Mr. Hume's Second Speech, on the Third Proposition.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS --- LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
When we closed our remarks in our last speech, we were discussing the subject of the pardon of sins, the medium through which it was accomplished, and the time when the act of pardon took place. We intend to notice our friend's theory upon this subject a little further, and examine it more critically, by which we intend to show you, if you will give us your attention, that his theory contradicts itself; and that he himself does not believe the doctrine of his proposition.
You doubtless remember the admission that he made in his first speech: that forgiveness of sins was in the name of Christ, and also, that there was no remission of sins, but through the blood of Christ. Now, we hope you will remember those admissions; and then remember, also, that our friend declares that the name and blood of Christ both, are in the kingdom of Christ, and, as such, we must come into the kingdom, in order to reach either the name or blood of Christ; and that there is no way into the kingdom but through, or by water baptism. Now, if there is no forgiveness of sins, only through the blood of Christ, as admitted by my friend, then it follow that we are not baptized in order to remission of sins, but we are baptized in order to reach the blood of Christ, through which blood alone sins are pardoned. Hence you see, my audience, that the gentleman himself, according to his own showing, does not believe in the doctrine of baptism, in order to remission; but simply believes, we must be baptized into the kingdom, in order to reach the blood of Christ, without which there is no forgiveness of sins. We hope this point will not be forgotten. After my friend's labored effort in his first speech to prove that there was no influence of the spirit, outside of the body of Christ, he now, (being hard pressed,) acknowledges, that those persons in the second of Acts, were directed by the Holy Spirit what they should do. We are truly glad that our friend is coming over to the truth. We hope that by the time this discussion closes, he will be thoroughly converted from the error of his ways, and fully embrace the truth; for that, and that only, will do him good.
But, my friend still contends that all men are called upon to repent, turn to God, and be saved. Surely the gentleman has forgotten, that God himself has hid some things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them unto babes. This agreed precisely with the Apostle, where he says, "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called." And he goes on to give the reason, and declares, finally, that no flesh should glory in his presence. God will not give his glory to another, or his praise to graven images. But we are referred to the 5th chapter of Acts, 31st verse, as proof, that God requires repentance before remission of sins.
Well, let us read the text: "Him hath God exalted with his own right hand to be a prince and Savior; to give repentance to Israel, and the forgiveness of sins." Now, what doe the gentleman gain by reference to this text? Nothing at all. What does the text prove? Why, it proves that Jesus was exalted by God the Father, to give repentance to Israel, and the forgiveness of sins. Mark the language. The writer does not say, to forgive the sins of Israel. No; but to give the forgiveness of sins -- that is, to make known to Israel that their sins were pardoned, as declared in the 40th chapter of Isaiah. We were next referred to the language of Ananias to Saul, where he said, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Here the gentleman seems to triumph, from the remark, that here was a sawyer, against which we would be careful not to run. Now, we see nothing in this text alarming, or of which we should be afraid. We do not believe that Paul contradicts Peter; and Peter said, that baptism was not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience, &c. Now, we just suppose, that Ananias directed Saul to obey Jesus, in the ordinance of baptism, and there by make manifest the glorious truth that his sins were pardoned; or, if you please, be baptized for, or because of the forgiveness of your sins. Now, if this is not what is meant by the direction of Ananias, we are at a loss to know what he did mean. One thing we know, that there is nothing said here about baptism in order to the remission of past sins. But, we are now called to the first chapter of Ephesians. Well, we cheerfully go there. The battle is getting pretty warm now. The gentleman has retreated to his last strong hold. He has been driven from the second of Acts, and now wishes to take refuge in the first of Ephesians. But we will show you, my audience, that he has no resting place in all the volume of God. No; you will very soon see that he has really as little use for this chapter, as for any other; and that he has to butcher common sense and the Bible both, to get anything here to answer his purpose.
We now remark, that much is to be learned of the true sense of any instrument of writing, by a correct knowledge of the speaker, the subject spoken upon, and the characters addressed. Now, should I write an epistle to he Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of Cincinnati, would the Presbyterian or Christian Church there suppose themselves embraced? and, especially, if they were not named in the epistle? Surely they would not. Well, should I write a letter to a friend, in which I would treat of things in which we were alone concerned; would a third person have any right to claim the letter, or an interest in the things contained in the letter? Most assuredly they would not. With these remarks we will proceed to examine the first chapter of Ephesians, the beginning of which reads thus: "Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus." Now, we wish you to bear in mind the fact, that this epistle is dedicated exclusively to the saints at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus. Hence, there are none embraced here but himself and those to whom the letter is dedicated. There is another important fact, which should be remembered, and that is, the church at Ephesus was composed of Gentile believers; from which nation God never chose an Apostle. Why should we be thus particular? We answer, because my friend admits that the apostles were chosen in Christ, before the world began; and contends that the Apostle Paul was here speaking of himself and the rest of the apostles, while we maintain that the letter was not written to the apostles, but to the saints at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus.
