304

and then proceeds to shew that it does exclude works! I can scarcely excuse this on the ground of "confusion," but it is hard telling to what lengths a man's perplexities will drive him. I told you from the beginning that it excludes works from having any part in procuring or meriting justification. In his former speeches he tried to shew that it excludes the grace of God and the blood of Jesus, but he has now seen that he cannot sustain that position by any fair construction of the language. and confines his effort to shewing that it does exclude works. If the gentleman wishes to know my position in relation to good works, he can read it in the articles following the one under discussion. His allusion to Paine's Age of Reason was, perhaps, profound in his estimation; but I miss my guess, if sensible men do not look upon it as an attempt to stir up prejudice, rather than to illustrate truth.

My position in regard to the doctrine of this article was fully and frankly taken, and if Mr. Franklin cannot understand it, others can. I confine the discussion to the subject of justification in the sense of being accounted "righteous," simply because that is the only subject contained in our proposition. His attempt to shew the contrary is, to use his own beautiful language, a miserable farce." So, also, his remarks about my being" three-fourths converted," because I admit the precise ground taken by me in my opening address! Strange conversion, indeed!

66

66

I have insisted, from the beginning of the discussion, that it is not the abstract definition of the word only" that is to decide the issue between Mr. Franklin and myself, but the use and application made of it in this article. It is an exclusive term, but the question is, What was it designed to exclude? Mr. F. insists that it excludes everything else, not excepting the blood of Jesus and the grace of God. Upon this forced construction, supported only by his assertion, he suspends his cause. In vain I ask him to examine my interpretation and point out wherein it is wrong. In vain I appeal to him to meet the issue as presented by me. He can see nothing in the article but justification without works, without repentance, without grace, without the blood of Christ, and without anything

Harbinger, Sept. 1, '63.

but naked faith-faith alone and apart from everything. Does he expect to make anyone believe that he does justice to the article?

But why was "only" put there? My friend calls it an interpolation — a corruption of the Word of God. He talks about the sin of adding to the Scriptures! Now this is all very well in its place, but if he can see anything in it that is relevant to the question, or any thing profound, he has a keener perception than most of us. The article was framed while the great_contest with Popery was yet raging. The men who framed it were actively engaged in the work of reformation. Their object was to stake off the ground-to run the dividing line between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. They had their eye upon the Papal dogma of justification by the merit of human works. Perceiving clearly the pernicious tendency of that dogma, they determined to raise up a standard against it. They believed, fully, that God had graciously provided for the justification of man, through the blood of atonement, so that he could now "be just, and the justi fier of him which believeth in Jesus." They entertained not the least doubt that Jesus Christ had meritoriously provided for this, and that he, being set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," was entitled to all the glory of his work in meriting salvation for man. Then, believing that there could be no salvation, only by God's grace, through the merit of Jesus, would they declare their faith in such a way as intentionally to exclude both the grace of God and the blood of Jesus? Never! But with an eye steadily fixed upon the Popish dogma of human merit in justification, they proclaimed that we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings." This is the article to which my friend has said, Nay. Do you see anything wrong in it? I think not. But the reformers did not stop here. They said, "wherefore” — but you see nothing wrong yet-" where fore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." Having laid down the doctrine in the article proper, they say, "wherefore," and then express an

66

Harbinger, Sept. 1, '63.

opinion as to the moral bearing of the doctrine; and that opinion is, that it is wholesome and full of comfort. But in expressing this opinion, instead of repeating what they had just said, they give it in short- that we are justified by faith only." By faith in what? In the blood of Jesus. By faith only in the blood of Jesus. Does this exclude the blood of Jesus? But why insert the word "only ?" Simply to exclude the merit of human actions, as held by Romanists. Just as Paul said to pleaders for human merit, "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. iv. 5.) Now if Mr. Franklin will shew that the article excludes the blood of Jesus and the grace of God, any more than this verse quoted from St. Paul does, I will abandon it henceforth and for ever. Or if he will shew from the Scriptures what else besides faith is imputed to us for righteousness, in the work of justification, I will consent that the word only ought to be stricken out.

But while Mr. Franklin prepares his next bottle of wrath to pour out upon this unfortunate word only, I will read you a passage from a book which, if it is not a creed in the church to which my friend belongs, is highly esteemed, and has been warmly recommended by him in his editorial capacity. It is the "Christian System," by Alexander Campbell. Mr. Campbell is as good authority in the denomination as is Mr. Franklin himself. I read from page 218, "And it is here worthy of notice, that the Apostles, in all their speeches, and replies to interrogatories, never commanded an inquirer to pray, read, or sing, as preliminary to coming; but always commanded and proclaimed immersion as the first duty, or the first thing to be done, after a belief of the testimony. Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, repenting, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting to be better, was the converting act. Immersion alone was that act of turning to God. Hence, in the commission to convert the nations, the only institution mentioned after proclaiming the gospel, was the immersion of believers, as the divinely authorized way of carrying out and completing the work." Thus it will be seen that my friend has something exclusive in his own system. Does he

305

IX. My next argument is, that in Acts x. 43, and xiii. 38-39, Peter and Paul declare in full the condition of justification. Peter says, "To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins." Paul says, "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.' These passage are of one import. My reason for saying they declare in full the condition of justification is the fact, that " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" (Acts x. 44.) Can Mr. F. find as good reason for denying that these Scriptures set forth in full the condition of justification? He never can. But where are repentance and obedience? Repentance is necessarily connected with faith, but it does not perform the same office- we are not justified by repentance. Obedience necessarily follows faith, but obedience does not justify; nor need we wait for faith to bring forth this fruit, before we can expect remission of sins. All that believe are justified before there is time for baptism. This was the case in the house of Cornelius. They received the Holy Ghost before the sermon was ended. Deny it, who can ?

