debt twice. Jesus Christ paid the debt, and now the sinner is suffering in an endless hell for the same debt that Christ has paid. You cannot harmonize your theory with the justice of God on that question.

He quotes 1Jo 5:18-19. I believe I have already noticed that. The nineteenth verse says, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness," or "in the wicked one." He went back to the eighteenth verse, but that does not change the argument I made upon it, that the term world does not embrace all mankind, all of Adam's race. If it does not embrace all of Adam's race, it may also be true in 1Jo 2:2, that the term world does not embrace all of Adam's race. But we found the world of the godly, and the world of the ungodly, so the term world in 1Jo 2:2 has refer­ence to those for whose sins Jesus Christ is the satisfaction. "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Then he makes the plea in regard to that taxing, that all the Romans were included. That is the very thing I argue, that the Romans only were included, and it was called the whole world. Yet when he comes to 1Jo 2:2 he tries to make it appear that it is broadcast, with no limitation on it at all! So it is not worth while for me to notice that further. The whole argument has been answered and has fallen to the ground.

Then he says it was good news to Herod. I don't see people getting mad when they hear good news, but when Herod heard of the birth of the Son of God, instead of being glad and rejoicing, he got mad and tried to kill the Saviour. So it was not good news to Herod. But he says Herod was damned for rejecting the good news. Just here I would ask, How can a man be damned for rejecting the good news when he never heard the good news? His people tell us the heathen are dying every day, by the multiplied thousands, and have never heard the gospel, never heard the good news. Tell us upon what principle they are sent to hell. Will you tell me upon what principle they are damned in an endless hell?

He says he thinks I missed Joh 3:16. Well, you are mistaken, I replied to it.

He says I do not believe Christ met all demands for the race ; that I do not believe Christ made atonement for all the race. Well, I want to say just a little about Christ meeting the demands for all the race. Lay this book right here, and over there is God the Father, and here are the demands between the race and God the Father. Now, in order that these people be saved, the demands that are between them and divine justice, which God requires shall be met, must be met in the person of Jesus Christ. Now, he leaves the shining realms of eternal glory and comes down here and meets all these demands, takes them out of the way. If every demand against every one of Adam's race is taken away from between them and the Father, the Son satisfying divine justice for them, will you tell me what will damn one of them? There is not one single, solitary demand between them and God the Father. Jesus Christ has met every demand, according to Brother Penick's argument, and taken every demand away. So he will inevitably land on the Universalist platform. No way under heaven to get out of it.

I want to call your attention, Brother Penick, to this one point, that people may actively receive things, and sometimes passively receive things, and the sinner in regeneration passively receives the benefits of the atonement. Does the infant have to do something in order to receive the benefits of the atonement? Does he have to act in order to receive the benefit? Does the infant have to exercise faith to receive the benefit of the atonement? Please answer that question.

He says Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Well, I would call your attention to the fact that God appeared to Abraham while he was yet in uncircumcision. Abraham believed God, and was circumcised as a seal or sign of his faith, and that faith was counted for righteousness. It evidenced the righteousness that was applied to Abraham when God first appeared to him. So it is with every child of God.

He says the Holy Spirit is doing His work. Well, let me ask, Is the Holy Spirit reaching the heathen who do not hear the gospel? Does the Holy Spirit convict these that never hear the gospel? If the Holy Spirit convicts through the gospel, if the Holy Spirit regenerates through the gospel, and the heathen do not hear the gospel, does the Holy Spirit reach the heathen, convict the heathen, convince the heathen? Then, does the Holy Spirit do His work with the heathen? No, sir! If He does, tell, us how. Don't forget that.

Then he quotes Joh 3:18 again, "condemned already, because he hath not believed." What have we as an evidence that he is condemned already? "Because he hath not believed in 'the name of the only begotten Son of God." That is how you know he is condemned already; "'Because he has not believed." Now, the brother says, I dispute God's word. Let us see who does that. You said the condemnation rested in his not believing. "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." That is what the Saviour said about it, and I am in line with the Saviour. Now, my brother, surely you do not mean to contradict the Saviour, and that is what the Saviour said. I believe you are just honestly mistaken; I think so.

But he has so much to say about the Two-seed doctrine. I am going to make this statement, Brother Penick;You know I do not believe the Two-seed doctrine. Now, let me keep on believing that you want to debate fairly, and do not charge that any more.

He says a persistent and rebellious course and rejecting the light of truth is what damns them. Well, please tell me what it is that damns the heathen. How is it that the heathen is damned because he rejects Christ when he never heard tell of Christ? Please tell me. These people want to know. These people want to hear you on that point. How is it that the heathen can be damned because he rejects' Christ, when he never heard tell of Christ? Tell us HOW that can be.

And he says the gospel is written for all the world. Let us see what the apostle says about it. 2Ti 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." I guess that takes in all the gospel. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Here is the man of God, and there is the man of the world. Now the apostle says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"---not for instruction out of righteousness; please notice that point; but "for instruction in righteousness." That the man of the world may become a man of God? No. That is what Brother Penick has been teaching, but that is not the way Paul taught.

Paul says, "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." How much of it is given for this man---the man of God? Paul says all of it is. If all of it is given for the man of God, then not a single, solitary verse, from Genesis to Revelation, is given that the man of the world may become a man of God---not one single verse of it.

In order that you make it appear that one verse of inspiration is given that the man of the world may become a man of God, you must first disprove what the apostle has here laid down as an emphatic statement.

You must first prove that he did not tell the truth about it. He says all of it is given "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Not one particle of it, therefore, is given that the man of the world may become a man of God. You have to prove that Paul falsified in order to sustain your position.

He quotes from Acts, 7:51, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost : as your fathers did, so do ye." How did their fathers do? They stoned the prophets; they killed those that were sent unto them. Brother Penick, did you ever stone a prophet? Did you ever kill a prophet? Did you ever stone a preacher? Did you ever kill a preacher? That is what those people were doing. They were stoning the Disciple Stephen; and so in stoning and in killing the prophets, they were resisting the Holy Spirit.

They were not resisting the regenerating work of the Spirit. But they were resisting the prophets of God, or resisting their teachings. That was the way they resisted the Holy Ghost. "As your fathers did, so do ye."

He tells them there what they were doing. Let us see if his preaching regenerated them. It seems to me if the preaching of the gospel was to have saved unregenerate sinners it would have saved some of these people, but it made them mad. Does your preaching make an unregenerate sinner mad? No. The unregenerate sinner believes your preaching, so it does not make him mad; therefore you do not preach the gospel. So you are not in line with Stephen.

Then he wants to know, Did Christ take the nature of only the saved or all mankind? I will just answer, that all mankind, in nature, are precisely alike. And he took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not take sin in his nature, but he bore our sins in his own body on the tree.

I now want to introduce a negative argument. Sufficient provision was not made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, because he did not die for all the race. In Joh 10:15,26, the Saviour says, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father : and I lay down my life for the sheep. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." Can you give a better reason than this why they did not believe? "I lay down my life for the sheep." But here is somebody that did not believe. He died for the sheep. He did not die for these people that do not believe.

If he did not lay down his life for these people who do not believe, and they do not believe because they are not his sheep, then there was not sufficient provision for them in his atonement.

The second negative argument is that sufficient provision was not made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, because he did not die for all the race, but salvation is sure to all those for whom he did die.

Joh 10:27-29; "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Here he tells us that he gives eternal life to those for whom he laid down his life. So salvation is sure to all those for whom he did die.

Sufficient provision was not made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, because God hated Esau. Brother Penick has been talking about the love of God. Did God love all the race? Ro 9:13-14, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" Brother Penick would say, Yes, there is unrighteousness with God; God is unrighteous, He is unholy, He is unjust, because He did not love Esau. But Paul says, "God forbid." God might have hated the whole human family, He might have left them all to perish in their sins without the atonement and yet been just. There is no unrighteousness with Him. He loved Jacob, but He did not love Esau. He passed him by, did not love him. Then if sufficient provision is made in the death of Christ for the salvation of those represented by Esau, then God provided salvation for those He did not love. Brother Penick, tell us why God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

Thank you for your attention.

CP.025 ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

I shall give my attention, first, to the review of the speech made before noon, and then introduce the balance if possible of all the affirmative arguments that I shall be able to get in. Not that I would not have another speech to introduce them, but it is hardly with justice to me, or to my opponent, to introduce new matter at that time, although I may be allowed to do it. But I have found by experience that it is bad policy to do it, because you have no opportunity to correct a misapprehension of the argument.

I understood him to begin his last speech with the thought that there was some want of the sufficiency of the provision made on the ground that the preaching of the gospel has not yet been to all the world. Well, it is not the Lord's fault. If he and his people, and we and our people, and all the other people that love God had been doing our duty fully all down the ages, then we would not have to stand up here and talk about failing. There is no question about the Lord and the Holy Spirit demanding that the gospel shall be preached in all the world. Time will not close until that has been done as a witness. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world before the end comes. God does not propose to let the end of this dispensation come until that command has been fulfilled, and our carelessness and disobedience does not militate in any sense against the purpose and command of the Lord God. I am glad to accept my part of the responsibility, or for my people, or for anybody else, for not carrying out our duty and take the responsibility off the Lord God. I understand the Apostle Paul, in making his statement in Ro 1:13-14, says that he was debtor to the Jews and Greeks, the bond, and the free.

He recognized that he owed it as an obligation to the extent of his ability. Then he says somebody else, is not doing his duty. All right. Charge us with not doing our duty, but do not charge God. If he thinks they are dying by the day and the hour, and that our covetousness is the cause of our failure, pile it up. Over in Ezekiel we are told about the watchman on the tower and he is held responsible if he gives not the word of alarm.

Let us see where my opponent puts himself. His position is that God's people are in all heathen lands, and the gospel is bread for God's people, and then he deliberately opposes preaching the gospel to all the world, and thus withholds the Lord God's bread from the Lord's children, which is the staff of life. Now where does he stand, I would like to know? What poultice can you get for your conscience in disobedience? If we neglect the unsaved, he neglects his own brethren in Christ Jesus. He claims to have no gospel for the lost anywhere. On 1Ti 2:6, he read the connection there, where it is "prayers and intercessions to all men," etc.

He says that is temporal salvation, and in that same phrase he gave himself a ransom for all. Just temporal salvation, of course. All right. In that connection is the very statement that he gave himself a ransom for all, and yet he says the text shows that it is only temporal salvation, and yet he prays that we may lead a godly life. Can we lead a godly life and not be saved? In that connection, again, he comes back to the question of preaching the gospel.

He says that God, then, has not failed. It is his people. All right, I will accept my part of it. But while I would not pretend to have ever done my full duty about anything, I believe in the effort I have made to do my duty to the great commission, I am willing to measure my effort with the work of my brother and his people. Possibly a man had better correct his own faults first.

On l Joh 4:10, where Christ is the propitiation for our sins, my opponent says he purges the sin. Well, what does he do in

l Joh 2:2? He has been using that "whole world" to represent the world of the saved among the Gentiles. Where, in the Bible, does the world represent the saved; what kind of mixing of phraseology is this? Where did that come from? In 1Jo 5:18-19, there are those same words, "the whole world" lieth in the wicked one. I have brought the point clearly as to whether the our, us and the our, "the saved" and "the whole world lying in wickedness" is anyone left out in that? When he says this "whole world," and "tasted death for everybody" refers only to the elect, he thinks it includes every single one of them.

According to his limited view, the language is all right, but when you take it just as God put it, absolutely it refers to the whole world lying in the wicked one. How in the wide world can a man make that apply to the saved? Then it does not include all? Does it just mean what it suits him and his position to mean? Is that all?

On the Roman world, he takes the position on the taxing of the people, "all the world should be taxed," that the writer was looking at that from the standpoint of the Roman government. That was one-half the population of the world. And it included EVERY Roman from the very viewpoint of the writer, Brother Cayce himself being the judge.

He says he thinks that people ought always to feel good because they hear good news. I think so too, but I think they do not always do so. Take your own gospel. Is every man pleased with it---even all the saved people?" What ought to be and what is, is another thing. That is the trouble. When they reject it, it becomes the savor of death unto death. That is one point you want to get in your mind.

He used an illustration on the demands of the law. He says, "If Christ took this out of the way, what is between him and the sinner?" There isn't anything in the world, but the sinner's stubbornness in not receiving him. God's law is satisfied about it.

And then he comes to give the definition of faith, or of the receptive act, and he makes a clear, flat surrender. He says "there may be an active element in faith." But in surrender I argue the terminology is passive or receptive. Now does the Lord God force you to receive the blood and the Holy Spirit, or does He bring it to you with the consent of your own will? Did you consent, or were you coerced into it? And when you received it, was not that an act?

If I offer you five dollars and you receive it, is not that an act? Certainly it is not a meritorious act, simply receiving. There is the "faith against works" that Paul talks about in the fourth chapter of Romans. Now, "the reward is not to him that worketh, but to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is counted for righteousness." Stop your working, yield to God, surrender to God, accept Christ, receive the Holy Spirit and the cleansing blood; the Lord gives you enabling grace to do it. You can reject the love of the truth and be condemned, according to 2Th 2:10.

Did you notice Ac 7:51, on "rejecting the Holy Spirit?" He says by stoning prophets and by stoning Stephen they reject the Holy Spirit. So Stephen was the Holy Spirit and the prophets were the Holy Spirit. I have not learned that from my Bible. That may be true, but I don't know it. "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; even as your fathers did." So you have been always stoning the prophets and stoning Stephen, and so were the fathers always stoning the prophets. Ah, you have got to put God in the place of man when he says, "ye resist the Spirit."

Did they resist the Spirit as the fathers did? Yes. What did you want to add to the text for? Why, it does not suit your theory. Well, get your theory out of the way. There is where the trouble comes.

On Joh 3:18, I believe that I understood my brother to say on that, "He that believeth on the Son is not condemned, he that believeth not is condemned already," "this is the way you get the evidence." Where did you get that? Put it in; yes, because the Holy Spirit did not do it. Why not, beloved, let God's Word say just what it means and mean just what it says? Why were they condemned? God's Word says, "Because ye have not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Notice the next text following this one. I turn and read it, from the verses following: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil, for every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." I would not know from what he says that there is anything in the word of God to reprove a sinner. What! Does the light of God, the word of God, reprove a sinner? In your comment over there on

 

2Ti 3:16, you have all the "reproof, doctrine, correction" all for the people of God. Why, you have a man out here reproved by the word. Watch, or you will make a mistake and get on the wrong side. You cannot keep from it, if you will just let God's Word say what it wants to and stop inserting, etc. Just read 2Ti 3:16-17. Now if I understand my opponent, no one is authorized to rebuke any man for sin in this world with God's word; there is no rebuke in the Bible for him; so you have got neither promise, invitation, rebuke nor anything else, and yet: right here is the verse where the light rebukes him.

Brother Thompson, Moderator, speaks: I believe I will kindly say, that my understanding is that this is charging consequences, and Brother Penick requested that we call his attention to it.

Penick resumes: I am not charging consequences. I am glad of any correction, if I deviate the shadow of a hair's breadth. I am not charging consequences on him, but I understood him to make that statement exactly, that it was for the man of God only. So you cannot teach a man outside of grace anything from God's Word. Again, on this statement, all mankind is alike in nature. I said, All right, that is good. All mankind is alike in nature. Then if the word of God makes provision for one it makes provision for all. Then he referred to the ninth chapter of Romans. On Jacob and Esau he says, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated."

And he would take these to represent the saved and the lost. So then he would make that hatred of Esau for hatred of all the lost in the wide world. Whenever you give an interpretation that contradicts a statement of God's word somewhere else you may know your interpretation is wrong. Take the use of love and hatred. The Saviour demands that those who come to him shall hate father and mother. Does he mean really hate father and mother? Is that what he means? Does he mean that they shall despise, and renounce, and hate their fathers and mothers? No; he demands that they love and reverence them. He means SUPREME love for him over them. My brother has got fully out on that.

If he is right, then God has no love, no mercy, no provisions, no invitations, no warnings, no counsel, no anything for Esau, or any lost man in the universe. None in this wide world. There you throw the responsibility right back on God again, if that be true. Not that he accepts this, but I am making negative arguments, and not charging him with consequences, as he does me.

My opponent next introduced the same line of negative argument on Joh 10:15,26, about the sheep hearing His voice and so on. Does that refer to the sheep, the saved, or to the unsaved? Do you take the position that it was eternal sheep or eternal goats? I would like for him to come out clear and tell us whether he was talking about the men that were then sheep or were they sheep before they heard the call of God, or were they goats then? On what principle did they come to Jesus Christ? How did they get to him?

Now, I wish to call your attention to some more arguments upon this question. I want to read this Twentieth ,Century New Testament on Ro 5:12-20: I read this to you which is in the everyday language of the common people: "Well, then sin came into the world through one man, and through sin came death, and in this way death spread to all mankind, because all mankind had sinned." There is not a sign of rejection, we just stand together on this. All mankind means all that were sinners. "Even before the time of the law"---before Moses came into the world---"there was always sin in the world.

But sin cannot be charged against a man where no law exists. Yet death reigned between the times of Adam and Moses, even over those whose sins was not a breach of law as Adam's was, and Adam is a figure of the one to come. But there is a great contrast between Adam's offence and God's gift of mercy. For if owing to the offence of the one man the whole race died, it is still more certain that God's mercy and the gift given in his mercy, which found expression in the one man Jesus Christ, were lavished upon the whole race. There is a contrast, too, between the gift and the results of the one man's sin. The judgment which followed upon the one man's sin led to the condemnation, but God's gift of mercy, which followed many offences led to our standing right with him. For if, owing to the offence of the one man death reigned through that one man, it is far more certain that those who obtain in rich abundance God's mercy, and his gift of righteousness, will find life and will reign through the one man Jesus Christ."

Now you begin to get the idea of superabounding grace. Not only grace brings the race back to where sin took them down, but now there is the offer, and the receiving of the promise and the blessings that lifts them clear above the law and puts them in the family of God. There is your superabounding grace. Doing more for them than sin did against them, magnifying the goodness, and the justice, and the mercy of God all at once because God provided the way. "Briefly, then, just as a single offence resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree, setting man right with God resulted for all mankind in righteousness and life." Why raise any quarrel with his statement? Why accept a word in one place, and then in the same breath, in the same sentence, raise an objection, and go to quarreling with God about it?

If God wrote it, I will accept it simply because God said it. "For as through the disobedience of one man the whole race were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the whole race will be set right with God. Law was only added to make the offence greater. But the greater the sin the wider was God's mercy." Well, the narrower would be God's mercy, according to my brother's theology. "In order that just as sin had reigned in death, so, too, mercy might reign through righteousness and result in enduring life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Showing you, beloved, as clear as anything can be the relations here that God brings out.

If I understood my opponent yesterday, he said flatly, that men were condemned because of their own sin. In his birth, death and resurrection, Christ touches the whole race. If Christ had not already been buried and resurrected, neither saint nor sinner would have any place in the resurrection. But I hasten on; See Mt 17:12, "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them," and went on with the statement "except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." He is not referring to their nature, but to their position of trustfulness, and a man must become childlike in simplicity, and trust, just like the infant in its earthly father, or earthly parents.

Notice again, how evil nature leads us astray. Eph 2:1: All dead in trespasses and in sins. In Eph 2:2-3, all children of wrath. Read Col 1:21, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled." Yonder was your work, away back yonder, here is your application. Universal provision, special, limited application. Oh, if I could get my brother to see that all his texts have been on the application.

Did my brother make even a reference to the argument I made on God's universal, temporal provisions in Mt 5? God's mercy over all, Christ makes it clear in the fifth chapter of Matthew. In Ac 17, Paul shows that He had made of one blood all the nations of the earth that they should seek after God. See the purpose of God in creation, and in temporal blessings brought out just there. Hence, these demands upon us are right, and they are just, absolutely, because it is wrong to sin, and it is right for God to demand that we repent of it and that we shall perish if we do not. 1Co 15:20,22, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." All included, all die, all will be resurrected. Got to have that or the non-resurrection of the wicked.

In Joh 5:28-29, "Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." There is the whole world, clause. Upon what does it rest? It rests upon the unity and the touch that we have all had through Adam, and through Christ coming as a second Adam. This is the basis of all the hope of the resurrection of either saint or sinner.

Again, in Joh 1:4-9, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Did not seem to understand it, but it shines there all the same, and the light was Christ's light. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth EVERY MAN that cometh into the world." Is that true? It is true or else you have got to have an argument with the word of God. Does he enlighten all? That is another question. But the light shines into all the darkness. Through the light of nature, through the light of conscience, and pre-eminently through the light of God's word, wherever that is taught.

Again, I hasten on. "God is no respecter of persons." He says himself that they were all the same by nature, in sin. Peter, at the household of Cornelius, in Ac 10:34, "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Paul refers to the same thought in Eph 6:9, "Neither is there respect of persons with him." Col 3:25: "But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons."

Same universal PROVIDENTIAL provisions, same universal provisions in Christ. Many of us reject, absolutely, and suffer the consequences, as far as the consequences can go, because we do not use God's provisions right in temporal affairs, in this life. This is true absolutely as the word of God teaches in the realms of grace.

Now, let us notice the result that may come. I will make a few more statements and hurry along. I want to take up a few texts and see how they look in the light of either one or both these truths. Both in the logical results, and the logical consequences. In Joh 3:16, it is said that God so loved the world ---not a single thing said about the world of believers---that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In the light of my brother's statement, it would be that God did not so love the world of mankind, but only the elect part of the world. He gave His Son only for them that whosoever of them should believe might not perish, but have everlasting life. And the perishing there must refer to eternal perishing. You are bound to have that by the very position, so you see you have got yourself in a real dilemma at once. If it refers simply, solely, and only to the elect few, then if they believe not, these elect few must perish forever and those only who believe have the everlasting life. So you have got conditions of salvation then in the realm of the elect. Got special provision made for just some of them. Did God send His Son into the world that the world might be saved, or that just a few might be saved? Did He send him to the world of mankind? He did. Was he born of woman just like all mankind? Yes, precisely. What does God say about it? He sent His Son into the world, not that the world might be condemned, but that the world through him might be saved, throwing the responsibility from God, the Father, Son and Spirit, at the door of every man and holding man responsible for all these provisions, temporally and spiritually.

Notice again a verse that I have called attention to, where he came to save all the world, Joh 12:47. Read this plain statement that the Saviour made. Notice again, I referred to another statement on the same line to show how you would view Them from either standpoint. In Heb 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"---for every one, or every man. Well, does that refer to all mankind? What do you say about it? Or does it refer to every one, only, of the elect? Notice it.

If you construe this verse so it will refer to every one of the elect only, then he will make it exceedingly inclusive of the last man, woman and child in the party. But when you have the statement made so clear and so unmodified, and see that it refers to all of Adam's race, then you have to go and exclude a whole lot. This shows you that a man, honest and sincere as he may be, who goes to God's Word with errors, must interpret God's Word to suit his notions and theories, instead of making his notions and theories suit God's Word.

Take a child six or eight years old that has as little bias as one could have, and just read such texts as that he tasted death for every one and see how it understands the verse. Brother Cayce called my attention to the "every man" not being there, and then turned right around and made it refer to man; everybody knows that the personal idea is in it, still he says man is not in the original, and seems somehow to dread the force of it, and right up there in the ninth chapter and twelfth verse he has been quoting a text that we ought to look after. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us," and he pulled down mighty hard on the "for us." And it is in parentheses, but still refuses the every man, leaves it out entirely.

Notice again, this text, "For he is the propitiation for our sins," "For our," the Jews, elect Jews. "Not for our only," elect Jews, "but for the sins of the whole world." No; "just the elect Gentile part of the whole world.," so he says. How much subtraction, and addition, and modifying, does a man have to make on that same sentence to get in my doctrine? Not one bit. It is one of those peculiar statements, where by both negative statements and positive declaration my position is affirmed. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." You can't make it clearer.

CP.026 ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you again in the negative of the proposition, "The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam." I want to call your attention to one point, before noticing some things the brother said in the speech you have just listened to, and that point is this: Did you notice how silent he was and how far from being loud in answering a question that I put to him?

The question was, If the light that the heathen have is sufficient to damn them if they reject the light, is it not sufficient to save them if they accept the light? I want you to notice that; keep that point before you. As he is affirming that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam, I want him to tell us how it is that the heathen cannot be saved when the gospel is not preached to them, and yet there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for their salvation.

If the light which they have is sufficient to damn them if they reject the light, logically, it must be true, that if they accept the light which they have it is sufficient to save them. And if they have light sufficient to save them, then why all this cry by his people all over our country that the heathen are dying by the thousands every day and going to hell for want of the gospel? I want him to reconcile that for us. You people want him to, and I insist that justice demands that he reconcile these things and tell us how they are.

Well, he admits that it is not the Lord's fault that the gospel is not preached to all. Then, dear brother, whose fault is it that the gospel is not preached to all? If it is necessary that they hear the gospel and believe it in order that they be saved, and the provision is not sufficient to result in carrying the gospel to all, then there is not sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race.

Notice that point. Let me repeat it. I would press the point, that if the heathen cannot be saved without hearing and believing the gospel, and there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, then there must be a sufficiency that will result in the gospel being preached to all the race. And if that is a failure, and the gospel is not preached to all the race, then there is not a sufficiency in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race. Hence his proposition falls to the ground.

Again, I repeat the question that I asked this morning; and I would press that question, and have it sink down into the heart of each and every one present that you may never forget it; If in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race, what can prevent the salvation of any one of the race? It cannot be because they fail to hear the gospel preached; it cannot be. If they fail to hear the gospel preached, and that hinders their salvation, then there is not a sufficiency in the death of Christ to provide for their failing to hear the gospel preached.

And if their failing to hear the gospel preached is not provided for in the death of Christ, then there is not a sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race. His proposition falls, and he runs his head into a halter, no matter which way he goes in arguing that proposition. I call upon him again to answer that question. He can not sustain that proposition before this intelligent audience in the light of God's Word, nor in the light of reason; no sort of dodging will do it. I call for an answer on those questions.

But he says that we are not doing our duty, and quotes "this gospel shall be preached in all the world for a witness, and then shall the end come." Remember he has been arguing that all the world means every one of Adam's race. Then the Saviour told something that was incorrect when he made that statement. If the term world means all of Adam's race, and the Saviour said the gospel shall be preached in all the world, then he meant that it shall be preached to every one of Adam's race, and you argued, or admitted, that many of them die and go to hell who have never heard the gospel preached. So you get yourself into a predicament again, again contradicting your own argument, contradicting your own reasoning and your own logic. "And this gospel shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto them, and then shall the end come."

Paul tells us that the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven. In his letter to the Romans he says, "Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world;" and the end of that Jewish age came a long time ago, long time.

He says I oppose preaching the gospel. Perhaps, my brother, it would be a little better if you had proved that while asserting it. Maybe these people here who know me will come a little nearer thinking you are correct about that if you will prove that assertion. They are just a little too much aware of the fact that I am away from home too much of the time to be opposed to the preaching of the gospel.

Then he says there is nothing in the way of the sinner being saved but his stubbornness. Well, let us see. There is that world out there lying in wickedness, and here is what is standing in the way of their salvation, and here is the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father over here. Now, then, you say the Lord Jesus Christ has come here and taken everything out of the way. Then if there is anything in the way now, and that is his stubbornness, there is something he did not take out of the way. So there is one thing he did not remove, if that stubbornness would hinder his salvation, and that has to be taken away, removed, before his salvation is possible.

Then there is not a sufficiency in the death of Christ for his salvation. So if his stubbornness would be in the way, and there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for his salvation, then Jesus Christ has taken the stubbornness out of the way. What is it that can prevent the salvation of any one of the race? Not stubbornness, according to your argument, sir. According to your own admission it is not stubbornness.

Then he talks about passively receiving things, passively receiving the atonement. I just want to call his attention to the fact that we might receive some things actively and some things passively. I said in regeneration we passively receive the benefits of the atonement.

Then he refers to an argument I made in answer to his argument about rejecting the Holy Spirit. "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit." They were stoning Stephen . What did Stephen say? "As your fathers did, so do ye." What were they doing? They were stoning Stephen, were they not? Elder Penick says they do not always do that. I did not say they always did that, but "as your fathers did, so do ye;" that is what you are doing, right now, just like your fathers have done, and they were stoning Stephen right then.

And I will tell you something else Stephen said. He said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." If they always resisted the Holy Ghost, and that is the world that is lying in the wicked one which always does this, or which does this always, tell us, where is the sufficiency for their salvation if they have to quit resisting the Holy Ghost in order to be saved? Always resisting the Holy Ghost. They never "let up" on it, they just keep on always resisting the Holy Ghost. Who does? That world that is lying in the wicked one, Brother Penick tells us. Where is the sufficiency for their salvation if they have to quit resisting the Holy Ghost in order to be saved, and they never quit it? Where is the sufficiency?

Then he tries to make that dodge on the question concerning the language of the Saviour that I quoted, "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world." What did the Saviour say the condemnation is? "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light."

Brother Penick, are you willing to risk your scholarship on the statement that the condemnation was not in the fact that they loved darkness rather than light? Will you do it? Let us see you. undertake it. "Men loved darkness rather than light." He says all men are that way by reason of sin, as they stand related to Adam and under the law. That is what I have been telling you all the time. Then if they all, in nature, love darkness rather than light, then they must receive the divine life in order that they love holiness and righteousness, in order that their deeds be good. Before they will ever want to come to the light, they must have the divine life, they must have the righteous life first.

Then he says, Just let God say what He wants to. I am persuaded that God will say what He wants to whether you and I want Him to or not.

Then he talks about my having no rebuke in the Bible for the ungodly. You certainly know that I was not talking about morality. I was talking about gospel service; I was talking about gospel obedience. I was talking about one being made a child of God, and then the gospel service and gospel obedience that a required of him. That is what I was talking about, and you try to make it appear differently. What did the apostle say? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

If it is given, in a gospel sense, that this man may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, how much of it is given that the alien sinner may become a man of God? How much of it is given that the man of the world, the unregenerate man, may render gospel service and gospel obedience? You must prove that Paul did not tell the truth before you can ever establish the position that even one verse is given in order that the alien sinner may become a man of God. My argument stands.

But I go further. He says, or admits, that they fail to carry the gospel to all the race. I want to notice a little something about that. He referred to Ezekiel, you know, where it says, "Their blood will be required at our hands." If their blood is required at the hands of the watchman, and Brother Penick is the watchman, and God requires the blood of the people at his hands, because of his disobedience in failing to carry the gospel to them to the very extent of his ability---I want to know, if the sinner is sent to hell because he has failed to hear the gospel, and his failure to hear the gospel is because of Brother Penick's neglect, will not Brother Penick be sent to hell also?

According to Brother Penick's own argument that must be the conclusion. I do not charge Brother Penick with believing that he is going to hell. I have some hope that he is a child of God, and that God's mercy and grace will reach Brother Penick and take him home to glory; but if that position be true, it follows that the watchman will be damned in hell, as well as the one that fails to hear the gospel.

Let us see something more about that failure to hear the gospel, and notice just a little something of their inconsistencies along the line. In the Baptist and Reflector, under heading, "Among the Brethren," Fleetwood Ball says, "Gaston Avenue Church, Dallas, Texas, lately installed a pipe organ at a cost of $8,000. Now, here is another article from the Baptist and Reflector of May 16, 1907. “The cost in money per convert is: Protestant Episcopal, $988; Disciple, $391; Methodist Episcopal, South, $307; Methodist Episcopal, $286; Presbyterian, North, $211; Presbyterians, South, $201; Congregationalists, $155; Baptists, $111. Thus it is shown that money spent by Baptists in missionary work yields far greater, results and therefore the obligation is heaviest on this denomination.”

There is much food for thought in these figures. If this is true then a great obligation rests upon the Baptists to give the gospel to the world, as the Lord makes their money go so much farther than the money of other people." Say, you Methodists and Presbyterians, the Missionary Baptists are bidding high for your dollars. They can save souls so much cheaper than you can, why don't you put your money in the Baptist channel and save a lot more folks? It costs them only $111 to save a soul. "There is much food for thought in these figures. If this be true, then a great obligation rests upon the Baptists to give the gospel to the world, as the Lord makes their money go so much farther than the money of other people!"

Now, then, Missionary Baptists save so many more with the same amount of money that I wonder if other folks save people at all. Brother Penick says he preaches the gospel, and don't know of any other way of people being saved, except they hear and believe the gospel. So nobody can be saved unless they hear and believe what Brother Penick preaches. T. N. Estes says, in the Arkansas Baptist of June 19, 1907, "Believing the truth makes one believe the Baptist doctrine, for they are the only people on earth that preach the whole truth."

So if one believes the truth he believes the Missionary Baptist doctrine. Mr. Estes also says, "Can any one be saved without believing the truth? No; not in this gospel land of ours." If no one can be saved except he believes the truth, and the Missionary Baptists preach the truth, then no one can be saved unless he believes what the Missionary Baptists preach. "

“Can a sinner regenerate himself? No. Is it a sin to sprinkle babies and call it baptism? Yes; I BELIEVE IT SENDS THOUSANDS TO HELL."

There is what T. N. Estes says in the Arkansas Baptist of June 19, 1907. Listen, you people that practice baptizing your, infants, or babies, that man says it sends thousands to hell. Then people cannot be saved by hearing and believing what you preach. It is only by hearing and believing what Missionary Baptists preach that anyone, can be saved. Yes, I see Brother Penick's people are withholding the gospel from the people of Tennessee, and allowing them to go to hell.

I will read a little extract from the report of the committee on state missions on page 21 of the Minutes of the Baptist State Convention for 1888: "In conclusion, your committee would urge upon the Baptists of Tennessee to awake to their duty and their danger. They have now the best opportunity they will ever realize. A great and progressive denominational rival, by all the forces of education, organization, and energy, threatens to occupy and hold every unoccupied field in our State---especially in Middle Tennessee.

Every year unemployed lessens our ability to take the territory well-nigh, if not already, lost to us. The Vanderbilt, the Methodist Publishing House, the Annual Conference, are pouring their young men, their literature, and their fiery zeal upon every hill and valley of Tennessee and the South." Mr. Estes said what these Methodists preach and practice sends thousands to hell; and here we have it that the Missionary Baptists in Tennessee, by their indolence, are allowing the Methodists to capture the State and thus send our people down to hell. THIS IS THEIR OWN ADMISSION---I didn't say it.

It is their own argument. Let us see now what it costs them to save a soul in Tennessee. I quote from Baptist and Reflector of July 19, 1906: "The need of the soul-saving spirit is great everywhere. People are not going to give to missions until missions is presented as a soul-saving enterprise. There were ten thousand professions of faith and seven thousand eight hundred and forty-one baptisms under our own Tennessee Baptist preachers last year. There were twenty-seven thousand conversions and one thousand one hundred and ninety baptisms under our missionaries alone. This was a conversion for every five dollars expended in State Missions' during the year.

Brother T. T. Thompson joins Brother Sims as State Evangelist, and we are hoping for greater things for the future." "THIS WAS A CONVERSION FOR EVERY FIVE DOLLARS EXPENDED."

There it is! Five dollars cost for every soul saved in Tennessee. The Missionary Baptist church that Brother Penick is preaching for here, owns a house that cost about ten thousand dollars. Make the calculation yourself, and see how many souls have gone down to hell, because they put that money in that meeting house instead of using it to send the gospel to the Tennessee folks. Do you love their souls? That fine building and the large salary that Brother Penick is getting (thirteen hundred dollars a year) don't say so. How much better it would be for him to live on a smaller salary and the money be used to keep the Methodists from capturing the State and sending the people down to hell. That is the kind of provision your doctrine has in it for the salvation of the race.

Then he talks about hating father: and mother, and so on. The teaching of the Saviour in that language was that you must not let father or mother come in between you and the service of God. You know that is what the Saviour taught when he said, "Except a man hate father and mother he cannot be my disciple;" let the service of God be first with you. But the Lord says, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." He passed Esau by and bestowed the blessing upon Jacob. You know that is what; it teaches. He says I argue that God has nothing for Esau. Will you please go back there and find it and then tell us what sort of blessing was bestowed upon Esau? We will just leave you tell about what blessing God has for Esau.

Then he asks, in reply to my quotation in Joh 10:15,26, "Were they eternally sheep?" No, they were not eternal sheep. But since you have been charging us with believing the eternal Two-seed doctrine, suppose you tell these people what eternal Two-seedism is.

He quotes from the Twentieth Century New Testament again. I want to notice one expression there, in Ro 5:18: "Briefly, then, just as a single offence resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so too a single decree setting man right with God resulted for all man-kind in righteousness and life." If you say that has reference to all the race of Adam, and that translation is correct, and it tells us here that a single decree of God resulted in life for all mankind, then it will land you on the Universalist platform. Yes, it just simply lands you on the Universalist platform.

He speaks about grace much more abounding. The apostle teaches sin abounded or reigned unto death; and then grace reigns or much more abounds to you. Now, remember the argument he has made on that during the discussion. I argued that sin abounded unto all Adam represented, all Adam's posterity, and that grace abounded unto all that Christ represented, which he says would be "much less abounding."

All right, let us try it his way, or according to his logic. According to his way of reasoning, if grace abounds to the same extent that sin abounds, it would abound to all Adam's race; but grace much more abounds. Then it reaches all the race and some more besides. Well, now, who are they, according to your own argument? I want to know who they are. Your logic is that grace abounds unto more than Adam's posterity.

He says grace brings them back where they were. I didn't know you believed that; that is the Campbellite platform exactly, for they argue that by the death of Christ man was reinstated or placed back where he was before the transgression. On the Campbellite platform again! If you are going to stand on the Campbellite platform, come out like a man and say so, and we can have a "scrap" concerning that.

