Benoni Stinson's Third Speech.
STINSON'S LAST SPEECHON THE FIRST PROPOSITION.
Ladies and Gentleman:--I claim the privilege of beginning where I left off in my last speech. I was just beginning to quote from Dr. A. Clarke's "Commentary." After noticing what Clarke says, I will try to pay some attention to Brother Hume. (Let me remark, that Clarke, in this connection, has some Greek and Latin, and I shall have to pass by this; I will give what directly touches the point.)
Now, notice: "Now, leaving all particular creeds out of the question, and taking in the scope of the apostle's reasoning in this and the preceding chapter, is not the sense evidently this--through the disobedience of Adam, a sentence of condemnation to death, without any promise or hope of a resurrection passed upon all men, so by the obedience of Christ unto death, this one grand righteous act, the sentence, was so far reserved, that death shall not finally triumph, for all shall again be restored to life. Justice must have its due, and therefore all must die; the mercy of God in Christ Jesus shall have its due also, and, therefore all shall be put into a savable state here, and the whole human race shall be raised to life at the great day. Thus, both justice and mercy are magnified, and neither is exalted at the expense of the other."
Clarke makes the above remarks, in connection with Romans v, 18.
My next proof text is in 2 Cor. v, 15: "If one died for all, then were all dead."
We will give you the doctor's explanation of this. "The first position the apostle takes for granted, viz: that Jesus Christ died for all mankind. This, no apostolic man or primitive Christian ever did doubt or could doubt. The second position he infers from the first, and justly too; for if all had not been guilty and consigned to eternal death, because of their sin, there could have been no need of his death; therefore as he must certainly die for all, then all were dead, and needed his sacrifice and the quickening power of his spirit."
Now, to 1 Timothy ii, 6: "Who gave himself a ransom for all," etc. I would here be glad to refer to Brother Hume's explanation of this on yesterday, but I will give you the explanation of this on yesterday, but I will give you the explanation of the learned Dr. Clarke instead: "He who by his death has redeemed all from the power and punishment of vice, from the slavery and misery of sin, as God is the God and Father of all, for there is but one God (ver. 5), and Jesus Christ the mediator of all, so he gave himself a ransom for all; for all that God made. Consequently, for every human soul, unless we could suppose that there are human soul of which God is not the creator, for the argument of the apostle is plainly this: 1. There is one God. 2. This God is the creator of all. 3. He has made a revelation of his kindness to all. 4. He will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. And, 5. He has provided a mediator for all, who has given himself a ransom for all. As surely as God has created all men, so surely has Jesus Christ died for all men; this is a truth which the nature and revelation of God unequivocally proclaim."
Once more, turn to Hebrews ii, 9 (after alluding to the ancient custom of putting criminals to death, by giving them a cup of poison of which Socrates drank), the doctor says: ("He by the grace of God tasted death for every man," 9th ver.)
"The reference in that seems to point out the whole human race as being accused, tried, found guilty and condemned, each having his own poisoned cup to drink. And Jesus, the wonderful Jesus, takes the cup out of the hand of each, and cheerfully and with alacrity, drinks off the dregs; thus having drunk every man's poisoned cup, he tasted that death which they must have endured, had not their cup been drunk by another."
(Is not this the cup to which Christ refers in Matthew, when he says, "O, my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me?)
Now, I would let the argument rest upon this, were it not that I might be accused of being partial to Dr. Clarke, as he was an Arminian and a Methodist, and would be supposed to favor the same view I take upon the subject. I will now open the comprehensive commentary of Matthew Henry, a work strictly Calvinistic; he is too well known to admit of a doubt as to the correctness of his comment. Commenting on the 19th verse, which reads thus: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
He says: "It is observable how the apostle inculcates this truth, and repeats it again and again as a truth of very great consequence; here, observe the nature of Christ's righteousness, how it is brought in--it is by his obedience. The disobedience of the first Adam ruined us, the obedience of the second Adam saved us; his obedience to the law of mediation, which was, that he should fulfill all righteousness (and observe every law of God), and then make his soul an offering for sin, the fruit of it. There is a free gift upon all men, it is made and offered promiscuously to all. The salvation is common, the proposals general, the tender free, whoever will, may come and take of these waters of life."
