Mr. Hume's Third Speech, on the Third Proposition.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS -- LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
When we closed our last speech we were engaged in giving the testimony of the Apostle, as recorded in the 9th of Hebrews. We now ask your attention to the 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd verses, same chapter, only a part of which, however, we shall quote here,but we wish you to read it very particularly when you retire. The Apostle tells us, in this connection, that the first testament was not dedicated without blood; hence the blood of calves and of goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop were used in sprinkling the book, and all the people saying this is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined upon you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry, and almost all things are by the law purged with blood. Now the Apostle has one grand object in view here, and that is to lead the minds of his brethren to contemplate and realize one grand and important truth. And that was, not that they must be baptized in order to the forgiveness of sins -- no, but that whenever there was any act performed that contemplated the salvation of sinners, that blood was used for the cleansing of such things as were used on the occasion -- all pointing away to the great sacrifice that was to be offered up in behalf of rebel sinners, or, in other words, to the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb slain from the foundation of the world, evidently setting forth the grand truth that there was no salvation or remission of sins only through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ; hence the language of the Apostle in the close of the 22nd verse, which is, "and without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Now if my friend will present such connection as this to prove that baptism is in order to the forgiveness of sins, then we will surrender the point; but this he will never do, because he cannot, for there is no such place in all the book of God.
Here the Apostle tells us, in plain words, that even the first testament was not dedicated without blood, that the tabernacle and all the vessels were sprinkled with blood, that almost all things under the law were purified or purged with blood, and finally tells us that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Now, let the gentleman show one text that says without the baptism of water there is no remission, and we surrender. But you know, my audience, he will never do. It is simply because he cannot. Is it not passingly strange that any man will contend for a system that he cannot prove by one text of Scripture, and especially when there are so many pointed Scripture proofs to the contrary? We now invite your attention to the first Epistle of John, 1st chapter, 7th verse, where the Apostle says, "the blood of Jesus Christ, His son, cleanseth us from all sin." Now if this be true, if all sins are washed away in the blood of Jesus Christ, we ask, in the name of all that is sacred, what sins are left to be washed away in baptism? We would be glad if the gentleman would give us some light upon this subject.
Now, he is a great stickler for the word all, and tells us that it never means a part. Here is a text that says sinners are cleansed from all sin, by the blood of Christ, and yet, in the face of such pointed testimony as this, he tramples under foot his own definition of the term all, and says it only means a part, for there are some sins to be washed away in baptism. We wonder what sins they are and how many. My friend ought to be very particular here, least he should teach us something wrong upon this important subject and an error here might prove fatal to thousands, hence we hope the gentleman will be very definite in his remarks, and point out clearly what sins and how many are left out in the language of John, for he say all sin. My friend says no, all does not mean all but only a part, for surely there are some sins to be remitted in or through baptism.
Well, Mr. Franklin, you and John for it. John was an inspired Apostle; we have no evidence that you are, and as such we are disposed to believe the inspired Apostle, and we are sure this audience will do the same. We wish it distinctly understood that Mr. Franklin has not yet found a passage that says anything about baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins, and we are sure he will not until he gets a new translation; perhaps he can then be a little more successful in discussing this subject. We hope the audience will not forget that Elder Franklin has all the proving to do today, while we have only to deny. Well, if we get no proof only what he has introduced we will not be burthened with it. But he has much to say about his debates with my brethren Johnson and Williams, and would fain make us believe that he achieved a great victory over each of them.
Now, we have some knowledge of those men and their talents; this kind of boasting over them may have some effect here, where they are not known, but we doubt seriously whether the people who heard their debate would think precisely as my friend does upon that subject. But suppose all that he has said to be true, what has that to do with our discussion. We would inform the gentleman that he is now engaged with Elder Hume, and not with Elders Williams and Johnson. We should be glad to hear from the gentleman here in Mt. Vernon. Perhaps his masterly eloquence might effect something, for sure his Scripture proofs will not, because he has none; or, if he has, he has them in reserve, and we guess he will keep them there.
But he is off again on the subject of infants. We had supposed he had as much on that subject as he could manage. Now, there is one thing certain: that Elder Franklin's system will not save them; and unless we can find some other way by which they can be saved they must surely be gone, forever gone; but this audience has not forgotten our oft repeated views upon this subject, that we believe they are saved through the blood of Christ, and not through the water. The gentleman was disposed rather to make sport of our argument with regard to the promise of the Savior, made to the thief on the cross. He said we could not prove that the thief was not baptized. This is not our business, but his business to prove that if he was not baptized his sins were not pardoned, and consequently if he realized the truth of the promise made by the Savior, then he was in paradise with all his sins yet unpardoned. Has he attempted to prove this? He has not, neither will he; but do you remember, my audience, how he sneered at the idea of our bringing up the case of the thief, and said he supposed we wanted to be in company with a thief? Now, my dear audience, so far as we are concerned, we would just as soon be in company with a pardoned thief, if my dear Redeemer was there, as to be in the parlor with the modern aristocracy; yes, we would greatly prefer it, for we are not ashamed to be in any company where Jesus is. No, verily, Jesus alone is company sufficient to engage all the powers of the soul, and cause the broken in heart to rejoice. We are sorry our friend is ashamed of the company of Jesus, because he condescended to pardon a poor thief.