He talks about God offering salvation. I would like for you to give us the book, chapter and verse that says so. I want to know where is the display of God's mercy in His offering salvation to all of Adam's race, when God knew before He made the offer that these characters to whom He made the offer would reject it and sink down to hell? I want to know, Where is the mercy in this?

He said I made no reference to temporal blessings. I admitted that temporal blessings are prepared for all of Adam's posterity; but spiritual blessings are another thing.

I want to notice his argument on the resurrection. I believe in the resurrection of the dead. In the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians the apostle is treating upon the resurrection of the saints. Of them he says, "As in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall all be made alive." These characters, God's people, die in Adam and shall be made alive in Christ. Who is going to be made alive in Christ? God's people? I have no fight to make against the resurrection.

"In him was life, and the life was the light of men." I have already answered that. I have asked him to tell us how Christ lights the heathen. If Christ lights the heathen he gives the heathen eternal life. Now you have the heathen saved without the gospel.

"God is no respecter of persons." If that is true, the doctrine you advocate can't be true. You teach that a man must do something in order to get to heaven. If a man does something in order to get to heaven, and God saves him on this account, then God respects him for what he does.

Now, I am going to pass the other things mentioned in his speech, as I have already answered all of them.

I now want to introduce some negative arguments. Sufficient provision was not made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, because the offerings that were made under the law were not for the Gentiles, but only for the Israelites; and those offerings typified the offering of Christ.

Hence he did not make an offering for all the race. You remember the references already made to the offerings that were made under the law, where they brought in the scape-goat and the priest laid his hand upon the head of that goat and confessed the sins of the people. I asked him to tell us how many of the Amorites, or Amalakites, or other ites, were represented in these offerings. He never did answer it.

As national Israel was represented in those offerings and national Israel typified spiritual Israel, it follows that the offering Jesus Christ made for sin was made for spiritual Israel, those that were in the covenant of grace, and they only were represented in it.

Now, I will read Heb 9:11-12, "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." He referred to that quotation and says I emphasized for us, and says it is not in there.

All right; he obtained eternal redemption. If he obtained eternal redemption, it was either for the whole race or a part of the race. If he says it was for all the race, it lands him on the Universalist platform. But he don't believe all the race are saved. Then it is for us or for somebody else; and if it is for somebody else, then it is for them, and you and I are left in our sins; but if it is for you and me, and not for somebody else, then they are left in their sins, and it is for us.

Sufficient provision was not made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race, because he did not pray for all the race. He did pray for those for whom he died, and the Father always hears him. Joh 17:6,9-10, "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me ; and they have kept thy word." Ninth verse: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and I am glorified in them." If your position be true, that Jesus Christ died for all the race, then he did not pray for a part of the race that he died for; he died for them, but he did not pray for them. He died for those that he calls his sheep. Joh 10:15, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep."

Joh 11:21-22, when Lazarus had died, and the Saviour came to Martha, she said, "Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee." Martha believed that God would hear the prayer of Jesus. Do you believe that? Do you believe that God will always hear the prayer of Jesus Christ?

Joh 11:41-42, "Then they took, away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always; but, because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." "I knew that thou hearest me always." The Father always hears him.Thank you for your attention.

CP.027 ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends;

It is very encouraging to see how many people will attend a debate and how patiently those who do come sit for so long a time under such trying conditions as you have, to hear us. After all, there must be some good to come from the debate. The wrong that comes out of them is from abuse, just like there might come from the abuse of any other church service. I am glad to continue the investigation of the subject.

I am glad to see my friend, under the strain and pressure of the conscious sense of his tremendous defeat, so warm up to his negative position as to fly the track, run clear away and hunt up what somebody has said about Pedo-Baptists. That makes a tremendous contribution to prejudice, but is not argument. What would you think if I should take his paper and sum up what they have said about the Methodists, the Campbellites and the Missionaries? You would say, Penick is in a tight place and just has to say something. There is much bumcomb in it.

Notice he makes the same argument that I made on the light the heathen have. I quoted Ro 1:20, that God made Himself known, revealed His eternal power in the Godhead, so that they are without excuse. He says if they could live up to the light that they have and be saved, then there is no need for the gospel. If man had kept the law perfectly there would have been no need of Christ's living and dying. But they are condemned without excuse, Paul says. If you could and would keep the light you have had up to the standard of perfection, from the earliest minute of your lives you would not need Christ. The Lord has provided for the preaching of the gospel to all the race.

It is too late in the day for any man to try to put a double construction upon such passages as the commission and many others. Now, notice that when I make a statement clear and emphatic, and when I am reasoning and drawing conclusions from the argument, I am doing only just what he did. You say I charge you with Two-seedism . I have not. In the same breath you say that we teach Universalism, and then again Campbellism, Methodism, and so on.

Faith, he says, is simply the evidence that one is saved. I overlooked that this morning. On Joh 3:18, he says that the faith will be the evidence, that this is all the way we would know they are saved. Then how do you know any heathen are saved without the gospel? Will you just please tell us? Have they got faith? "Faith cometh by hearing," and faith is the evidence of their salvation, so you say. You say they are saved, but where is the evidence?

Again my brother uses terms like this: "No sort of dodging." I am not dodging anything, beloved. No, not one solitary thing in this wide world. Of course he doesn't mean that for a personal insinuation, but just means to make that statement.

If I get his reply on Mt 24:10, "The gospel preached in all the world for a witness," he says my interpretation means every man in the world. He says my proposition is not correct; well, there stands the word of the Lord Jesus Christ plain and simple. What is your interpretation of that? Notice "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world." Christ is looking at either the whole Roman world, as you speak of it, or maybe at the outside world. So far as the Jewish nation is concerned, hadn't it about come to an end? Had not the end of the Jewish nation come as a separate and distinct nation?

He said, in reference to my saying "that he opposed the preaching of the gospel to the sinner," possibly he was gone too much from home for the people of this community to accept that. Have you understood him to claim that he, or me, or anybody else, has one solitary word of gospel for any lost man? I thought you taught that when you went around, you were visiting the churches, feeding the sheep. I don't know whether he is fleecing the sheep or not. Have you been going around preaching to sinners? If so, you make a very strange argument. Do you preach any gospel to sinners at all? In your comment on 1Ti 3:16, you make it there mean the man of God. "Only the moral rebuke is given to the sinner," you say. What kind of a rebuke could you give him except a moral rebuke? This is a clear surrender of your position again.

Who knows what Brother Cayce is doing? Is he doing foreign or home mission work? How many dollars are you spending on this matter? What is it costing you and your brethren, the feed that you are giving? Did you notice the silence with respect to the question "withholding bread from God's children in heathen lands?" And still because of your covetousness and idleness you won't give them their own bread---how do you like that? So they starve.

I want Brother Cayce to let us know whether he is doing real missionary work or not. If so, I guess then that he does go out and preach the gospel to sinners, and opposes it only when he gets in debate. Then he takes the position that not one single word of God is for the lost soul. But when he goes out preaching, he does better. I am glad of that.

"Receiving passively the atonement, he says. All right, there is your act of RECEIVING the atonement. Thus you get the benefits of it. But he says "you talk about doing good works for salvation." No, you know that publicly, deliberately, both in preaching and debating it, I denounce any such a position. It is the simple SURRENDER of a trusting faith and thus RECEIVING the benefits of the atonement; this is the Missionary Baptist doctrine.

My opponent clearly missed the entire point, and really I was amused at his reply on Ac 7:51, "Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Where are the provisions? Let us see. If we should all not eat anything for several days we would get very hungry, and suppose my brother should pile up a stock of provisions around us, and we kept resisting, there is the sufficiency of the provision? There it is, right there. Well, why are you not saved from hunger? It is because you resist and won't eat, that is all. But again notice it. He said the resisting was in the stoning of the prophets and the stoning of Stephen. Well, I showed that that was not the case at all, unless you make the "Holy Spirit" mean prophets, and Stephen. "Ye do always resist THE SPIRIT (not man); even as your fathers did, so do ye." Why did he splutter over the passage or make any comment where it just says Holy Spirit straight out?

Joh 3:18. I want to turn and read again. Every one of these sentences is true, just as the Holy Spirit has written it. "He that believeth is not condemned; he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the only begotten Son of God." Is that so? Well; the Saviour said so, and the Holy Spirit wrote it. Is that true? Yes. Then he goes on and makes some other quotations. Are they true? Yes. But do these other statements contradict this one? God forbid. These, statements and all the others harmonize.

Yes, I referred to his argument on 1Ti 3:16. He gave some reply on Ezekiel and the watchman, but his conclusion is that I ought to go to hell for not preaching the gospel. Well, if it depended upon our works, we would all go. Sometimes he believes in salvation by works and sometimes he don't. God says the watchman would be held accountable if he did not give the warning. Again I want to ask what you are going to do about withholding the bread from those children of God in China? Have you ever given one dollar in your life to send the gospel there? You speak of me and say Penick is doing thus and so. In the twelve years I have been here I have given every cent to the cause of God except what we live on, and we are also carrying a debt on our property.

As to our church house, may I ask how much did your house cost? It is wrong teaching and wrong doctrine that causes good people to array themselves against the truth. You wear as good clothes as I do, and build as good a house as I do, and still you withhold the bread from God's children. You should take that statement about the money that is spent feeding and clothing the missionaries, just as you would say you had traveled five thousand miles at a cost of five hundred dollars in traveling and preaching, giving out the bread of life So you see that they have no sort of idea of purchasing the soul at five dollars, or ten dollars, or forty dollars each.

I may say, in referring to the Arkansas Baptist, there is no argument in that. It is only a contribution to the prejudice of somebody. When I come to the point in a debate, here or anywhere else, that I have to make a statement under pressure consciously or unconsciously just to array Methodists, Presbyterians, Campbellites, or anybody, I will withdraw. I was saved in a Methodist meeting and I am not ashamed of it; got my wife out of the same church. How do you like that?

His point on the Arkansas Baptist that only Missionary Baptists preach the gospel that saves. That man in the Arkansas Baptist writes what he has got no business writing. I never even read the article. We hold that others preach the gospel that saves.

On "Grace abounding and doing as much for the race as they had lost in Adam." Well, he says, you bring it back to the Campbellite platform. That would be to charge on me what the Campbellite brethren teach, but they do not believe in the depravity of the human race at all. The death of Christ simply takes away, meets the demands of the eternal punishment that awaits every one of Adam's race. All sinners still have the depraved nature. Christ's death has met all the demands of a righteous law against them, hence they are provided for. The Campbellite brethren say they are never under sin, not depraved at all.

On the temporal blessings that are universally provided, he concedes that God has poured these out on everybody. So the Lord God is more interested in the temporal welfare of the lost than He is in the spiritual welfare of the lost. He sends the rain and the sunshine upon all mankind alike, blesses everybody. Is the Lord more anxious that they shall be well provided for temporally than that they shall be saved from their sins? How do you account for the Bible making this the basis of their following the Lord Jesus Christ? See in Ac 17:31, Paul says, "that they shall seek after God." Then on down in Ac 17:28-29, and he makes the application, "commanding all men everywhere to repent." In view of God's universal goodness, through the simple provision He makes, God appeals to them to repent, and it is God's goodness that will lead them to repentance.

Then you think God narrow and less interested in providing for the salvation and eternal welfare of the race than that they may have bread and meat and clothes to wear in this world. How do you think that represents God and His Word?

Again, he lets Christ come in contact with us and be one with the entire race in the resurrection. He will let Christ be in such relationship and in such touch with all the race and be resurrected through him, the righteous to everlasting life and the wicked to eternal punishment, but when it comes to these declarations of the universal provisions of Christ he will not accept them. Why, the same words are used to show the universal provisions by Christ for salvation that there is to teach His providential blessings over all.

He didn't say anything about that just meaning the elect did he? But when it comes to the whole world, having provisions made for their sins, that only means a few. When a man that we all love and respect makes such a statement as that, I am persuaded and believe in my own heart that the simple trouble is that he has got wrong notions in his head. He has imbibed the wrong kind of teaching.

Christ is the resurrection. All right. Universal provision made for all in the sunshine and rain. Provision made for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Oh, that just means the Gentiles, those that are going to be saved.

I come again to the point that God is no respecter of persons. He says we do something and God saves us for it. No, not so. We are led by the grace of God and word of God in the ways of repentance and simple trust, or, faith in Jesus Christ; then there we yield up to him, that is the ACT of surrender. It is ceasing to work, and letting God work, and WE RECEIVE. There is your passive idea in the receptiveness of faith. Again he made some reference to the scape-goat question with reference to the Jew. Who got the benefit of that? Only the Jews who got the benefit of it. They looked through faith to Jesus Christ and got the application of his blood. These blessings were limited to the family of Abraham, but now the gospel is to be preached to all the world, that all the world may have the benefits of it; you have the whole thing brought to the Gentiles, to every one who will lay hold upon Jesus Christ, if they through faith in his blood will only receive it, as in Ro 3:25.

Then he made an argument on Heb 9:12, on the us. I want to call your attention to the fact that the for us is put in parenthesis and left out of the revised version. It refers to eternal redemption of God's saints.

On Tit 2:11, I will see if I understand him. "The ,grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." Does he raise any objection to that? 'There is your light that shineth in darkness, the darkness comprehendeth it not. There is your light that lighteth ,every man that cometh into the world. It is not the fault of the word of God that the gospel was not preached to them. I do not know what theory you take. If you take this theory that the gospel is the bread of life, then upon that ground there would be the necessity or obligation on us to do our best to carry God's bread to God's children.

Now, I hasten on to introduce some other lines of argument. Notice the Spirit is sent in His provision for all the world in conviction. "He shall convict the world, of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." Here is your gospel for all. Here is the Holy Spirit of God doing His work. Here is his command to repent for all men everywhere, which God has commanded should be done.

I am reminded of his misunderstanding me, as to the stubbornness of, man, the rebellion of men to the truth, offered truth. "Christ took all this out of the way," he says. If that be true, then he took all your stubbornness out of the way. I don't think he got my point. I made the point that Jesus Christ satisfied the demands of God for every sin in this universe, and that you get the benefit of it when you receive that provision. Hence they do not receive these benefits until they are offered, accepted and, applied.

Now notice the invitation to the world again. Let me read it again. Re 22:17: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come ; and let him that is athirst come ; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Will you get it? The Spirit says come, to everybody in this world. The church says come, to everybody in this world. Anybody that thirsteth is invited to come. Whosoever will is invited to come.

Universal invitation? Yes, world-wide, by the church and the Spirit, carrying out the gospel as the Holy Spirit has written. If there is no universal provision made for them, why should they come? In what way should they come? On what grounds? Grace through its provisions in the word of' God inclines, directs, sways, appeals to, and warns, against rejection until men reach the point of passive submission in allowing, permitting, and giving the Spirit right of way, free admission to the heart, soul, and life.

Again, I call attention to the universal mercy that God has provided. See Ro 11:32: "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, both Jew and Gentile, that he might have mercy upon all." What sort of mercy? Well, "temporal mercy." He says that is all right. Then resurrection mercy? Yes. Well, any mercy provided to rescue a soul? "Not at all." Well, you've got no gospel for them? "No, sir." I want you to get the answer as to, whether he is really doing missionary work or not. There is no commission, or responsibility on the ministry to go, or for the church to send. The FEW shall be saved, and the MANY shall be lost because God RESPECTS the few and disregards the many. Does not love them, but hates them. Hasn't given Christ to die for them. Christ had no thought of them in his death, the Holy Spirit has written no word for them, the Holy Spirit does not convict, or reprove them; a man lost is condemned simply because God decreed it, and all that Christ suffered in death could not make a sufficient provision for them. Indeed they must be very great sinners, if that be true. They must be wonderful sinners if Christ could not make any provision for them. You have got a limitation of God's will, and mercy, and love. You cannot get around it. I am not charging results on you at all. We are just making these deductions from the premises as we see them. Can we doubt that in the death and suffering and promises made for all that there are blessings in store for every son of Adam's race, can we doubt this? The "sufficiency of the provision"---keep it clear before your mind, not the application. To say that sufficient provision was not made in the death of Christ for the race of Adam is to say that he would not, or could not., It is to say that Jesus Christ in his life, and in his death, was unable to meet the demands that God has against the race of Adam. You have a narrow contracted view from that standpoint, as I see it, of God's love, God's will, God's grace, Christ's death and resurrection. But he has thus far conceded on two points, PROVIDENTIAL blessings for all, and the resurrection of all. All touch him in the resurrection, but do not touch him in the death.

Christ, are you going to be resurrected to give assurance of the resurrection of all? Yes. Did you die for all? "No." I died in a limited way just for a few, but rose for all.

I want to notice the application now; in a few hasty words of this universal provision. So far as I know it is the faith of us all. That is the application of this universal provision is made for all infants, and for all idiots, of all lands everywhere. I call your attention, now, to the work of God is arranging the mind, and to God's Spirit accompanying His word. On the question of the dry bones of the valley, in the thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel, there you have a valley very full of many dry bones. God has commanded His prophet to come and preach to them. Power is given to these bones in arranging joint to joint, and yet no flesh is on these bones. When the flesh came upon them, then the wind was commanded to blow upon these that they might have life. There is the arranging, and the power coming, and also the word coming. All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ receive the benefits of this atonement, and my brother will never be able to find any other class saved, except non-responsible infants and idiots. My brother has never yet found one single saved man, but what has believed, and hence a receiver, a passive receiver, of the benefits. He never will find any other kind.

I may say, in my last speech, in all candor, this is the second or third debate I have had with him and his brethren on this same point. I have never yet met one of the brethren that will stick to the real point at issue, "the provision," but they dwell on the application every time, all the way through.

Now let us see about the rejection of God again. All unbelievers are lost. Does he say so? Yes, and I say so. All unbelievers are condemned, "shall be damned," is the declaration of God's word. The Saviour, in weeping over Jerusalem said, Mt 23:37, "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wing and ye would not." There they seem to have a will of their own, and they reject. Christ said, this was my will, my inclination, but ye WOULD NOT; hence, "behold your house is left unto you desolate."

Every saved man now in heaven, that was responsible, repented of his sins, and surrendered to Jesus Christ in trusting faith. I believe my brother will accept that. Notice the other side. Every lost soul in hell is there because of his sins, because of his refusal to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Not one lost soul can truly charge that the cause of his condemnation is to be found in the want of God's love, and His mercy, or to Christ's death, or to the provision of the Holy Spirit. There can be none such found. To be sure we have agreed that had Christ never died God is just in condemning all and still Paul makes the argument, in Romans, third chapter, God is just in justifying the believer and condemning the unbeliever; not one lost soul can truly, charge God with being wanting in love, or mercy.

As His ambassadors we are to go to all the world, to every creature, praying them, in Christ's stead, to be reconciled to God. That is our mission, that was Paul's mission. I do not believe until this good hour my opponent has put this down. Has he given you anything at all of the real meaning of the work that an ambassador has to do? He is a man in high official position, sent to represent one sovereign power to another sovereign power. Paul puts himself in that attitude and I believe every gospel preacher pretending to be like Paul should be begging them, beseeching them, to be reconciled to God. Why? Because Paul makes the same point, that except they receive the reconciliation of God they have no salvation in them.

Now, beloved, in the few moments I have to speak on this question, I want to be clear, and keep it definitely before our mind, because we are discussing these questions for your benefit, as well as for what good we may get out of it. I want to say so that we may understand clearly the point of issue, that on no occasion have I meant to charge consequences, and violate any rule. I want you to weigh the argument in the light of the truth that has been brought from God's word without note, addition, or subtraction. I say again that all this preaching of the gospel to all the world, and all rebuke of the Spirit, simply falls to the ground unless you take in the fact that there has been provision made for the race of Adam in the death of Jesus Christ. So that the men that reject it, the men that refuse it, the men that fail to accept it, these are simply shouldering their own respon­sibilities, and they go down to a devil's hell without ground to charge it against God's justice, God's mercy, or God's anything else. Just like a man rejecting God's temporal blessings, he suffers the consequences and can find no fault to lay at the Lord's door.

Thank you.

CP.028 ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you for the purpose of making the last speech on this proposition, "The Scriptures teach that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam."

As this is the last speech on the proposition, of course I cannot introduce new argument, and I shall try, as much as possible, to make mention of nothing that has not already been spoken of. I shall make no new argument at all, except what I am necessarily compelled to make answer to the things that were introduced in the last speech. So I will begin answering the last speech with the close of that speech. "The last shall be first, and the first shall be last." I will take the last of the speech first.

The brother said, "As God's ambassadors, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." That language has been used time and again during this discussion. I think I have already noticed it since the discussion began, but I will now notice it again. For the satisfaction of the brother, I want him to please remember now that I have noticed it; and I will just say this, that there is not one thing in that text which teaches that the minister of the gospel is required to pray to the unregenerate, the ungodly, that one who is not born of God, who is yet in nature's darkness-to pray to him to be reconciled to God. "We pray you in Christ's stead" ---you, who? You Corinthians. If that text teaches the doctrine advocated by Brother Penick, then the Corinthians were alien, unregenerate sinners, and were without God and without hope in the world; they were the whole world that he has been talking about that is lying in the wicked one. But they were not that; they were of God. They were children of God. They had been washed from their sins by the work of regeneration; had been born of God; had passively received, in regeneration, the benefits of the atonement. Now the apostle says, "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." They had passively received the benefits of the atonement, and they ought now to actively be reconciled to God. I have told you there is a passive receiving and an active receiving; and everywhere in Holy Writ that the minister stands as an ambassador, praying characters to be reconciled to God, it is always to that character who has already passively received the benefits of the atonement in regeneration. Hence, always to the people of God, and not to the unregenerate.

He quotes Mt 23:37. I wonder what he gets out of that. "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

How often would I have gathered who together? Gathered you? No. How often would I have gathered thy children together. Who is he talking to? Jerusalem. If Jerusalem, national Jerusalem, national Israel, represents spiritual Israel, spiritual Jerusalem, the Lord's people in the gospel dispensation, then that is not applicable to the alien sinner, but it is to Jerusalem; it is to God's people. It is not to the alien or the unregenerate sinner.

Don't you see how he is off the proposition? Let us read the text; "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

How often would I have gathered all Adam's race together? No; but that is the way it would have to read if it had reference to all Adam's race. There is not a single thing in that text that in the least favors universal provision for salvation. Not a thing in it that has the least intimation that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race. Not a thing that looks like it.

He refers to the valley of dry bones. The prophet says this is WHAT? The whole race of Adam? No; he does not say that. Well, if it teaches that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam, then that valley of dry bones would have to represent the whole family of Adam, but it does not represent them. It represents the whole house of Israel; and they must have had some kind of life, because they realized their barrenness, and their dry condition, and their destitution; for they proclaimed it themselves. They must have had some kind of life.

They represented the whole house of Israel. There is nothing in that about sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race. If it teaches that there is sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of anybody, it teaches that there is sufficient provision in the death of Christ for the salvation of the whole house of Israel---if it teaches anything about a provision for the salvation of any of the race.

Again he talks about universal provision for temporal blessings, and universal provision for the resurrection. I want to call your attention to the fact that the proposition does not say that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for temporal blessings for all Adam's race. The proposition does not say that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the resurrection of all Adam's race at the final wind-up and consummation of all things. It does not say that. Therefore, these things are irrelevant to the proposition. That is the reason I have paid no more attention to them than I have. There is absolutely nothing in them that proves the proposition.

I have asked him, time and again, to tell us, if in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race, what can prevent the salvation of any one of the race? The only answer for some time has been that it was their stubbornness. If, in the death of Christ, sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race, and stubbornness would prevent their salvation, then sufficient provision was made to overcome their stubbornness. So their stubbornness could not prevent their salvation, if sufficient provision was made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race. Has he got around it? No. Just as sure as in, the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race of Adam, there is nothing under God’s blue sky that can hinder the salvation of a single one of the race of Adam. He must necessarily land on the Universalist platform, or else say that there is no such thing as atonement in the death of Christ.

He says that our doctrine would involve the idea that sinners are lost because God decreed it. I have denied that time and again, that our doctrine involves any such thing. Adam violated God's holy and righteous law by his own will, not because of the predestination of God. "Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

This sin of Adam was my sin, and your sin, and it was the sin of every one of us. You and I are nothing more or less than Adam multiplied. We received a sinful nature by reason of our being born of a sinful parentage; and when we act anything at all, we act out the sinful nature that we are in possession of. All of us by nature are alike, in possession of the sinful nature. And it is just, if you please, that death passed upon all men, because all have sinned. All have sinned, and hence, all condemned without the intervention of mercy.

Without the work of the Lord Jesus Christ the last one of Adam's posterity would land in ruin, in everlasting punishment; but mercy intervenes, grace intervenes. The Lord Jesus Christ left the shining realms of eternal glory, and came into this world as a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, having the iniquities of God's people, those that the Father gave him, as I showed you, laid upon him. He says, "I came down from heaven not to 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." He had their iniquities laid on him. He bore their sins in his body. He put away their sins by the sacrifice of himself. He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for them. He obtained eternal redemption for them when he shed his blood for them on Calvary's hill and this old, sin cursed earth drank up his blood. The debt that they owed to divine justice was satisfied there. The penalty was met in the person of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and all they owed was paid, and there are no demands against them by the broken and violated law of our God. And I showed you the work of the Trinity. If there is a unity in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit operates to the same extent as the death of the Lord Jesus Christ and applies the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to the soul. All of them will be saved in heaven without the loss of one, and no proviso, or anything of the kind. The salvation of all these characters for whom Christ died is certain. He will have to change God's word if he gets it to mean that in the death of Christ sufficient provision was made for the salvation of all the race.

They are not lost, then, because God decreed it, but they are lost because of their own sins, and saved by mercy, saved by the grace of Almighty God. That is the reason why they are saved.

He quotes Ro 11:32 again, "God bath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." That has reference to the gospel church, the gospel kingdom and gospel benefits. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." So there is nothing in this that intimates that there is sufficient pro­vision in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race. Nothing at all.

Then he talks again about the universal invitation over here in Revelation. He asked me, you know, if I did not believe that was a universal invitation. I told him no, I did not believe it was a universal invitation. Re 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Does it say, "Whosoever will or will not, let him take of the water of life freely?" Does it say, "Let everybody take the water of life freely, whether you will or not?" Here is a man that has the will. There is a man that has not the will. Will springs from life. No man has a will for natural things unless he has the natural life first; so no man has a will for spiritual things unless he has the spiritual life first. So, whosoever will can apply to no one but the character that has already been born of God. "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." But you say, "I don't want to." Well, he is not talking to you; he says, Whosoever will. It says, "Let him that is athirst come." Here is water, "let every one that is thirsty come and drink." You say, "I am not thirsty." All right, I am not talking to you. Another says, "I am thirsty." All right, I am talking to you.

Does it say come whether you are thirsty or not? Is it universal? No sir. It is universal to the extent of the thirsty and all those who have the will, but it does not embrace a single one that is not thirsty. It does not embrace a single one that does not have the will. Not a single one. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come." I am going to say that any man, who knows his a b c's can see that argument---that a man must be in possession of the natural life before he can thirst for natural drink; and a man must have the spiritual life before he can thirst for spiritual drink. Any man who knows A from B can see that.

He says Christ satisfied the demands and we get the benefit when we receive it. That is just exactly what I have been arguing all the time---that Christ has satisfied all the demands of the law for somebody. If Christ has satisfied all the demands of the law for all the race, there is nothing to prevent any one of the race from receiving it. As there is a unity in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit reaches every one that is embraced in the atonement of Christ.

So if he says Christ satisfied the demands for all the race it is a universal salvation; it lands him there every time. Absolutely impossible for him to get out of it. I said we received the benefit of it in regeneration, when it is applied to the heart in the work of regeneration by the Spirit and power of God. But the atonement was made back yonder when the Lord Jesus Christ shed his blood. He there obtained eternal redemption for us. "He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." If he did not obtain eternal redemption back there, he did not enter into the holy place; but the apostle says he did enter into the holy place.

If that has reference to the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration, then Jesus Christ has not ascended to the Father; he has not yet obtained eternal redemption. But the apostle says he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Remember Elder Penick said for us was not there. I replied that it was for us or for somebody else. It was for all the race or for a part of the race. If it is all the race, then all the race are eternally redeemed. If he obtained eternal redemption for somebody, and if it is for those that the Father gave to the Son, then all of them have eternal redemption. If it is for those who hear the gospel and accept it, why, then the Lord obtained eternal redemption for them. The Lord Jesus Christ has obtained eternal redemption for every one that is embraced in the offering he made. You may make it as many or as few as you please. He obtained eternal redemption for every one that is embraced in the offering he made. If you want to limit them, that is your business. If you say it is all the race it lands you on the Universalist platform.

He says the Spirit is sent to all the world to convict the world, and all the world means all of Adam's race. Then the Spirit reaches the heathen where the gospel does not go, and if the Spirit reaches the heathen where the gospel does not go, and convicts the heathen, then the Spirit is able to regenerate the heathen where the gospel does not go. So your gospel regeneration theory goes to the ground again. You get into trouble every time.

No difference which way you turn, your head is in the halter. You cannot make your theory harmonize with the word of God. I say it with all kindness; I believe you are an honest man, and I am not charging you that you are arguing these things deceitfully, or anything of that kind, but I just simply think you are wrong in the head. I think people can sometimes be wrong in the head and right in heart, and I am going to admit that Brother Penick is all right in heart; but I do think his head is awfully wrong.

He quotes Tit 2:11 again, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." According to Brother Penick's position it ought to read this way: "The grace of God that bringeth, in the death of Christ, sufficient provision for the salvation of all the race." But not a word said about that. How does it read? "The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all, men."

Here is one that is under the curse of the broken law of our God, and the grace of God comes to that character. What does it bring to him? It brings deliverance from the curse of the law; it bringeth salvation to every one to whom it appears. If that means all of Adam's race, as Brother Penick has argued, it will land him again on the Universalist platform.

If it brings salvation to every one to whom it appears, and if it appears to all of Adam's race, as the brother has argued, it will land him on the Universalist platform. The term all men does not always mean all Adam's posterity. I have showed you that from some of the very passages he introduced himself. Notice that expression, "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Why don't he quote the first part of his text? It says, "We are of God." What about somebody else? Is there anybody who are not of God? "We are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one," or "in wickedness," as the King James translation reads.

Here is somebody that does not lie in wickedness. But here is the whole world lying in wickedness. Then that whole world that lieth in the wicked one is the world of the ungodly. Here is another class over here in contradistinction from them, and they are of God. Then there must be a world of the ungodly, and a world of the godly. Then we see two worlds that are brought to view in that text by a logical conclusion. No man can get out of it.

So the grace of God is for every one that is embraced in the covenant, every one for whom Jesus Christ died; and the grace of' God that brings salvation appears to them bringing salvation and teaching them that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, they should live soberly. If it teaches the heathen this, they don't need the gospel to regenerate them. So down goes your gospel regeneration theory again.

You land on Universal salvation and then have your gospel theory position destroyed in the same text. Let us read on, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." "Who gave himself for us," for the very same characters to whom the grace of God appears; that he might redeem us."---the very same characters. So Jesus Christ has given himself for these same characters to redeem them from all iniquity. So that if one of these characters goes down to a yawning hell, he goes there without iniquity. So this is not in support of your position, but turns against you and cuts your theological throat.

He refers to the scapegoat again. That offering was for the Jews, and if it was for the Jews it was not for the Amorites; it was not for the Amalekites; it was not for the Hivites, nor for the Jebusites, nor for the Hittites, nor any other "ites," except the Israelites. Not one single solitary Gentile was ever represented in that offering nor any of those offerings that were made under the law.

That offering was the one where there were two goats; one should be slain and the blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat, the high priest should lay his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess the sins of Israel over his head. Why in the world did he not confess the sins of the Amorites, the Hittites, or the Jebusites? If that represented the offering Christ should make, there ought to have been some Amorites and Hivites and Amalekites and some other ites besides Israelites represented in it, if the offering Christ made was for all the race.

As there were none of the ites there except the Israelites, it follows that in the offering that Jesus Christ should make, as national Israel was typical of spiritual Israel, not one is represented in the offering Jesus Christ made except his chosen people. As the Lord chose national Israel, so the Lord has chosen spiritual Israel, His spiritual people, too, and the Saviour made an offering for their sins to satisfy for them. That figure does not show any thing like a provision being made in the death of Christ for the salvation of all the race of Adam. Instead of a figure like that, he must get one that has an offering made for all the race. Until he can find in the types and shadows an offering made for the Hittites, and for the Jebusites, and for the Amorites, and for the Amalekites, he can never make it appear that Jesus Christ made an offering for the sins of all Adam's race.

He quotes 1Jo 2:2 again. I wonder if he will ever be satisfied about 1Jo 2:2? Let us look at that again. I have noticed it several times but I am willing to keep on. "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." There is all Adam's posterity. Now, their sins are resting upon them; and here is Jesus Christ. John says "he is the propitiation for our sins," that is, he is the expiation, he is the satisfaction, he is the atonement "for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." He is the expiation for their sins. He is the satisfaction for their sins. He takes their sins all away.

Then if one of them goes to hell, it cannot be sin that sends him there, because Jesus was the propitiation for his sins. It cannot be sin that sends him there, because Jesus has expiated his sins; he is the expiation for his sins. He purged our sins; "when he had by himself purged our sins." He reconciled for their sins. He is the expiation of their guilt, the satisfaction for their guilt. He is the satisfaction for all their sins. Well, what can hinder them entering heaven? Well, Brother Penick says it is stubbornness. He also says Jesus Christ has taken everything out of the way.

Well, is stubbornness sin? If stubbornness is not sin, and they are sent to hell for stubbornness, then they are not damned for sin. What are they damned for, then? If stubbornness is sin, and he is the expiation, the satisfaction, for our guilt, or for our sins, then he has made satisfaction for our stubbornness. So it cannot be stubbornness that sends one of them to hell. "Well, but," you say, "they are not willing." Then I ask, is unwillingness sin? If unwillingness is not sin, and they are sent to hell for their unwillingness, then they are not damned for sin.

That is the logical conclusion of the position Elder Penick has occupied. He cannot possibly make it appear in affirming his proposition.

I don't care if he debates this question two days or two months he can never make it appear that one sinner will ever go to hell on account of his own sins, because if his position is true, Jesus is the expiation for their sins. If unwillingness is sin, Jesus Christ has made provision for their unwillingness, has made provision sufficient to make them willing. If stubbornness is sin, he has made provision for their stubbornness. So if they are damned on account of stubbornness or on account of unwillingness, and if these things are not sins, then they are damned without sin.

If they are sins, then Christ has taken them away. If they are not sins, then they are condemned for something else beside sin. If people are condemned for sin, and stubbornness is sin, then Jesus has made expiation for their stubbornness, also, and they will be saved in spite of their stubbornness. I do not know how you can sing that good old song,

"Dear, dying Lamb, thy precious blood
Shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God
Be saved, to sin no more."

According to your position the heathen are in an endless hell---because of the failure of an enlightened people to send the gospel to them, not because of their sins, but because of the sins of the other man. The wrong man is sent to hell, if you please. One man is sent to hell, because of the other man's sin. I do not charge Brother Penick with believing that, but I do charge it as a logical consequence of his position.

He says all men are commanded to repent. Ac 17:30. We have noticed that time and again, but I will read it, beginning with Ac 17:29: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." "The times of this ignorance God winked at"---the times of what ignorance? This ignorant worship, this false worship; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent. Some are not engaged in that false worship. Does he command them to repent? No, sir. But he commands those of God's people who are engaged in ignorant worship to repent. The text does not, say a thing about repenting of your sins in order to go to heaven, and there is nothing in it about provision for universal salvation at all.

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." These characters that he admonishes; to repent are those to whom he hath given assurance.

Thank you for your kind attention.

CP.031 Third Proposition CAYCE'S FIRST SPEECH

THIRD PROPOSITION

"The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means." Elder C. H. Cayce affirms ; Elder I. N. Penick denies.

ELDER CAYCE'S FIRST SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you in the affirmative of the proposition you have just heard read, "The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means." It might be well for me to define my proposition somewhat to tell what I mean by it. I mean this: "The Bible teaches that man is so depraved that he is unable, without a direct and immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit, to render acceptable obedience to the gospel of the Son of God." That is what Elder Penick affirmed in debating with Mr. Hardeman, and it is what I mean by my proposition. Perhaps it might be well to define just a little further.

By the direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit, I mean without means. If there is anything done by an immediate work, then there can be no intervening agency or means. By the word gospel I mean the good news, the glad tidings of the power of Jesus Christ to save sinners.

I mean, further, by this proposition that in order that the sinner hear or understand the gospel, or be able to understand gospel teaching, he must first be a regenerate character, that regeneration must precede the spiritual hearing or understanding of the gospel. I think you understand now what I mean by this proposition.

I wish now to introduce some affirmative arguments ; but I will first call your attention to a question that I put to Brother Penick in the beginning of the discussion. That question was, "How many ways does God have of saving people?" You remember his answer. We will have special use for that now. "Intelligent and responsible people one way; infants and idiots another way, which he does not know," and desires that I tell.

Well it must be that Brother Penick has forgotten something. I hold in my hand a letter signed "I. N. Penick," and dated "Martin, Tenn., Dec. 17th, 1906," and addressed "Dear Brother Hardeman." In this letter he says something concerning the operation of the Spirit. I understand by an answer given here that Brother Hardeman asked him if the Spirit did ever operate separate and apart from the word. Brother Penick says, "He operates separate and apart in the salvation of all infants and idiots in all countries. So we all believe. But not so in the salvation of accountable sinners."

It seems that Brother Penick knew then how the infants and idiots were saved. But now since our debate has begun he don't know. I guess he forgot. Then the infant is either not a sinner, or if it is a sinner it is not an accountable sinner.