Again, on 1 Timothy, ii, 1: "I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving thanks, be made for all men." On this, the commentary says: "One reason why all men are to be prayed for is, because there is one God, and that God bears a goodwill to all mankind. Not that he has decreed the salvation of all, for then all would be saved, but he has goodwill to the salvation of all and none perish but by their own fault. 1 Tim xi, 4: "He will have all to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," and to be saved in the way he has appointed, and not otherwise.
Now, once more, see Hebrews ii, 2: Matthew Henry says, "God had made him a little lower than the angels, that he might suffer and humble himself to death, and so by his sufferings make satisfaction, tasting death for every man, sensibly feeling and undergoing the bitter agonies of that shameful, painful and cursed death of the cross, hereby putting all mankind into a new state of trial."
So much, then, for the admission of a Calvinist. So much, then, for the company in which definition is found. So much for Dr. Clarke, who is universally believed to be an honest commentator. You will discover that this sustains the views I have taken, and if these views are correct; they bear me out, and the doctrine I have attempted to prove is clearly maintained. If these scriptures mean what I understand them to mean, and what Dr. Clarke and Matthew Henry say they mean, their testimony will have some weight in establishing the views I have taken, and the interpretation I have given of the texts quoted, as proof of my position.
I proceed, then, to assume the fact, that the death of Christ made satisfaction to the Adamic law, and just here, swift as the moments are passing, I must correct an error that my beloved friend seems determined to persist in, in spite of anything I can say. It is known to the president and the audience, that I have carefully distinguished between the transgression of Adam and the transgression of the world. When I affirm that the death of Christ on the cross brought justification upon all men as it related to Adam's transgression, he still contends that justification necessarily freed the world from all personal guilt. Now I say that personal guilt that was contracted by violating the law of God given to Moses, which law was very distinct from the one given to Adam. Then, on the same principle, the man that transgresses God's law, given out on Mount Sinai, becomes condemned for his own acts. The last part of my proposition claims a possible salvation for the sinner, who is condemned on account of sin--personal and intentional sin. Now, if my brother will not allow that, then I must accuse him of being hard hearted. I only claim in my proposition a possibility of sinners being saved, but he will not admit even a possibility. He seems determined to shut up the door of God's compassion, then bars a sinner out from the mercy and blood of the atonement, and from the prayers of the Church, and from the preaching of the gospel, all combined-- denies to all a portion of the Holy Spirit. He can not allow that there is even a possibility for a part of the race being saved. He undertakes to combat my position, by explaining away my proof texts. I introduced two scriptures, to prove that God was no respecter of persons; he introduces a third one, to show in what sense God was no respecter of persons. Col. iii, 25: "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons." That there is no respect of persons in the church.
Now, if Elder Hume had read my two texts, he could not have disposed of the apostle's teaching in that way. The apostle is arguing that God offered salvation to the gentiles as well as to the Jews; and that he is no respecter of persons in that respect, from that fact that he is willing all, in every nation, who believe in his name, shall be saved. This is what Paul is arguing; and the same thing is intended by Peter's confession. I have been thinking since the elder advanced that idea, that God might have convinced Peter a great deal easier, by telling him that he had no respect of persons in the church. If Peter did not know before the vision that God had no respect of persons in the church, it is taxing him with more ignorance than I am willing to admit he possessed. Then, there would have been not need of a revelation, the object of which was to convince Peter that he might go to the uncircumcised, to the gentiles, to the Scythians, barbarians, bond and free, that they were all alike, and that he had no respect of persons.
I will here allude to Elder Hume's remarks on the term world. He tries to prove that I gave a wrong view of the term, from the fact that in Webster's Dictionary the word has twenty-two different meanings, and of these but one meaning justifies my quotation. By the by, he did not notice the punctuation, or he would have discovered there are two. But if there was but one, has he proved that I did not interpret it correctly, according to that one? He has not. He said yesterday, in speaking of the world, he had like to have said "elect world." He might just as well said it. In the course of this debate he will doubtless say so. When we quote in the language of scripture, that he is propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world (see Epistle of John), we are told that it did not mean the race, all of them. He discriminates. "In that sentence, 'our sins,' I understand to mean the elect, the church." I don't think we will differ on this; but not for the elect, sins of the church, but for the sins of the whole world, which I say means the race of mankind. If he can explain this away, let him do it.
[Elder Stinson then quoted from John's Epistle v, 19; but in the middle of the quotation his time expired; the sentence being unfinished, it is not given in the report.--REPORTER.]
(Time expired.)
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