Well, why do we thus contend? Because, that Paul says so in so many words. Now, if there was no apostle chosen from among the Gentiles, it is evident that this letter was not addressed to the apostles, but to Gentile believers at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ. Well, what does the apostle say about them? Hear him: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world."
Now mark, the Apostle says that himself and the saints at Ephesus, and faithful in Christ, were all blessed with all spiritual blessings, in Christ; and chosen in Christ before the world began, and what for? Let the Apostle answer: "That we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," &c. Here we have at least two very important facts brought to view. First, the object of Jehovah in choosing his people in Christ, which was, that they should be holy, and without blame before him in love. Secondly, that they were predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ; and this, too, according to his own will, and not according to our will, or works. And now, in all this, there is not one word said about the Apostles. Hence, we maintain that the choice and predestination of God, as here brought to view, embraces the whole family of Christ, of which family the saints of Ephesus formed a part; and the faithful in Christ Jesus, make up the fullness of that family. Hence, this letter is of as much utility to the faithful in Christ, of the present age, as it was to the saints of Ephesus, or the faithful in Christ, in that age. Now, the plain simple truths presented in the arguments above, cannot be denied by any intelligent individual. Even the learned Mr. Franklin, with all his eloquence, can never set them aside; for, it is evident, that Paul was not addressing the Apostles in this letter, but saints and faithful in Christ Jesus.
But suppose we admit for the sake of argument the theory of Elder Franklin, that there were none chosen in Christ before the world began, but the Apostles (and he himself says they were,) what will be the result, evidently this: the Apostles were saved in one way and other saints in a different way. Were the Apostles so much worse than other men that they could not be saved as other men were, was it necessary that they should be chosen in Christ before the world was, in order that they might be saved certainly, while others were left to their own choice whether they would be saved or not. Such a view of the divine character of God is too contemptible to be indulged in by any man in a christian land. We then remark that the Apostle was here presenting the glorious system of salvation which was securely treasured in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ before all worlds, by which all the redeemed shall be brought into the enjoyment of that inheritance, which is incorruptible, undefiled and fadeth not away. Now, the gentleman may twist and screw as much as he pleases, but he can never get away from the positions occupied here. But my friend has certainly forgotten the proposition; the moderator, perhaps, had better read it again, or he is clear out of argument to sustain the present proposition and not feeling satisfied with his effort on yesterday, he is trying to make up the deficit today, for surely he has spent half his time in his last speech in trying to prove the doctrine of conditional salvation, when he should have been engaged in trying to prove the doctrine of baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins. But we suppose that he has surrendered this point, the gentleman now for the first time tells us that he believes as much in salvation by grace as we do. But we think it a very strange kind of grace that has to be purchased by repentance and baptism, any thing performed by the creature we suppose to be the works of the creature. Well, if repentance and baptism are conditions upon which is suspended our salvation, and we possess the power to do or leave undone, then we have the power of saving or condemning ourselves at pleasure, so that all my friend's pretension to a belief in the doctrine of salvation by grace is a real humbug, like all others who say they believe in the doctrine of salvation by grace. But, but what, why the sinner must buy it with his works.
Now, the Apostle says, if Abraham was justified by works he had whereof to glory but not before God, so say we of all who expect to get to heaven, by accepting terms and using means, but the gentleman says if a wealthy father should tell his son that if he would go to Evansville to the bank, where he had a large sum deposited, he should have a thousand dollars, would not this be a great favor or would it not be grace? We answer, No, for the money is to be obtained upon condition of the son's going to Evansville. Hence he gives his father all the equivalent he demands, and the rendering of an equivalent, however small, destroys the idea of grace. So it is with my friend's grace.
But the roar of our artillery has alarmed the gentleman so very much that he is again clear off the subject, and has ascertained, as he says, that we believe men go to heaven without repentance. Now surely the gentleman is alarmed, or, perhaps he has been dreaming, for we have never said any thing about people going to heaven without repentance; no, verily, we sincerely believe in the glorious doctrine of repentance, and that Jesus is exalted a Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel (not to Ishmael,) and we believe further that when Jesus gives a poor sinner repentance, all the devils in hell can't stop him from repenting, and we believe still further that until Jesus does give it, all the preachers upon earth can't make one sinner truly repent of his sins. True, the preachers may, and they do, pour out the terrors of the law, at such a rate, that they sometimes scare weak minded people almost into fits and cause them to make profession of religion. But what follows, why in a few days they are back where they were, because they have got over their scare, and find out they have no religion, and like the individual not far from here in one single week after profession, was found in the grocery playing cards.