Now, Brother Penick, please tell us, Is the infant a sinner? I want you to please answer that question. If the infant is a sinner, and is not an accountable sinner, then the infant is not saved by grace, for God could not justly damn the infant if the infant is not accountable. If God could not justly damn the infant, then the salvation of the infant is not of grace but an obligation of God and something that God owed to the infant. So you will have several plans of salvation before this thing is over with, possibly.

If the infant is saved one way and the intelligent adult, or the responsible sinners, as you may be pleased to call them, are saved another way, then God has two ways of saving people, or else some are saved another way besides God's way. The Apostle Peter says, as recorded in the fourth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, "This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders." You builders are the ones who set at naught that stone "which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Now if the infant is saved one way, and the adult is saved another way, and yet none can be saved any other way except by what Jesus Christ has done, I want to know, Is it the infant that is saved by what Jesus has done, or is it the adult that is saved by what Jesus has done? Which one is it? God's way is just one way of salvation; there is no other except through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now which is saved that way? While I am on that, before I introduce my affirmative arguments, I want to call attention to what J. H. Grimes, of Texas, said in the Baptist Standard of April 25, 1907: "What is true of baptism is equally true of everything else which man can do. There are thousands who live and die and are never at any time capable of performing a moral act. This is true of those who die in infancy, and those whose intellect never becomes strong enough to know right from wrong. To make any act of man essential to salvation would exclude all these non-accountables. If these are to be saved, then it follows that they are to be saved just like all others are saved, or else God has two plans of salvation. As He has only one plan of salvation, and we all agree that these are saved, it follows that the essentials of this plan must be adapted to this as well as other classes."

He says God has but one plan. That is my position exactly. Elder Penick is arrayed now against his own people. Elder Penick says the infant is saved one way and the responsible sinner or adult is saved another way. Now, then, let me give you a little syllogism right here, and I want Brother Penick to pay some attention to it:

First. "Whatever is essential as a gospel condition to salvation must be absolute, universal, indispensable and without exception." J. H. Grimes, in Baptist Standard of April 25, 1907.

Second. "The condition of salvation is faith in Christ."-J. A. Scarboro, in Go-ology, page 32.

Third. Therefore, faith in Christ as an essential to salvation is absolute, universal, indispensable and without exception.

If faith in Christ, according to their own logic, their own argument', is an absolute essential to salvation and is universal and without exception, as the infant is unable to exercise faith in Christ, it absolutely, universally, and without exception excludes the infants and leaves them out of salvation. You cannot reach the case of the infant with your plan of salvation.

Now I am going to introduce some affirmative arguments. My first argument is, Sinners are born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because the gospel cannot reach the case of the infant, and the adult is saved the very same way the infant is saved---both are saved just alike.

Mr 10:13-16: "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

The very fact that Jesus blessed them is evidence sufficient to prove that they needed the blessing, for Jesus has never done anything in vain. None of his work was in vain. As he blessed them, it shows that the infant needed the blessing. "He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

Then how is the infant saved? It is, saved by the blessing that Jesus Christ bestows. Is the infant able to exercise faith or believe on the Lord Jesus. Christ? No. Then, how is the infant saved? By the direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit without any means or agency or instrumentality whatever.

If you make any act of man an essential to salvation, let it be whatever it may, whether the act of the one that is saved, or the act of some other man---if you make any act of man an essential to salvation you cannot reach the case of the infant with that plan. You cannot reach the: case of the infant with the gospel. You cannot reach the case of the infant with your means, with your agency, with your instrumentality. You cannot reach the case of the infant that way.

But the infant is saved, and the Saviour teaches in this language that "whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child," just like the little child receives it, by the very same power, in the very same manner that the little child receives the kingdom of God, that is the way you receive it, or you don't receive it at all. That is what the Saviour says about it. If that is the truth, then the adult receives the kingdom of God without the instrumentality of the gospel.

You cannot reach the case of the infant with the gospel. As the Saviour teaches in this language that the infant is saved the very same way the adult is saved, and the adult is saved the very same way the infant is saved, and Brother Penick says he don't know how the infant is saved, and as both are saved just alike, then Brother Penick don't know how the adult is saved either.

Lu 18:15-17: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples, saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto, him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." That is, he shall in no case enter therein. In other words, you cannot enter into the kingdom of God any other way only the very same way the little child enters the kingdom of God. You cannot enter the kingdom of God any other way only the very same way the infant enters the Kingdom of God. You cannot be saved any other way only the way the infant is saved.

That is the only way you can be saved. If you are not saved the way the infant is saved you will not be saved at all. That is just what the Saviour teaches. So, as the infant is not saved by the instrumentality of the gospel, and the adult is saved the very same way the little child is saved, then the adult is not saved by the instrumentality of the gospel either.

Then, if any of the adult family of Adam's race are saved at all, they are saved independently of the gospel as a means. I will give you from now until the close of this debate to answer this argument.

Perhaps the reason you said you did not know how the little child was saved was that you knew you could not get around that. When Elder Penick is debating with the Cambellites he is on one side of the question, and when he is debating with us he is on the other side. Let us notice his proposition just a little: If the sinner is so depraved that he is unable without a direct or immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit to render acceptable obedience to the gospel of the Son of God, if that proposition is true, depravity is what is in the way; that is what hinders the sinner rendering acceptable obedience to the gospel.

If the direct or immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit does not take the depravity away, the sinner is just like he was before he had the direct or immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit. If the direct or immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit takes away the depravity, then it regenerates the sinner, and that is done by the direct work of the Holy Spirit before he can render acceptable obedience to the gospel.

He was standing on my platform while he was debating with Brother Hardeman, and now he is on Mr. Hardeman's platform; so his positions are just like that (speaker crosses his fingers).

Sinners are regenerated or born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because regeneration is represented in the Scriptures as a birth or begetting, and this work must necessarily be performed without a medium. It is a direct work. 1Jo 5:1: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

I will read the Interlinear Translation, 1Jo 5:1: "Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ, of God has been begotten." The word in the Greek may be correctly translated either way, has been begotten, or has been born. Here is one that believes, and John tells us positively that he has been born of God. If he has been born of God, it follows that regeneration precedes believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; and so, if that be a fact, if John was correct about it, if John knew what he was talking about, the sinner must be born of God before he can believe the gospel ; he must be born of God before the gospel can reach his case.

If he must be born of God before the gospel can reach his case, it follows that he must be born of God independently of and without the gospel as a means. So my proposition is sustained. Joh 1:11-13: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Brother Penick, you made some intimation of your scholarship in the beginning of this discussion. I want you to diagram that sentence; I want you to parse it; I want you to analyze it. I defy you to diagram or parse this sentence, analyze it, or treat it in any way you may, according to grammar, and make it appear in the presence of this intelligent audience that the belief preceded the birth.

I just defy you to do it, sir. Will you undertake it? Will you dare undertake that? Will you risk your scholarship on this text and argue that the belief preceded the birth? "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

If it is through the instrumentality of the gospel, or if he must believe, or if he must become willing that God save him, then it is by the will of man; but he says not of the will of man, but of God. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." This text teaches us that it is God's doing, it is God's work, which brings about this birth, and you understand, in nature, that that which is born is entirely passive in being born; so in the spiritual birth, that which is born is passive in being born.

It is the work of God, the doing of God, by the will of God, and by his will only, that sinners are born of God. In the natural birth that which is born exercises no will in being born. He does not become willing to be born, does he? How about that? Must the sinner want to be willing to be born? That is just your logic exactly. So, as the will of the one born is not consulted in the birth, it follows that the new birth must be brought about independently of, or without, the gospel as a means.

Joh 3:1-8: "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Surely, the gospel is something that concerns the kingdom of God; it is something that is in the kingdom of God. If he cannot see the kingdom of God, he cannot see the things that are in the kingdom. So, if he cannot see the kingdom of God nor those things that are in the kingdom, he must be born of God before he can ever see the gospel. It follows, therefore, that he must be born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means.

You might try from now until the final wind-up and consummation of all things, and you can never answer the blessed Son of God on that. Whenever you endeavor to make it appear that the sinner is regenerated by means of the gospel, you put yourself against the Saviour himself. He says, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." He must be born again before he can see those things.

It follows that the seeing of those things must follow after, and cannot be in order to or a means in his regeneration.

But Nicodemus marveled at that. He wondered at it. He did not understand it. And there are some folks yet who do not understand it. Now you watch and see if Brother Penick don't wonder and marvel at how that is. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit," or as some versions have it, "even Spirit," "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As he must be born of water even Spirit before he can enter into the kingdom of God, it follows that he must be born of water, even Spirit, before he can enter into gospel service.

Brother Penick says that except a man hear and believe the gospel he cannot be saved. Believing the gospel is obeying the gospel. So one must be born of water, even Spirit, before he can believe the gospel; he must be born of water, even Spirit, before he can hear the gospel. As he must be born of water, even Spirit, before he can hear or believe the gospel, he must be regenerated before the gospel can reach his case.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." What do you mean, Saviour? I mean that by being born of the earthly parentage the one born partakes of the nature of that parentage, and in being born of the Spirit you partake of the divine nature.

In harmony with the immutable law God gave in creation everything partakes of the nature of that from which it springs. In order that you partake of the divine nature you must be born of the divine parentage. Then as there are no means or instrumentalities, and that which is born in nature is not consulted in the birth, even so it is in grace. It is not the doing of the one born in nature that brings about the natural birth, and it is not the doing of the one born that brings about the spiritual birth. It is the doing of God that brings about the spiritual birth, so you are by divine agency made partaker of the divine nature. "

Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again," or "born from above." You must be born from above. It is not the work of the preacher that brings this about, for it is from above. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Brother Penick seems to know where his change came from. I have heard it suggested that, since he was born in the Methodist church, why should he want to swap it off? But Brother Penick seems to know where it came from in his case. He says it came from the Methodist church, but the Saviour says, "Thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth."

Brother Penick seems to know whence it came---from the Methodist church ; but the Saviour says you cannot tell whence it cometh. Brother Penick and the Saviour do not seem to agree very well. I have three other passages on this argument, but I want to introduce another argument now.

Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because the Lord speaks directly to them in regeneration, and it is called a quickening and a resurrection. Joh 5:25-28: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God : and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself ; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself ; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

"The hour is coming, and now is." It was coming then, and it is coming now, and will continue to come as long as time lasts. "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice" of Elder Penick? No; "the voice of the Son of God."

Brother Penick must show, in order to disprove my proposition, that they hear his voice; he must put himself up as the Son of God. "The hour is coming, and now is, when they shall hear the voice of the Son of God," not that they shall hear the words of the Son of God. There is a difference in hearing the words of the Son of God and hearing the voice of the Son of God.

I might write a letter to some one, and they might read that letter to another, and they could truthfully say "these are the words of Claud Cayce," but they could not truthfully 'say "this is the voice of Claud Cayce." The Saviour did not say "they shall hear the words of the Son of God." but "they shall hear the voice of the Son of God." It follows, therefore, that the Saviour speaks immediately and directly to them. Perhaps he speaks through Brother Penick. If he speaks, through Brother Penick, then it is Brother Penick's voice they hear.

Whose voice are they going to hear when they are raised from the grave? They are going to hear the voice of the Son of God. Brother Penick, do you expect God Almighty, in the resurrection morning, when the Lord Jesus Christ comes down from his mediatorial throne and plants one foot on the Sea and the other on the land, and declares by Him that liveth that time shall be no more---do you expect He is going to send you out to call the dead from the graves? Do you expect that? Unless you expect that, you need not claim that Jesus is sending you out now as a means in the salvation of the dead sinner, for they hear the same identical voice in the resurrection from a state of death in sin that they will hear in the resurrection morning at the last day.

Joh 5:21: "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them ; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Just like the Father raises the dead and quickens them, just that way, by the very same power and in the very same manner, the Son quickeneth whom he will. If you do not expect God to send you out in the morning of the resurrection to raise the dead, neither can you claim God is sending you out as an instrument in His hands in the resurrection of the sinner from a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ, for the sinner is raised up from a state of death in sin, or born of God, just like the dead are to be raised from the graves. Then the sinner is regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without the gospel, as a means. Joh 6:63: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." According to Brother Penick's position the flesh profits a whole lot. The Spirit cannot quicken except the preacher gets there. Oh, no, God cannot save the heathen unless the preacher gets there; but "it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing."

Why, Saviour, are you not wrong about that? No. The Saviour says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing." Well, Brother Penick, you and I have a little flesh. It is true that we are both on the slender order, but it don't make any difference if the preacher is small, as we are, or if he is as large as Brother Simmons, or if he is as large as all our preachers and all yours and yourself put together, the Saviour says the flesh profits nothing. It makes no difference whether it is a little preacher or a big preacher, the flesh profits nothing. Then the Holy Spirit will regenerate the sinner whether you get there or not---the flesh profits nothing.

"The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." When the Saviour speaks to the dead sinner, he is raised up from a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ. Joh 10:27-28: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

They are his sheep ; they are his by gift. The Father gave them to him. When he shed his blood for them, they were his by purchase ; and, now, when he imparts divine life to them they are his by regeneration. It is a three-fold claim that the Saviour has on them. The voice they hear is not an audible voice. 1Ki 19:11-12, "And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice."

Yes, when you hear so much blowing around, the prophet says "the Lord was not in the wind." You hear an awful noise sometimes, and a whole lot of blowing, you know, about how much they are doing in the salvation of sinners, but the, prophet says "the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake." Sometimes it just seems like they shake the foundations of the earth, but the prophet says "the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire." Sometimes they just set things on fire, but fox fire never did burn anything. No, sir, "the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice."

That was where the Lord was. It is not a voice that travels; it is one that is still. Brother Penick's voice travels. The movement of his vocal organs causes a wave or rippling in the air, and you hear by the action of those waves upon the drum of the ear, but when the Saviour speaks, it is a still small voice. He speaks in the heart; his voice does not travel. His is a small voice; it is not to be heard with the natural ear.

He speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit he speaks in the heart and soul of the sinner, and that sinner is quickened into divine life without the instrumentality of the gospel as a means.

Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because we have instances on record where the Lord operated by a direct work. I will first introduce the case of Saul, as recorded in Ac 9:1-7: "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven : and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Ac 22:9: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid ; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." They heard Saul when he said, "Who art thou, Lord?" and when he said, "What wilt thou have me to do?" But they heard not the voice of him that spake to Saul. The Lord spoke to him and we see him turned right about. Just so it is every time the Holy Spirit speaks in the heart of a poor sinner, He turns him right about, face heavenward and Zion-ward, and gives him a desire that he never had before. He then feels, sees and realizes something he never felt, saw, nor realized before. He has learned something he never knew before. There is no teacher who could teach this lesson except God Himself, by the power and influence of the Holy Spirit speaking in the heart of the sinner.

1Ti 1:16: "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." As Paul was born of God independently of, or without, the gospel, as a means, so sinners now are born of God in just the same way.

Thank you for your kind attention.

CP.032 ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

I trust you are rejoicing in heart, prayerful in spirit, and delighted in your very soul at the opportunity you are having. The heat is exceedingly dense, and neither one of us has been physically well so as to do ourselves justice, or to make the matter anything like pleasant for you to hear. We have not been really able to speak, but the Lord's grace is always sufficient.

I rejoice at my opportunity in this discussion, and I trust that as the days and hours pass you will use the benefits and blessings that are to come to us, if you are seeking for the truth, as I trust you are, in this study of His word.

I want to say in the beginning that I have had a few discussions but I do not believe, speaking kindly, that I have met a brother that has shown such extreme high pressure in his debating, and in his opening sentence, right flatly in your face to change his proposition, and then he proposes that, as he gives his definitions of terms, you must accept them. You are under no obligation to accept my proposition or terms, and Penick is under no obligation to accept his.

That is presumption doubly presumed upon the intelligence of his opponent and his hearers when he says, "I will take the proposition that you debated with Mr. Hardeman as my proposition." Well they are very foreign to each other, for that proposition INCLUDES all the gospel, and obedience to it, They are as different as daylight is from dark. You will see now the need of the little pleasantry that I got off in the Banner, in calling for these two extreme brethren, if they were yet wanting discussion, to come forward and we would try to furnish a man "to make, a few feeble remarks."

There must be a kind of understanding or conspiracy with these brethren, since no one of them can prove the issue. "We will double team and try it." Double your team, and thribble your team, and try it if you will. He seems unable to believe the entire gospel truth, that the Spirit comes in direct contact with the heart, and the word does the same. God's word teaches both, so you see the good of debates. I am unable to meet half the engagements that I have to debate. I will try hard to be on hand on all such occasions, however, to make "a few feeble remarks," and when time and circumstances do not permit, there is a whole crowd here right at your service.

You had just as well, right at the beginning, surrender your proposition, beloved; it is the very thing you did, for it can neither be proven by scripture nor logic. Pardon me for saying it, "by sense nor nonsense." Again I rejoice at the good brethren for their good disposition to help him out. A man never seeks help unless he is conscious of needing it, and he has been seeking help from Brother Hardeman, and Brother Hardeman has been doing his best. In my answer I made a statement about my simple faith as to the issue so as to exclude other questions, and so as to get only the question at issue before us.

Now you notice the predicament my brother gets in; he said yesterday that men are condemned for their sins, now he indicates that infants are the same kind of sinners as you and I are, same kind, got to be saved the same way; just the same kind of sinners, so then the infants dying will be damned, and you cannot get out of it. There you are precisely. I am not charging consequences, but there is the logic. If you can get any help from Brother Hardeman or anybody else, you are welcome to it, for you cannot get any out of God's word.

Is the infant a moral or an accountable being? If not, he cannot be condemned. Well, I did not say that he was. If I got your question, I did not say that he was condemned.

Elder Cayce: That was not the question.

Elder Penick : All right then. Again my opponent seems conscious of the fact that he has to go elsewhere for his proof. He has been conscious of that all along, so it looks. His proposition reads, "The Bible teaches," but he prefers to take Brother Hardeman, our good friends, the Christian or Campbellite brethren, or Brother J. H. Grimes, but the Bible does him no good. Brother Grimes is a Missionary Baptist, but I anticipated you might want to use Brother Grimes and so I wrote him an epistle and have his reply. I will use it for your benefit when you want it.

My brother is in another predicament. He said yesterday, in commenting on Joh 3:18, that the unbeliever is condemned already, that the faith is the evidence of his salvation, the way the fellow may know that he is saved, and this morning he is arguing about infants that have no faith and about the heathen that have no faith. So you don't know anything about them. You have got no evidence. Where is the evidence that the heathen, beyond the limits of the gospel, have salvation?

You put faith, and even put baptism before these things as the evidence by which you may know it. Well, you haven't got any evidence about them. Why, you are deciding the case before you have any evidence. You did not intend it, eh? but you made a clear surrender of the facts in the case.

Now notice again, his predicament; he likes to bring in the children, and thus the scriptures have to be worked, double. When the good Methodist people want to sprinkle, their children they quote those passages, and when my brother wants to get around something he takes them to mean something else, you see. Is the infant a sinner?' So you have to get down and be as the infant and you have got to be saved the identical same way. The infant needs salvation, and the sinner needs salvation, and the Saviour tells you he would not have blessed him if he did not need it. Well, I, don't know---the Saviour said something about somebody "BRINGING the infant;" so, you are gone again in that case. "Bringing the infant” brings in the use of means. You are trying to get both of them without means. As for the infant, have you any evidence by his repentance, faith, or baptism, that he is saved? No, sir. What? Are you going to try the case without any evidence?

You had better get some witnesses. You had better try to get Brother Hardeman to talk for you. Brother Hardeman is a good clever fellow, and you had better try him. Again, my brother didn't mean to charge consequences, but when I called attention to it, he charges consequences on me that I positively denied. Of course he means it to go in as his conclusions from what I argued.

Again, in 1Jo 5:1, on "God having begotten;" this expression is used sixty times, our King James version translates twenty-five times one way, and thirty-five times the other, and the revised translators have translated 1Jo 5:1 begotten of God. Now let us see, here is a man that is begotten of God, he is trusting in Jesus, Christ. Faith is working as the Holy Spirit is working. Now the man is a believer. Is he begotten of God? Yes. Does that contradict the declaration of God's word, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved?" Not a bit in this world; no, not one single bit.

Notice again, 1Co 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." Believing and receiving is set over against each other, and there is the active idea that you are able to see in the surrender to him, and the committing in faith, and there is the receiving idea in the same idea of faith, that you receive the cleansing blood, and the consciousness of the Holy Spirit and his fruits in your heart.

Now that is done by the will of God, not according to the will of man. Well, he says it is done by Penick. No, it is just God's will that He uses the preacher. Your whole comment, as brought out, does not exclude a single solitary one of the means. There is a believing in that as you said yesterday, you had looked over my notes---you have the notes of your father---you are tracking along in his tracks. Does faith come by hearing? Well, they heard the word of God.

If you say faith, don't come by hearing you dispute the Bible. A man don't have to be willing, so it is coerced obedience; then what man can render acceptable obedience? You are not responsible for rejecting Christ, not responsible for anything. So you are not brought in, and don't render a glad, joyful service, but He just brought you in anyhow, didn't consult your will at all. How do you like that for ABSOLUTE fatalism?

Now again, on Joh 3:1-7, he dwells down on, Joh 3:3,5, have to be born in order to, see, begotten in order to see, the word is used either way, begotten or born of water, "even the spirit." I take possibly, that that is a better translation. Don't any of us know, because there is no parallel passage to compare it by. In the first place I want my brother to get right square down and tell us just what he is talking about. Is it the "kingdom of God" he is talking about "the heaven above," or "the church on earth," or the "universal reign of Christ?" I want you to tell us what kingdom you are talking about, because the word "kingdom" is used in the Hebrew and Greek scripture in about five different senses. In which sense do you insist?

Now just here I want to present a question, and I haven't any patience with asking questions just for a show. The question is, are we under a commission in this age anyhow? We want to know what you think about that, or was it fulfilled in the apostolic age? To whom should we go with the gospel? Your gospel, as I understand you, then, is to give man light, and is just bread for God's children, and these children of God are scattered all through the heathen world, they are God's children, but you do not know it, and they do not know it.

But faith is to come by hearing, then don't you have to preach to every creature in the world to reach just the saved? For what purpose should the gospel be preached?" Is it to be used by the Holy Spirit in conviction, or in regeneration, or anything connected with it, or is it only as God's light to discover the sheep, to regenerate the lambs, and feed the sheep? Tell us why it should be preached at all?

Are you in favor of mission work, and did you ever make a missionary journey in your life, or ever give one red cent to send the gospel to the heathen? I want to know just where you are. If I have charged you falsely, I don't want to do it. But look out, if you don't come out clear there will be some charges on your proposition. Is faith the evidence of salvation, or regeneration? Is it the way by which this man may know that he is saved, because he repents of his sins and believes in Jesus Christ? If the impenitent sinner is the man that has to be saved, why do you preach to him?

Then have you got any gospel call like the Saviour has in Lu 6:32? He says he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. I take the position that you are to call the unregenerate to repentance. What does the regenerate man want to repent for?

Does faith come by hearing? Is thirsting the evidence that one has already drunk the water of life and has been saved? Speak out; that is the point you made yesterday, that thirsting, and willing, and all these things, come from the spiritual man. He that drinks of this water shall never thirst. There are two horns of the dilemma, and they will gore the life out of you whichever way you turn.

Answer, Is one saved before he has received the atonement or reconciliation? Is a man saved before he receives the atonement, or the benefits of it? Is an unreconciled man before God, as you say about the Corinthians, are they ready for church membership? Is that the fellow you want to baptize, the fellow that simply has the desire to be saved? If so, you and Brother Hardeman are pretty close together.

Will any responsible unbeliever be saved in heaven? Have you got any evidence in the wide world of it? Have you any evidence that anyone is saved who has never heard or never believed the gospel? If so, do give it to us.

Who should join the church, the one that desires salvation, or the one that has the evidence that he has been saved? Are you going to take sinners in? Or are you going to take only saved people in?

Now will you notice, beloved, I say it pleasantly, there is no room for a man to misunderstand a simple question like I answered yesterday, but I think my brother did misunderstand. My brother says I got my religion from the Methodist church. Is there a man, woman, or child that heard me say anything like that? Did you get your religion from your church? I said "I was converted in the Methodist church, in a Methodist meeting."

It was in a schoolhouse used for a church. That was my point. You brought in a lot of things about Methodist preachers, as though they had anything to do with it. I told you yesterday that I got my wife from the Methodists, and I say to them that I had a good wife, and a good religion, and I thought best to go where they hold on and don't lose out so quick.

Next, my dear brother quotes some scripture about the resurrection from the death in trespasses and sins, as Joh 5:25-28, "And they shall hear the voice of the Son of God." Now let us see; the gospel means "good news." I wonder if that call of the Son of God, the voice of the Son of God, if that is gospel or not? Was it gospel then, "good news?" What do you say about it? Is the gospel good news, or is it bad news?

The Son of God speaks to a man when he wants to bring him to life, and takes him up to heaven. Now please tell us, is this gospel? My brother refers to some scriptures that tell us about the quickening of the Holy Spirit. "The Spirit gives light," and "the word of God gives light." I have no quarrel to make with either one. Missionary Baptists stand straight claiming all the truth, and believing all the Bible, but did you notice his interpretation? I think I got it. We want to understand each other whether or not we agree at all. We will be glad to agree on every point we can, I am sure.

In commenting: on that passage, "the Spirit quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing," he made the point that it don't make any difference how many, how big, nor how little, how short, or how long, how black, or how white, the preacher of the gospel, the flesh profiteth nothing. He got the thought, that it was just your fleshly body that goes around here carrying the gospel that saves. So the flesh profits nothing that carries around the word of God, so your flesh and my flesh that goes around to feed the sheep, and maybe to fleece the sheep, that is of no profit in this world, and yet you take up for it. Is not this preaching worth a cent in the world, you yourself being the judge? What say you?

Now I have an idea that you have missed the interpretation very far, don't you? Again, he makes an argument, on the "Still small voice." Was it a still small voice that didn't travel? Then he turned to Saul's conversion, where, others did hear the voice but could not distinguish the words. They did not hear in an understanding sense, but still they heard. How did he know that was the Spirit of God without the knowledge of God's word?

Now I want to show you in a very plain simple way that this is conviction, and some of our old friends use it in the sense of conviction, they use it in a sense of conviction, opening their eyes, not to salvation, but to their awful lost, ruined condition. When "the commandment came sin revived and I died." Your theory has no place in the wide world for death to sin, or separation from sin. The first thing is to make one a child of God, for repentance has sorrow in it.

There is no place in the world for death to sin, nor hatred of sin, nor turning from sin. No place for the guilt of sin, the awful results of sin that follow the unsaved man. No place for a guilty conscience, no place for dying in sin, and being separated from it, and being resurrected by the faith of the operation of God, as Col 2:12. You have skipped over the whole question of guilt and death to sin.

My brother was able to give us a little something on the still small voice, and says "we tore up the stumps around and made a racket, and still that was all fox fire." If it is fox fire, all right, it won't even produce the scent of a scorch on any garment.

On Saul of Tarsus, 1Ti 1:16, the point made is Paul is a pattern, "a pattern for all them that should believe on him." How does Paul say you are saved? Paul puts it everywhere that you are justified by faith and saved by faith. Now I want you to come right along and answer my question positively and clearly. Is there one single case of salvation that you know anything about that did not have the gospel light? Is there one single solitary one? You see you haven't got any evidence on your side.

Notice now, will you, the exact meaning of the proposition, it is not "is there an immediate contact with the Holy Spirit." I take it that every Missionary Baptist, and also every Pedo-Baptist, believes that proposition, "that in the process of salvation there is an immediate touch or contact with the Holy Spirit." As I said, they also believe the immediate contact of the word. The word of God is the seed, God's grace warms it and brings it by His gentle showers of loving grace, and regeneration results.

1Pe 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever." See Jas 1:18, and a whole lot of others.

That is the proposition we are debating. Of course my brother has made a surrender, but I have never yet attempted to force upon any man my definition of terms, and especially when I change the entire phraseology of a proposition, and take a statement of a proposition, that has both obedience and the gospel in it. If his proposition be true, the heathen do not need the gospel for their salvation. It is no matter what they hear, believe, or do, they are going to be saved by grace.

There is no need in this world, so far as the question of salvation is concerned, to send them the gospel. For if saved, it will be independent of, and without, the gospel. Will it be according to the testimony of nature, Ro 1:20, or according to the testimony of conscience, Ro 2:12-13? The infidel, even, need not quit denying God's word, for it is not the means of salvation to him, and still every unbeliever in this world is condemned for not believing.

See Joh 3:18, "He that believeth not is condemned;" and you confess, if I understand you, that you have got no ground, and that there is no evidence in the word of God, that favors your position, and ought to be heard on this question. Are we not responsible for preaching the gospel? I call for the question of Eze 3:17-19; it is about the watchman on the wall. See the tremendous charge of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, "Before God and the elect angels I charge you, preach the word." What does he want the word preached for, and why has the word been so carefully preserved if it serves no purpose in regeneration? What is it for?

Let him take a position, let him say that it is the light to discover regeneration, let him say that it is food for God's children. Then the only way to reach them is to preach it to every man in the world; "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." All unbelievers are condemned; Joh 3:18. All believers are saved and they live by faith---not only saved by faith, but live by faith, because every man as he reads the Bible can see that unbelievers are condemned already.

Again, this proposition changes God's order of the propagation of the species, Ge 1:11-12,21-22,24-26. The point is, there is a reproduction of the species in the world---God has placed the seed in them.

There are three theories among scholars. There is the pre-existent theory, that in creation God made every soul, and when a man is born he puts in a soul. Second, there is the creation theory, that at birth there is a special creation of a soul, a special act of creation; and then there is the traducian theory that God reproduces these souls through the process of reproduction by seed.

Doesn't God say Himself in the parable, Lu 8:11, that the word is the seed? Is it not clearly brought out in the parable that the devil steals away the word lest they become fruitful. See God's purpose is sure through his word. Isa 55:8.

CP.033 ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you to continue the affirmative of the proposition, "The scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means."

It is true that there is nothing said in my proposition about obedience to the gospel; but you remember that I showed you in the beginning that according to the proposition Elder Penick affirmed when debating with Mr. Hardeman that obedience to the gospel follows after regeneration. This being true, sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, and obedience follows after regeneration. But the brother continually charges, no obedience, regenerate or unregenerate.

Well, you can just keep on that way all you please. These people here are intelligent enough to understand just where I am on that point. You may try to mystify just as much as you please; if you want to do that, all right.

Then he talks about double teaming. Why, bless your life, we don't need but just a little two-by-four single horse team, C. H. Cayce. You had enough to do when debating with Brother Hardeman himself, and now you have enough to do in this debate with C. H. Cayce.

He says there is the word alone theory, and the Spirit alone theory. Brother Penick charges Brother Hardeman with having the word alone theory, and then he charges us with having the Spirit alone theory, and Brother Penick says he does not believe either one. Now, then, as he does not believe either one I want to see who it is he stands identified with. I want to see whose platform he stands on.

I hold in my hand a work on baptism by Alexander Campbell. On page 286 I find this language: "On the subject of spiritual influence, there are two extremes of doctrine." Just exactly what Elder Penick says; "there is the Word alone system, and there is the Spirit alone system. I believe in neither." Just exactly what Elder Penick said. Whose platform is he on? You had better get Brother Hardeman to help you a little, as sure as you live, for he will get on his own platform and stand right there; but when you are in debate with the Old Baptists you get on Mr. Hardeman's platform, and when you get in debate with him you have to say "direct and immediate work of the Spirit."

Then he uses a great deal of sarcasm. Oh how sarcastic he is, and how much slang he uses; and yet he talked about how ugly a word that I used would look in a book. I used the word "befuddled." You must have forgotten, Brother Penick, (or did you ever look to see?) that the word is in Webster's Dictionary. That word means bewildered or clouded. It seems like you were considerably bewildered, and that is what the word means. I was not aware that I was stooping so low beneath the dignity of a debater in saying I thought my opponent was bewildered---to say nothing about "re-hash with the flies and ingerns."

Then he says, according to my position, the infant dying will be condemned, and then he is so quick to say he is not charging consequences. What did you charge it for then? My position was---and the argument I made on it was unanswered, and you never will answer it---that the infant and the adult are saved in the very same way, through the very same process. As the infant is not able to understand and obey the gospel, and you cannot reach the case of the infant through the instrumentality of the gospel, and the infant is saved the very same way the adult is saved, then you cannot reach the case of the adult with the gospel. He knows the infant is saved without the gospel as a means. As both are saved the same way, then the adult is saved without the gospel as a means.

That is the argument, and you never can answer it. I don't blame you for not doing it, for you know you can't. I have had folks to try that before now.

Then he says I surrender---that I have got no evidence that anybody is saved where I don't see the faith, because I argued their having faith is an evidence that they are saved, and that as this is an evidence that they are saved I am without any evidence whatever that anybody is saved that does not believe the gospel. I just surrender, he says, my whole proposition.

Well, let us see. What evidence have you that the infant is saved? It seems like this sword reaches back and cuts the other way just a little. Now, then, let us see if we have any evidence that the infant is saved. The Saviour says that "whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein." Have we any evidence that any adult is saved? Yes. I gave you the account of the regeneration of Saul as an instance of the salvation of one adult, didn't I? Then the Sayiour says, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child"---just like a little child receives it---"he shall not enter therein."

Now, to illustrate the force of that language, suppose this little child, misses the kingdom of God. I do not believe he does, and I am not charging that Brother Penick does, but to illustrate the force of the argument and the force of the language of the text I will suppose this little child misses the kingdom of God. The Saviour says, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein." Then, if a little child misses it, and you receive it just as a little child receives it---just as sure as one little child misses the kingdom of God, just that sure it is a universal condemnation to the last one of the adult family of Adam's race.

As sure as one of them misses it, and you receive it just like a little child does, then you do not receive it at all. That is the teaching of the text, and you cannot answer it until the judgment day. It is absolutely unanswerable.

He quotes 1Co 4:15, "In Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel." The one that does the begetting is the father. So, Elder Penick, if that means that he had begotten them to eternal life in the work of regeneration, then Paul was their god-father, and the Roman Catholics are right and you are a little Roman Catholic god-father. How do you like that? Paul had begotten them to a belief of the truth through the preaching of the gospel; he had begotten them to a belief of the doctrine of God our Saviour, but he did not beget them to eternal life. God is the one who does that begetting, and not the preacher. So you are not their little god-father.

It is not worth while for me to go over those arguments again that I introduced. Notwithstanding he is trying to mystify, he has not answered a single argument that I have introduced. He says my doctrine has in it that they are coerced and do not render willing service. My doctrine don't have anything of the kind in it ; no such thing ,You understand that, don't you?

Now charge that again, will you? You have made that charge several times during this discussion. My doctrine has in it no such thing as that they render unwilling service. Will you presume to argue before this intelligent people that the will is so poised that it is on an equilibrium, that it may be turned about any sort of way? Will you, argue any such thing as that?

You know it is true that I have argued time and again that will springs from life. The Lord says, "My people shall be willing in the day of my power;" and the day of His power in the sense of that text is when God manifests His power in the regeneration of their souls, and they then have a will that springs from the divine life which God has implanted in the soul; and, like Paul when God regenerated his soul, he has another will which he did not have before. When the Lord spoke to Paul and quickened him into divine life, he cried out, "What wilt thou have me to do?" He did not have a will to do God's will prior to this.

A few moments before, he had a will to bind and persecute the saints, but now he has a will to serve God. That will springs from the divine life, and they render willing and loving service. They serve God, not because they are afraid the devil will get them if they don't, as your doctrine has in it; but they serve God because they love God. That is the reason why; and that is our doctrine. We serve God because we love God.

That one that is born of God, and that understands the doctrine of God our Saviour in its purity and in its simplicity, would serve God if he knew there was no law to punish, if he knew there was no hell, if he knew there was no devil, if he knew there was no hereafter at all---he would serve God because he loves God. It is a loving and willing service.

Then he quotes the Saviour's language, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance," and now Elder Penick argues that this is his job. Elder Penick, are you Jesus? The Saviour says, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He did not say "I will send Elder Penick out to call sinners to repentance." He did not say "I came to call on them to repent," or "to call at them to repent," or "nearly to repentance." When Jesus calls, he calls them TO repentance. Elder Penick might call and they might not answer ; but when Jesus calls they always answer. There is no failure in his work.

He says Mr. Hardeman and I are on the same platform. I have already shown you whose platform Elder Penick is on. He talks about how rotten we are, and whose platform we are on. Well, if we are on the same platform and are the same folks as Mr. Hardeman, your brother, Elder M. E. Dodd, says we are not as rotten as the Corinthians were; and your folks take our baptism, and as you take our baptism, you admit that we are the church of God. And if we are on the same platform that Brother Hardeman is, then Brother Hardeman belongs to the church, too; and so you are not in it.

The brother said I misunderstood him, or something of that kind. Well, you said you were, saved in a Methodist church. He says God's word is the seed, and it is sown in the heart. Does it produce fruit when it is sown in any other heart except the good heart, the heart that is represented by the good ground? And does the sowing of the seed prepare the ground, or is the ground prepared first? Now will you answer that?

He says the heathen don't need the gospel in order to salvation, according to my position. That is my position exactly---that the heathen don't have to hear the gospel in order to regeneration. Your position is that they have to hear the gospel in order to get to heaven ; and yet you say the heathen are condemned because they reject the light they have. If they are condemned because they reject the light they have, it follows that if they accept the light they have, they will be saved by accepting that light.

So, according to your own position, then, they don't have to hear the gospel in order to be saved; and if you send the gospel to them and give them more light, you only make it harder for them to accept the light; you only make salvation harder to get. That is your position. It is all out of joint. It is wrong all over. It is wrong from one end to the other.