But the gentleman is not alone, we fear there are many in this age of improvement who would be ashamed to follow the example of Jesus; they would much rather be found in the fashionable circles of life. Here they can enjoy themselves, but to follow Jesus is too humiliating to our poor proud natures. The truth is, the gentleman is completely hedged up with this case; it is too plain; there is no way of getting around it; hence his acknowledgement "that in extreme cases sins might be pardoned without baptism."
Here the gentleman (as on yesterday) gives up his whole system, for he has contended most strenuously that without baptism there was no salvation. Now he admits there may be in extreme cases. We wonder if all that died from Adam to Christ were extreme cases; we mean all the saints, such as Abel, Enoch, Elijah, Abraham, and all the prophets of God, together with all the saints who died during a period of four thousand years? Were all these extreme cases? Surely they were, according to my friend's theory.
Now, let him make the very best he can of it, he is compelled to admit that there was some other way, by which the sins of those ancient saints were forgiven, thn by baptism. We wonder what that way was? Will our friend be kind enough to tell us? Now, we remark that God the Lord never had but one way to save sinners, and that way was Jesus Christ; he never had but one medium through which sins were pardoned, and that was through the blood of Christ; hence the ancient saints possessed faith in a Jesus that was to come, and through his blood their sins were pardoned; modern saints have faith in a Jesus that has come, and through his blood their sins are pardoned; so that sins, in all ages, have been forgiven upon the same principles. Jehovah has not been changing his place of operation in the salvation of sinners; it has from the beginning, ever been the same, down to the present time, and will continue the same until Jesus takes his ransomed children home. But, let us now look at our friend's theory for a few moments. He has said most positively, time and again, "that without immersion there is no salvation; that baptism is in order to the forgiveness of sins."
Now, if this is true, then nothing else is, and consequently all, who die unbaptized, die in their sins, and as such they must forever perish. Well, who baptized the multiplied millions of saints, who lived and died before the coming of Christ, or the command to baptize in his name? Why nobody. Then they are all lost in a pile. But, says our learned opponent, "the ordinance of baptism was not then introduced." Well, if this be true, then there was no means of pardon yet introduced, consequently all were damned for the want of a means of pardon. But, again my friend says, "the name of Christ and the blood of Christ are in the kingdom, body, or church of Christ, and we cannot reach the name or blood of Christ only by coming into the kingdom of Christ, and we can only get there by being baptized into it." Well, all theologians agree that the visible kingdom of Christ was organized on the day of Pentecost; hence, prior to that time there was no kingdom to be baptized into; hence you see, my audience, that my friend's theory damns the whole race of saints who died before there was a kingdom for them to enter, or the means of inducting them into the kingdom was provided. Do you not see, my friends, that the gentleman has got into an awful dilemma, out of which he never can get and sustain his present views? We hope, my audience, that you will not forget the views here introduced, that until Christ came there was neither a kingdom nor ordinances, and as such none were saved by being baptized into a kingdom that did not exist; therefore all who died before there was a kingdom, into which they could be baptized, in order to reach the name or blood of Christ, have necessarily perished. Consequently, my friends, you see plainly that the gentleman has been laboring to make us believe what he himself does not believe, or at least to make us believe a contradiction too palpable for any sane man to receive. You, doubtless, remember that we remarked this morning that we objected to baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins; first because it neutralized the blood of Christ. This is manifest from the consideration of this simple fact: that if baptism is the medium, through which sins are forgiven, then nothing else is; for there surely are not several ways, differing in their character, through which sins are pardoned, and we have proven positively, from the sacred Scriptures, that sins are pardoned through the blood of Christ. This we did by reference to the seventh verse of the first chapter of Ephesians, which reads: "in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Now, here is plain pointed testimony, that sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ; and my friend, Mr. Franklin, says the same, and as such it must be true. Now, we remark that he has not yet produced one text that speaks of the forgiveness of sins through water baptism, and we are sure he will not, from the simple fact that there is no such text in God's word.