We do not believe this to be the repentance of the Bible, very far from it. But my friend wishes to know why we do not preach as Peter did, on the day of Pentecost. We answer simply because we have never had the evidence of a whole congregation being pierced in the heart. Show us one of this character and then will we do as he did, and while here we would just remark that we believe in praying for mourners when we are satisfied that they mourn from a true sense of their condition as sinners.
But we object to making mourners, and then praying for them, for we believe if we could really make them mourn, on account of sin, we could bring them through without the help of Jesus. But we are told that the Reverends Calvin and Wesley agree with Mr. Franklin in his views, as taught in the proposition now before us. Well, perhaps, this is true and we hope they were both good pious men, but their writings is no evidence here. No wonder the friends of the gentleman labored so hard to get Hedge's logic admitted here, when the gentleman himself tries so hard to screw in some other testimony aside from the Bible. They all dread the Bible, and well they may, for their system is not to be found in it. Only by way of cautioning the saints against it, as a doctrine not to be received by the saints of God. We hope the audience will bear in mind what the gentleman has undertaken to prove, that baptism, when administered by the authority of the Lord Jesus is in order to the remission of past sins.
Well, we now state positively, without the fear of successful contradiction, that he has not, as yet, introduced one single text that says any thing about baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins, and surely, my friends, you will not believe it simply because Mr. Franklin affirms it. Well, this is all the testimony we are likely to get, for there is nothing like it in the Bible, and we reject the Greek lexicons, John Calvin, John Wesley, and all the rest of the writings of men, and as such we shall have no testimony on the subject. Well, this is full as well as we expected.
But our friend has manifested much uneasiness, on account of our want of human benevolence, and appears to be very sorry that we should wish to confine the benefits of salvation to so few, he thinks we ought to desire the salvation of all the human race. Well, we have no doubt but our feelings are as tender toward our fellow men a are Mr. Franklin's, and our desire for their salvation equally as great. But our desire for the good of our race doe not lead us into such extravagant errors as Elder Franklin is disposed to run into. We wish to teach plain simple truth and leave the event in the hands of him who manages the destiny of nations, we wish also to be reconciled as far as we can to the will of God in this and all other matters. But in the name of all that is sacred, we ask what has this to do with the proposition now before us. Suppose we believed that every body would be saved or nobody, would this prove that baptism is the medium through which sins are pardoned. Now every one here knows that all this boasting about his great love to the race does not prove what he has undertaken to prove, but it evidently shows the weakness of his cause, and that he has no Bible or arguments to sustain his proposition and he must fill up his time in some way. Now let it be remembered that the gentleman has not introduced one single text yet, that says one word about baptism in order to the remission of past sins. But the next argument, introduced by my worthy friend, is masterly indeed, and full as much to the point as any he has introduced during his last speech. Well, what is it? It is nothing more or less than another shameful misrepresentation of our views, known to be such, both by the gentleman himself and the audience. He says we believe that there are no christians or saints among other orders of professed christians. Now the truth is that we do sincerely believe that there are saints of the Most High God scattered among different denominations of professed christians throughout the world, and this is not all. We believe there are thousands of saints that belong to no order, but live and die in the world, who have never been baptized, and yet their sins are pardoned alone through the merits and blood of our dear Redeemer. Does Mr. Franklin's benevolence reach thus far? Does he believe all this? He dare not acknowledge it. He knows better, for he has been engaged for the last two hours in trying to make us believe that there was none could possibly be saved without baptism. Truly his benevolence is enviable. Indeed, is it not well, we ourselves, have no use for such benevolence; and we hope we shall ever be saved from it. While we feel to thank the Lord in our very soul that the salvation of God in Christ is not confined to the little wetting in the water, but is as extensive as his unchanging love, and flows to poor sinners through the righteous merits and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
We have now answered all the gentleman's arguments, and we shall now introduce some plain pointed Scripture to show through what medium sins are pardoned. Zachariah, 9th chapter, 11th verse. "As for thee also, by the blood of thy Covenant, have I sent forth thy prisoners, out of the pit wherein is no water." [Here Bro. Coffee informs us that Elder Franklin said we were wrong in our citation.] We certainly are right. Is it possible that the gentleman is so confused that he cannot read his own Bible.
Here you see, my audience, it is by the blood of the Covenant, the prisoners are set free and not by the water of baptism.
But again, Hebrews, 9th chapter, 12 and 13th verses. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood He entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 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, without spot, to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." Now, we ask you, my dear audience, could language be plainer. We are here told that Jesus has, by his own blood, obtained eternal redemption for his people; and by the same blood has purged their consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Well, this is all they need; eternal redemption, and fitted for the service of God and all this is done by the blood of Christ. Not one word here about baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins.
Time expired.