In regard to those questions, I will say that every one of those questions are answered in my arguments. I have arguments to answer every one of them. I will answer them with my arguments, if you think that is fair.

(Elder Penick's Moderator says, "You are to answer the questions directly---that is my understanding.")

I want to do just the very thing you consider fair, so I will take the questions up this afternoon and answer them.

I now want to call attention to Paul's case again. Ac 9:1-7. He was yet breathing out threatenings as he went, you know, from Jerusalem to Damascus to bind and cast in prison those that were calling on the name of the Lord; and as he journeyed he came near Damascus and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven, and he heard a voice. You remember how he tried to dodge that. You remember that instead of showing that Paul was not regenerated, instead of showing that my argument was wrong, he tried to make a play on the voice, that those that were with him heard the voice but did not understand it, that Paul was a. pattern to them that should hereafter believe on the Lord.

Why did he not show that my argument was wrong, that Paul was not changed there? Why did he not try to show that my argument was wrong, that Paul was not regenerated right there? The Lord spoke to him, and he was then and there quickened into divine life; and as the gospel was not used there, the proclamation of the word was not used as an instrument, it follows that Paul was regenerated independently of, or without, the gospel as a. means. He was saved without the proclamation of the gospel.

I want to speak of his trying to dodge the force of the argument on 1Jo 5:1. He argues that one is begotten of God, and then believes, and is then born of God. Now, here is one begotten of God. It is the work of God that did the begetting. Now, he has been begotten of God. If he has been begotten of God, I want to know whose child he is. He has been begotten of God, and then he believes. If he has been begotten of God first, and then believes, tell us whose child he is before he believes. Is he a child of God, or is he a child of nature?

If he dies in this condition, I want to know, will he go to heaven or will he go to hell? I want you to answer that question. I want to know, is he a child of God, or is he a child of the devil? He has been begotten of God.

I refer now to the case of Cornelius as another instance of the direct work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, as another instance where one was regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means. If Brother Penick says that sinners are regenerated or born of God by means of the proclamation of the gospel he must prove that Cornelius had heard the gospel. I defy him to prove that Cornelius had ever heard a gospel sermon preached. That is what he must prove in order to disprove my proposition.

Ac 10:1-8: "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Webster says : A devout man is one "devoted to religion or to religious feelings and duties; absorbed in religious exercises, given to devotion; pious; reverent; religious." Here is a devout man, one devoted to religion, a devoted character, one that loved God, one that feared God, who had never heard the gospel preached.

Brother Penick has tried to make it appear that I claim that no matter how much a man might desire salvation, he is eternally doomed to be condemned in an endless hell, that God decreed from all eternity that he should go there, and he can never be saved. Who believes that doctrine? Elder Penick is the man. You are the man, sir, instead of me. You talk about charging consequences! I told you when you began it that I am at your services.

Here is a religious man, a praying man, who, according to your doctrine, can never get to heaven unless the preacher gets there. He "gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Here is a praying man, a devout man, a religious man, a worshiping character; and yet, according to your doctrine he is doomed to hell unless he hears the gospel preached. Here is a devout man, one that feared God, gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. Tell us, are these righteous works? You dare not say they are not righteous works. Then here is a man working righteousness and the gospel had not been preached to him.

1Jo 2:29: "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every, one that doeth righteousness is born of him," or "has been born of him." Here is one that John says was born of God before the preacher got there, for he was doing righteousness before the preacher got there.

Here is one that was regenerated, or born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, for he was born of God before the preacher got there. He was working righteousness before the preacher got there. "He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms have come up as a memorial before God."

Here is one whose prayers had been heard, and yet he had never heard a gospel sermon. You must prove that he had heard the gospel. "And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do."

Let me ask you this question, Did you not at one time yourself admit that Cornelius was a child of God before Peter preached to him? Tell us, did you not admit that yourself one time? Brother Penick, perhaps you had better not deny it. Did you not admit one time that Cornelius was a child of God before Peter ever preached to him? Just as sure as Cornelius was a child of God before Peter preached to him, just that sure is my proposition sustained.

I have shown you that he was a child of God before he heard the gospel preached. Peter perceived the truthfulness of this. Ac 10:34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

"Accepted with him" provided Brother Penick gets there and preaches to him, and if he obeys the gospel? No, sir! He does not say that. He does not say anything like that. That is the way it ought to read to suit the negative, of my proposition. Here was Cornelius down there working righteousness when Peter got there, and Peter said, "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 with him." Here was one that was accepted with God.

Peter had been taught this in a vision before he went there and preached to Cornelius. In that vision he had heard a voice saying, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." Now, after he got there and had heard what Cornelius had to say, he said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." Another instance of the operation of the Spirit without the gospel as a means.

Mt 16:13-17: "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona; for Elder Penick hath revealed this unto thee, and not my Father which is in heaven!" But it doesn't read that way.

Then, Elder Penick, if you reveal that fact, you are God the Father in heaven. Are you God the Father a little while, and Jesus Christ a little while, and the Holy Spirit a little while, or who are you?

Ac 16:14: "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." I argue from this that the Lord opened her heart that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. The opening of her heart preceded her attending unto the things that were spoken of Paul. As the opening of her heart preceded her attending unto those things, it follows that she was born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, and the attending unto the things which were spoken of Paul was an evidence of the fact that she had .been born of God, that she was already a child of God.

My next argument is, Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because there is a direct revelation by the Spirit of God.

1Co 2:7-14: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew : for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." They do not find it out by reading the Bible. Elder Penick cannot put into the heart of the unregenerate character the things which God hath prepared for those that love Him. "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit : for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

That character who has the spirit of man has the natural life, and no one can understand the things of a man, except he first has the natural life. So, that character who has the Spirit of God has the spiritual life, and is capacitated to understand spiritual things. "Now, we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

That character who is without the Spirit of God is a natural man. He cannot receive the things that are of the Spirit of God. He cannot receive the things of the Spirit. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I thank you for your attention.

CP.034 ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

I am delighted to see that you are enjoying these opportunities.

In the beginning my opponent did what he ought to have done, after he did what he should not have done in the first speech, and that was frankly, and freely, and flatly to admit that the proposition I debated with Mr. Hardeman is not the same in the wording at all as the proposition he is debating with me. That is correct, and still you try to take the one to defend the other.

Anybody that is any judge of a question in debate will understand, in a moment, when a man makes such efforts as this that he is pushed, and pressed, and forced from his own straight proposition. It is the only conclusion we can draw from it. My proposition with him had obedience and the gospel both in it.

He says he don't need any double team. Of course these little things come in the way of pleasantry ; they ought to be out. If just a little "two by four" is sufficient, and that is all Brother Hardeman and he can be, I will see that Brother Hardeman is accommodated either way.

There has been a great deal of charging consequences upon me, but I deny that I have one time charged consequences. How many times has my opponent said it is "Universalism" and now "he is on the Campbellite platform?"

I take both the word and the Spirit, both the Spirit and the word. Could anything be plainer? He says I use sarcasm and slang. Well, where did that start, beloved? You are to be the judges; had no business using it, "Hash and re-hash," and I called attention and said I could reply by saying "flies and ingerns," but then I asked the stenographer to take it out.

He says the "infant and the adult sinner are saved just the same way; they are in the same condition, they are both sinners." The infant, then, I judge, is an unaccountable moral being, and the poor lost sinner is in the same fix, hence he is an unaccountable moral being, not capable of moral instruction or of choosing the right or wrong, or good or evil. The sin of the adult will damn him in hell but all the infant has to do to be saved is to die. Well, all the adult ought to have to do is to die too.

He will say to you flatly that he believes every infant that dies will be saved, and the adult is saved the same way, and so the adult is saved because he dies. If he is not saved because he dies that shows he is non-elect. Now, then, we want some evidence. I thought I replied sufficiently on the little child. Mr 10:13-16; Lu 18:15-17. Well, in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew you have the same thing. "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." And in the sixth verse he says, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Here is one or two things that I want to know. The infant was brought; coming to Christ is believing in Christ. A very small child may believe in Jesus Christ. I believe some give clear evidence of their salvation at eight or nine years old. The word in the original is for "little children."

Then, so Christ took them up in his arms, in order to bless them, and save them. Then all that Christ did not take up in his arms belong to some other class. They have gone somewhere else. The little child, that you talk about, receives the kingdom of God. Do you get it that way? There is that passive, receptive idea of Christ, and to this hour you have not pretended to answer what kingdom it is you are talking about. Is it the church kingdom? Or what is it? Did you notice the answer?

"Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ Jesus, yet have ye not many fathers." Well, he said Paul and I were god-fathers. I am glad to be in company with the Apostle Paul; but the Bible never called us god-fathers. Paul speaks of his son in the ministry. Was that so or not?

Now, then, he says they have willing service, and then he said "our people give service to God because we love him." Now will you get it, come right on down here now to the question that I want him to take hold of. He says that you cannot will until you are saved, and he says that your will is not consulted. I have no disposition to put words in his mouth. I am not pressed that hard in the argument. Now then you don't will to surrender to God; God regenerated him before the beginning of his willingness. I ask you the question again, Is not this coerced submission to his regeneration, or what kind is it, if his will is not consulted in any sort of way?

He says "my people shall be willing in the day of my power," as on the day of Pentecost, when God showed His great power over the ungodly. Christ came not to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance. He admits that he is not preaching the same gospel that the Son of God preached; he is not under the commission of the Son of God, for he preached the same that we preach. It was his call to the sinner, and the Son of God depended on this call to the sinner, and they all come if he calls. The Lord Jesus Christ used words himself, according to Brother Cayce's own statement, in inviting the sinner, but his ministry and his preaching is not like the Son of God's. Well, that is true. He just reverses it exactly, for he puts it, "Come to call the righteous, not sinners."

Lu 4:18-22, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor ; he has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captive, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." See Christ preaching his own everlasting gospel, calling, and saving, and sending out his disciples to preach the everlasting gospel. He confesses that he is not in line with the Saviour, nor with the Holy Spirit, nor the inspired apostles.

Would you use the passage, and is there any ground for using it-1Co 1:14? Has ever anybody been converted in your ministry? Paul went where churches had never been planted and preached to sinners. He says in Jesus Christ he has begotten them. "Though ye have ten thousand instructors yet have ye not many fathers." I asked my opponent and his moderators shall he persist in putting in such words? I made no such statement.

Elder Cayce: I misunderstood you.

Elder Penick: You misunderstood me very bad. Please don't put any more words into my mouth.

My brother raises the question on "the seed." But he says, Where is good ground? Why don't you stick to the seed? Is the word of God the seed? That is the question. Make the ground as good as you please, but will you ever get a crop? Did you ever see land bring corn without corn being planted there? We are not talking about ground now, but talking about "seed."

On the heathen, he says that if they have light enough to be condemned, then they have light enough to be saved. Where is the evidence? Bring us the evidence. The word of God says they are condemned, in Ro 1:1-20, and they are left without excuse. Talks about the invisible things, etc., even his eternal power and divinity, and they are left without excuse.

Now, where is your ground for showing that they are revealed to salvation? Are they saved without knowing anything about Christ? Are they saved without any Christ at all?

He comes again to Paul's case, and of course, in answer to my question, it is all right for him to take time, it is all right to bring a specific answer when you can. If he makes an answer that he still is not clear on, he can have his own wording changed and state it for himself. I want to know what C. H. Cayce believes. Not what his father believed, or anybody else. I am meeting him today.

Notice again in Paul's case, he takes the Scriptures where Paul in Ac 9:22,26, is giving in his experience, here he intimates that Paul is a saved man without the use of any means. Did not the Son of God right there in person on the ground do some talking with the Apostle Paul himself? Did it right there? Were there not some words used right there? Go right along and tell us. Take the passage he refers to as the pattern, 1Ti 1:15-16, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." How are you to be brought to everlasting life as a pattern? See "believe on him to everlasting life."

So you are killing your own doctrine dead. Believing on him because he had everlasting life away back yonder? No ; that is not the way at all. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten" or born "of God." It is only one word in the Greek used sixty times, no distinctions between begotten in Greek, no distinction in the word begetting and birth. In translating it into English the English words, not having the same breadth and fullness as the Greek, scholars have taken our language to accommodate us, and bring it to our ears in such expressions as "the begotten Son of God," "begotten through the word of truth," begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible," after they translate it "born."

Well, he wants to know if it is the same child. Of course it is the same child. Well, did you notice the point my opponent dwelt on was in poor Cornelius' case? He commences about the first of the chapter, and I did not notice, beloved, but I thought you read down through the thirty-fourth, or was it the thirty-fifth verse? Can anybody here tell why he happened to stop just there? Didn't he insist on it that this man was a stranger to the gospel, and here he is doing righteous works? Now will it be charging consequences to read through two more verse? I will take Ac 10:35; I will begin at Ac 10:34 where Peter began.

"Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached : how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him."

"That word, I say, ye know." DID YOU HEAR THAT? Can you read that? Right square in the very text. I don't suppose my brother did it willfully and deliberately, but it shows the blinding and deadening influence of a theory that is not of God's word. Have you ever heard? Peter, what do you say?

"That word, I say, ye know." What stronger, flatter, contradiction could the word of God make to your statement, to your position? Now we shall see what sort of arguing around will be done. He said Cornelius did not know it, said he had not heard it. What is the difference? Did Cornelius know anything about the word of God? "No, sir," says Brother Cayce. But he is doing good works. He quotes John, on "Whosoever doeth righteousness is born of God." So the fellow in this country is doing good, feeding the poor, is doing righteous work, and whosoever does it is begotten or born of God.

So every clever fellow in the country will get to heaven, according to Brother Cayce. Paul made an awful mistake in the thirteenth of 1st Corinthians where he said, "Though I give my goods to feed the poor and have not love, it profiteth me nothing." Brother Cayce would have said, "Paul, you are making a mistake, that fellow is doing good." What are you going to do about the question? Your people are anxious to know. You say flatly and emphatically Cornelius did not know about the word. The apostle up there says he did know. Tell us the reason why you deny it?

Let us see again, on the case of Lydia. The Lord opened her heart that she attended to the word spoken. Is there any intimation that that was done before the Apostle Paul got there? Is there any indication that Lydia did anything only as the word of God directed?

There was the good ground hearer, and there was the deposit of the good seed, the word. He gets the crop before the seed. The, seed is as important as the good ground. Unless you have found some land in Martin that just brings corn, oats, etc., without any seed. If you have, just put your price on it. He asks me the question, did I at any time admit that Cornelius was a saved man? Never in this world that I have any recollection of. If it was, it was just for the sake of argument, and if I had admitted it, there was the word of God that Cornelius knew before Peter went there.

Never have I admitted that any man was saved before hearing the gospel. I suppose, possibly, that my opponent can tell more about what Penick thinks than anybody else. "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." "The Father in heaven," not Penick. Is the gospel used to reveal? You have heard in Tit 2:11 that the gospel hath appeared to all men, that is, to the elect. So the gospel is used as a revelation to the elect. So, according to your own statement, the Lord uses His gospel as a means to that end.

Well, he goes on with the revealing idea over in 1Co 2:7-14. Now let us see how my opponent agrees with Paul. "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Is this gospel here the Spirit's work? "Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Is it the word of God, from the Lord God? Is it God's word? Is it given by inspiration, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness? Did the Lord God use His Spirit in writing it? Yes and He used it as a means of the revelation, he himself says, if I understand him. If that man there has a lost son, just as God has a lost child, and you bring the gospel to reveal that fact to him, according to your own statement, the gospel reveals that fact to him, then why deny this use as a means?

Another passage: 1Co 3:6, "I have planted, Apollo’s watered, but God gave the increase." Paul, did God use you as a means? Yes sir: "So, then, neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." Paul tells us here that God used him. The Lord brought him into the world; the Lord God made him a new creature in Christ Jesus; he is his, wholly his. It is his to plant, Apollos to water, but God gives the increase. What is the use of any argument from God's word? It is God doing the whole thing. How can any man in this world raise any objection to this plain word of God on means? :

I ask him, will he accept Dr. Watson's Baptist Test, and will he accept Dr. Gill? If you do, sir, you will have to take the word of God as a means in regeneration. For there is the book right there. You generally quote Gill. But I want you to answer my questions. I want to know just what you say to it. Will you accept him?

I was dwelling on Isa 55:8-11: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow, from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void; but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it."

So God, uses his word, and says it shall not become void. He uses it in the preparation of the good ground, just as the snow and rain is used in preparing the soil. Here is God doing the work, using means.

I referred merely as reference to Jer 10:3; Ho 10:12; also Jer 23:29. Now I turn to see how God blesses the word. Ac 19:20; 12:24; 6:7. And notice again 2Co 5:19, "That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed Unto us the word of reconciliation."

Beloved, is it these church members that are unreconciled? Do you baptize people not reconciled to God, absolutely his enemies, unreconciled to the Son of God? And when you get these people into the church do you then pray them to be reconciled to God? Have they not, received the reconciliation? Ro 5:11. The word of God will bear fruit.

Notice in Col 1:5-6, "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of truth of the gospel: which is come unto you as it is in all the world: and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth."

CP.035 ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you for the purpose of continuing the affirmative of the proposition, "The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means." I wish, first, to pay some attention to the questions that were propounded by Brother Penick this morning.

"Are we under the commission in this age?" Not as the apostles, if at all.

"To whom should the gospel be preached?" 1Co 1:23-24: "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

"For what purpose should the gospel be preached?" Eph 4:12: "For the preparing of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

"Is faith the evidence of salvation, or regeneration?" It is one evidence of salvation.

"Does faith come by hearing?" One faith does.

"Is thirsting the evidence that one has already drunk of the water of life?" It is evidence they already have life.

"Do you call the righteous, or sinners, to repentance?" I admonish regenerated sinners to repent and turn away from error.

"Is one saved before he has received the atonement, or reconciliation?" He is regenerated by the direct work of the Holy Spirit applying the blood of Christ to the heart.

"Will any responsible unbeliever be saved?" Paul was saved before he believed the gospel.

"Have you any evidence that any one is saved who has never heard and believed the gospel?" Yes.

"Who should join the church, the one who desires salvation, or only the one who has the evidence that he is saved?" No one but a believer should join the church.

He says that according to my doctrine the sinner is not capable of choosing. I, maintain that no one is capable of choosing that which is above the life he possesses, because no stream can rise higher than the fountain head; no life can reach above itself.

Then he says, according to my argument, the infant is saved because he dies; and then, "if all you adults will just die, you will get out of the whole business; you will get out of it, if you will just die."

Well, that is your conclusion, not mine; but according to your own argument, then, the infant does not need regeneration. That is the logic of your argument, that the infant does not need regeneration.

And while I am on that point regarding the infant, I will read from Go-ology by J. A. Scarboro, page 27: "We desire to doubly emphasize one fact just here : that there is but one plan of salvation for the whole world." Mr. Scarboro says there is but one plan of salvation for the whole world. Elder Penick says that the adult is saved one way, and the infant saved another way. He has TWO plans. He told us in the beginning of the debate that he does not know how the infant is saved. But when he wrote to Mr. Hardeman he said the infant was saved by a direct operation of the Spirit separate and apart from the word. If the infant is saved that way, and the Saviour told the truth when he said, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein," I want to know, is it not absolutely and necessarily a universal truth that the adult is also regenerated by the operation of the Spirit of God separate and apart from the word? It must necessarily follow.

Did he answer my argument about two plans of salvation? No, sir, he did not.

Then he comes again to that question regarding the god-father. "In Christ Jesus have I begotten you." I told you thatPaul did not mean that he had begotten them unto eternal life, or that he was their father in the sense of regeneration; but he was their father in the sense that he had begotten them to a belief of the truth. That is the way Paul was their father.

He wants to know, "Did they come when Jesus called?" Every one that Jesus called to repentance came. If Jesus called him to repentance, he did come to repentance. If he did not come to repentance, then Jesus did not call him to repentance. Jesus says, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." In the Saviour's preaching he did admonish the Jews to turn away from their false ways, quit their wickedness and sin and rebellion ; he did admonish them to that way ; but he is not talking about this when he says, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The repentance in that text signifies a change of heart and life; but Jesus himself came to do that work, and he did not send you out to do it.

He says my preaching is not like that of Jesus. Then, if Jesus preached the truth, I do not preach the truth. If Jesus preached the gospel, I do not preach the gospel. But Elder Penick says he preaches the gospel. He has also told us that no one can be saved unless he believes the gospel; that no one can be saved who does not believe what he preaches.

Will you tell this intelligent people that EVERY ONE who lives and dies IN THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH, not believing what you preach, WILL GO TO HELL? Will you dare stand before this intelligent audience and say that all these people, that all denominations of people everywhere say are a good people, an upright, honorable people as a body---will you dare stand before this intelligent audience and say that they are ALL BOUND TO SUFFER IN AN ENDLESS HELL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU PREACH? Will you do it? I ask you to say. The logical conclusion of his argument is that as he preaches the gospel, and no one can be saved unless he believes the gospel, then no one can be saved unless he believes what Elder Penick preaches.

It is not only a universal damnation of the Primitive Baptists, but a universal damnation of the Methodists, Campbellites, Presbyterians and everybody else except the Missionary Baptists. That is what it is. You have been intimating, during this discussion, that I do not believe any are going to, be saved, only just a little few. It looks to me like you are the man that is standing on the little narrow platform! "Nobody going to be saved but just me and my folks!" That is the way it looks to me.

If you do not believe it that way, please tell us how you do believe it. If you do not believe all the Old. Baptists are going to hell because they do not believe what: you preach, please tell us how they can be saved. PLEASE TELL US.

He wants to know if anybody has ever, been converted under my preaching. Yes, Brother Penick, some Missionary Baptists have been converted from believing your doctrine under my preaching.

Then he says "there is the seed; that is the question." In speaking of Lydia's case he refers to the seed again as the question. Regeneration is the question, Brother Penick. It seems like you are still bewildered; you have forgotten what the question is. It is regeneration.

He asks if there were not some words used in Paul's case. Yes, Jesus spoke directly to Paul when he regenerated him, while Paul was on his way to Damascus to bind and cast in prison those who called on the name of the Lord ; but he did not send you there to do it.

He says it is the same child that is born that was begotten. Well, here is one who has been begotten of God, then when he reaches the point where he becomes a believer, if he lives that long, he will then be born of God. I want to know, if he is God's child, when was he made God's child? Was it when he was begotten? If he was made God's child when he was begotten, and then he must hear and believe the gospel after he is begotten in order that he become a child of God, or in order that he be born of God, then you have one that is God's child, and yet is not God's child, and will not be until after he is born. How is your logic along there? There are too many "kinks" in that. It is badly tangled.

Then he went to Cornelius' case, and wondered why I stopped at verse 35 in Acts, tenth chapter. Let' us see this again. After Cornelius told Peter about the vision he had, about the angel appearing to him and telling him his prayers were heard, and for him to send to Joppa for Peter, and that Peter would come down there and preach to him and tell him what to do, then Cornelius said, "Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore we are here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." This was after the Lord had imparted life to Cornelius, and after he had told his experience. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." This is equivalent to saying, "Brethren, here is a man among the Gentiles that is a devout man, one that worships God, one that fears God; here is one among the Gentiles that prays to God, and 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 with him. I perceive that this is a truth. Here is one that was accepted with God before I got down here to preach to him." "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ." It was sent to the children of Israel, not to the Gentiles. "That word, I say, ye know." Ye Israelites' know that word "which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached."

Now let us read Ac 15:6-9: "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." This was the first gospel sermon that man had ever heard, and Peter said he was accepted of God before he preached the sermon. Peter said he was accepted of God before he preached the sermon, and then he went on and preached the sermon. "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

By faith he purified their hearts from a belief of error to a belief of the truth, just like he does by the preaching of the Old Baptists today, just precisely the same way. We are right in line with him, if you please. You will have to find another text to prove that Cornelius had ever heard the gospel preached before this.

He says I would say that "whosoever doeth righteousness is born of God." Well, John said it. So if I should say it I guess I would be in pretty good company, for John said it. 1Jo 2:29: "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth . righteousness is born of him," or born of God. You say I would say that; then you say I would preach the truth.

He quotes 1Co 3:5-7. Let us see what we can find there. "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the increase."

Let us go back there a few verses and see if Paul was not arguing against the identical doctrine that Elder Penick is teaching in this discussion, beginning with the first verse: "And I brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and division, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

The very doctrine you are teaching during this discussion is the very doctrine that Paul says is a carnal doctrine. "For while one saith, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" That is, Paul is the one that begat me to eternal life; or Apollos is the one that begat me to eternal life; "I am of Paul; I am of Apollos." But the apostle teaches differently. "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?"

He asks in another place, in this same letter, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you." Was Apollos crucified for you? Was Elder Penick crucified for you? If Elder Penick is the one that does the begetting into eternal life, in the work of regeneration, then Elder Penick is the one that was' crucified for you. Is Christ divided? Does God give part of His work in the salvation of sinners over to the preacher? No sir, Paul is arguing against the very doctrine that Elder Penick is contending for.

He quotes Isa 55:8-11, beginning with the eighth verse: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than .your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For:as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of Elder Penick's mouth?”

No; that is the way it ought to read if the preacher is an instrument in God's hand in regeneration---it ought to have said, would have said, out of the preacher's mouth, but it ,does not say that. "So shall my word be that goeth forth, out of my mouth." You have been talking about the sinner might be saved, if he would accept; that the sinner might be saved; that he is damned if he rejects; tell us if this earth or the vegetation ever resisted the rain and the snow that comes down from heaven? No sir, they do not resist the snow or the rain, but the rain and the snow come down sovereignly to the earth, and the earth and vegetation do not resist them.

Then, if the rain comes down sovereignly and waters the earth, and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater, and these things do not resist the rain and snow, neither does the sinner resist the word that goes forth out of His mouth. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth : it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Even so, when the Lord speaks to a sinner who is dead in trespasses and in sins, He quickens the soul into divine life. If this text has reference to the giving of divine life, and Elder Penick is correct in his position that it is given through the instrumentality of preaching, the logical conclusion must be, as I see it, that Brother Penick is not a gospel preacher ; because all that hear his preaching do not receive his preaching, and do not obey his preaching. So, if that doctrine be true, Brother Penick is not a gospel preacher. If Brother Penick is a gospel preacher, the doctrine is not true, for the same reason, that all who hear his preaching do not believe and obey it. So, the doctrine cannot be true if he is a gospel preacher. So, then, there is a dilemma. Which side are you going to fall on?

He refers to breaking up the fallow ground of the heart. All those passages have reference to Israel, and not a single one refers to the unregenerate character.

Before I proceed with my affirmative arguments I want to again quote the proposition that Brother Penick affirmed in the debate with Brother Hardeman. How does that proposition read? "The sinner is so depraved that he is unable, without a direct and immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit, to render acceptable obedience to the gospel." If these propositions are not alike, I want you to tell the people what the difference is. The proposition that you affirmed in debating with Brother Hardeman says that the sinner must have a direct and immediate enabling power of the Holy Spirit before he can render acceptable obedience to the gospel.

My proposition says that he is regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, which is the same as to say that he must be born of God by a direct or immediate work of the Spirit in order that he may hear or obey the gospel. So, then, please tell us what the difference is between the two propositions.

I now proceed with my affirmative arguments. I was on my fifth argument, Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because there is a direct revelation by the Spirit of God. Joh 6:64-68: "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

That is equivalent to saying that Jesus alone has the words of eternal life. If Jesus Christ alone has the words of eternal life, then you, Brother Penick, have not the words of eternal life, and you are unable to impart eternal life. So, if sinners are regenerated at all, it must be independently of the preacher, independently of the gospel as a means; it must be by the direct work of the Spirit.

Lu 2:25-26: "And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name. was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel : and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ."

Ga 1:11-12: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." How did Paul learn it? By revelation of Jesus Christ. How did you learn it, Brother Penick? By direct revelation of Jesus Christ, or did you go to the theological school?

My next argument is, Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because the gospel is not for that purpose. It is for the benefit of those who are already born of God. Eph 4:8-16: "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) "

Now let us see what the gifts are: "And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers." What for? Does he tell us what for? Yes, Paul tells us. Brother Penick tells us that it is in order to the eternal salvation of poor lost and ruined sinners. Paul, what do you say about it? "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."

2Ti 3:16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." What for? For whose benefit? In order that sinners be regenerated? NO! "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Then the Scriptures are not given in order to the regeneration of sinners. No sir, that is not what the Scriptures are given for.

Joh 5:39: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me." Eternal life is not in the Scriptures, but they testify as to where eternal life is. Eternal life is in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures testify as to where that life is; so that by searching the Scriptures or hearing the gospel preached, you do not receive eternal life, but they testify as to where you received eternal life. That is what the Scriptures testify.

My next argument is, Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because the sinner cannot hear, or understand, nor believe the gospel until he has been regenerated.

Joh 8:43: "Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word." Because you just do not want to hear my word? No. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." Why could they not hear his word? The Saviour tells us in 1Jo 4:7: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." "He that is of God heareth God's words." Why does not this unregenerate man hear them? Because he is not of God. Then, if the character who is of God hears God's words, and the character who is not of God does not hear God's words, it follows that he must be of God first, in order that he hear God's words.

So regeneration must precede his hearing or understanding the gospel of the Son of God. If regeneration must precede the hearing or understanding the gospel, it follows that the gospel cannot be in order to regeneration.

Joh 10:25-26: "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."

The character that is not of God does not believe, does not understand the Saviour's speech. Why does he not believe? "Because ye are not of my aheep." Then he must be of God in order that he hear ; he must be of God in order that he understand ; he must be of God in order that he believe; he must be of God in order that the gospel reach his case.

Now let us notice 1Jo 4:4-6: "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them : because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." I want to pause at the reading of this verse to say that John here gives us an infallible rule by which we may know when a man is preaching the gospel, by which we may know when a man is preaching the truth. Brother Penick, do you not propose to preach in such a way that the alien sinner will hear, understand, believe and obey your preaching, and thereby become a child of God? That is what he maintains, that the alien sinner by hearing, believing and obeying his preaching is born of God. Whenever, he takes that position, he classes himself as being of the world in his preaching. I do not class him thus, but he classes himself as being of the world in his preaching. John says: "THEY ARE OF THE WORLD: therefore speak they of the world, AND THE WORLD HEARETH THEM."

You go to the vilest man in this country, you go to the State prison at Nashville, and ask the prisoners the question, "Do you believe you can change your manner of life and live so that when you die God will save you?" Every one of them will say, Yes. "Therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." Brother Penick preaches that way, and the world hears him. But "We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

John says we are of God in our preachng, and that the man that is not of God heareth not us. That wicked man does not hear our preaching. He does not believe our preaching. He must first be of God in order that he, hear our preaching. It follows that regeneration must be independent of and without the gospel as a means.

1Co 1:18,21-24: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness." Here is a man who is not of God; he is of the world. Paul says that the preaching of the cross is to him (them that. perish) foolishness; "but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

I ask Elder Penick who it is that is benefited by the preaching of the gospel? It is the regenerated, the saved, character. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." In order that the preaching of the gospel be the power, of God and the wisdom of God to one, he must first be called. If he must first be called, he must first be saved, as the eighteenth verse has it. He must first be in a saved state, regenerated, born of God, and then he may be saved from error, and from false doctrine, and from false ways by the preaching of the gospel.

My next argument is that sinners are regenerated, or, born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because in nature the sinner is dead, destitute of spiritual life, not in possession of the Spirit, and is unable to obey the gospel or to please God until he is regenerated. I call attention to Ro 8:7-8:"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

Here is a character who is in the flesh, an unregenerate character; he is in possession of a carnal mind, which is, not simply at enmity, but is enmity against God; and that carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Before he can ever hear and believe the gospel, he must have another mind. One receives the mind of Christ in regeneration. Regeneration, therefore, precedes hearing and believing the gospel.

Now, here is a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ. Is he in the flesh, or is he in the Spirit? If he is not in the flesh, he is a child of God. If he is in the flesh, Paul says he cannot please God. Does his believing please God? If his belief is in order to regeneration, then he must believe before he is born of God. If he believes before he is born of God, he believes while he is in the flesh, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Jer 13:23: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil."

We find from this that there must be an inward change before the sinner can do good; there must be an inward change wrought in the soul by the Spirit and power of Almighty God before the sinner can do good.

Ps 39:5: "Behold, thou hast made my days as an hand-breadth ; and mine age is as nothing before thee : verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity."

He is unable to do that which would bring about the work of regeneration, hence it must be that it is by the direct and immediate work of the Spirit, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means. Isa 40:15-17: "Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity."

Ro 5:6: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

Let me ask this question : If a man believes any proposition, must he not be in possession of mental strength? "While we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." While they are in an ungodly state, they are without spiritual strength. Then one must have natural strength in order to believe a proposition pertaining to natural things. So, one must be regenerated, have spiritual strength, in order to believe spiritual things. As one must have natural strength in order to believe natural things, so one must have spiritual strength in order to believe spiritual things.

Eph 2:1-6: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins ; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience : among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is, rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Here the apostle sets forth regeneration as a quickening, or giving life to the dead, or as a resurrection. Hence, it must be a direct work, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means.

Thank you for your attention.

CP.036 ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH.

ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH.

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

I shall first review the points in the speech made. Many of them are from one and the same point of view. Several texts have been referred to as proofs for his position. I want to say, as I stated this morning, and said also on the other proposition, and I want you to notice it until the time goes by, even until tomorrow evening, and see if he can name one soul that was saved that did not know anything about the gospel.

Did he take the case of the Apostle Paul who had been in Jerusalem and heard that mighty sermon of Stephen, and stood by and held the clothes of the persecutors, who was schooled in the law? Doubtless he was like Timothy, from his youth up had known the Holy Scriptures which were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? Tell us, where is the case that was saved without the gospel?

He said, the question is not on the seed, but it is on the work of the regenerating Spirit. But your position is that it is without, and independent of the seed. Has he told you yet about any ground that will bring a crop without seed? If I understood him---and my moderator got the same thing---you have made the statement that you received the divine nature through the Holy Spirit without the use of the word of God; but if you will turn to 2Pe 1:5, you will find it is through the exceeding great and precious PROMISES you are made partakers of the divine nature.

Again, my opponent was on the voice question of the Lord Jesus Christ, and drew a distinction and said it was not words, and then he turned over to Joh 6:63 and says it is words. I wonder which one he is going to choose, and if he will take both of them. Each one contradicts him.

But he insists, in all these passages, that it is the word that comes out of God's mouth. So he don't plead guilty to preaching the words that came out of God's mouth. He denies that responsibility. But see God Himself in doing the work direct, USES THE WORD. He uses it as a means, you see.

John says in Joh 20:30-31, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book : but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

That is what the word is for. And again in Joh 20:21, I believe it is, "As my Father hath sent me, so send I you."

He replies, as I understand him, that we are not under the commission, if at all, not in the sense the apostles were. So you are trying to do business in this world, with the Lord not giving you any orders at all. Now that is consistency. Where is the man going to for his authority? Where is he getting any authority to preach, or to baptize?

Again, yesterday, of course much of these speeches come up under the same points; he made a statement on the prayer of the seventeenth chapter of John, that he didn't pray for anybody. But don't you remember he did pray for them "that should believe on him through their words?" Don't you remember that? You certainly haven't forgotten that.

He comes today to the fifteenth of Acts, where their hearts are to be purified by faith. You have a man saved over there before the preaching and the faith comes; you have him saved without a pure heart. It is just one continued crossing absolutely with himself and God's word. Just one continued crossing from start to finish.

Now, of course, if I don't understand him---as he answered hurriedly---let me ask again, Are we under the commission in this age? "Not as the apostles, if at all." So, then, that says flatly and deliberately, we are not an apostolic church. "We just plead guilty to not being under it as the apostles," do you? There you stand, flatfooted. Now the Baptists that came down the ages, have always pleaded that we are the original, and apostolic. And don't you sometimes try to affirm that you are apostolic in origin, doctrine, and practice? What is the matter with the brother?

Beloved, don't you see you are just as cross as three sticks? If you can't see it, everybody else can see it. "Not under the commission as the apostles were, if at all." Not right certain whether they are under it at all. "And if we are, we are not like the apostles." Well, that is pretty good. Don't you reckon you had just better give up and quit?

Cayce : You wish I would.

Penick resumes : No, I wish I had a dozen more like you. Don't you reckon you had just better quit? If I just contradicted myself that way, and the Bible, and everything else, I believe I would just get out and quit.

To whom should we go to preach the gospel? 1Co 1:23-24. That makes it to the saved. There was a time when your moderators were not saved. "The gospel was intended to bring them the light," you say, "to give them to understand that they were saved." Don't you try to preach it to them that way? Have you no message to discover the saved, or to feed the sheep? You don't preach the gospel to any sinner in this world, neither the elect nor the non-elect, do you?

If you do, even as bread to the child, or to discover who is the sheep, or the child, then you do preach to the sinner. "For the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ." Well, how is the church to be enlarged, edified, without bringing in new members? Edification is enlarging, increasing, building up. "By the effectual working of every part," it is to be increasing, is itself. So you have it right there clear and plain. Did you know your passage had that in it? There he is using means, working to build up.

Is faith the evidence of salvation? or regeneration? "It is one evidence of salvation," you say. Well, repentance is another, isn't it? Well, they are not called to repentance until they have the light; so what evidence have you got of anybody in this world being saved that has not heard the gospel? Faith is one, repentance another, baptism another, and so on, so you say. What evidence have you got in this wide world that anyone is saved, except where the gospel has been preached? Here you are trying to prove a case, where you have no evidence or testimony at all, and those saved ones in heathen lands don't know it.

Is the thirsting the evidence that one has already drunk of the water of life? "It is the evidence they already have life." Well, how can they have life before they receive it? That is impossible, that is unthinkable. When did you receive life? When did you receive or partake of Jesus Christ, the water of life? Now you get his dilemma. The Saviour says, "He that drinketh of this water shall never thirst." That refers to salvation, quickening, enlightening, making alive by the Spirit of God, and the word of God.