We told you in the second place, that this doctrine of immersion in order to remission of sins contradicts the word of the Lord. This we have proven from the language of the Apostle, in Hebrews, where he says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." We also told you that our third objection to this doctrine was that it resulted in the final damnation of all who are not baptized. We now ask the audience if the gentleman has not maintained this position throughout his whole argument? and by this course of reasoning he has proven himself to be one of the worst enemies of the human race, and not only so, but this doctrine is very licentious in its character, because it teaches that the vilest wretch upon God's earth that after a life spent in crime and debauchery, if they will only confess the Lord Jesus and be immersed in his name, they will be saved. Now, my dear audience, we wish you to look at the injustice of this wretched system of delusion. Here is the poor man prostrate with disease, wholly unable to get from his bed or help himself in any way; he becomes deeply impressed with sense of his condition as a sinner; he is led to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ; he desires to follow Jesus in baptism, but his condition is such that he cannot possibly be baptized; he must die without it, and consequently he must sink down to misery and pain, because his God had put it entirely out of his power to be baptized, and yet damns him because he is not. But again, look at that sober, honest, industrious, pious man who has devoted his whole lifetime to acts of kindness, charity, and Christian benevolence; who was taught to believe from his infancy up to hoary hairs that sprinkling was the proper mode of baptism. He now becomes sorely afflicted, his disease grows worse and worse, he finally becomes convinced he must die very soon; his mind now undergoes a great change upon the subject of baptism, he is convinced that immersion is the proper mode, but he cannot now possibly receive or submit to it. He dies, and, accordingly to my friend's theory, down to pain and misery he goes, without remedy, because he has not done what he could not do, while the wretch who has spent his whole life in crime and debauchery, but a few days before his death (when he can indulge in crime no longer) forsakes his former course, professes faith in Christ, and is baptized by immersion. He dies, and to heaven he goes, because his God had given him a chance to be baptized, and he had done so. But once more, think of the multiplied millions of our race, who have never heard the sound of the gospel, have never read in or heard of the Bible, who have never been taught to believe in the doctrines of Christianity; they have never heard of the ordinance of baptism, consequently they must all be damned together, and why? O, because God had withheld all the means of grace from them, so that they could not possibly be benefited by them in any way, and now because they have not complied with conditions which they never heard of, they must perish without remedy. And last but not least, farewell to all infants, to all insane persons, and to the multiplied millions of those who have lived and died before the ordinance of baptism was instituted, and all thie paedobaptist world, who have lived and died in good faith, but have not been baptized by immersion, and consequently they must take up their abode in everlasting burnings, with that class of society which their soul hated in life - thus perishing the whole for not doing what they never knew was their duty to do. Now, my dear audience, is there a soul here who does not abhor such a doctrine as this? Is there one here, whose soul does not sicken at the thought of the shameful and God-dishonoring picture, just drawn in your hearing? Well, this is the gentleman's boasted philanthropy for our race. O, how the race ought to love the good man! Surely he will share largely in their human sympathies, or perhaps they will reward him well, in donations, for his exalted benevolence toward them; may Almighty God save us and this dear people from such shameful delusion as this. We have often heard the tongue of slander and misrepresentation let loose against the people who believe in the doctrine of God's divine sovereignty, because they maintain that Jesus will save his people and that the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free; but if we have ever heard any system advocated by any class of men, that exhibited more injustice in God, or was fraught with more awful consequences to our race, than the system advanced by Mr. Franklin, we cheerfully acknowledge that we know not what, where or when it was; for if there is such a thing to be found any where as injustice, it is found in the doctrine taught by my friend. If there is any system on earth that is wholly without the milk of human kindness, or human benevolence it is the system contended for by Mr. Franklin. If there ever was a system, advocated by men, that reflected dishonor and disgrace upon the character of Jehovah and upon the Holy Bible and upon the sacred doctrine taught therein, as well as upon the whole system of the christian religion, it is the doctrine we have been hearing for the last two hours, from the influence of which we hope the good Lord will save this people. But, my time is nearly out, and we must hasten. Remember, dear friends, that the gentleman has agreed to prove from the sacred Scriptures that when baptism was administered by the authority of the Lord Jesus, it was in order to the forgiveness of past sins. Has he done it? Has he shown you one text to the point? You know he has not, consequently he has most signally failed. Yes, my audience, and he will forever fail to establish such a theory as this by the Scriptures of eternal truth. That he feels himself desperately defeated on the present occasion is manifest from the fact of his loud boasting, and challenging. We perfectly understand the gentleman, and we know the motive that has led to it; but the people here have both seen and heard wise men before, and they cannot be gulled by such puffing as we heard in the close of the gentleman's last speech. We have heard just such crowing before, by one of our friend's brethren at Newburgh, when all present, except a portion of his own brethren, acknowledged him badly defeated. We know this people will properly appreciate the gentleman's remarks, while it stands confessed now, in the heart of every lady and gentleman here, that our friend, Mr. Franklin, has failed to prove the doctrine of his proposition. We told you that the roar of heaven's artillery would drive him from his stronghold, demolish his cob house and burn up his nest. Well, you see it has all been accomplished, and the gentleman left, without any resting place either in the hearts of this people or in the Bible.
Time expired.