Not only making the ground good, but putting the seed into it that you may have a crop. Now, then, that man don't thirst; you have got no call to the man that does not thirst. Well, the man that has taken the water, he is the only one that shall never thirst, for it will be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life. So you can't find anybody in this world to invite, neither the saved nor the lost ; all excluded from your invitations.

Do you call the righteous or sinners to repentance? "I admonish regenerate sinners to repent and turn away from their error." So now you see flatly he has got no admonition to the unregenerate at all. Not one single solitary bit. The man that has been made a child of God, he calls upon him to repent. Repentance has sorrow in it. The Hebrew word has the idea of deep, serious meditation, then sorrow, then turning. Then what is the fellow going to be sorry for? Just sorry because the Lord has taken him and saved him in spite of all creation? But he says he calls on the saved to repent, to leave off all of their errors.

"Why, yes, Penick, some of them have been saved under my ministry, even Missionary Baptists."

Cayce: I said converted.

Penick resumes: So then, he means to say, nobody in this wide world has ever been really saved by his ministry at all. What do you think about that? Could he say that Paul could go on and on planting churches and have people coming to God by the word he preaches? I believe the first discussion I ever had was with one of your brethren, and he came down here and got your father's book of preparations, and about a year after that he was baptized into the Missionary Baptist church at McKenzie. So there has been a little converting from error on the other side. And so there is hope for you yet.

Is any one saved before he has received the atonement, or reconciliation? "He is regenerated by the direct work of the Holy Spirit and cleansed by the blood of Christ." He is getting things mixed here. Now, you are going to have him purified by the blood of Christ, for his heart is impure. According to his own statement here Jesus Christ himself is not the Saviour; it is the direct work of the Spirit that gives the light to the soul not yet in Christ. He leaves out the word here. 2Pe 1:4, I referred to, by which we are made partakers of the divine nature.

Well, let us get this question, Is one saved before he has received the atonement, or the reconciliation? Is he saved before he receives salvation---that is the question? Is not RECEIVING it right there, THE WORK THAT HE DOES? If you stand right there, and I give you a thousand dollars, you receive it, don't you? I OFFER it to you, and you RECEIVE it. So God offers salvation and man receives it.

Will any responsible unbeliever be saved? "Paul was saved before he believed the gospel." In 1Ti 1:16, Paul says he was saved "For a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him TO LIFE EVERLASTING."

Where did you get your information on that point? You make a statement you have no proof for, and never will have. Have you any evidence that any one is saved who has never heard or believed the gospel? I don't find the case. I should be glad to find it. Doesn't he teach this, that man that has not heard the gospel and repented of his sins, that that man doesn't know that he is saved himself? Isn't that his teaching on Joh 3:18?

Who should join the church, the one who desires salvation, or the one who has the evidence that he has been saved? "No one but a believer should join the church," you say. Now, then, here is a fellow saved, and regenerated, and a child of God, but that fellow can't get into the church until he has heard the gospel and believed. So you have got a lot of God's children that you won't let into the church until you get to preach to them. So, then, hearing and believing and trusting in Jesus Christ is essential to getting into the church. Have I got you clear on this point?

Now, beloved, I have shown you where my friend's trouble is. A man is dead to righteousness, but alive in sin; he is a live sinner, but dead to holiness. Now, then, that man must be slain as a sinner; God's Spirit, in the use of His word comes and enables that man to see, that he is not saved ; that is the first point of all. "I was alive," Paul says, "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died." That was certainly not after he was a saved man.

Then you have the enabling power of God's Spirit, as in Ga 2:11-12, where we read, "By the faith of the operation of God." He was slain, separated from sin, and his faith is shown by his works. His acts on the outside show what was done on the inside.

How many crossings, how many contradictions! Here is a man trying to preach, and he admits that his church is not under the commission, if at all. Are you under the commission in any sense? And then will you just please tell us in that same breath, why you baptize anybody? Where did you get your authority to baptize?

I am reminded of a little statement made this morning about who introduced these outside matters. I want to get a copy of the book when it is printed and see. I want to say, that if I introduced these outside matters, I shall be glad to have them cut out. About some of our people taking Hardshell baptism--is there a solitary one that will take the baptism of a fellow that denies the gospel as a means? But that has nothing to do with this proposition. It has been brought in only for effect in some way.

Now, did I get this question right? He said, "The sinner is not capable of making a choice." Then, the sinner, like the infant, is not responsible, because not capable of making a choice about questions of right or wrong. There he is on the same plane as the infant, precisely, hence not responsible.

Again, he reads from Brother Scarboro on his idea of salvation. All the men that will ever be saved must be saved only through Jesus Christ.

Now, I get your question, "Are the infants and the adults dealt with the same way?" BY NO MEANS. I said this clearly in what I wrote Mr. Hardeman. He says he understands it and gives his explanation. Well, tell us where the Scripture explains how infants are saved? Is that your idea of their salvation, where Jesus was taking them up in his arms and blessing them? The brother seems to get this idea. He makes the charge from the consequences, you understand, that I am sometimes on the Hardeman platform and sometimes on his.

Here are my brethren; do they believe anything of the kind? The matter is this way: all of these Scriptures you referred to, and whatever of truth you teach, we accept and teach ; all the truth the Campbellite brethren teach, we accept and teach ; we accept and teach all truth.

Now, notice, what he is trying to bring in. He says, Penick, if you preach the gospel, then nobody is saved except under your preaching. Brother Cayce, don't you claim to preach the gospel? Then nobody is in the old ship but you. The Methodists preach some gospel. I was saved in a Methodist meeting, in spite of many errors they teach. My grandfather was one of the builders of the old Hollow Rock Hardshell church. I left the people like you and all the balance; and I think I could count on the fingers of one hand every one converted in your meetings that I have heard give in his experience. I hope there are more.

See 1Co 4:15. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel." Do you indorse Dr. Gill's Commentary on this? You quote it in your papers. According to his Old Baptist Test, you have denied your commission, for it teaches that the gospel ought to be preached to the sinner. And this man is making progress like your good brethren---making progress, getting up money for your preachers. On page 517 he quotes several Scriptures exhorting sinners to repent.

Again on Cornelius, how do we get that now, this morning? Brethren, did you understand his explanation? I was listening. I am afraid I did not understand him. I did my very best to listen. This morning he read down to verse 35 and for a verse or two below, "This word ye know, which was preached throughout all Judea, beginning at the baptism of John." Then he turns to the fifteenth of Acts ; but do you make one passage of Scripture contradict another? Is that your theory? Is that your hope of getting through on that text? Did that man know the word? God said he did; you said he did not. Just a flat square issue between you and God, that is all. Here is a plain statement of the Lord God on the question.

But we will pass along a little bit, and make some more suggestions on some more passages of Scripture, and give him something to think of.

On 1Co 3:5-7, my opponent gets the idea that this contradicts my position. Well, let us see whether it contradicts it or not. The planting and the germinating is the beginning of life. Paul has planted and Apollos has done the cultivating; God gives the increase. Cannot anybody see this? Can I be mistaken on it, that the apostle is talking about the planting of the gospel in Corinth ; Paul was used of the Lord God, and the Lord God used Apollos, but God gave the increase.

Now, he says, ye are babes in Christ. When did they begin to be babes in Christ? Did Paul plant the seed that brought forth the children of God? Where did the matter start? That is the point we are on. Why not get right square to the question? Here he is talking about babes, let it be babes in Christ. But Paul is talking about the planting, starting, originating. He came right down to the very issue we are talking about here.

Brother Cayce says our doctrine is carnal. He says we are not under the commission, and he says, you Missionary Baptists are like the Corinthians there with Paul. That is about so; we are under the commission, going right along down the apostolic line. But he is not; as he understands it. So that settles it. We are the true Bible Baptists, and you are not like them at all, are you? No man has been used in bringing you to Jesus Christ, but the Corinthians were brought to Christ through Paul's ministry. No wonder he is not under the commission, because the commission says, You go preach the gospel, and I am going with you, says the Son of God. This is one of the most tremendous and emphatic statements ever made. The Lord God is with us, because we are under his commission.

Now, on his argument, and if I misunderstand him on Isa 55:8-11, where the snow and rain are spoken of as preparing the ground; well, he says, is the ground responsible? Does the ground receive it anyhow? So he argues around and makes the sinner not responsible; but the question is, Does the snow and rain help to prepare that ground? Does God's word help prepare that ground, "responsible," or "not responsible?" There is the flat issue. Why go off on the issue that there is no will in that ground? Where will the brother go to on these passages? God uses His word like snow and rain in the preparation of that ground.

Referring to some other passages, he says on "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe," the Lord God uses the word in the conviction of the sinner. Good.

Again, as I misunderstood him, on Isa 55, that this is "ALL ISRAEL." He says "All Israel is under the law of Israel." So every man in the universe is under the law; all had the blessing. Well, do I get the idea from you that all these natural Israelites got spiritual blessings? Do I get the idea that all these Israelites were saved? Were those that murdered the Son of God saved? They were Israelites.

Again on Joh 6:44, "No man can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." There is the drawing power of the Spirit, and there is the word that is used also. Don't you see?

Again, take Ga 1:11-12, where Paul says, "This gospel is revealed from heaven." If I get his point, he says his gospel is revealed from heaven. Well, if that is so, why don't you throw the Bible away? If you get it direct from heaven, you are inspired. If you don't, you are not inspired. Well, that is the only way you can get it, so you haven't got any at all. No right to baptize, no right to preach, or anything else. Not inspired, hence have no gospel.

Again, on Eph 4:18. I have replied to that. 2Ti 3:16. He seems to have the idea again that there is nothing for the sinner here. He reproved me yesterday, and I was glad he did it, because I thought it was correct when I said he didn't do any missionary work, then he jumped up and said he was out of town a whole lot. But do you do any missionary work? Do you preach to the elect sinner? Do you preach to any kind of sinner? Have you got any kind of message at all for any sinner?

2Ti 3:16. It is given to the man of God, first that he shall be a messenger for Jesus Christ, that he shall beseech all men, "Be ye reconciled to God." It is given for their use as a means for the good of both the saved and the lost.

CP.037 ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you to make the last speech in the affirmative of the proposition, "The scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means."

I want to notice some things that were mentioned in the speech you have just listened to. Brother Penick says I gave Paul as one that was saved and knew nothing about the gospel. I did not say that he was saved before he knew anything about it. I said he was saved before he believed it. I gave you the quotation this morning where he was turned right about before he got to Damascus, while he was on his way there to bind and cast in prison those who called on the name of the Lord.

I want to put this question to you, Brother Penick; as I haven't time to write it down, will you please write it down and answer it, and that question is this: Was Paul saved before Ananias preached to him? The Lord appeared to him when he was on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus, before he heard the preaching of Ananias. Was Paul saved before Ananias went to him in Damascus? Will you please answer that? If Paul was not saved until after Ananias preached to him, then will you tell us, What did Ananias tell Paul to do in order to be saved? Now, do not forget to answer that, please. Your next speech will be your last on this proposition, but we will have the same question tomorrow, with the order reversed.

He wanted to know if I have any evidence that any one is saved who never heard and believed the gospel. I answered, Yes. Then he wants to know what evidence I have. I would judge from his reasoning, that he does not believe I have any evidence any one was ever saved who did not hear and believe the gospel. If I have no such evidence, then he has no evidence that infants are saved. So you have no evidence, and I have no evidence, according to your reasoning, that infants are saved. Then, do you believe that infants go to hell? If you have any evidence anywhere that infants are saved, we have evidence that some are saved without believing the gospel, because they are not capable of believing the gospel.

He says my proposition says without the word. Let us read the proposition---he is still bewildered: "The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means." Not a single, solitary thing does it say about the WORD. The word is not in the proposition. He is still bewildered, worse and worse.

He says mine is not an apostolic church. Well, we are not apostles. Are you an apostle? Can you cast out devils? Can you take up serpents and they not hurt you? Can you drink some arsenic, and it not hurt you? Will you prove to us that you are under the commission just like the apostles were? Will you? Suppose you try your hand at it. We are not going to believe you are until you handle a rattlesnake. We are not going to believe you are until you take up a copperhead. We are not going to believe you are until you take some arsenic or some strychnine. Prove to us that you are under that commission like the apostles were. No, we are not under it like they were.

He says I would have it that the regenerated should be sorry. As he is on the other side of the question, and not on the side I am on, then he would not have the regenerated to be sorry. Then, I suppose, Brother Penick, if you are ever sorry for your sins, you are not regenerated. Say, do you ever get sorry? If you do, then your argument says, as I see it, that you are not born of God. That was loaded, was it not?

He says he had a debate with a fellow up here somewhere that belonged to our people, and after so long a time he was baptized into the other side of the house. Yes, and we might have some more that would like to have a salary. You are welcome to all the rest you can get that want the salary.

Then, he says, "how many times are you going to have his heart purified?" Every time it is needed.

Then he talks about offering to give me one thousand dollars, but that would not be my receiving it. Well, please give the book, chapter and verse, where God ever offered eternal life to anybody. Please give it.

He says I have a lot of God's children that I will not let in the church. Then, if you believe that the infant is in a saved state, and you think I am wrong because I will not let all of God's children into the church, why do you fall out with the Methodists and Presbyterians because they take the children into the church? Say, would you be willing to take a man into the Missionary Baptist church who believes, advocates and teaches the Methodist doctrine? Would you? May not a man teach that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, and still be a child o f God? If he may, then would you have him in the Missionary Baptist church teaching that? Then, may there not be a child of God you would not have in your church? It seems to me that this is a boomerang.

And then he asks, has he ever taught that none can be saved unless they believe what he preaches? I asked him if a man could be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel, and he said, No; that this was the only way he knew. Then I asked him if he preached the gospel. He says, "I think I do." Then, the next thing must inevitably be true, that NO MAN CAN BE SAVED UNLESS HE HEARS AND BELIEVES WHAT YOU PREACH. It is universal condemnation to everybody except those who believe what you preach. You cannot get around it. No way on earth to dodge that.

Then he says I make one contradict another (crossing fingers). No, I did not, Brother Penick; but I do make one contradict your construction of another. "Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Who was Peter talking to? He was talking to the brethren who went with him down there. That is who he was talking to. Brethren, I am talking to you, I perceive that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

God has a people that are born of him down there among the Gentiles as well as over yonder among the Jews. There are a people down here that are accepted with him. Peter, how do you know this? Because he is fearing God and working righteousness; that is how I know that he is accepted with the Lord. Remember, up to this time the gospel had been preached only to the children of Israel, or to the Jews. Now, when was the gospel sent to the Gentiles? Right at this time. When Peter went down there with those brethren, then it was sent to the Gentiles for the first time. How do you know? Because he says so in the fiftenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter"---about the matter of circumcision. Somebody had preached that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved. "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe."

God made choice that by his mouth they should hear it. When did they do that? Right now, at the house of Cornelius. He found, before he did the preaching that there was a saved character there. God sent him down there to preach to him ; and he says to the brethren who were there with him, "That word, I say, ye know"---ye brethren, that came with me; ye know---"which was published throughout all Judea."

Now it is to be published among the Gentiles, "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." This has been preached over there in Judea, but now, for the first time, it is to be preached to the Gentiles. So Cornelius had never heard the gospel preached, and was regenerated, or born of God before he heard the gospel.

He asked, Did Paul plant the seed that brought the babes in Christ? Suppose you tell us, as that is your text. Suppose you tell us. I am just going to leave that for you to tell. I want to know what you think about it. You already know what I think, for I told you. He says that the Corinthians were brought to Christ by Paul. They may have been, from the standpoint of a belief of the truth, but they were not regenerated by Paul's preaching.

Let us see again in Isa 55:10. What does my proposition say? "The Scriptures teach that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means." I want to know, if the rain and the snow come in direct or immediate touch with the earth, there being no means or medium through which they come to reach the earth, but come directly to it, by direct, immediate touch, if this represents the work of God in regeneration, does it not follow that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means? "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void."

If it shall not return unto Him void, and it is His pleasure that it regenerate the sinner, it regenerates every one that He sends it to. "It shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing" not somewhere about, or close to, but "it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Where does He send it? He sends it into the heart. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." When Jesus speaks to the sinner, he imparts life to the dead faculties of the soul, and that sinner is made alive from the dead. Then he is a fit subject for the service of the Lord.

Then he asks, "Were the murderers of Jesus saved?" Well, I also will ask you a question : Did Jesus pray for them? Does the Father always hear the prayer of Jesus? Now, you answer that. I think this is all that demands any notice.

You remember the argument I made, that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because the sinner cannot hear, or understand, or believe the gospel. Joh 8:43: "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." Joh 8:47: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, be­cause ye are not of God." Joh 10:25-26: "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."

1Jo 4:4-6: "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1Co 1:18,21-24. Has he noticed these? No.

The next argument that I introduced was, sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because in nature the sinner is dead, destitute of spiritual life, not in possession of the Spirit, and is unable to obey the gospel or to please God, until he is regenerated. I quoted Ro 8:7-8: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." I asked him this question, concerning one who is convicted of sin, is he in the flesh, or in the Spirit? If he is in the flesh, that convicting does not do any good; believing the gospel while in that condition does not please God. He must be made a new creature, or be in possession of the Spirit of Christ, or become a child of God, before he can please God. Has he answered these things? No. I also quoted Jer 13:23; Ps 39:5; Ro 5:6 and Eph 2:1-5 on that same argument.

Another argument which I wish to make is, Sinners are born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because it is the Holy Spirit that quickens or regenerates the sinner, and that, too, by a direct work. Joh 3:8: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

As the wind blows directly and immediately upon that upon which it operates, so the Spirit of God operates directly and immediately upon the heart in the work of regeneration. As the wind blows sovereignly, when and where it pleases, so the Spirit of God operates when and where He pleases in the work of regeneration. Sometimes the wind blows in tornadoes; it lays the giant oak of the forest low in its pathway; sometimes it blows so gently you can scarcely see the movement of the smallest atom that floats in the atmosphere.

The Spirit operates just like the blowing of the wind. Sometimes it suddenly brings the giant sinner low, as it did Saul of Tarsus;; sometimes it operates so gently that the sinner can hardly remember when he first realized his guilty distance from God; he can hardly remember when the burden of sin and condemnation was taken away. But it is the same immediate and direct influence of God's Holy Spirit in the heart in every case.

Joh 6:63: "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Is the Bible the Spirit? The brother has been arguing that the word is the seed, that the word is implanted ---the very same, identical, position that these people called Campbellites take, exactly. They say that the word is the seed of the kingdom, that the word is implanted in the heart, that it grows and brings forth the child of God. That is the very thing Elder Penick is arguing precisely, that Paul planted the seed or the word of God over there at Corinth, and that the seed, or word of God, grew and produced babes in Christ.

So you see about the platform. I will not charge that you believe what the Campbellites do, but I will charge that you argue what they believe. I will charge that. Is the Bible the Spirit? Are you the Spirit? Are your words Spirit? Tell us. Are your words Spirit? Are they one in identity? Is the Holy Spirit contained in, comprehended in, and limited to the Bible or your preaching? The Saviour says, "The words' that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jesus, by his Spirit, does the speaking in regeneration. You may preach the Word, but He speaks without you and independently of you in the regeneration of the sinner. The Holy Spirit is God. Joh 4:24: "God is a Spirit."

2Co 3:17: "Now the Lord is that Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." When the Spirit of the Lord is implanted in the heart of the sinner, it sets him free, gives him liberty.

So it is by the direct work of the Spirit that sinners are regenerated.

My next argument is, Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without, the gospel as a means, because it is a creative work, and no means are used in creation.

Ge 1: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good." God created the light by a direct and immediate work; just simply by speaking. He did not have a preacher there to help Him, neither did He use a preacher as an instrument in the work. Then the firmament was created; and God just simply said, Let it be so, and is was so. Then the land was created, as recorded, in Ge 1:9-10: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that is was good." No preacher used as an instrument in this. Then the vegetable kingdom was created, as recorded in the eleventh verse: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : and it was so." He did not have a preacher there to help Him. Then in the fourteenth verse is the record of the creation of the sun and the moon and the stars : "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," and so on. God said, Let it be so, and it was so.

No means, no instrumentality, no outside agencies in the work of creation, so far. God simply said, Let it be so, and it was so. I wonder if He had to use an agency, or instrument, or means, in the creation of the fishes and the fowls. Let us see, in Ge 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." God just simply spoke, and it was done. No means used. He then created the beasts; Ge 1:24-25:"

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." God just simply said, Let it be, and it was so. He did not have to have the fishes and fowls to help him create the beasts. God said, Let it be so, and it was so. No means, no instrumentalities, no agencies at all in the work of creation. Then we come to man, the last thing God created, except the woman. It is a wonderfully grand thing that God made everything else before He made the man.

If He had made the man first, man would have been claiming long before now that this earth would not have been in existence, nor the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor the vegetation, if it had not been for him. You ask, "How do you know the man would have claimed that?" Because he is claiming that God could not people the glory world unless the preacher gets there to help in the work of regeneration---that no man can be saved unless he hears and believes the gospel.

Ge 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man." Whom did he speak to? It is a three-one God; there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. This three-one God just simply speaks, and it is done. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Then He gives them dominion over all these other things that He had already created. Here are all the blessings of nature, all in this natural world, placed here for man's benefit, comfort and satisfaction, and then the man is created.

So, all the spiritual blessings and benefits and joys in the spiritual kingdom were there first, in Christ, and then the man is created anew, brought into the spiritual kingdom by the creative, power of God, where the blessings are. This is scientific, too, as well as logical and scriptural, and you know it is so. 2Co 5:17: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," or "there is a new creation;" "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." As we have seen that in all the creation of all the material world; it was done by the direct work of the Spirit of God without any agency or instrumentality, and as the work of regeneration is a creative work, it follows that as the one is without means or instrumentality so is the other without means or instrumentality. It follows that sinners are regenerated, or born of God, without the gospel as a means.

Eph 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." God has already prepared, or ordained, these good works, and then He creates the sinner anew, thus bringing him into the kingdom of God where the blessings are, and where the good works are. He is created UNTO these things. If believing the gospel is a good work, the new creation must precede believing the gospel, for this creation is unto good works.

So sinners are born of God independently of, or without, the gospel as a means. Let me see something about this right here, as Brother Penick claims that in the very nature of things, in the eternal salvation of the sinner, in bringing material into this spiritual building, means and instrumentalities are used. Let us see. A man erects a building. He uses tools or instruments in erecting that building. When the building is completed he puts all the tools away in the tool chest. If he never has another building to erect, he will never take the tools out of the chest.

God's building is but one. He has but the one building. So if God uses Brother Penick, or, any other preacher, as an instrument in the erection of that building, when the building is completed, the tools, the instruments, the preachers, will all be laid away in the tool chest, and will form no part of the building at all. I am glad I do not claim to be an instrument in preparing the material for that building. That is where you will land, if your claim on that is true, Brother Penick. Do you want to take it back? You will have another speech to take it back, But I believe I would stick to it! If I said a mule was fifteen feet high, I believe I would stick to it. How is this creating done? Is it done by preaching or reading the written word to them? No. No. How then?

Listen: Ps 104:30-35: "Thou sendest forth thy !spirit, they are created : and thou renewest the face of the earth." How is it done? God sends forth His Spirit. Is the Spirit confined to your preaching, or to the Bible? David rejoiced in the truthfulness of this doctrine, that God sends forth His Spirit, just where and when He pleases, and regenerates, or creates, or renews, poor sinners. And so do I rejoice in the same glorious truth, that God is not bound, that God CAN SAVE THE SINNER whether Brother Penick wants Him to or not; even though Brother Penick, or some other preacher, might pray God to damn sinners, because they do not accept the gospel today.

I believe God can save them just the same. "The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth; he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord. Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, 0 my soul. Praise ye the Lord."

Sinners are regenerated, or born of God, independently of, or without the gospel as a means, because the Holy Spirit shines in the heart: 2Co 4:5-6: "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who, commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

To suit the negative side of this proposition, that text would have to read about this way: "For we preach not Christ Jesus the, Lord, but ourselves your saviours for the salary's sake." It seems like it would have to read somehow about like that. But the apostle says, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." That is the way the apostle has it. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Remember, I do not charge these things upon Brother Penick, any more than to say that it looks that way to me. Maybe I do not look through the right glasses; lend me yours, Brother Penick.

Joh 1:1-5: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Pr 20:27: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord." If this be true, that "the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord," and John was correct when he says, "the. life was the light of men," it follows that the Spirit of Almighty God comes into direct and immediate touch with the spirit of man in the work of regeneration. There is no medium, or agency, between the flame of the burning match and the wick of the lamp; and as the flame comes into direct and immediate contact with the wick of the lamp, so the Spirit of Almighty God comes directly into the sinner's heart and lights his soul with the flame of eternal life.

Eph 5:8: For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light."

He has been arguing that my doctrine has in it that there are no good works. "Walk as children of light." Who is he talking to? Those that have the light. To them he says, "Walk as children of light."

Thank you for your kind attention.

CP.038 ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

So much of my good friend and brother's talk has been entirely on a question foreign to the real point at issue. For instance, take the things just said, in reference to the spirit of the man being the candle of the Lord. and the direct contact of the Spirit. Don't I debate it all over this country that there is a direct touch, or contact, of the Spirit? As he is quoting scripture and referring to all these, I say amen ; but does that prove that the Spirit regenerates and makes children of God WITHOUT THE WORD? That is his proposition. Now, there is a direct work of the Spirit, but he has not found one single case where there can be salvation without the gospel, but his gospel is not the word of God, for it seems like he draws a distinction right there. I also think the gospel you preach is quite different from the word of God. We can agree upon that. He objects to the word; well, of course.

Now, let us notice a lot of other things that my opponent has persisted in. "We preach not Christ Jesus the Lord, but we preach ourselves, for the salary's sake." Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have been preaching about seventeen years, and never demanded a stipulated salary of a church in my life. On this point I am rejoiced to hear your people saying, "the laborer is worthy of his hire."

Now going back to "the seed"-ah, there is something wrong somewhere. Does regeneration, or new birth, ever imply anything without the pre-existence of something that is to be born again? You use creation in a sense that it is not used in that passage at all. The Lord said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." He ought to have said, "Nicodemus, there is something that has never had any existence that must be born again." You miss the entire question. Are there no means or instrumentalities in the new birth? Take the meaning in any sense you wish, brother, you missed the whole point.

He says he don't bring material into the church, or into the kingdom. Well, I don't wonder at that, because he is not under the commission, and because the Lord only promised to go with those who carry out the commission, and He chooses these weak things to confound the mighty. That is God's business, but He don't need him in that sense at all, and he rejoices in it. So he believes I have given him clearly the creation theory. Well, then, how about this depraved nature of ours undergoing a renovation and being cleansed so as to make a new creature? What you said was to begin without anything. How is this, our carnal and depraved nature, affected by regeneration? Your sinner has no spiritual being, or spiritual nature at all. But did you notice any of those cases that the Lord God created?

He just emphasized "The Lord said" so and so. But when the Lord God came directly to you, there was no YOU there. You had no will to incline, no heart to open, no eyes to enlighten; THERE WAS NO YOU. God had first to create the thing before it could hear His word.

Next, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." This text is in 2Co 3:17, I believe. Yes, where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty; and this very case he is talking about there is where the Spirit of God is using His word. They are the same people that Paul is talking about in 1Co 4:15. When you use the words of the Lord God, they have a spiritual power and significance. You notice the true distinction between the words of God and the gospel; on this he has been silent, because he got himself in a position he could not get out. When you use the same word that the Lord God used, is it not the same thing, and is not the Lord God using the same? Did not He say, "Lo, I am going with you, I will be with you all the days?"

Well, he calls attention again, to the wind blowing where it pleases, and the direct operation of the same; yes, and there was the Son of God talking right in the face of Nicodemus. He used the word, but if Nicodemus was made a disciple, it seems that he was a secret disciple, but there is the Lord talking face to face with him. He exists and is a teacher of the law, and Christ is now TEACHING him.

Again, in Eph 2:1-5, "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and in sins." That is correct. He don't say whether it is done by the Spirit, or by the word of God, but he goes right on and says, "By grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH." How are you saved, Paul? By grace; yes, unmerited favor, without any work just the RECEIVING, and the Lord God gives you the enabling power to do that. There is your passive idea of receiving.

In 1Jo 4:4, he says that is the rule by which you may know that people have the truth. Well, we have the Spirit, we are saved, and saved some way. I suppose you have no doubt about that. I suppose we haven't a member in our church but what you would take in your church and be glad to get him if he would knock on the door.

He says, "not eternal sheep." Well, there was a time then when they were not sheep ; just the identical thing we were talking about. Then, if you are preaching the gospel to the sheep only, and if the sheep will hear your voice, it follows, then, that no people in the universe are sheep but your Hardshell, or Primitive, Baptists; and so nobody will be saved but you and your folks. The whole question turns on the point, how, and when, and where were they made sheep?

Well, on several of these questions he says, "I 'will just not answer." It was his last speech, but he says, "I will just leave you to answer." What does that suggest to your mind? I won't make one single word of comment further in this last speech on a proposition---and "I will just let you judge about that." You can make your own interpretation of that kind of play. Whenever you put a question to me, I will answer it fairly and squarely.

Isa 55:10. His own reply again is that there is a direct operation. But do you notice it is THE WORD OF GOD; and not the Spirit's direct operation? There you admit the whole thing. It is the Lord's word, and not the Spirit. The Campbellite brother insists that the word comes in direct touch, but the Spirit don't. He says the Spirit is in the word. There is hope for you; you are a young man yet. It is the direct work of the word in the preparation of the ground. That is the very point I make.

There is that "good ground"---has he ever told us about how the ground was prepared?---by the direct word; has he ever told us anything about that ground being so rich, and so good, that it will just bring a crop without the seed; and that is just your proposition exactly, "without the gospel;" but he says it is not the word. It is by the word of God that Jesus preached. And to this moment, where is Jas 1:18 and 1Pe 1:23? I brought them forward in my first speech. Listen: "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." Jas 1:18. "Born again, not of corruptible seed." 1Pe 1:23. Where are they? Not answered. There he admits, Isa 55:10-11, that God in preparing the heart uses the word like the rain and the snow, brings the word of God in direct contact with the heart, as well as the Spirit of God in direct contact. Now, then, that ground won't bring a crop unless it is made good. What is it that makes it good? His WORD. So you can get your ground ready, like the Lord prepares the earth by the rain and the snow; He makes it ready by the word of God, but there you have the direct work of both the Spirit, and the DIRECT work of THE WORD in breaking the heart as a rock, and preparing it like the rain and the snow upon the ground.

Thus he gets the ground ready as well as the seed, the gospel, the word, that he plants in the ground. It is the seed that germinates and comes forth. I quote in Acts, "The word of God grew and increased and multiplied." The Lord God planting the seed in the heart. That was the Lord's doing. I asked was Paul carrying the children of God around? "Penick, I ain't going to tell you this time. Just won't accommodate you that way."

Was he carrying a lot of new children around and scattering them about? He planted something; I want you to get that in the morning. What was he carrying with him? He planted something. See 2Co 5:19, where the word was deposited, committed unto us; there is the point. Then he is using that gospel, and though they have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have they not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel.

Again, on Ac 15, Peter was chosen that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word and believe. He makes Ac 10:37 refer to those Jews. "Ye know." That is, you Jews know. Is there anything in that, ladies and gentlemen, according to his own idea? According to his idea, is there anything in the context that justifies that statement? Let us see. He begins up there in the thirty-fourth verse, where he is sent to preach to Cornelius.

"Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, (he is Lord of all) That word, I say, ye know." Now, they knew it, and still in God’s own time, it might be preached to you all your life, you might memorize forty passages of Scripture, you might go, if you were the Lord God's messenger-"of course you are not under His commission." Peter was to tell him words whereby, he and his household might be saved. He knew something about it. It had spread all over that country; they understood it; and still it was the choice of the Lord God that through Peter's special preaching they would be saved. Why don't they let the Lord God say all He meant to say, just plain out-straight out?

Well, he asks where does God anywhere offer eternal life to anybody? Well, if He didn't offer it, and you just took it anyhow, how did you get it? Did you just hook it anyhow? See Joh 11:26.

Have I made any stigmatizing thrusts? Mr. ---------went over there after the salary. How much money have you banked up on your paper business? You are the only one that has said anything about money in this debate. It is an appeal for somebody's prejudice.

He said yes, they were an apostolic church, but they were not all apostles. The apostles had the power to take up snakes and to drink poisons, but the apostolic churches were planted by them, and took up the commission and carried it right straight on. In what sense are you under that commission, if at all? Christ said, "Go into all the world, make disciples of every creature." Why don't you go and do it?

Let us see, on that point of apostolic church. These apostolic churches kept sending out men on their mission work. (Here a storm threatens, and a high wind shakes the tent.) I will try to speak so that you can hear.

"Paul saved before he believed the gospel." Where is the record that he was saved before he believed the gospel? Before he went to Ananias I don't think any one told him a thing to do to be saved. Paul knew what to do.

(Owing to rain the meeting adjourned, leaving the speaker eight minutes in which to conclude his speech the following day.)

Elder I. N. Penick concludes the argument of the preceding afternoon, as follows:

As I understand it, I replied to one or two things---the trouble comes---just as we both remember---as to how the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord ; that was the last thing he suggested; as best we can get at it, we commenced back at Isa 55. I sometimes handle my notes backward, and I don't know how much of the back work I got in.

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Beginning this, with the use of God's word on Isa 55, and comparing the snow and the rain, the point was this---that the Lord God uses His word as well as His Spirit, bringing both into immediate and direct contact in regeneration, preparing for regeneration. Here is where the snow and rain comes down and waters and prepares the ground itself in making the ground good, and some say this is the immediate, direct work of the word of God instead of the Spirit of God, as I understand my opponent to teach. Then the Lord God does His work in preparing the heart through the use of the word. That was the point I was making. My opponent thought it was the Spirit here that came in contact. My position is that in regeneration, there is an immediate contact of both Spirit and word. That is my position clear.

Joh 4:28, "Ye cannot hear my words." I don't believe the sinner can hear the word of God without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Is that clear? All the argument, nine-tenths of the passages he took, was on the direct work of the Spirit, only he puts in his comment to exclude the word of God. That is the point of his proposition; it is done by the Spirit, excluding the word of God, so he argues.

In Joh 10:25-26, we are not talking about the sheep hearing the word of God, but how were they made sheep? He denies that they were eternal sheep. Remember we are on the point of regeneration.

In 1st John, the anointing of the Holy Spirit, has not a thing in the wide world about the proposition in it. Every converted man has the same anointing of the Spirit to lead him to discern between right and wrong; but that is not the question at all that we are discussing. If it be true that the sinner is shown all truth, then no man in the world can be misled upon the point of salvation.

Again, on Jer 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" I SAY NO.

Again, on Joh 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit." All right. Here is the Son of God standing before Nicodemus TEACHING him this great lesson. God's Spirit will work. Just as I am giving you His truth, you, a master in Israel, or literally, a teacher in Israel. Now, the point will be today, and will be all along, is to find a case of somebody saved where the man knows nothing of gospel truth. This man can never be found.

Again, on Joh 6:63, "My words, they are Spirit." He raised the question, "Do I carry around the Spirit of God in my pocket, or the Bible?" I gave the explanation -I think the literal interpretation that my Campbellite brethren put on it is erroneous---they are Spirit, gifts of the Spirit, but they are used as life. They have something to do with the very question we have here. "Are your words spirit?" If I give the words of the Lord, it is the same words that Jesus said is spirit, but that is not my word.

"God is a Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." But when we come to the point as to where the Corinthians got the Spirit, it is said clearly "through the word," for Paul says, "I begat you through the word of truth." Gill's commentary brings out the same idea on this point.

As the one still small voice spoke to you, I think there was some point made on that, then that was the VOICE of the Lord God. There is the WORD of the Lord in the still small voice.

It is impossible, ladies and gentlemen, when you take the idea of regeneration, new birth, begetting, to exclude the seed, or germ, in the animal, vegetable, or spiritual, or any other kingdom in the universe. You try it in any language of the world. The idea of every language is transmission of nature through the seed. That is the only way in the world that you can have generation or regeneration. You deny the whole doctrine. Your whole doctrine leads you absolutely to NO REGENERATION at all. It flatly contradicts Jas 1:18, l Pet.1:23 and many other places.

Christ said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." There must be re-begetting, and the re-birth. This work must be done in you and can be done only by the use of the word---the seed.

Again, if I got him correctly, he referred again to the bringing of material into the church. I hope he will correct me, if I misunderstood him. He has flatly taken the position he has got no gospel for the lost sinner, though he be the elect sinner, but only for the church. What about these apostles? They went everywhere---where there were no churches. How in the world would a church be begun or started? Where is a church in the entire New Testament period begun without somebody ministering the word? Show one solitary one. And you talk about being apostolic!

Again, as a reply on preaching not ourselves, but Jesus Christ, and we your servants for Christ's sake---every true preacher of the gospel holds up Christ, not himself, magnifying the Lord Jesus Christ.

I want to say again, on these outside issues, as that "salary question," the Bible recognizes "the laborer as worthy of his hire."

CP.041 Fourth Proposition ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

FOURTH PROPOSITION

The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means. Elder I. N. Penick affirms, Elder C. H. Cayce denies.

ELDER PENICK'S FIRST SPEECH

Allow me to say, in beginning this day's work, that these are very happy occasions. Allow me to suggest that it has been my privilege to be drawn into discussion with my ministerial brethren even from the first year of my ministerial life, and I agree with a good many people in having no patience with some things that are called religious debates. Beginning where I closed, I want to say this, that I think these discussions, in honesty and candor, with the desire to know the truth, may be productive of a great deal of good. Indeed, my candid conviction is that religious discussions ought to bring people to understand each other clearer and better and thus to appreciate each other better. Much of our difference is in the meaning that we put into words. Every man, and every denomination, must be allowed, if we have freedom of thought, and speech, to say what they believe they mean by their words, what they understand the Lord God to mean, and then meet as brethren, not for the purpose of somebody gaining the victory, but to study, to investigate these things, not that we may magnify differences, but rather that we may magnify points of agreement and investigate differences so as to arrive at a better understanding. That is the point that we look to, and I hope today we may be able to make some contribution along that line. I don't want to say anything that anybody could take any just offence at.

Now, let us get the question clearly on your mind. In regenerating a soul, my proposition teaches that the Lord uses the word of God as a means.

I think in the arrangement of the propositions, as I remember, Mr. Cayce suggested about the propositions that he and Brother Malone had arranged with some changes. I said then I cared little about the exact phraseology of a proposition. It is the issue to be brought out, and I see on the book here he made considerable change in some proposition that was discussed, stating the issue in so much shorter and clearer words. But this proposition was not changed at all.

Now, notice it. The Lord is to regenerate a soul. The Lord is the living and eternal one; He is to do the work ; He is the efficient great cause. He is the one that is to bring it about. The question is, Does He use His word as a means in that work, or not? My opponent said yesterday, that he did not. "Done independent of and without the word of God as a means." I insist that God has arranged and planned it all as He pleases, and that it has been His purpose to use His word, not my word, your word, but HIS word.

If my pen should speak, or write, His word, it is still His word. And, by the way, every word in the Bible is written by some man's hand. But you get it clearly on your mind that it is the work of the Lord God. Let me say it again, to get it clearly before you today, that every passage of Scripture that intimates, or implies, or says in almost direct words that God's Spirit in regeneration does come in immediate, direct contact with the heart, I believe it, and my brethren believe it. Every single solitary one of them. Does the Spirit enlighten?

Yes. Does the Spirit quicken? Yes. Does the Spirit give ability to see? Yes, sir; and the gospel gives the light to see by. Anything in this world that God's word attributes to His Spirit, on just that same point I say Amen to it. Now you get that question clear. And then where the Lord God says anything which is by, or through, or with His word as a means, I say Amen to that also. Both of these things are taught in the Bible. When my opponent denies that God uses His word, then our people and many others are ready for the issue, because we think there is a vital doctrine involved.

When somebody else says that God's Spirit does not come in immediate contact, or touch, with the sinner's heart, we are ready there and then also.

Possibly I might use a simple illustration. With respect to the new covenant; suppose I take a fountain pen here. Here is ink in it. You remember the new covenant referred to in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and in Ro 8:8,10, and also in 2Co 3:3. Now notice the last passage. "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly de­clared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

Here is Christ, the writer; here is Paul, the pen; here is the heart, the paper; and the Spirit is the ink. Now, the means is brought in contact. The means don't save by itself. The Spirit is brought in contact; there is CONTACT of both. There is God's word, there is God's minister, and there is God's Spirit. I use that just to illustrate simply this point in getting the matter before your mind. When a man denies that the means is used, or when he denies that the Spirit is used, we are there to say that both the Spirit and the word comes into contact with the heart.

In Eze 3:17,19, "The watchman upon the tower." You remember the tremendous responsibility for sounding the alarm when he saw the enemy coming.

If he did his duty and gave the word of alarm, responsibility : was : taken from his skirts. How much responsibility is known only to the Lord God Himself, if we fail to give the alarm. The Book puts it that their blood is required at' his hands. How great is our responsibility !

No wonder Paul charged Timothy before the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels to preach the truth. No wonder it is written in Re 22:19, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." How scrupulous we ought to be in trying to get the exact truth of God's word and then to give it to the people, as the Lord God has saved us and sent us to bear the message in that way, God's Spirit operating with it, and through it, and by it, in the heart of the sinner.

2Co 3:17-18, "Now the Lord is that Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

When brought face to face with Christ his Spirit operates within us, and we are made like him, and there is a joint use of both word and Spirit in the great work of the Lord God. Now, notice, again we come directly to the real thought that I want to get before your mind, that our God is a God of purpose. He shows that in all nature. I referred in this discussion to Mt 5:42-43; Ac 17:22-30. Paul on Mars Hill, where he shows that God, through His providence, is merciful, and gives the sunshine and the showers and all these blessings upon all mankind, using all these things for this purpose. In Isa 55:10-12, God's purpose in preparing the soil by using His word, and when God blesses it, using His servant, as Paul speaks in Corinthians, 1st epistle, third chapter, fifth and sixth verses, he says he planted, Apollos watered, or cultivated, God gave the increase. "Who are we but ministers by whom ye believed, even as he gave to every man?"

There is God using His servants, God using His word. He created His own means and uses His own means, furthering His cause straight along. I have called attention to many passages, where the Holy Spirit uses the great plowshare of truth, or His word, cutting down the foul growth, so as to plant the truth---His word, His seed.

Again, in Jer 23:19, where the word of God is said to be as a hammer upon the rock. "A broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise." This was the language of David in the Psalms. This is the word of God ; this gospel of Jesus Christ is spiritual and He uses it to break open rock hearts.

It is hardly necessary to call the attention of this congregation to such passages as 1Co 9:11, "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" It is not a great thing that I should reap these things.

Come to the passage again we referred to time and again. Notice how these Corinthians were brought to Christ in 1Co 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel." There is Gill's Commentary right there. We notice his comment upon that. Of course he is under no obligations to take this, we are free people; he is ac­cepted and adopted; on this point, he agrees with me in this position, I take here, on this. I only quote it for what it is worth; it is the Bible I decide by.

Read 1Co 4:15, is the comment, "Which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above ; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the Divine nature, and a new creature : which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God ; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free-will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son and Spirit.

The Father of Christ begets us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit ; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work, are ascribed to him; but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show; for he is said to do it in Christ; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ: and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion ; and which were brought about through the gospel; not through the preaching of the law; for though by that is the knowledge of sin, and convictions may be wrought by such means; yet these leave nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation ; nor is the law any other than a killing letter; no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the gospel ; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a Spirit of regeneration and faith ; and God of his own will find rich mercy, by the word of truth; by the gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called in distinction from the law, which came by Moses, begets us again as his new creatures; which shows the usefulness of the gospel ministry, and in what account gospel ministers are to be had, who are spiritual fathers, or the instruments of the conversion of men."

Again, in the old Philadelphia Minutes, page 240, written years and years before the split was made, closing the hundred years of this bound volume in 1806; and the split did not begin between the two people represented in this discussion until about 1827 or 1828. In 1788 they say, "The apostle, speaking of salvation, said, `By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.' Eph 2:8. The same apostle informs us that the Ephesians were dead in trespasses and sins, were by nature the children of wrath even as others; but when the gospel of Christ was preached, the Holy Ghost working with the word, opened their hearts to receive it, and by his powerful operations im­planted this grace, by which they were enabled to believe the record that God has given of his Son.

The precious grace of faith is a free and sovereign gift of God, conveyed through the power of the Holy Ghost, and the instrumentality of the word; and is co-existent with regeneration, if not an essential part of it; and as it is not of ourselves, we see that all boasting is excluded, so that we may all say, by the grace of God we are what we are."'

I might quote many others, using our Baptist fathers. I will quote again from this same book, page 210: "Faith is that precious grace, by which we do in a certain manner put on the righteousness of the Lord's anointed, and receive the greatest of all blessings from the God of our salvation. `It is grace (saith one) which quarrels much with human pride and makes its only boast of Sharon's rose; and never was meant to be our justifying righteousness in the sight of God, else it would learn to boast.' Faith says, `In the Lord have I righteousness;' and tells a sinner, `I cannot save thee ; thou art saved by grace through faith.' The grace of Jesus, and that alone brings salvation ; and the sinner, through faith as an instrument, puts in his hand, is enabled to reach the rich donation; just as a beggar, by his empty cap stretched forth, receives an alms."

I might merely suggest that not only is my brother out of line with the Bible, but also with these Baptist fathers. I believe they adopt straight out the London Confession of Faith. Of course these rules bind no man's conscience. On page 73 (I borrowed my brother's book), chapter 20, section 1, I read: "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners."

Section 2, "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the word of God." Yesterday in his comment on Ga 1:11-15, where Paul got it direct from God, he indicates that everything. got today comes direct from God, the same way; but his own confession says it is revealed through God's word. Out of joint with the Bible, out of joint with the Philadelphia Confession, out of joint with his own confession. "Neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ." There he contradicts your idea of the salvation of the heathen. In section 4, it says, "Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace."

How do you brethren like your confession this morning? There is both sides of the question stated in showing you plainly that God's word is used as the only means, and that the light of nature and the light of conscience is insufficient to reveal Christ to the poor, lost, sinful world, and so they will never get it from my opponent, never in this world. He is against God's word, against his own standard commentary, and against the Philadelphia minutes, and just everything else except himself and those who happen to agree with him in this modern age of the world.

Again, notice the planting of the word, and how it multiplied, in Ac 19:20, "So mightily grew the word of God; and prevailed." Ac 12:24, "But the word of God grew and multiplied."And the apostle insists upon the churches so praying for him that the word of God might have free course and be glorified. It don't make any difference, according to my opponent, whether it multiplied or not. Again, in Ac 6:7, "And the word of God increased ; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." The multiplication of the word of God means the increase of the disciples of the Son of God, just like our great commission sends us out to preach the gospel, make disciples of all nations, and "lo, I am with you." I will be your strength; I will be your help; I will be your supporter.

But my brother says we are not under it like the apostles if at all; and he understands fully that he is not under it at all ; and still, in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, he will baptize the disciple somebody else has made without any authority in this world for it, not one single bit.

Notice again : 2Co 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." He prays them in Christ's stead to "be ye reconciled to God," beseeching them that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. His interpretation of the passage is that he is pleading with church members who are unreconciled to God. They would be fine church members, wouldn't they -still enemies to God? Paul, an ambassador treating with a foreign population and a foreign power that they be reconciled to God, and still they are his church mem­bers, still under the dominion of the devil, or somewhere else. Do you believe that?

Notice again, on Joh 15:16-18, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain : that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." God's word and God's people are understood to be fruit bearing branches. The only way in this world that you and I can be used of God to bear fruit, is to abide in that vital union with Him that fits us for service; and God's word is to be planted in ground prepared, and it will bring forth, some thirty, some sixty, and some a hundred fold.

I refer to that passage in Mr 4:8, "And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred."

Notice Col 1:5-6, "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel ; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth."

When did it begin to bear its fruit? "Since ye heard of it and knew the grace of God in truth." Notice, again, now; we are getting right down to the point of God's own statement, in Lu 8:11-12, "The seed is the word of God." Jas 1:18, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." Again in 1Pe 1:23, "Born again," or begotten again---same Greek word in both cases---"not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed." How is this? Born of the seed of God, not corruptible, but incorruptible.

Notice again; the purpose of God's word; given on this line. Just let the word of God tell us what He wanted with the word, such passages as Joh 20:31, "But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." What are these written for, John? “Written that ye might have life in believing through the words of God, that they might be used as the Holy Spirit wrote them. Again, in John's gospel: "He that saw it bears record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith is true, that ye might believe." And it is in order that ye might believe, and believing ye might have life.

Notice again, this is according to God's own pleasure, it is not an arrangement of ours, or a plan of ours, it is only in God, who is our salvation and our life. The work is God's and ours; He is pleased to use us and, His word in this His business. In 1Co 1:21: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." The unbeliever shall be condemned, but those who are saved by grace divine, and will die under the strokes of God's word, separated from sin, and then the enabling power of the Holy Spirit resurrected him by faith in Christ Jesus, as in Col 2:11-12, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." There was the word of God, and there was the Spirit of God, because without the word of God you have nothing to believe.

Joh 1:6-7, John gave his testimony, and was a witness that they might be brought to Jesus Christ. Notice the preaching of Peter, same way, in Ac 11:11-14, "And behold, immediately, there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover, these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter ; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."

In Ac 10:37 he tells them in that experience, that that word they knew. But notice it was God's purpose in choosing Peter, using him as the instrument, and his words as the instrument in leading these people to salvation by the power of God's Holy Spirit. Cornelius knew something of it, but didn't know as much as the Lord God wanted him to know.

In the fourth chapter of Galatians we have an argument, followed by an allegory of the two seed, Isaac and Ishmael. There was the promise and Isaac was born, and we are born like him. Here is the dead faculties of the spiritual nature, that man is dead through trespasses and sins, and God comes in the light of His word, and in the power of His Spirit, and thus enlightens these minds and hearts and souls.

Now, then, I come to the question of the new covenant. It is to be written in the heart, it is to be revealed by the Lord God; Jer 31:31-33; and again in Eze 36:25-27; and in Ro 8, and so on. As the Lord God uses His servant in preparing for the work, God brings him through His voice, and through His words, in contact with both these words, and God's Spirit, and then and there is an absolute change in the heart. There is the contact with the Spirit, and the contact with the word, as God uses His gospel in regenerating the soul.

I want to read Paul's words in Ac 26, beginning here, "But rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may, receive forgiveness of sins; and inheritance among them, which are sanctified, by faith that is in me. Whereupon, 0 King Agrippa; I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision." He was to be used as a means. God was to be powerful with him, and powerful in him. Paul without God was nothing but a man.

CP.042 ELDER CAYCE'S FIRST SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S FIRST SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am before you in the negative of the proposition which you heard read. I will read the proposition again for you: "The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means." Think about that proposition; think about it. Words, I understand, and you understand, are signs of ideas. We can understand what a man means only by what he says. If a man does not say what he means, then we have no way on earth to know what he does mean. Remember that, that words are the signs of ideas.

Now, we cannot, any of us, refuse to accept a definition of a word that is given by the authorities in our language. Webster says the word generate means, "First, to produce or cause to be; the cause of; to bring into being; originate; create. Second, to bring into being as a parent; beget; procreate."

"Regenerate. First, to generate anew; reproduce. Second, Theologically, to change by regeneration; renew spiritually by the power of the Holy Spirit."

"Direct. Of a character or relation like that of straightness of course; free from intervening agencies, or conditions; hence, characterized by immediateness of relation or of : action ; not mediate."

There is no man on earth, I do not care if he is master of forty languages---Brother Penick boasts that he is master of four, or so I understood him; but I care not how many languages he may boast that he is master of, there is no man who can make it appear that any piece of work is done directly, and at the same time make it appear that the same work is done by means.

He says he believes and accepts that the Holy Spirit comes in direct touch with the heart. If he accepts that, if he believes that, he cannot at the same time believe that the Holy Spirit uses means or intervening agencies in the regeneration of the soul. The two theories are as far apart as midnight is from noonday. And that is what gets the brother and his people into trouble very often.

When the Missionary Baptists debate with Brother Hardeman and his brethren, they get over on our side and argue the direct and immediate work of the Spirit ; then when they get to debating with us, they get over on Brother Hardeman's side, and argue that it is by means. So he holds that there is a medium between, and yet it is direct!

The truth is, we, Old Baptists, have the direct and immediate side of the question, and Brother Hardeman and his people have the means side of the question, and you haven't the truth, no matter which side is correct ; because one or the other of us have the truth, and you haven't either side.

"Immediate, separated by no appreciable space; very near; close; as, immediate contact. Acting or acted upon without the intervention of anything between cause and object; not dependent upon a medium or any intermediate agency or action; direct; not remote: opposed to mediate." The very opposite of means. Then, if the Lord uses means in regeneration, the Holy Spirit does not operate directly and immediately. It cannot be both directly and immediately, and also through means.

Now, I want the brother to please answer this question: Does the Holy Spirit reach the heart through the avenue of the word? Or, does the Holy Spirit use the word and apply the word to the heart as a means, or as an instrument? Now, do not forget to answer that.

He makes an argument on the fountain pen. 2Co 3:3: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

Now, then, the penman represents God, the Father ; the pen represents the preacher; and the ink represents the Holy Spirit. Is that your argument? Is that the illustration? I do not want to misrepresent you. I want to understand what your illustration is. Who does the penman represent? The Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit?

Penick: The text says Christ.

Cayce resumes: Then the penman represents Christ, and the pen represents the preacher, and the ink in the pen represents the Holy Spirit; is that the way of it ?

Penick: I think so.

Cayce resumes: All right. If that is the illustration, I want to ask, Where does the work o f God the Father come in in the salvation of sinners? I just wanted to know which one the penman represented in your illustration, whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, so we would know which one you left out o f the work of salvation.

I knew you would leave one of them out. Besides this, an illustration that proves too much is as bad as one that does not prove anything at all. As the pen is passive in the hand of the penman, so the preacher must be passive in the hand of Christ, or of the, Father, whichever one's hand you are in. So, then, you are never disobedient, but you always go right where God moves you. Passive. It proves too much for you.

Yes, and we will have some more of it. Look out now! Remember the pen is the preacher! Ex 31:18: "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the FINGER Of God."

There is the law, written on tables of stone, on mount Sinai, written with the finger of God. De 9:10: "And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly."

De 10:4: "And HE wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me."

Now, Tit 3:3-7: "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 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 Elder Penick? NO! "THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

If language means anything, God the Father is represented by the penman, Jesus Christ is represented by the pen, and the Holy Spirit is represented by the ink. Thus the three-one God is engaged in the salvation of sinners, saving them from the ruinous consequences of sin, and giving them a home at the Father's right hand.

2Ti 1:8-11: "Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel, according to the power of. God; who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before, the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

According to Brother Penick's argument, as I see it, life is brought through the gospel; but the life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel. Nothing can be brought to light that does not exist already. If the life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel, the life and immortality exist in the character before the gospel brings it to light. Otherwise, the apostle did not use the right language in this text.

2Co 3:3, your sugar stick: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

Just as the law was written on mount Sinai on tables of stone BY THE FINGER OF GOD, so God's law is written in the heart, on fleshy tables. of the heart, WITH THE FINGER OF GOD. So, then, whenever you say that God uses you in this work, you say, by that, that you are the finger of God. And as there are so many of your brethren among the Missionary Baptists who propose to be engaged in the same work, tell us how many fingers does God possess? In answering your argument, I have used one of my negative arguments.

He quotes again the apostle's language: "For in Christ Jesus have I begotten you." Roman Catholic god-father again, as the brother's construction of the text makes it that Paul is their spiritual father. But listen at what the Saviour says, in Mt 23:9; "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." This shows that the construction Brother Penick places upon the apostle's expression, "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers," cannot possibly be correct. It shows that Paul could not have meant that he was their father in the sense of regeneration, for the Saviour says, "And call no man your father upon the earth." Certainly the Saviour is talking here in the sense of regeneration.

Paul's language must therefore mean in the sense of instructor, or teacher, or leader. "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." God is your spiritual Father, and the Roman Catholics are wrong when they talk about god-fathers, and Elder Penick is wrong in his construction of Paul's language. God alone is your Father.

Well, he quotes from Gill. I may quote some from Gill before we are through with this ; but right here I want to say a word in regard to that question which he asked, "Are you under the commission?" I said "We are not under it as the apostles were, if at all." I repeat, Brother Penick, that we are not under that commission as the apostles were. Are you under it as they were? Are you an apostle? Which one of the apostles are you? No, we are not under it as the apostles were. And then he quotes from Gill and from the minutes of the Philadelphia Association, and from the London Confession of Faith ; then he runs off on another question, assuming that we are not apostolic.

That, of course, means that we are a new set of folks entirely. Oh, we are quite young, are we, Brother Penick? I will see who are the young folks. I want you to notice what J. M. Cramp says in regard to Gill. I hold in my hand Cramp's History of the Baptists, published by the American Baptist Publication Society. I guess that will be recognized by Brother Penick's people as a standard work. On page 499 he says: "John Brine and Dr. Gill were chief men in the denomination for nearly half a century." I skip several lines here because it is not relevant to the subject. Of course these men, in the eyes of the Missionary Baptists, went far astray from the course marked out by the Saviour and the apostles. He says: "And this is certain, that those eminent men, and all their followers, went far astray from the course marked out by our Lord and his apostles.

They were satisfied with stating men's danger, and assuring them that they were on the high road to perdition. But they did not call upon them to `repent and believe the gospel."' Are you in line with them? "They did entreat them to be 'reconciled unto God.' They did not `warn every man and teach every man in all wisdom:"' As much as to say they did not teach and warn the unregenerate to be reconciled to God. "And the churches did not, COULD NOT, under their instruction, ENGAGE IN EFFORTS FOR THE CONVERSION OF SOULS."

How old are you? YOUNGER THAN DR. GILL. I am going to find the birth of the Missionary BABY. Page 500, same book: "Robert Hall, of Arnsbury, father of the great Robert Hall, delivered a sermon before the Northamptonshire Association, at its annual meeting in 1779, founded on Isa 57:14: "Cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people."

This was the first missionary sermon that was ever preached in the Baptist church. This was in 1779, the first missionary sermon: "From that time we may discern religious progress. Thoughtful concern for the souls of others began to manifest itself. A monthly prayer meeting for the revival of religion and the spread of the gospel was instituted in 1784. William Carey meditated on the state of the world, and longed to evangelize it. His enquiry into the obligations of Christians to use means for the Conversion of the Heathen was published in 1791. THAT PAVED THE WAY FOR THE MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE."

Same book, page 502: "On the 2nd of October, 1792, twelve ministers deputed by the Northamptonshire Association, met in the house of Mr. Beeby Wallis, Kettering, and, after lengthened and prayerful discussion, adopted a plan of a mission, and formed a society, designated `The Particular Baptist Society for propagating the Gospel amongst the Heathen.' The names of the twelve were : John Ryland, Reynold Hogg, John Sutcliff, Andrew Fuller, Abraham Greenwood, Edward Sharman, Joshua Burton, Samuel Pearce, Thomas Blundel, William Heighton, John Eayres, Joseph Timms. Their joint contributions amounted to £13 2s. 6d, sterling."

This was the first missionary society organized among the Baptists, in 1792; and this was the birth of your missionary baby.

Same book, pages 502 and 503; "William Carey immediately offered himself as a missionary. Mr. John Thomas, who had already performed some Christian labor in Calcutta, while practicing there as a surgeon, and was then in England, joined him. They sailed from England June 13, 1793. * * * Thus was a solid foundation laid, on which a fair and noble superstructure was afterward erected." This fair and noble superstructure was the Missionary Baptist church. Jesus Christ is not the foundation, and he did not build it. Now, you talk about being apostolic!

Let us see what J. A. Scarboro says in his book called "The Bible, the Baptists and the Board System." On page 55 he quotes the following language from Dr. N. M. Crawford, Mercer University, Ga.: "Our mission machinery is unknown to the Gospel. In its construction we borrowed something from the world and something from the Pedo-Baptists and in borrowing we departed from the spirit of the gospel and from Baptist simplicity." You have departed. Then you are not the original Baptists. How old are you?

On the same page Mr. Scarboro quotes the following from H. C. Holcomb, D. D., in the Tennessee Baptist, February 4, 1860: "Would you pull down the old house, before you give us a new and better one? I would certainly pull down our present imposing building," that is, the Missionary Baptist church, and, invite my brethren to move back to the old house, built by Christ and his apostles. It I know to be safe and efficient, as l have confidence in the skill and benevolence of the architect. Let us then come back." When you do that, you will come back to the people I represent today. But we do not want all of you.

On page 86 of the same book Mr. Scarboro quotes from Mr. C. H. Spurgeon and approves what Mr. Spurgeon says. It is the same as to adopt this as his own language. He says: "`In the first place, we have not apostolic men; in the second place, they do not set about their work in the apostolic style; in the third place, we have not apostolic churches to back them up; and, in the fourth place,, we have not the apostolic influence of the Holy Ghost in the measure which they had it in ancient times. `Not Apostolic!' in anything, men, method, organization, leadership." You are apostolic, aren't you! These are statements and admissions from your own people.

He seems to accept the minutes of the Philadelphia Association as pretty good authority. Let us see what they say gave birth to the missionary enterprise. I quote from the Circular Letter written by William Rogers and adopted by that Association and published in their minutes for 1806, page 426: "In inquiring into the principles which have given birth to missionary toils, we are struck with the difference between them and those principles which actuate the, world. * * * The following principles have given rise to Christian missions and sway the conduct of faithful missionaries: *** We will mention but one missionary principle more, namely, That the means by which, instrumentally, the great work is to be effected, in the ministration of the Divine Word. We would not be understood as supposing that this is the only means. Whenever salvation goes forth as a lamp that burneth, it will be in answer to the prayers of Zion, and as it extends, private Christians will, in their several circles;, be instructors too---`Every man shall teach his neighbor and every man his brother; until, all shall know the Lord' "

A direct; positive; contradiction of the new covenant, which says, "They SHALL NOT teach, every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." On page 429 this same Circular Letter says: "It is however, a very remarkable circumstance, that IN MODERN MISSIONS PAPAL ROME HAS LED THE WAY." Oh, you are so apostolic just as apostolic as Rome is!

This Circular Letter says further, on page 430: "On the minds of our Brother Carey and several of the brethren of the Northamptonshire Baptist Association in England, the case of the benighted pagans lay with weight. Prayer meetings for the spread of the gospel were established, and a pamphlet was composed and published by Brother Carey, stating and enforcing the obligations of Christians to exert themselves for the conversion of the heathen.

The holy flame spread, until in the year 1792; the Baptist missionary society was formed. Bengal was determined upon as the seat of the mission, and our brethren Carey and Thomas were first sent thither." Same letter, page 433: "That the eternal God may be glorified, immortal souls saved, civil society benefitted, savage cruelties superseded, and millennial days introduced, are among the many objects contemplated by the industrious sons and daughters of grace." These are the things that gave birth to your missionary enterprise, which was born in 1792. I wonder who was the father of the child. Let us see if we can find out.

But before I tell you what Mr. Carroll says was the name of the child's father, I will give you something else they claim for it. Page 221 of a book called "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism," by B. H. Carroll-do you know him?

Penick: Yes, I have got him right here.

Cayce: All right.. He says of foreign missions, on page 221: "It became to us a tree of life." Is it not wonderful that he has found out what the tree of life is, which we are told in Revelation that John saw. " And we plucked from it its twelve manner of fruits; Foreign Missions, Home Missions, Christian Education, Ministerial Education, Tract Societies, Bible Societies, Publication Societies, State Conventions, Temperance Societies,. District Missions, Sunday Schools, and the Southern Baptist convention." These are the twelve manner of fruits yielded by the tree of life on the river that John saw in Revelation! Wonder of wonders! Is it not a pity that John did not find out what the tree of life was and what its fruits were, and have somebody saved before this modern mission movement was born in 1792? Truly its fruit has been sweet, and its leaves potent for the healing of the nations." But so many people went to hell before the tree ever sprung up.

Let us see what he says were some of the methods of attack, on page 137: "First. Expense of missionary operations as contrasted with the results accomplished." He says, "This has been ever a favorite theme with the opponents of missions, but Campbell was enabled to use it with greater power than any of his successors." Why? "Because MISSIONS WERE THEN IN THEIR INFANCY." It was a baby then. Well, when was the baby born, and who is the father of the child? Mr. Carroll, can you tell us? Yes. Page 25: "It is unquestionable that missionary activity in the United States among all denominations, was, in a sense, a direct growth of William Carey's work. This great Baptist was the founder of missionary activity in two continents, and was the father of American, as well as English missions."

Who is the father of the baby? WILLIAM CAREY. So says Mr. Carroll. Which is the oldest, Mr. Carey or the Baptist church? The Baptist church, of course. Then you say that the little baby is older than the Baptist church, when the Baptist church is OLDER THAN THE FATHER of the child.

He referred to the London Confession of Faith, chapter 20. I believe he read Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. Let us notice Section 1: "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." Do you believe in the doctrine of election---that God did elect a people from before the foundation of the world? Do you believe that? Let us see something about what these brethren believed concerning God's elect and the special and effectual call. Chapter 10, Section 2: "This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature co-working with his special grace; the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead." Here they give it as an effectual work, by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead. Did God use the preacher to raise Christ from the dead? Sinners are regenerated by the very same power that raised Christ from the dead.

Fourth Section: "Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit; yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved." Elder Penick to the contrary notwithstanding. Does he believe the Confession of Faith that he is today reading and relying upon in his own arguments? HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT CONFESSION.

Thank you for your attention.

CP.043 ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Beloved Friends:

If there was ever a time in this world when a man would be happy in refuting such bold errors and riveting the truth, it is on such an occasion as this. Every intelligent man and woman here, unless exceedingly dull, or blinded by prejudice, could see so plainly that he dodged squarely the whole point and went off on election, and introduced another subject entirely. This congregation sitting right here looking at you saw you turn to another place entirely. I will turn to page 73, London Confession: "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." Here he turned off to another point to get on election. What are you discussing? Election? No, Sir. What are you discussing? The WORD o f God as a means. You could discuss anything in the world better than this identical proposition. Read it, "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the word of God." Is not that clear? "Neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of him by the promise or gospel should be enabled to attain saving faith or repentance." Contradicting his exact teaching as flat as can be.

Again, in Section 4: "Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God." Why, man, there is your word of God, and there is your Holy Spirit, both.

But it was amazing to see him talking about Mr. Carroll. He read over there about Brother Scarboro. Scarboro is now a Missionary. Scarboro was pleading against some of our methods and not against missions. But he was going to find the father of Missionary Baptists. Have you read a line that indicated such a thing? You are talking about a movement, a work in modern days, and Scarboro says, "let us go back to the Bible," and he was a Missionary.

He is laying the foundation to show where his people came from. From the same author (he says he is fine authority), page 95: "We have then the curious spectacle of the highest Antinomianism, represented by Parker (that is the two-seeder of Illinois) and Taylor, and the most extreme Arminianism, represented by Campbell, combined to attack the principles of missions. The one, side claimed it to be an infringement of the divine, and the other of church sovereignty. This coalition was greatly successful. Dr. Spencer truly says of Campbell, that he exercised more influence over the Baptists of Kentucky than of any other state, and that while `not the originator of opposition to missions he was its most suc­cessful advocate. It is not our purpose to follow Mr. Campbell into all the doctrinal and creedal tergiversations into which his reform policy led him. But by attacking and attempting to change the very plan of salvation itself, the only doctrine more vital than that of missions, he finally succeeded in adding another to the already large number of sects in Christendom. His activity in this line was so great and its results are so well known as to obscure his responsibility for the Hardshell split.

The truth is, Alexander Campbell was the father of twins." Who do you reckon these twin babies are? "Hardshellism and Campbellism." How do you like your papa, young man? You see what you get your head into, young man. No wonder you and Brother Hardeman have gone to bed together. "Hardshellism first gave indication of its appearance, but as in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was supplanted in the womb by its brother, Campbellism. Hardshellism, though longer in taking to itself a local habitation and a name, was the first of the two to disturb the Baptist denomination." How is your papa getting along? Pardon a little fun; if it is sauce for the goose, it is sauce for the gander.

Well, we had better drive along on the question. Everybody knows, I suppose, that knows anything in the world about church history, that there was a relaxation under the persecution and under the various things which the Baptists underwent through the long ages, and still all back they were doing mission work, as I am prepared to show. They were doing missionary work, as they could, here and there, but there was not a formal organization to carry this out as in this modern day. But the churches in the apostolic age co-operated to support Paul. Paul said: "I robbed other churches to do you service." In the Philadelphia minutes (he read there from that), I will just read a little right on this point to show that I am in line; page 429: "The first page of Christianity was eminently an age of missions." Right on the very pages my opponent was reading. "But after the decease of the apostles, the seed they had sown was left to spring up, corruptions gradually entered the church, the man of sin began at length to be revealed, and desire for the salvation of men was lost in the pursuit of ecclesiastical usurpations, pomp, and revenue." There he says the age of the New Testament was peculiarly missionary. He is clear out of line with the fathers. Clear out of line with the Confession, clear out of line with everything. Well, let me call your attention to some missionary proofs. going back of that. When the Lord Jesus Christ was on earth he began to train his disciples to be fishers of men ; you will find that he called out these disciples and ordained twelve that they should go forward and preach his gospel. There is the beginning of your New Testament work right there in that fishing for men. And these disciples went forward, the only limitation was not to go out among the Gentiles, and about twelve months after that you see SEVENTY more added to that number. So you see the Son of God, the twelve apostles, and the seventy more going out, and Christ saying "the laborer is worthy of his hire;" and a couple of years after this, the limitation of territory was removed, and they were to go out into all the world. Now, my brother, you have run off from your commission, on the drinking of poison. Are you commanded to preach the gospel? Your folks want to know; are you commanded in any sense? If the apostles had acted on your principle, there never would have been a church on earth, never in this world. He has no commission. No light for them. The other day he rather rebuked me for saying he was opposed to missions. Are you in favor of it? What are you doing for it? Show your faith by your works. What are you encouraging anybody else to do for it? If you were back in line helping, as God blesses it, there would be a great deal more done. Mr. Watson intimates that that is the reason so; few are going into your churches.

Again, he referred to Dr. Gill, and asks if we will take Dr. Gill on the commission. He says of the commission in Matthew: "Go ye therefore into all the world; some into one place, and some into another; since his power and authority, and so now the commission he gave them, : reached every where; before it was confined to, Judea, but now it is extended to all the nations of the world ; see Mt 10:6-7; Mr 16:15, and teach' all nations ; Jews and Gentiles, first the one, and then the other, the doctrines of the gospel, and the ordinances of it; whatever they had learned from Christ, or were ordered by him, or disciple all nations: make them disciples by teaching them ; or as the Persic version, by way of explanation, adds, bring them to my religion and faith; not that they were able to do this of themselves, but they, were to teach men externally, or outwardly minister the word, whilst the Spirit of God internally applied it, and taught, and made men true disciples of Christ." And goes on to say in Mark's commission it was given to every other minister.

Again, in quoting 1Co 4:15, he puts into my mouth "God-father." We only talk about just exactly, what the Holy Spirit put down, and there is the point; Paul knew that he was used as an instrument, and that the word of God was used as an instrument. Does Dr. Gill put the same thing on the same passage? Yea. Where are his authorities? He has none. He says it is not in the sense of regeneration, and Gill says it is in the sense of regeneration. God is their Father, using His servants using His word, and His Spirit does the work. God uses the word as a means, the gospel as a means. Now, you see what he tries to make. . He says in Mt 23:9: "Call no man your father upon earth." He would put one Scripture against another. Paul, are you the father of the Corinthians? Yes. Is there any contradiction? No.

He goes then back over in Deuteronomy in the Old Testament to God's finger writing on the tables of stone. All right, I haven't got any objection to it at all. "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be Christ's epistles." Now, my opponent, looking back yonder where God the Father wrote back yonder with His finger, you make it that God the Father must do the writing. Did God the Father write with His finger? Yes.. But now are these Christ's epistles? Yes. Have you got room to take in both? Read the word of God as the word of God. Well, who is the pen? "Ministered by us." Well, he says the pen is passive. Was man used in the ministry of that word? He was. What was the tablet? The heart of man. What was the ink? The Holy Spirit. Both come in contact. God works and uses both.

Now, he said to me, "diagram a sentence ; you can put that sentence on the board, and see where it is.` Don't need any diagram. for anybody that can read plain English.

He tried to indicate that 2Co 3:3 wasn't right. I am not doing anything to it, not a word. Everybody can take it and read it as he pleases and see just how it is.

The amazing thing that occurred to me in the beginning of my opponent's speech, if I got him clear, was that there was just two sides to the question. He said that he had one and that Mr. Hardeman had the other, and the truth was on one of these. Well, who shall decide this? The Campbellite brethren quote some Scripture, and my opponent then says, "I don't think that way ; I think it is my way." And Mr. Hardeman says "NO." Well, who has it right? He seems to think that it is absolutely impossible to believe ALL that God says in His word on this subject. It seems like since he and Brother Hardeman and his folks can't settle it, it seems to me like the man who takes all that the Bible says has got the whole truth. If it turns out that Hardeman is right, you are wrong, and you are gone. If you are right, then Hardeman is gone. ;You see where trouble comes from with a man accepting one side of a theory that makes him go and contradict and modify and qualify and insert or detract or subtract from the plain statements of God's word. There is where the trouble comes. Does God's Spirit give light? Yes sir. Does the word of God do the same thing? Yes sir. What is the matter with you beloved, why couldn't you believe it? God has made it clear and plain. You have permitted something else to get in the way and hinder you.

Now, notice another question. Now he dwelt upon these terms, and would indicate the fact that there is something wrong about our discussion. Whenever you see a man pushed and pressed upon a point, you will see him make strained efforts to get something else before the people. What does your rule say? Where does any man get the liberty or the right, to try, by strained efforts, to drive the Missionary Baptists either to one extreme or the other? We are standing right where God has placed us, on the truth. Got it all. Don't you wish you could say that? Don't you wish you could say it? Your own admission is, you haven't got a commission; there is where your trouble comes.

Now, I want to, pass right along with some more of my arguments that I was presenting, and reviewing, to get before your minds again these arguments. Notice again, by way of review, in 1Co 9:1: "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" My opponent would take that passage and say that the Lord did it and you have nothing to do with it. When a man gives wrong interpretations to words---for all words have many meanings---you may know there is something wrong with the man's theology. Why not let God say it just as God wants it said? Well, if this text is not true, then every one is not true.

Those without the law---what becomes of them? Paul makes the argument, Ro 2:12: "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law : and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." This tells you where these folks are that haven't the law.

All believers are condemned. Joh 3:18; Mr 16:16; they shall be condemned. Faith comes by hearing, as God's Spirit uses His word the outward means. God's Spirit, true to what the Saviour said, "Lo, I will be with you," goes with you, works within. We can only do our work. We cannot tell where the Spirit of God is at work (you remember the statement of Proverbs) no more than you can tell about the bones growing before birth. The exhortation of Solomon is, sow seed in the morning, and in the evening withhold not your hand; God will take care of it; some will accept, some will reject. Well, how can they believe without the word? Ro 10:17: "Faith comes by hearing." Let him find us a case of one believer that knew nothing of Jesus Christ. Let him find his case. He tried to get Saul of Tarsus. Paul was raised and schooled in the law; understood it well. Well trained in it. Been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the best teachers of that age. You may take every example, and every church in the entire New Testament, and some one preached the gospel to them. When the Son of God came upon the scene of action he looked back to Isaiah's prophecy, Isa 56:4, where he says: "This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears." Christ made and baptized more disciples than John. How did Christ make them? He used his word and God's Spirit, just like the commission says to make them. Take Christ as he talks to Nicodemus, revealed himself through his talk. Take his talk with the woman of Samaria; he talks to her, brings out her sin, she seems to see her sin, and he let in sufficient light of the truth, and she began to realize that this is the Son of God, leaves her watering pots with joy and happiness and goes out and says, I have found the Saviour. Come and see. And the record says many, believed because of her testimony. Others became curious and they came out, and many believed through the testimony of the woman. The Saviour talked and taught and gave light to the people. When he sent out his disciples they were to go and preach the gospel and blessings attended them, and disciples were made here and there, and the work went on. Seventy were added to the twelve, and they go back and make their report that even the devils are subject unto them. He gave them miraculous power; he gives us the comforting Spirit. There is the Holy Spirit, even in miraculous form on Pentecost, using the word. There is God using the word, and the preacher doing his work, as the Lord God would have it. In the next chapter you see preaching in the streets by Peter and John and five thousand were converted.

CP.044 ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S SECOND SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you to proceed with the negative of the proposition, "The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means."

I want to notice, first, the idea that Brother Penick has been arguing, of believers being made by the instrumentality of gospel preaching. That is one thing I have never denied. I thought I would just let him argue that, on and on, and see if he would not catch on to the fact that I do not deny that, that believers are made through the preaching of the gospel ; but can you make a believer in the gospel of an unregenerate character, by your preaching? Can you bring an unregenerate character, by your preaching, to understand the gospel, or to know anything about the gospel? Since Brother Penick has quoted from Dr. Gill, I will quote here from Volume 1, page 684, his comment on Joh 8:43, a text I have used during this discussion: "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." Now listen to what Dr. Gill says about it: "Why do ye not understand my speech? Language, idiom, dialect, and form of speaking, in a figurative way; for they did not know what he meant by liberty, and bondage, and by having another father than Abraham, or by his own procession and coming forth from God : even because ye cannot hear my word; as they had no spiritual discerning and understanding of the doctrine of Christ, which showed them to be carnal, and natural men, and not regenerate ones, and the children of God ; so they had an aversion to it, and could not bear to hear it.;, Then, according to Dr. Gill, in order that they be able to hear and understand the gospel, and receive the preaching of the gospel, they must first be regenerate characters. Now, if you introduce a quotation from Dr. Gill, that will make him contradict his own testimony, you impeach your own witness, and therefore throw the evidence of your own witness out of court. Gill here positively says that the reason these characters could not understand his speech, could not hear his words, was because they were not of God, because they were unregenerate. Then, in order that they hear the gospel, they must first be regenerate characters; they must be born of God in order to hear the gospel. Your proposition falls, according to your own witness.

And Dr. Gill says, concerning the commission, as recorded by Mark, that it was given to the ministers. If it was given to the ministers, it was not given to the church. Brother Penick, if I understood him, said that the commission was given to the church. Did I misunderstand you?

Penick: I think not.

Cayce : Well, Dr. Gill says it was given to the ministers. So you do not agree with your witness on that. I will read you what Gill says concerning 1Co 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Gill says: "But the natural man. Not a babe in Christ, one that is newly born again, for though such have but little knowledge of spiritual things, yet they have a taste, and do relish and desire, and receive the sincere milk of the word, and grow thereby : but an unregenerate man, that has no knowledge at all of such things ; not an unregenerate man only, who is openly and notoriously profane, abandoned to sensual lusts and pleasures; though such a man being sensual, and not having the Spirit, must be a natural man; but rather the wise philosopher, the Scribe, the disputer of this world; the rationalist, the man of the highest attainments in nature, in whom reason is wrought up to its highest pitch : the man of the greatest natural parts and abilities, yet without the Spirit and grace of God, mentioned ch 1:20; and who all all along both in that chapter and in this, quite down to this passage, is had in view; indeed, every man in a state of nature, who is as he was born, whatever may be the inward furniture of his mind, or his outward conduct of life, is but a natural man, and such an one receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; not the things relating to the deity, personality, and perfections of the Holy Spirit, though these the natural man knows not, nor receives : nor the things done by him, particularly the operations of his grace on the souls of men in regeneration, concerning which he says, as Nicodemus did, how can these things be? but the truths of the gospel before spoken of : so called, because they are contained in the Scriptures indicted by the Spirit of God, are the deep things of God, which he searches into and reveals; and because they are made known by him, who is given aid received for that end and purpose, that the saints might know them : and because they are delivered by the preachers of the gospel, in words which he teacheth; now these the natural man receives not in the love of them, so as to approve of and like them, truly to believe them, cordially embrace them, and heartily be subject to them, profess and obey them, but on the contrary abhors and rejects them; for they are foolishness unto him; they are looked upon by him as absurd, and contrary to reason."

That is the way Elder Penick looks upon our doctrine; "they do not agree with his taste; he disrelishes and rejects them as things insipid and distasteful : he regards them as the effects of a crazy brain, and the reveries of a distempered head, and are with him the subject of banter and ridicule; neither can he know them; as a natural man, and whilst he is such, nor by the help and mere light of nature only; his understanding, which is shut unto them, must be opened by a divine power, and a superior spiritual light must be thrown into it; at most he can only know the literal and grammatical sense of them, or only in the theory, notionally and speculatively, not experimentally, spiritually, and savingly; because they are spiritually discerned; in a spiritual manner, by a spiritual light, and under the influence, and by the assistance of the Spirit of God. There must be a natural visive discerning faculty, suited to the object; as there must be a natural visive faculty to see and discern natural things, so there must be a spiritual one, to see, discern, judge, and approve of spiritual things; which only a spiritual and not a natural man has." If he must have a spiritual discernment, spiritual faculty, and only the spiritual man has that, then he must be a spiritual man, he must be regenerated, or born of God, before he can see the beauty of the gospel. Hence the gospel cannot be a means in regeneration.

"Many believed through the testimony of the Samaritan woman." I have not said that people do not believe through the testimony of the apostles, or through the testimony of the witnesses ; but the thing that I am denying is that this is a means in regeneration. I am not denying that preachers of the gospel make believers of the truth; I am not denying that at all. And every single passage that Elder Penick has quoted is only along that line, every one of them.

He says he has got all the truth, and don't I wish I could say that. People sometimes say many things, Brother Penick, besides their prayers. Of course we know you have all the truth, as you said so.

Then he says I put Mt 23:9 against Paul. No, sir, I did not do that. I put Mt 23:9 AGAINST YOUR CONSTRUCTION of Paul's language. That is what I did. Now, then, if your construction of 'Paul's language is correct, will you harmonize Mt 23:9 with it? "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Now, you harmonize your construction of Paul's language ("though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel") with that.

"I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service." Go a little further down, in the next chapter, and you will find that the apostle says: "For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you?" Why was he not burdensome to them? He "robbed other churches, taking wages of them," to do the Corinthians service. "Forgive me this wrong." All your missionaries who are in China, Africa, and other places, taking wages of you to do them service, if they were to do like Paul, would say, "Brethren, forgive me this wrong." What was God's plan? 1Co 9:9: "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." Then God's way is, take the muzzle off and let the ax eat corn right where he is doing the treading. That is our plan with Brother Thompson, to let him eat where he has been treading; but your plain is for your men to eat here in the United States, and tread out the corn over in the jungles of Africa---that would require a long neck, more like that of a giraffe, than an ox. That is not God's plan. Come back to the Lord's plan and to the Lord's house; though we do not want all of you.

He says John came to bear witness of the light. Yes, but John was not the light, nor did he give the light. That life which was the light of men did not originate through John's preaching; but he came to bear witness of the light, that those who had been born of God and heard his preaching might believe on and receive Christ as the only mediator. But according to your doctrine, you stand between the sinner and Christ, and therefore you have another mediator. Now what is the difference between praying the sins off the sinner and preaching them off? What is the difference between you and the Pope or priest anyhow? Please explain the difference.

He refers again to Mr 4:8, the parable of the sower. Tell us, when the sower went forth to sow, and as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and some fell among thorns, and some fell on stony ground, and other fell on good ground, did the sowing of the seed prepare the ground? Why don't you farmers out here in this country, in this enlightened land where you are taught by Brother Penick that sowing the seed prepares the ground why don't you quit worrying about plowing and breaking the ground, and just go out and scatter the seed? Do you suppose you would ever reap a harvest? No. The ground must be prepared first. So you have the wrong parable, Brother Penick. If you sow wheat, will it produce corn? If you sow corn, will it produce wheat? So, if you sow gospel seed, will it not produce gospel fruit, if it is sown in good ground and brings forth fruit? But if it is sown on stony ground, and way side ground, and thorny ground, will it bring forth fruit? No. Then, does sowing the seed prepare the ground? No.

I want to read a little statement here from the Baptist Flag, of April 11, 1907, from J. H. Grimes. He is quoting from the American Baptist Register, page 46, but he adopts the language as his own: "When a Campbellite or a Methodist assails Baptist succession, or tries to cram the Roger Williams ruse down their throats, they fly to old Welsh Tract church, and through her, link themselves on to the Welsh Baptists, through which we have clear sailing to the days of the apostles. In my imagination I see a Baptist debater in a tussle with a belligerent Campbellite, the Campbellite attacks the succession of Baptist churches, when the Baptist, as with a flashlight, throws old Welsh Tract church out before the audience, and with a triumphant air defies the onslaughts of his bombastic opponent. He takes the pains to inform his opponent that this old Welsh Tract church, which was constituted in Europe more than two hundred years ago, is still in existence, coming down to us from Wales without change. All these things are facts. But there is still another fact, which he does not tell." I wonder what it is that he will not tell? "This Welsh Tract church is a Hardshell church." Yes, indeed, this is a fact that he will not tell. That Welsh Tract church is older than your missionary baby.

Let us see what the Methodists say about who are the original Baptists.

I will read from an editorial in the Methodist of October 31, 1906. Rev. R. H. Pigue is the editor. He says: "Our Baptist brethren are a great folk, but they allow any little thing to disturb their peace. They are all agog now over the recent incident of Rev. R. S: Kirkland, of the Primitive Baptists, being received into the Missionary Baptist fold without submitting to another immersion. As a matter of fact, only seventy-four years ago the Missionary Baptist people, as a body, left the 'Hardshell'. Baptist church,, and if their immer­sions are not valid today, how could they be valid seventy-four years ago? None of these Baptists who pulled out from the mother church were rebaptized."

Here is what, E. M. Borden, editor of the Christian Pilot, says In that paper of March 19, 1907: "It seems to be that the Missionary Baptists are divided as to whether they should accept 'Hardshell' baptism or not. If their idea of Baptist succession is correct, they have no right to call in question the baptism of the Primitive Baptists.", Why not? Because they are the first, or original, Baptists of course. Well then, I know the Methodists are right in their claim, to be the original chicken eaters, so far as the Missionary Baptists are concerned, for they ate chicken a long time before you were born.

Now, a few more words concerning Elder R. S. Kirkland. You know Elder Penick said he would not take me in his church because I do not believe the gospel is a means in regeneration. Elder Penick, you took Elder Kirkland, did you not? And you do not want to give him up, do you? Now, let us see what Elder Penick said in his paper, the Baptist Banner, of April 4, 1907, under the heading, "John T. Oakley on R. S. Kirkland :" "Brother Oakley gives a little write-up of Brother Kirkland in the Baptist and Reflector, and it seems to us clear that Brother Kirkland is simply and only a regular Hardshell. He stands squarely with them against the word being used in regeneration." You took him, and you do not want to give him up. The truth is, you will take anything you can get.

I now wish to introduce another negative argument. In regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord does not use the gospel as a means, because that would limit salvation to where the gospel is preached and believed, and would make the salvation of men dependent on the liberality and work of others, and involve the, inconsistent idea of the damnation of a large portion of the human race on account of the negligence and covetousness of a small portion of the race; and would detract from the glory of God in the salvation of sinners.

Re 5:9: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof : for thou wast slain, and has t redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Here we have the statement of Holy Writ that some are going to enter the portals of eternal glory from every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation. You remember I asked Elder Penick if he wanted to know how many were going to be saved on our platform, and I told him I did not have time to work the example then, but would give it to him and let him work on it while I was making that speech. I gave him the number one hundred forty and four thousand. I saw him put it down. Then I told him to put down an innumerable company which no man could number, and add these together, and then I would give him some more. Here are these numbers, as shown in Re 7:4,9-10: "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there, were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." 1Pe 1:18-21: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ; as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God."

Now, I want to notice how that compares with some of the teaching of those who hold the idea that regeneration is brought about by the instrumentality of the gospel, and that we must send the gospel into all the world in order to the salvation of sinners. I will quote the writings of Missionary Baptists only. I call your attention first to Rev. S. Wilberforce's advice to newly ordained clergymen, as published in the Cross and Journal, of Columbus, Ohio, of December 4, 1846, and copied in the Editorials of the Signs of the Times, volume 2, page 737: "How painful soever the thoughts which it excites, never lose sight of this truth, that your ministry has failed as to every soul entrusted to you who is not under it converted to the Lord, or built up in his holy faith. And such a work must be full of toil and self-denial. The strong man armed will not allow you to spoil his house, and be free the while from molestation. And he is ever ready with his assaults and craft; unless you slumber he will not seem to sleep. Reckon, then, first on opposition. And then secondly, remember that in all this you will have a real work to do. Let this thought be always with you. Go out to visit in your parish, not because you ought to spend so much time in visiting your people, but because they have souls, and have committed to you (feeble as you are) the task of saving them, in Christ's strength, from everlasting burnings."

If this is not taking the salvation of sinners out of the hand of God and putting it in the hands of weak and sinful men, I confess I do not know what the words mean. And Elder Penick need not say he does not believe this, for he is here to represent and defend his people; and if he cannot do that, he had better put up a man who can.

Here is an article published in the American Messenger, the organ of the Tract Society, and copied in the Editorials of the Signs of the Times, Volume 2, page 273: "What can I do for the heathen? Do you wish for an answer to this question, my dear children? Are you really anxious to do what you can for the souls of those who never heard of a Saviour? Do you long to assist in sending to them the word of God and Christian teachers? You can do something towards it, and perhaps more than you suppose. Now what can you do? Think for a moment. Do you ever have any money? I dare say you have sometimes: very likely not a large sum: you may have but a few pence; or, if a very poor child, may have only a half penny, and even that not very often. Only suppose that Jesus Christ were upon earth at this time, and were to say to you, `Will you give ME that half-penny?' Would you refuse to do so? I think not: and if you would give it to him, surely you will give it to promote his cause. He will then look upon it as given to himself, if you give it from love to him. Do not think he will not accept so small an offering. He will receive it, and will love you and bless you, and perhaps when he sees you are a good steward of so small a sum, he will entrust you with more."

Next I call attention to a statement published in an obituary of a little girl, as published in the Christian Index, a Missionary Baptist paper, and copied in the Editorials of the Signs of the Times, volume 1, page 528: "Only a few hours before her death she desired that her little stock of money should be devoted to the missionary cause, thus casting all that she had into the Lord's treasury. Blessed legacy! May the news of its glorious effects be conveyed to her in that paradise above by the heathen redeemed (under heaven) through its influence."

"Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou hast redeemed us to God by thy pennies out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, where the gospel was sent." Does that sound like inspiration? No, but it sounds like the teaching of the Missionary Baptists. The doctrine that the Lord uses the gospel as a means in regeneration leads to just such teaching. It takes the salvation of sinners out of the hand of God, and makes it depend on the efforts of men and their liberality in contributing their pennies. Let me read you a few lines of poetry on penny-giving for salvation, from the Cross and Journal, copied in Editorials of the Signs of the Times, volume 1, page 753. I substitute the word pennies for the word God in the third stanza of Part II and for the word Jesus in the last stanza, so the lines will make sense :

PART I

A grain of corn an infant's hand

May plant upon an inch of land,

Whence twenty stalks may spring and yield

Enough to stock a little field.

 

The harvest of that field might then

Be multiplied to ten times ten,

Which, sown thrice more would furnish bread

Wherewith an army might be fed.

 

PART II.

.

A penny is a little thing,

Which e'en a poor man's child may fling

Into the treasury of heaven,

And make it worth as much as seven.

As seven! nay, worth its, weight in gold,

And that increased a million fold;

For lo! a penny tract if well

Applied, may save a soul from hell.

That soul can scarce be saved alone,

It must, it will, its bliss make known;

`Come,' it will cry, `and you shall see

What great things pennies have done for me.'

Hundreds that joyful sound may hear:

Hear with their hearts as well as ear;

And these to thousands more proclaim,

Salvation in `the only name.'-of pennies.

That 'Only Name' above, below,

Let Jews, and Turks, and Pagans know;

Till every tongue and tribe shall call

On pennies as the Lord of all!

 

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold"-but with great COPPER PENNIES ! NO! Pennies given nor withheld have nothing to do with our salvation; "but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Here is an extract from a letter Mr. Judson wrote to the ladies of America while he was a missionary in Burmah, copied in Editorials of the Signs of the Times, volume 1, pages 20, 21: "Surely you can hold out no longer. Thanks be to God, I see you taking off your necklaces and earrings, tearing away your ribbons and ruffles and superfluities of headdress, and I hear you exclaim, What shall we do next? An important question, deserving serious consideration. The ornaments you are renouncing, though useless, and worse than useless in their present state, can be so disposed of as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, relieve the sick, enlighten the dark-minded, disseminate the holy scriptures spread the glorious gospel throughout the world. * * * During the years that you have been wearing these useless ornaments how many poor creatures have been pining in want; how many have languished and groaned on beds of abject wretchedness; how many children have been bred up in the blackest ignorance, hardened in all manner of iniquity; how many immortal souls have gone down to hell, with a lie in their right hand, having never heard of the true God and the only Saviour. Some of these miseries might have been mitigated; some poor wretch have felt his pain relieved; some widow's heart have been made to sing for joy; some helpless orphans have been rescued from hardened depravity, and trained up for a happy life here and hereafter ; some, yea, many precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fires of hell, where now they must lie and suffer to all eternity, had you not been afraid of being thought unfashionable, and not like other folks! had you not preferred adorning your persons and cherishing the most seductive feelings of vanity and pride!" There are the poor, ignorant heathen in China and Africa, sinking down to an endless hell because they are destitute of the gospel, while you enlightened people of America are rolling in luxury and wealth, in the vanities, pride and pleasures of this world, and have the gospel and the means to send it to those heathen, and yet will not do it!

Let me draw a little picture. I see over there, in my mind, a poor helpless woman, without the gospel. I see in her arms a little babe. I see they are there starving for the want of food to sustain their natural lives. I see that little babe as it dies in its mother's arms, and leaves this world, and its spirit leaves its body and goes to God who gave it, and its body falls lifeless in the mother's ' arms. I see the mother dying too, and as the spirit leaves her body her arms fall lifeless by her side. The mother was as helpless, as dependent, as destitute of power to believe the gospel and accept Jesus Christ as her Saviour as was the little babe that died in her arms. The mother and child were together for a while ; but here is an eternal separation now, of the mother and child. The child goes to glory, and the mother goes to an endless hell. Why? Can you tell me why? Because she has not fallen in with the overtures of mercy, and accepted Christ as her Saviour and obeyed the gospel, according to the teaching of Elder Penick, when she was just as helpless to do this as was the child that died in her arms. Tell me, will you, that God is going to damn that mother in hell because your people do not send the gospel to her! See her plowing the domains of an endless hell, see her suffering forever in hell, on account of the vanity and stinginess and pride of your own people, the people of Elder Penick's church! Will you tell me that God is so unjust as to do that? Now you talk about hard doctrine! This is just what your own people have taught, and you are here to defend them.

Thank you for your attention.

CP.045 ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

Let me say, as I tried to say this morning, that I suppose all of us alike hate to view the closing hour of a debate, or a protracted meeting; for a debate generally brings together people, as it is here, from different sections of the country, different quarters, and there is no sort of probability that we will ever meet again in the study of God's word on this earth. And so we want to contribute everything we can to the good will and good feeling, and that will stimulate investigation for the truth's sake. There is but one ground upon which people can be agreed; the Saviour prayed for it, and we ought to search for it, and that is, on THE truth.

In Brother Cayce's opening remarks on the last speech, he said that he had remained silent on the question of "making believers;" preachers COULD make believers, thinking possibly I would take the hint. Well, I had understood that to be his position all the way along. So you see the point that he makes is that there are regenerate people who are not believers, and these regenerate people who are not believers in heathen lands must be made believers by the preachers. He thinks these will be saved. Is there somebody who is not a believer that will be saved, Brother Cayce? That never heard the gospel, don't have to hear it? What do you say, Saviour, do you know anything about that kind of believer? "He that believeth not is condemned already."-Joh 3:18. Well, won't he be saved? Mr 16:16, "Shall be damned." You see there is some difference between Brother Cayce and the Lord Jesus Christ with respect to the unbeliever, isn't there? Now, that is a flat, square issue; anybody in the world can see it. No unbeliever in this world is excluded from that proposition. ALL ARE CONDEMNED AND SHALL BE DAMNED.

Now, notice my opponent turns to Gill on Joh 8:43, and insists that Gill teaches that these are to be saved, to be regenerated, in the sense of being saved from their sins. And he reads from Gill on that point. On the point that he is trying to meet Gill is wrong, or else Gill contradicts himself on 1Co 5:13, for there Gill speaks of the word as the instrument, or the means. No, I don't understand that at all. He would understand this, that Gill would teach that the man would be regenerated up here today, and then saved, days and days, and days after this, possibly a man might go and preach to him. That is not the point. While the man is preaching, as Gill comments on the point, right there, the Holy Spirit operates, and the two are co-extensive, as to time. Many of our writers put it in that sense. There is where you get the error and where you miss the point entirely.

Well, again, on Mr 16:16, the commission by Mark, he raised this question, "Did Gill say this is given to the church, or to the preachers?" Well, possibly, he said committed to faithful men, but that is not the question. My opponent stands in the face of Gill, in the face of the confession, in the face of God, without the commission. Neither as a preacher nor as a church, there is where he stands. You are clear out of line with the whole business. Got that little crowd off in a gang to yourself, with no commission.

He says, Will I harmonize Mt 23:9, "Call no man your father," with 1Co 4:15. There is no want of any harmony at all. Paul had never dreamed of saying to those Corinthians that God was not their Father. Paul did not say "God-father." "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel." That is as plain as anything. He was used as an instrument, or a means; that is exactly what my proposition says. We often speak of our fathers in the ministry. Paul spoke of Timothy as his son. He was an instrumental father; that is the VERY SENSE of my proposition, and that is the VERY thing my opponent` won't have.

Well, notice, if I got him, "Paul is speaking of robbing other churches, taking wages of them," and in another chapter "Paul begs their pardon." "Wherein are ye inferior to other churches; except it be in that I was not burdensome to you." Well you had better take a salary. Do you take a salary, or are you out of line with Paul? How do you get your support? How would a man without a church get his support where there is no church? But he is not guilty of preaching on any new territory, but only feeding, and fleecing the sheep; that is all. He says those missionaries over there in China must have the neck of a giraffe. They work down there and feed back here. Paul was one of the same kind. Gospel preachers all have those long necks. While he was in one place, those back yonder "supplied his wants." As he said to the Philippian church, "once and again ye ministered to my wants." To your ability and beyond your ability did you give. He is not guilty of being in line with them, not under the same commission any way, if at all.

Well, he refers to Brother Grimes, and makes a bid for Brother Grimes. I said when you get Brother Grimes you will get a strong Calvinistic Missionary Baptist. If I am informed correctly, about thirteen of your own preacher brethren have lately been coming over in this direction. You ask about Brother Sam Kirkland. Brother Kirkland has been ordained by Walnut Street Church. Here is Brother Taylor here that contended for Brother Kirkland, on the ground that he was the means faction. Where is the Missionary church that takes your anti-means brethren? Your Welsh Tract church; is that an anti-means church like yours? Come right down and tell us; we will see whether it is or not.

Yes, John was the witness of the light, that people might believe, and that believing, might have life through his name. Every unbeliever is lost. Why? Because faith is the only known means in this universe by which the Lord gives salvation to man. That is the only known means in this world. "By grace are ye saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God."

He dwells on the different kinds of ground in the parable of the sower. The point at issue is not on the ground; as he says, "why don't you farmers get out here and just sow your seed and then prepare your ground?" I thought you were not arraying yourself against Penick's preaching at all. He is so one-sided that he can't see but one little thing at a time. Hardly sees that clear. The Lord God uses His word like snow and rain upon the ground; "direct contact with the word." Now tell us a little about it. Have you told us about any ground that brings a quarter, or half a crop, or a tenth of a crop, without any seed at all? If you know of any such ground around Martin, I can get you many buyers. You must certainly have good ground; just brings in the whole thing, seed or no seed; that is a new order of farming entirely.

Yes, with respect to that Welsh Tract church, that is a Hardshell church, not an anti-means church, if I am informed correctly.

And then again, he says that all the scholars say that he is all right, and he quotes his twin brother of the Campbellite church. Of course, twin brothers always fight for each other. What do you say to Mr. Carroll? What does Mr. Carroll say? "The fact is that Alexander Campbell was the father of twins, Hardshellism and Campbellism." But I had better find you the origin of your doctrine a little bit. You notice I just take the doctrines as you have introduced them. You introduced this yourself. Let us read Carroll here a little bit on page 89: "The anti-missionary spirit owes its ORIGIN to the notorious Daniel Parker (that is your Two-seeder of Illinois). He was the first person called Baptist that lent a hand to the infidel and the Papist against the proclamation of the gospel and the translation and circulation of the Scriptures in all languages and to all people." Suppose the congregation, hears what Uncle Daniel has to say about it, page 89: "It makes me shudder when I think I am THE FIRST that I have any knowledge of among the thousands of America that have ventured to draw the sword against the error, (preaching to the lost) or to shoot at it and spare no arrows." There is where your anti-missions started. There is the father of your system, and it leads logically to that, but you deny the consequences, and I am glad to see you getting that near right, but why don't you come out and deny the premises also?

With respect to what Brother Oakley wrote in the Baptist Standard, I will say Brother Sam Kirkland insists that Brother Oakley misunderstood him.

He reads Re 5:9-10; 7:4,9-10. Well, I think that is all right; no objection to raise to it at all.

Now read Mt 24:14: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness, and then shall the end come." See we go into all the world and preach the gospel for a witness before the end can come. I have no doubt many will come up from all nations.

He read a lot from different ones here; Wilberforce, I believe he is not a Baptist, on saving souls in the same instrumental sense we speak of it, if I understand it. And he had his little piece of poetry. He said he would change some words and read it as it ought to be, for even the very thing itself did not suit him. Next it will be "Twinkle, twinkle little stair, how I wonder what you air."

He is raising war on money---have you ever heard any of them intimate that when they got plenty of money they would then quit traveling around feeding and fleecing the sheep?

When he drew that picture of the poor mother away over yonder with her baby, and said the poor child at last dies and goes to glory, but the poor mother dies and goes to hell, how do you know anything about the facts in the case? Let us see now the predicament my brother gets himself into. She may be an elect soul, one of God's children. She needs the bread of life, she needs the light, to help her so that she can become a church member. Has he ever told us of giving one red cent to give the bread to such elect souls? He let's God's own child die in the dark for God's own word. God's own bread, and then TALKS about somebody else. How do you like that? Are these things arguments, ladies and gentlemen? They are the productions of my opponent, and I quote them to show how they rebound on him. He has got no message in the world for anybody but the church.

But I want to see the predicament he gets into again. You have got no commission to unbelievers, and so you are not the preacher to make believers. I guess you see that. Preachers make believers. Well, believers are out of the church; you haven't got a commission for anyone outside of the church. You haven't got any message to those fellows on the outside, regenerate, or anybody else. There is your position as plain as anything can be. I understand preachers make believers and only believers can get into the church; but you don't preach to anybody outside. Your only mission is to the church. Those people outside can't get into the church at all, forever and forever debarred. You are tolerably clear from all responsibility, except DISOBEDIENCE to the Lord God; that is all.

While it is on my mind, I want to suggest as to his charge on William Carey being the father of the Missionary Baptists, that that is another question entirely that he has sprung. Here is his confession of faith. I will read you a background history of that; that was a good while before Carey's day. I am reading from Ray's History of the Baptists, page 31; he quotes from Benedict, page 336: "At this convention the denomination, among other things, resolved to raise a fund for missionary purposes, and to assist feeble churches." The convention that adopted your confession at London there was raising money for missionary purposes a hundred years before Carey. You had better let Daniel Parker and Carroll alone. Same book, (Ray's Baptist Succession, page 33) : "Mr. Benedict says, page 936, `The further down I go into the regions of antiquity, the more fully is the missionary character of all whom we denominate our sentimental brethren, developed."' You, would never have in this world one single church planted by the theory of my opponent, if he sticks to his theory. It is to be hoped that sometimes he may differ from this theory.

Let us notice again. Now this confession that they was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." How was that? The gospel was given and was revealed and made "effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." Notice again: "The promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed ONLY by the word of God." How much clearer can you. make it than that? Notice right there at the top of page 74: "Neither do I the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of him by the promise or gospel should be enabled to attain saving faith or repentance." The brother is absolutely tied hand and foot by the very confession that he proposes to stand on. You see that back of that confession that there they were taking collection for weak churches and for missionary purposes, and clear on down the line you will find the same thing. Well, it is time for somebody to be getting right in this age. You should go on back like we were seventy-five or eighty years ago, then we might be doing something; and might bring your twin brother. Notice, "Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God." In the very same article, I haven't read that, third division of this chapter: "The revelation of the gospel unto sinners, made in divers times and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts, for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God." Yes, the Lord is doing just as He pleases. It pleased Him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. "Go," said the Saviour, and the most emphatic words that ever fell from the lips of the Son of God is, "Lo, I am going with you;" and he has never failed yet. "Is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God, not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men's natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make, or can do so; and therefore in all ages the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extending or limiting of it in great variety, according to the counsel and the will of God."

Now, another Scripture in the controversy is in Eze 12,---the vision of the dry bones. He says these represent the house of Israel. Are they very dead, very dry? They represent as much death as anything could be. You would not have those representing the saved ones of Israel, would you? Ezekiel has got a message to those folks that looked mighty foolish to the Greeks, and to the man of the world, and that looks mighty foolish to my brother. His eyes are blinded by prejudice. But Ezekiel has a message to them. The valley is very full; and they are very, very dry. But God is going to give them some promises, "Hear and your soul shall live." Does God give them power to hear? Yes. Are they made living men and women right at the first step? No, sir. There is ability given to arrange themselves, and joint comes to joint, and sinews comes, and flesh, and then skin comes. Then what? Then comes the calling upon the wind; and the word wind in both Hebrew and Greek is the same for Spirit, call on the wind to blow upon these, "and they shall live." There is the man preaching the word to the dead and then crying to God. There is the man calling upon God to take him, use him, and then crying to the world to be reconciled to God. There is the arranging, there is the disposing. There are sixteen terms in the Greek and Hebrew for the word "ordained" in the two languages. In Ac 13:48, where "as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed," they were arranged in their conviction and repentance for trusting faith in the Son of God. Where is your man, where is your man without believing in Jesus Christ that can have salvation? Where is he; tell us, where is that man?

Now, I was just taking up the cases, of course hurriedly, through the ministry of John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles: Beginning at Pentecost, there was the preaching of the word and the work of the Holy Spirit. In Ac 6 and Ac 7 you have the power of God in Stephen, and Stephen was saying to them, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." Now, go on in Samaria and there is joy at the preaching of the word. You take Philip and the Eunuch, and notice he preached unto him Jesus. There is the word, and God's Spirit working with it in every single case; Saul of Tarsus is no exception to the rule. How long had he been fighting no one can tell. He said, "It is hard to kick against the pricks." While fighting his convictions Jesus Christ steps in, and the great man surrenders in the way, in the twinkling of an eye. There has got to come the moment with every one of absolute surrender to the Son of God. Paul, commenting about it in 1Ti 1:16, says he is a PATTERN for them "that should believe on him to everlasting life." Now you take the next case, of Cornelius. He knew the word of God from the preaching of John the Baptist in the wilderness of Judea. Then the Lord selected Peter for to open the door of faith to the Gentiles. The first promise he made he said, "To him give all the prophets witness that through faith in his name whosoever believeth in him shall have remission of sins." There was salvation promised. Not only was the gift of the Holy Spirit received, but the miraculous gifts. Take Ac 19, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" Take Eph 1:13. Then and there is where we were reconciled. There is the Holy Spirit convicting, there is the Holy Spirit using His word, and the Holy Spirit doing His work, in surrendering trusting faith in the Son of God. It is not a question of a week or a month or six years; but there is a MOMENT of surrender to Jesus Christ. That is left clear out of my friend's whole plan of salvation., The Spirit of God is operating, working, and he dies in sin, and is resurrected in Christ, by the faith of the operation of God. It all may be done, as far as time is concerned, in a few minutes. You take every case of the planting of churches, that is the way it is brought about, under the sacred commission. I want you to tell us emphatically if we are under the commission to preach the gospel in any sense. Have you any sort of message for the lost?

Have you heard him make on intelligent answer to Jas 1:18; 1Pe 1:23; 2Pe 1:3-4, "Through the exceeding great and precious promises that we are made partakers of the divine nature?" That is where you get God's nature imparted to you. It is God's seed and the Spirit plants it. The Spirit puts the seed in the heart, and there is the germination and the life, and there is a child of God.

CP.046 ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S THIRD SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you again in the negative of the proposition, "The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means." It looks to me, and I am persuaded it looks that way to you, that if this proposition is true, Elder Penick could find a place somewhere in the Bible that says so in so many words, or something, at least, that looks like it. He starts out in his speech by asking, "Will anyone be saved who does not believe?" And then comments as, Cayce, "Yes;" somebody else, "No." Elder Penick, "No," of course. You remember that syllogism which I gave him the other day. I told him he might reply to it when he wanted to, and he has waited this long and has not replied yet. I suppose he does not want to reply yet. The syllogism was:

First. Whatever is essential as a gospel condition to salvation must be absolute, universal, indispensable, and without exception.-J. H. Grimes, in Baptist Standard, April 25, 1907.

Second. The condition of salvation is faith in Christ. -J. A. Scarboro, in Go-ology, page 32.

Third. Therefore, faith in Christ as an essential to salvation is absolute, universal, indispensable, and without exception.

What is the conclusion? That no one can be saved unless he first has faith in Christ. And the brother has used the word faith all through this discussion in the sense of belief. Therefore, no one can be saved unless he believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Then I offer this as another syllogism:

First. Faith in Christ (and I suppose you accept it, as you have said nothing about it) as an essential to salvation is absolute, universal, indispensable, and without exception. You accept this as the conclusion in the first syllogism, because you have not replied to it. You have not undertaken to overthrow or disprove the premises.

Second. The infant is unable to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Third. Therefore the condemnation of the infant is absolute, universal, and without exception, and not one of them can ever enter the portals of eternal glory.

Whose doctrine is that? There is the man; it is Elder Penick's doctrine. He cannot reach the case of the infant. "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." You cannot reach the case of the little child through the instrumentality of the gospel ; and, as the adult must be saved the very same way the little child is saved, must be regenerated the very same way the little child is regenerated, it follows that you cannot reach the case of the adult with your gospel regeneration theory or your word theory. So your system of salvation is too short to reach anybody, either infant or adult. It leaves them all out.

I want to notice that belief question just a little, or the idea that faith is the act of the creature. In his speech somewhere he quoted the expression in Eph 2:8-9, "By grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast." What is grace? It is unmerited favor. What is faith? Well, that is the act of the creature---that is the way Brother Penick has been arguing it all through this discussion. We do no violence to language nor to God's word if we take a word out and put the correct meaning of the word in its place. Then we read, "By an unmerited favor are ye saved," if that is what grace is, "through the act of the creature," if that is what faith is. Then, "By an unmerited favor are ye saved through the act of the creature; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast." Isn't that logic? By an unmerited favor are ye saved through the act of the creature; and that not of yourselves, yet it is through the act of the crea­ture. It is the gift of God, yet it is through the act of the creature. It is not of works, yet it is through the act of the creature. To suit Elder Penick's theory, it ought to read: "By works are ye saved, and not by an unmerited favor, for it is through the act of the creature; it is by works, so you may boast all you can." What is the faith that is mentioned in this text? What is it? The apostle, in Heb 11:1, says, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Sub is a Latin prefix which means under; stance is from the Latin sto, which means to stand. The faith, then, mentioned in this text, is something which stands under. "By an unmerited favor are ye saved through something which stands under." What is it that stands under you in the work of salvation? Jesus says, Joh 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." It is the hand of Jesus Christ that stands under you. Then you are saved by the grace and mercy of God, through what Jesus Christ has done for you, and not through your own effort or through your own works. It leaves the works of the sinner out. "Not of works," lest Elder Penick and the whole Missionary Baptist denomination should boast. "Not of works, lest ANY MAN should boast."

He says I am under no commission. Yes, we go by the authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Have you been noticing the play he has been making on the commission, arguing that the ministry of the gospel is under the commission, and that the commission was given to the church, and then in his last speech tells us of a different commission altogether that Paul was under. He says the commission that Paul labored under is recorded in Ac 26. Tell us, what commission was Paul under? What commission are you under? Are you under any at all, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or are you under the commission of the missionary board?

Is belief a voluntary act? What do you think about it? If belief is a condition, or something that the sinner must do in order to his salvation, it must be a voluntary act. If it be true that belief is a condition that the sinner must perform in order that he get to heaven, it follows inevitably and necessarily that belief must be a voluntary act of the creature. If it is not a voluntary act of the creature, it cannot be true that it is a condition to be performed by him in order to get to heaven ; else God makes the eternal destiny of people hinge or hang upon an involuntary act, something that they cannot help. Then, if belief is a voluntary act, I want to see if I can just get you to believe a little for me. Brother Penick, I will ask you to believe a proposition I know you would like to believe. I know you would like to believe it, for the simple reason that if you were in possession of what I am going to ask you to believe you possess you would have enough to help you a great deal in the salvation of the heathen you are so much concerned about. Just let every one of you believe that you have a million dollars. If it be true that the sinner must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order that the sinner be saved, it follows that the believing of the proposition will make it true. If that is the case, then believing you have a million dollars will make it true. So, now just believe you are worth a million dollars. Try it, Brother Penick. If it don't make you rich, it will make you feel good a little while anyhow. Just believe you are worth a million dollars, and it will make you worth a million, if it be true that the sinner's believing Jesus is his Saviour makes him so. You cannot believe you are worth a million, because you have not the evidence ; but if someone should place before you a will, having all the requirements of the law complied with, that will stating that you had been left heir to a million dollars, then you would believe you are worth a million. You would not believe it because you want to, for you want to now, but because you would have the evi­dence. You say that is not a Bible proposition. All right; I will give you a Bible proposition. Just believe the Old Baptist doctrine a while. You don't know how good you would feel. Just believe it a little while. Won't you? You say you can't? That is the very thing, sir, I am arguing; the very thing that belief is not a voluntary act of the creature; and if it is not, then the eternal destiny of men and women is not hinged upon belief. It is not. But then you say you have got people to believe through your preaching. Well, I do not believe what you preach ; and if I have to believe the gospel in order to be saved, and if you preach the gospel, I want you to try your hand on me. You say, "But you are not willing." Yes I am willing to be saved. If I am now in an unsaved state I want to be saved. Now, get to work and try it on me. Won't you; WON'T You? Are you so much concerned about the eternal welfare of souls that you say cannot be saved because they do not believe the gospel, and yet you won't work on me? WHAT IS THE MATTER? If I am not converted, I want to be converted. But I can't believe what you preach. I just can't. Well, you say somebody must be an outside case. Well, if you preach the gospel, the reason I do not hear it and do not believe it is not because I am an outside case. The Saviour says: "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." Joh 8:43. Joh 8:47: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not"---Why? "BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD." That is the reason why. He did not say because you are an outside case ; He did not say because you are just a little harder than other folks. But, "Because ye are not of God." As you propose to preach in such a way that the unregenerate will hear and believe your preaching, you admit that you are of the world in your preaching. 1Jo 4:5-6: "They are of the world : therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." Here is one that is not of God; he is of the world. Over here is one that knoweth God, one that is of God. John says: "We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us." In order that this man who is not of God, who is of the world, hear the preaching of the gospel, he must first be of God; and unless he is first of God, he can never hear your preaching, if you preach the gospel; and if he can never hear the preaching, he will never believe it. He must hear the preaching, understandingly, before he can believe it. I am willing to risk the whole thing right there. All the learning and sophistry of the world can never answer this proposition and make it appear that the sinner is regenerated by the preaching of the gospel. The sinner must be regenerated before the gospel can reach his case.

You say that I have no gospel for the person who is outside of the church. Yes, sometimes the gospel I preach reaches right into the Missionary Baptist church and fishes some of God's people out of there and gets them into the true church of God. But he says there are so many who have gone over his way. Well, I have told you about that; he is welcome to all he can get. He speaks about Brother Sam Kirkland, that he has been baptized and ordained. What are you going to do with all those that Elder Kirkland immersed for you before you baptized him? I think Elder Sam said he had baptized about two hundred that have joined your church since he united with your folks, and before you baptized him.

A voice in the audience: Three hundred.

Then there are three hundred that you have got in your church by Elder Kirkland's work without baptism, according to your position. If Elder Sam had never been baptized until you put him under the water, and if one must be baptized before he can administer gospel baptism, then none of the three hundred have been baptized. What are you going to do with them? What are you going to do with all that disorder? Are you going to try to go all over the country where he has been and find these parties and baptize them? You have it fixed now, haven't you.

He says Paul took a salary. Yes; I showed you where Paul said, "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do . you service." 2Co 11:8. Then he said, in 2Co 12, "For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong." If you, and your brethren do like Paul did, you will go back to many places and say, "Forgive me this wrong." Say, can't you remember reading something about where Paul and Barnabas were minded to go to a certain place, and the Holy Ghost forbade them going? Don't you remember reading something like that somewhere? Paul did not obey the commission, did he? Oh, how disobedient he was, according to your folks! There were many people over there; Paul and Barnabas were minded to go and preach to them, but the Holy Ghost told them not to go. How do you harmonize that with your position?

He says I make a bid for Brother Grimes. No, I do not. I put in a condition, that if he is right in other respects as he is in the articles I have read from him. I said we would be willing to take him if he would give an experience of grace, but not without baptizing him. Elder Sam Kirkland is not the only man you received from us that was not baptized. There is Elder Strickland, Elder Pettus, and Elder Crane. I understand you have one among you that wanted to come back, and some of our brethren said to him, "I expect you had better wait awhile," or words to that effect. No, we are not all gone yet, for we have enough left to whip out the whole Missionary Baptist fraternity and not know we have a job on hand. When you want it, just bring out your alarm clock and set it running, and some of us will be on hand, and whenever you want it, we will give you a plenty.

He quotes from Carroll's Genesis of American Anti­Missionism, pages 87 and 88, to show that Daniel Parker was the first one to contend against missionism. Mr. Carroll says Parker said, "It makes me shudder when I think I am the first one, (that I have any knowledge of), among the thousands of zealous religionists of America, that have ventured to :draw the Sword against the error, or to; shoot at it and spare no arrows." That is also what Elder Penick says, that Mr. Parker was the first to oppose the move, but Mr. Carro'll says, "But it is doubtful if this statement be true." He was mistaken ; somebody else had been shooting holes in the thing before Elder Parker. That is what Mr. Carroll said about it. Why didn't you read a little further, Elder Penick?

I hold in my hand a copy of Hall's Campbellite Catechism. I will read a question propounded by Elder Hall, on page 25: "If Baptist churches are not scriptural, how can your church be scriptural since you started from us?" That is, since you started from us Missionary Baptists. Mr. Burnett's answer, on page 26, says, "We did not start from you. When A. Campbell started his reformatory work, your sort of Baptists had no existence. The reformation commenced among the old Primitive Baptists before the Missionary sprout was born. If the old Baptists are not scriptural, how can your churches be scriptural, since you started from them?"

Have I got any more? Yes, a whole lot of them. He quoted some from Ray's Baptist Succession; but Ray claimed to be quoting from Benedict. Here is Benediet's Fifty Years Among the Baptists. Let us see what Mr. Benedict says about some of your modern movements. I want to give just one or two little quotations from this work. I suppose, as you quote him second hand, you will take him first hand as good authority. He says, on pages 69 and 70: "Fifty years ago, not an agent for collecting funds for any object of benevolence or literature was to be seen in the whole Baptist field." That was fifty years ago. "No one then dreamed of so soon seeing such an army of agents in the field, for so many different objects, and that the business would become a distinct vocation of indispensable necessity, for carrying forward our benevolent plans, and for performing our denominational work." On page 111 he says: "About forty years ago the dormant energies of our denomination in this country began to be aroused in favor of some systematic efforts in favor of sending the gospel to the heathen. The cause of this movement may be traced to the conversion of Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice to the sentiments off the Baptists, while on their way to India as missionaries, under the patronage of the Pedo-Baptists." You just simply got some missionaries from the Pedo-Baptists and started them out in the Baptist family. That is where you sprouted from.

I want to see something about Paul's commission. Ac 26:17-18: "Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Now, then, go right back to Ac 18:7-10: "And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee : for I have much people in this city." But it ought to have said, to suit Elder Penick's theory, "I will have much people in this city, provided you will preach here long enough;" but He says, "I have much people in this city."

Now, in the twenty-sixth chapter: "To open their eyes." How, much good would it do to open the eyes of a man that has no life? Could you give him sight? No.

In order that he be able to see, he must have life and the power of sight. Then we may open their eyes to the truth. We open their eyes to the true teaching of God's word by preaching the truth to them, and thus get them to leave the new-fangled notions of the Softshell Baptists. You notice how he has been calling us Hardshells. I suppose he means I am a Hardshell. You must admit by that, Brother Penick, that you are a Softshell. You know the difference between a Hardshell and a Softshell. You know what sort of things are hatched out of hardshell eggs, and you know what sort of things are hatched out of softshell eggs---frogs, lizards, snakes, scorpions, and such things as that. Did you mean to call me a Hardshell, Brother Penick, or do you want to take it back?

There is another thing I want to notice about the word of God. Jas 1:18: "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." And then again, 1Pe 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." This is the life-giving word, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. There is no life-giving power in the letter, or in the written word. The life-giving power is in the Word which liveth and abideth forever.

Elder Penick has been talking about the word, as though there is but one word. Let us notice Re 19:11-16: "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood : and his name is called The Word of God." Tell us, when did this written word ever ride a horse? "And was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were, in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his, mouth! Where is the mouth of this word, the Bible? "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness; and wrath of Almighty God: And he hath on his vesture and, on his, thigh a, name written"---tell me where is the thigh of this written word'? "KING OF KINGS, AND: LORD OF LORDS." This is the Word that regenerates the sinner by the power of His Holy Spirit. Heb 4:12: "For the word of God is quick and powerful; and sharper than, any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and: intents of the heart." A discerner is one who hears and. one who, sees, is one who has eyes. "A discerner of the thoughts: and intents of the heart:" That is the Incarnate Word: There is another Word beside the one that you have been talking about, and it is the Word which regenerates the sinner. The word you have been talking about is one that is, altogether different to that.

The Lord does not use the; gospel as a means: in regeneration because it can do no one any good unless they, believe it, and those who believe thee gospel have already been born of. God. 1Jo 5:1. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." I have already quoted during the discussion the Interlinear Translation., which, says, "Every; one, that believeth that Jesus is the Christ has, been begotten, of God." It may also be correctly translated "has been born of God." Joh 1:11-13: "He came unto his own; and his own received him, not: But as many as received him: to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born; not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." You know I asked him to parse, diagram, or analyze this sentence; or treat it any way he may according to the rules of language, or the rules of grammar, and make it appear that the birth in this text did not precede the believing. Has he undertaken it? No, sir! Joh 6:47: "Verily, verily, I; say unto. you, He that• believeth on me hath everlasting life,"---if he believes., long enough! No; but "hath everlasting life.” Brother Penick, will you please tell us how long a man must believe a falsehood in order to make it true?

Joh 5:24: "Verily, verily; I; say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him, that sent me, hath, everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life," The Interlinear Translation says: "Verily; verily, :I say to you, that he that my word, hears, and believes him who sent me, has life eternal and into judgment comes not; but has passed out of death into life."

The character that does NOW believe HAS ALREADY PASSED OUT OF DEATH INTO LIFE.

Therefore he does not have to believe the gospel in order to pass out, of death into life. I am willing to risk the whole point there. The Lord does not use the gospel as a means, in, regeneration, but the gospel is a means of finding those who, have, been born of God. If you make the charge again that we have no gospel for anybody, you make it willfully, knowing, that it is not our position.

Thank you for your attention.

CP.047 ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER PENICK'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators and Beloved Friends:

At the very, last, I believe, my opponent has been able to say, it is the, MEANS of finding the saved. In finding the saved in China, in Japan, or. anywhere else, the word is the means of finding them,. You have got to preach to them, and since they are scattered among all nations you see the only way to do that is simply to preach to all nations---a flat SURRENDER of all he has been saying. There you are, flat and square against yourself again. You have taken the position and built it on Eph 4, that you had no commission to anybody but the church. Now you insist that to find him, or for you to find. him, or for God to find him, or for him to find himself, the word must be preached as a means to that end.

Again, on the believer having everlasting life. That is correct. "These things have I written unto you that ye might believe; and that believing," or by believing, "ye might have life through his name." There is your passage, Joh 20:31. When the believer is receiving it, he is accepting the Son of God, and it all may be done in the twinkling of an eye ; not a question of how long it will take faith to work; the believer has life right on the spot, right then and there.

He finds his case, but the unbeliever shall be condemned. This word is the means of finding the fellow over yonder. Is he safe that you never find him? Jesus Christ being the judge, says he is condemned already.

In Joh 1:11-12: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." The receiver and the believer is one and the same person. Could any man have Christ and not receive him? Could any man have the cleansing blood, but not receive it? Faith is a receptive act, he himself has said so, "a passive reception." He has been saying flat and straight that the Holy Spirit did the regenerating; you have been saying that, and in this last speech you find that the Word was on that horse, and you say he is the one.

Now, will you tell us, which one is it? Which one of the Godhead is it? There he is again; cannot take a position on any interpretation at all but what he crosses himself. When you preach Christ, are you not preaching that Word? If that is the Word by which they are to be quickened, by which you are to be made believers, and we cannot. preach that Word, then nobody will be brought into the church unless the Son of God comes down here and preaches. Contradictions crossing every way; poor tangled confused brother. Good neighbor, good neighbor, but you are just so confused you are hardly able to see. If Jesus Christ is the one to do it, you will never get a member in your church unless Jesus Christ comes down and does it directly in person.

Jas 1:18: "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." Did he use any means in this? Was it this word of truth?

He says preachers can make believers. Listen: "Of his own will begat he us with .the word of truth." The Lord God of His own will has been begetting them. That Word, Christ, is up yonder. You say it was by that Word of God that rode the horses in heaven, he begets the man unto salvation and regenerates him. But you have to get him to be a church member, and hence you have to use the spoken word to get him to be a believer, or church member. Does the Bible know anything about that?, When a man gets in such straits as that, you may know he has something desperate on hand.

1Pe 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." This is the Word of God that lives and abides forever.

Joh 6:63: "My words, they are spirit, and they are life." They are spiritual, having life in them, giving life.

Again, my opponent turns to Ac 26:18 on the commission of Paul. Paul, he insists, would not be under the regular commission. Wants to know what commission he is under. He turns back over there then to the eighteenth chapter, seventh verse, where Paul was to stay in Corinth: "For I have many people in this place." 'Well, my brother, you would never have been over there, because you have only a commission to the church. That is the only commission you "have. But there wasn't any church over there. Yes, the Lord foreknows before the foundation of the world who is going to believe. If you can put it no further back than before the casting down of the, worlds all right; but you would never have been guilty of staying at Corinth like Paul. You would have said, Lord, send some other fellow to get this church up, and I will have my mission, to the church. My opponent keeps reading about the missionary agencies being revived. I am going to ask him, Do you believe in missions at all? Do you believe in carrying the light to those children in heathen lands and finding them? Are you sending anybody, or going yourself?

Talk about fellows standing on TWO feet, now we will see. He takes Brother Hall's Campbellite Catechism, and see he takes up for Burnett right straight. We always expect brothers, twins especially, to fight for each other every time. Carroll says Campbell is the father of both of you, and you intimated that he was the very best authority; and you will find this twin brother taking up for him every time. Spencer makes the statement in the same book that it is probable that Daniel Parker was the first man that had started the question of anti-missions, and Spencer was the best authority on Kentucky Baptists we ever had, I think. Yes, Paul took the salary of the other churches and did the work over there. "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service," and afterwards wrote back, "Forgive me this wrong." Unless the pastor, takes the salary from the church, it cannot be developed. It will be inferior to other churches. He didn't take the salary from the churches, and therefore they are inferior to other churches, he himself being the judge.

Then he asks me if I can just make a fellow believe. Try: my hand on him. He says "I am willing." All right, sir, if you are willing, it is the evidence you are coming, according to your teaching, and we will just see whether you are coming or not. There you are. You will have to knock at the door and bring your clothes along, this church never took any of you without dipping them. You are willing to come. So you are coming; so next Sunday afternoon, three o'clock, we will go to the creek with Brother Cayce. I don't know whether he wants any salary, you may be feeding him better than we will be able to attend to him. Well, he is going to come, he has got the will; so he is coming. He keeps on saying, in speaking of these good brethren, Brother Kirkland, and Brother so and so, "here they come." He said, you are welcome to all you can get. My brother, you are thrice welcome to all you can fish out. Just help yourself. We don't need any anti-missionary, Hardshell brethren in the Missionary Baptist churches; we say so right flat-footedly. Well, he tried the proposition that believing a thing will make it so. Now, you people, that insist on saving souls, just believe now that you will have a million dollars, and that will make it so. The Lord God said, by the mouth of the inspired apostles, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," to a poor trembling jailer, that is the declaration the apostle made. He ought to have said, "You have done been saved." If he had heard Brother Cayce he would have understood that he was saved before this. "Now, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and get into the Old School church." That is all I am interested in; that is all I can do for you.

Again in commenting on faith in Heb 11:1, my opponent was evidently in a hurry. Now faith is the substance, and he told us what the Latin was, the substance of things hoped for, the basis, ground, of things not seen. Now let us see what is the basis of hope. Hope rests upon faith. Now faith is the substance, foundation of things hoped for; looks like you could read a little clearer. The evidence, assurance, of things not seen. I have got the assurance. Do you hope for heaven? What does it rest upon? My faith in Jesus Christ. Now, then, you take the fellow that has not that faith, that fellow has no basis for his hope, and no evidence of anything, none in this world; there is where he stands.

My brother didn't hardly know when he did get through changing Eph 2:8 in order to get a case against the Missionary Baptists. The text read this way, "So by grace are ye saved, by the act of the creature, that is not of works, and it is of works," and so he went on and changed and changed it. Could he reproduce his words if the stenographer did blot them out? Do you say that there is in faith a passive receptive idea? Faith not only received the Word of God as Joh 1:11-12, but it is the act of the soul by which you surrender to Jesus Christ. The same faith surrenders to him and receives him. It is the hand that takes in as God gives strength and ability.

Again, with respect to the child and the heathen mother. If the mother over there in the heathen land goes to hell, she goes to hell for her own sin. You don't know whether she went to hell or not. You are arguing here that faith is the evidence, and he has got no evidence about it, and therefore can't get the idea as to when, and where the infants are saved, before death, or in death, or after death? Thought you said it is the identical same way the adult has got to be saved. But you accept the idea that receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child is believing, for receiving is believing. He said Penick ought to find a case where it talks like it. See Joh 1:11-12. I have been finding the cases all along. There is the good ground. There is the thirty, sixty, and an hundred fold. And there is 1Pe 1:21. Now get this idea. In the parable of the sower, thirteenth of Matthew, the word is the seed, the seed is the word. Understand that ground was all right, that was the right kind of word. Was that the word that was riding that horse up in heaven? You have got your word up in heaven, and sometimes among thistles, and sometimes in the heart, and Satan taking it out. Now, when the word is in the heart, is not that the word that produces thirty and sixty and one hundred fold?

Now notice again that a hundred or so years ago, I forget the date, 1689, clear back of Carey's movement in 1792, you have the very body that adopted the London Confession taking collections for missions. As Benedict says, the further back you go, the more missionary they are. On page 429, Minutes of the Philadelphia Association, where the ancient people, the New Testament people were intensely missionary. Just think about it. Giving beyond their means, as the Philippian church got the compliment from the Apostle Paul, giving of their ability and BEYOND their ability. What a wonderful missionary power they were in the land, evangelizing all over the country, so that in Col 1:23 it could be said the gospel had been preached in all creation. What a wonderful missionary body, and it was in order to plant churches. My opponent is right square against that commission, will not go only where churches are planted. Where has he ever made a trip, or done any work at all, out in the destitution where there are no churches? Still, he would have us understand that the word is the light for the heathen. There was mission work back there behind the London Confession, God's word used as the instrument, as a means. Notice again, will you, from the London Confession, some of the phraseology of this old English, chapter 20: "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." If a man's own author, if the confession of his own faith in God's word, if the declarations of the minutes, if all these things fail to settle the question, we need not call for anything else in the universe. How much more testimony would you have? "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the word of God." That is not talking about that Word riding that horse up in heaven. "Neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of him by the promise or gospel should be enabled to attain saving faith or repentance." "The revelation of the gospel unto sinners, made in divers times and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts, for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God, not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men's natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make, or can do so; and therefore in all ages the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extending or limiting of it in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God." "Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God." Now, what is your only way of revealing? It is THE WORD of God, and that missionary body endorsing it, and that missionary body adopting it.

Now let me review. Notice, first, The scriptures teach that in regenerating a soul, in the salvation of a soul, that the Lord uses the gospel, as a means. It is the means God has provided.

Now notice the responsibility for teaching the gospel of salvation. Eze 3:17, and 2Ti 3:2, Paul says "Preach the word," and if the watchman over there in Ezekiel didn't preach the word, the responsibility will be on him. If a man will have faith, then faith comes by hearing. The line is drawn clear. The unbeliever is condemned, and the unbeliever shall be condemned. The believer has the Spirit of God, the believer has the cleansing blood.

I made the point on the order of the reproduction of the species, that everything else was to reproduce its species by seed. His position is, as I see, either the eternal creation theory, or the present creation theory, and not that God, by His own seed has transmitted through men. Since God transmits it to the spirits and hearts and souls of men, he does not keep up the perpetuation of the race, contrary to all laws. In the parable of the sower, the word of God is said to be absolutely the seed. Even in the preparation, if you please, of the ground, Isa 55:10, the word of God, refers to His word coming in immediate, direct contact, and having an influence on it just exactly as you have in the sun and the rain on the land. Should there be no rain, all the seed in the world would not germinate. He has not answered the question how ground can bring forth fruit WITHOUT SEED. Notice the prepara­tion of the ground ; Jer 4:3, "For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground and sow not among thorns." There is the Lord God preparing, here is man helping; responsibility, you see, upon man. Ho 10:12, "Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy, break up your fallow ground : for it is time to seek the Lord till he come and rain righteousness upon you." The Holy Spirit using the great plowshare of truth prepares the fallow ground, or wielding the sword of the Spirit, cuts away the foul growth. There is no point in his entire system for the conviction of sin, for death to sin, and for the resurrection unto holiness. The first pass God makes at him is to make him a child of God, and then comes repenting and trusting faith. Again in 1Co 9:10: "Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." 1Co 3:7, "So then, neither is he that planteth anything, or he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase." Now Paul had been going out planting something. He had not been up in heaven and pulled that Word off the horse, but he preached the gospel in that Corinthian field. He preached that everywhere he went. He was called and sent for that purpose, to preach the gospel. He even intimates that baptism was left out of his commission, or that portion of his commission. Notice, again, the word of God referred to as a hammer on a rock. Then again, it is the seed. 1Co 3:6, "I have planted, Apollos watered, God gave the increase."

1Co 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers : for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel." Have you got Gill's Commentary, last; volume? I will read all of the comment on this identical passage, 1Co 4:15, "For in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel." "But the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument, or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show; for he is said to do it in Christ; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion." It was an effectual grace working with his preaching that brought them to regeneration and conversion. There you are right there in that passage. He shows that he is looking to their regeneration, their salvation. And right back here in Ro 1:14 he speaks of the same thing again.

Now, in the last speech, I cannot reply to it, will you tell us-you haven't told us, not till this moment have you told us, are you under obligation, in any sense, to carry out the commission of the Son of God? Will you tell it the last minute, and let the people hear just where you stand? You say you haven't got any mission only to the church. But this says "make disciples of all nations."

Thank you.

CP.048 ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

ELDER CAYCE'S FOURTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you to close the discussion, to make the last speech. The proposition says, "The Scriptures teach that in regeneration, or the new birth, the Lord uses the gospel as a means."

I wish first, to notice some things the brother mentioned or spoke of, in the speech you have just listened to. Let us notice Eph 4:11-16 again: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ : till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ : that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth; according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." He says I have argued from that that I have the right to preach to nobody but the church, that I should not preach to anybody but the church, or to the members of the church; but the people present know I never made any such argument. I said that these are the gifts of the ministry, and that the apostle plainly tells us in this that they are given "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." They are NOT given in order to the regeneration of men and women, but they ARE GIVEN FOR THE PERFECTING OF THE SAINTS, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. I have argued more than once during this discussion that if the ministry was given for the purpose of regenerating men and women, if the Lord used the ministry as a means, as an instrument in His hands, in the regeneration of sinners, that here would have been the very place to have said so, for he tells right here for what purpose they are given-"for the edifying of the body of Christ, for the work of the ministry, for the perfecting of the saints." As this is what they .are given for, then they are not given in order to the regeneration of men and women.

He quotes again, Joh 1:11-13: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received' him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,"---or authority to become the sons of God"even to them that believe on his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Do you remember what I called upon him to do? I called upon him to take that sentence and analyze it, diagram it, parse it, or treat it in any way, according to grammar or the rules of language, and make it appear that the belief in the text preceded the birth. Has he undertaken the job? No, sir. Why did he not do it? Because he knew he could not; that is the reason why. Then, if that character who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is one who has been born of God, the character who receives him in the sense of that text is one who has been born of God. It follows, therefore, that they are born of God without the preaching. of the gospel, for they are born of God before they receive him, they are born of God before they believe on him. They were already children of God, for they became children of God, or sons of God, in regeneration, when they were born of God. Then, when they received him, or believed on him, he gave them authority, or power, to become the sons of God in a manifest sense, but not in the sense of regeneration, for they became the sons of God in the sense of regeneration when they were born of God. So it is too late now for them to become the sons of God in the sense of regeneration by believing, according to that text. But He gives them the power, or the authority, to become His children in obedience, manifestly, proving to the world and to those around them that they are already born of God. That is the sense of that text, and not one thing in it for your proposition.

He refers to Re 19:11-16, the text I quoted on the word of God. Why didn't he tell us something about that Word? Why didn't he tell us? Does not that text prove the fact that there is more than one word spoken of in the Bible? Is it not true that there is an Incarnate Word, that there is a living Word, that there is a life-giving Word, and. then that there is a preached word? Does this not show that there is more than one kind of word? He has been talking about sinners being born again by the word all the time, and the proposition don't say that the Lord uses the word as a means. I never would have accepted the proposition that way, but it says, "The Lord uses the gospel as a means." Why don't he argue like the proposition says? I would not have accepted the proposition if it had said the Lord uses the word as a means. Why don't he argue that the Lord uses the gospel? Why don't he find the place where the Bible says that the Lord uses the gospel as a means in regeneration? You notice how many times he has quoted the London Confession of Faith. Do we find the word regeneration in the whole chapter? Let us see. Chapter 20, Section 1: "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." Is there anything in that about regeneration? No, not a word about regeneration. Second Section: "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the word of God ; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in general or obscure way; much, less that men destitute of the revelation of him by the promise or gospel should be enabled to attain saving faith, or repentance." Not a word in that section about regeneration. So, also in the Third Section. I will read the Fourth: "Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto." I have argued that there must be an inward revelation and an inward work in the regeneration of sinners; but this, they say, is sufficient for the outward revelation. Why, certainly, we believe that there is something else necessary and that is an inward work that regenerates the soul. So they said nothing in this about agency in regeneration. "Yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God." There is necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, not an effectual, insuperable work of preaching the gospel, but an effectual, insuperable work of the Holy Spirit is necessary to regenerate the soul---so this Confession says, and that is what I have been arguing during this discussion. "For the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God." You cannot even convert them unto God, much less regenerate them, unless they have, already, that effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit in the soul. The Confession turns right around and acts as a boomerang in your face after you have used it so much. You cannot even convert them, much less regenerate them, until after they have the insuperable work of the Holy Spirit in the soul.

He argues that the Bible is the word which liveth and abideth forever, If the Bible is the word which lives and abides, forever, then the Bible must have been always in existence. Never did begin to exist, did it? It abides forever, does it? The Bible is the life-giving Word, is it? Then there is life in the Bible. "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life." Thinking a thing is so don't make it so. It is not thinking a thing is so that makes it so. "And they are they which testify of me." The Bible is not the life-giving Word. It testifies as to where the life is. "This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son." The life is in Jesus Christ, not in the Scriptures. You and the Saviour do not seem to agree very well.

He again notices Ac 24:17-18: "Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they way receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." I have asked if it would do any good to open the eyes of a blind man, or a dead man. The man must first be in possession of life, and must possess the power of sight, in order that it do him any good to open his eyes. It would do no good to open the eyes of a dead man, or to open the eyes of one destitute of the power of sight.

I want to notice again, Ac 18:7-11, beginning with the eighth verse it is said, "Many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace : for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city." I argued from this that according to Elder Penick's proposition the Lord would have said to Paul, "I will have much people in this city, provided you will stay here and preach to them long enough and strong enough," and soon. But the Lord did not say that. He said, "FOR I HAVE MUCH PEOPLE IN THIS CITY." "And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." Do you remember what a great play he made on that? He says I would have said that God would have to send somebody else there to plant the church, that I could not preach anywhere except where there was a church organized, and so on. I think I have told you that this is a wrong charge and that he is mistaken. I have delivered quite a number of discourses in communities where we have no church organized. I have delivered some discourses in communities where there were no Old Baptists living. "Oh, well," he says, "but there were some churches there." Well, there was no church of God at Corinth until it was planted there, and there is no church of God in a town where there is no other church but a Missionary Baptist church, either.

He says I am a twin brother of the Campbellites, and talks about us being twin brothers. Bless your life, Mr. Campbell and his followers were out of the Baptist church some years before we finally excluded you. They are about twenty-one years older than you are. They were old enough to vote when you were born. When you were born, perhaps they were gone off to the polls to vote. But you are the man who is so close kin to them at least it appears that you like them pretty well when debating with us, for you try so hard to occupy their platform. It seems to me that you are taking up for your brother.

Then he quoted Carroll, and referred to the matter about Parker, saying he was the first to oppose the missionary spirit, but I have shown that Mr. Carroll says "It is doubtful if that were true." In other words, Parker was mistaken about it. So says Mr. Carroll.

He says that next Sunday evening he will go to the creek with Brother Cayce. Well, Brother Penick, are you ready to join us? Give me your hand. But hold on, we haven't heard your experience yet. We do not want you unless you can tell an experience of grace and bring fruits of repentance. Now, I said I was willing to be saved. Are you ready to baptize anybody who is willing to be saved, and who has not already been saved? He is now standing where he says I stood. He has been saying that I was standing with the Campbellites. But now he is standing with the Campbellites-right on their platform. He is with them on the word question, and with them now on the baptism question, and has been with them on the idea of apostasy being involved in his position on some of his proof texts, and I don't know in how many other places he has been with them. He surely must be a twin brother, or else wants to be.

As he says he is in the middle, and has all the truth, he reminds me of the little darkey who said she was not afraid because she slept in the middle. Brother Penick says he is in the middle.

Now, again, with reference to believing a proposition---if I say, "Here are a million dollars; it is yours, here it is," and show it to you, then you would believe that the million is yours ; but unless you have the evidence, you cannot believe it, can you? Then belief is not a voluntary act of the creature, and if it is not a voluntary act, it cannot be a condition in order to eternal life. Whenever the Lord manifests the fact to one that He is his Saviour in the work of regeneration by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart and soul, that sinner then believes, experimentally, that Jesus is his Saviour, and then, when the preacher of the gospel comes to him, telling him of the power of Jesus to save just such characters as he is and as he realizes himself to be, then he believes in another way that Jesus is his Saviour. He has the inward witness and the outward witness; and so he has the word of God witnessing that Jesus is his Saviour.

He quotes from the language of Paul to the jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." What in the world makes him so often stop right in the middle of a sentence? Why don't he quote the whole sentence? Do you know why? Why, sir, according to his logic, according to his own argument, the jailer had to believe in order that he be saved himself ; and the jailer's believing would save, not only himself, but his house. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." So, then, just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your whole family, too. So why do you fall out with the Pedo-Baptist folks for baptizing their children on the profession of faith of the parent? Why do you? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." If the jailer's belief is going to take the jailer to heaven, then it will take his whole house to heaven, so you just believe and that will save you and your whole family. The text proves entirely too much for him, if it proves anything for him at all.

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, as I have argued so many times during the debate. There is a faith which is the fruit of the Spirit. There is a faith which is the gift of God, and this faith is not produced by the preaching of the gospel, but is produced by the inward work of grace in regeneration; and as faith is a fruit of the Spirit, or an evidence of the work of grace in the heart, or an evidence of salvation, the Spirit must be already in the heart before the belief can possibly exist there, or before the character can believe. So that the work of the Spirit, or the work of grace, being already performed in the heart produces the faith which is the fruit of the Spirit, and this evidences that this one is already a child of God.

Then he refers to the mother and the child that I spoke of. I drew the picture for you of a mother and child over there in the heathen lands. Let us look at it again. I see in my mind a mother over there in the jungles of Africa. I see a little child in her arms. I see them starving. I see them perishing, for want of natural food. I see the infant as it breathes its last in its mother's arms. Its little arms fall lifeless by its side; the spirit takes its flight from the little body. I see the mother as she dies with the lifeless body of the infant in her arms ; the spirit leaves her body, and her arms fall lifeless by her side. Here they have lived together for a short while, but now there is an eternal, everlasting separation. For what is the mother sent to hell? Why is the separation? The brother tries to dodge, by saying we receive the kingdom of God as a little child, and that receiving is believing. Then he would have the little child to believe, and you know a little child is not capacitated to believe. If a little child can believe in heathendom, so can the little child here believe; and if the little child cannot believe here, neither can it believe in heathendom. If the little child cannot believe in the jungles of Africa, neither can it believe here. If the little child cannot believe there, neither can that mother believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, She is as helpless, as powerless to believe on Christ, in order that she bask in the sunlight of God's presence in the glory world as the infant was, because she never heard the gospel. But now, the mother is separated eternally from the child; she is sentenced to a yawning hell; she is plowing the fiery regions of an endless hell. What for? I ask you, WHAT FOR? Why is she plowing the fiery regions of an endless hell? Because of the covetousness of the people in America who have the gospel and will not send it there to save the mother. If the mother goes to hell, she goes there just as helpless and as powerless as the little babe. And your people are the ones who are responsible for it, for you will not carry the gospel to her. I say this is the hardest doctrine I have ever heard in all my life that God Almighty is going to condemn that poor woman in an endless hell because of the fact that you have worn your finery, and because you wanted to be fashionable like other folks, and because you would not separate from the dollar to send the gospel over there. I say, that is the hardest doctrine I have ever heard of in my life-that God is going to damn that woman in hell, because of your covetousness. And that is the platform; sir, that your people stand on ; that is the platform and doctrine of your church. Talk about 'a hard doctrine! That is just a little too hard to be the doctrine of God our Saviour. Let us read again what Mr. Judson said in his letter along that line: "Many precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fires of hell, where now they must lie and suffer to all eternity, had you not been afraid of being thought unfashionable and not like other folks; had you not preferred adorning, your person and cherishing the most seductive follies of vanity, and pride." There is what Mr. Judson says comes of your cherishing the most seductive vanities of folly and pride; the poor `woman is suffering in hell, plowing the fiery domains of an endless hell, on your account. Isn't your doctrine pretty? There is the platform that you are standing on. Oh, I would say to you, my hearers, get off of it and come over on the Lord's side, if you have an experience of grace; but if you haven't that; then stay where you are, for we do not want you, unless you have an experience of grace.

He refers to the parable of the sower again, and talks about raising a crop without seed. I told you that gospel seed produced gospel fruit. Then I asked him if the sowing of the seed prepared the ground. The ground must be prepared. before the seed is sown. God prepares the ground, and then the gospel minister sows the seed, and if the seed falls in a good and honest heart, one that has been prepared by the Spirit of God, it brings forth gospel fruit to the glory and honor of God. But it does not regenerate sinners.

Thank you for your kind attention.

CP.0491 ELDER CAYCE MAKES REMARKS

ELDER CAYCE MAKES REMARKS

I want to say that I thank each one present for the kind attention that has been given me during this discussion, and Y feel glad that we have had a pleasant time. I trust there have been no hard feelings. I know there has been none on my part. I have been in a good humor all the time, and I am yet in as good humor as anyone you ever saw; but I do not believe the doctrine I have been contending against, and I do believe what I have been trying to contend for. I think I will stand right there as long as I live.

One more word, please. I have kind feelings for Brother Penick. We are neighbors, and I trust we are friends as neighbors, and that we may remain so.

As something has been said about a challenge and debating again, I will say that if Brother Penick wants to debate anywhere else, just find the place and let us agree on the time, and we will have another discussion.

CP.0492 ELDER PENICK SPEAKS

ELDER PENICK SPEAKS

We are both at home; it is not necessary for any of us to make any statement. I have appreciated the spirit and the good attention. I haven't by any means made any challenge to Brother Cayce ; but whenever he finds a place that is wanting it, I will be on hand to make a few feeble remarks ; you, or a dozen others.

They shake hands.

CP.0493 ELDER THOMPSON SPEAKS

ELDER THOMPSON SPEAKS

I desire to express my sincere gratitude to the people who have attended this discussion in being so kind and preserving the order you have. This deportment speaks more than words can speak for you as a community and a people. May the Lord's blessing rest upon you.

NOTE

Elder John M. Thompson, of Greenfield, Ind., was Moderator for Elder Cayce; Elder Taylor, of Murray, Ky., was Moderator for Elder Penick. This should have been stated in the first part of this book, but was overlooked.

THE END