306

Reason. But he says, Paul admits that a man may have them [supernatural gifts] in a high degree, and be no thing, and certainly not justified." This he bases on 1 Cor xiii. 1-2, and calls it a "definition of a man with faith only;" but I shall admit no such charge against the Apostle. St. Paul, in order to impress the mind with the importance of" charity," supposes a case, and a very strong one too, but he does not pretend that any such case ever did or ever could occur. His language is stronger than Mr. F. supposed. Look at it" Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Did Paul thus speak? Was he a man with faith only? Did anybody else thus speak? But look further-"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." Now, I take the ground distinctly, that no man was ever endowed with the miracle-working power of the Holy Ghost, according to the promise of the Scriptures, without being justified. To assume the contrary, is to sap the foundation of Christianity. Wicked men were instigated by the devil to mimic the miracles wrought by the finger of God, and to perform signs and wonders," of a lying sort, so as to deceive, if possible, the very elect" but to attribute the signs and lying wonders of false prophets to the Holy Ghost, is a crime nearly related to that of attributing the miracles of Christ and the Apostles to Beelzebub. No, sir; Paul did not favor the idea that the Holy Ghost is given to men who are not justified. No such idea is found in the Scriptures. "Supernatural gifts" were only given to men of God, that they might stop the mouths of their adversaries. One man-a baptized one, too-attempted to purchase the "gift" with money; but he received a most withering rebuke. But the Holy Ghost was given to some before baptism. This Mr. F. cannot deny. It was thus given in the house of Cornelius. Then I repeat the inquiry, How can my friend insist that baptism is a condition of forgiveness of sins? This music he must face!

66

66

He still insists that faith is the act

66

Harbinger, Sept. 1. 63.

of a depraved creature. Does he mean that faith is the mere product of the natural heart? If he does, he is wrong; for it is the “fruit of the Spirit." Does he mean that faith is a work of like character with what the Scriptures call works? If so he is wrong again; for, as before shewn, faith and works are contrasted. To him that worketh not, but believeth," &c. This is nothing but one of Mr. Franklin's quibbles. When I say faith justifies, I do not, as he would represent, say that faith does the work which belongs to God; but that it receives the merit of Christ, and appropriates the blessing that God has promised and the Saviour purchased. Is there anything wrong in this? I thus explicitly answer the question he proposed, as to the office which faith performs: Will he as frankly shew me where this office is performed by any thing else? Where is it said we are justified by repentance-by confession

by baptism? He never will tell. I have not denied that "only" ever means "alone;" but I have said this Article does not speak of faith alone. It speaks of faith which is living. The faith of which Mr. Franklin talks, is faith alone. He talks of that faith which is before repentance; and it is certain that the faith which does not arise from a penitent heart, is the faith which is common to wicked men and devils. He may call this "mystification;" but he can never get out of it. Mr. F. gives strong indication that this is the only faith he knows any thing about.

He wants it understood that he does not believe the Article speaks of justification in one sense only. Now, if he will just take the language, and shew that it means any other justification than that of being accounted righteous," I will walk with him side by side in the investigation. But he cannot

do it. He first complains of my distinctions, then admits they are right, and then he insists that I must debate justification in every sense, whether in the proposition or not. Surely he is hard pressed! But he made an attempt at downright perversion-in his confusion-which I must notice.

He says I yield the point that infant justification is not by faith only; but how could I yield a point I never held? He says I yield the point that the justification of the righteous and the justifi

Harbinger, Sept. 1, 63.

cation in the last judgment, are not by faith only. But does he not know that this was my original position, from which I have not swerved for a moment? He will excuse me from any further debate on this point! How kind! When did I begin to debate this point! Was he not complaining because I would not debate the question of the justification of the righteous, which is not in the proposition? Look at his words: "To state the matter more clearly, he does not believe that infants are justified by faith only, or, which he thinks the same, only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ." When did I say, Infants are not justified only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ? Never! This Mr. F. knows very well. He takes what I said of one justification, and represents me as saying it of another, and thus places me and the whole subject in a false position. If he was not confused when he did this, it is so much the worse for him. He is left without excuse.

He now fairly denies that Abraham was justified more than once. In this he arrays James against Paul. Abraham was justified when he believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Paul says plainly that this was "while he was yet uncircumcised;" Romans iv. 10-12. James says he was justified by works when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar. But Mr. F. says he was only justified once! He says, further, that Abraham was a righteous man before God made the promise. This is true in regard to one promise; but to say he was righteous long before he believed God, is grossly absurd; and it was when he believed God he was justified. Human acts can never reconcile the Scriptures without admitting two distinct acts of justification. Mr. Franklin may call it all " assumption," but there stand the facts! I shall certainly "keep cool," and hold the cold facts of the Bible before my friends. Does he deny that Abraham was ever a sinner? Does he deny that he was ever pardoned? Was he righteous long before he was pardoned? Alas! for the man; to what will he come next?

He blundered over my eighth argument: talked about Universalism misquoted my language-and, as usual, failed so much as to quote the Scriptures on which the argument was based. This

307

But can he

is answering arguments! nerve himself up to deny that believers enjoy a present life of faith which the Scriptures call eternal? I apprehend not. But he says the argument never passed, with him, "for more than a second or third rate sophistry." He knows the value of the article, and none but the first rate sophistry will pass with him! Nothing else will answer his purpose! But why did he not point out the sophistry? Why he did not say that he that believeth hath not eternal life? That would be too bad! He can see me "giving up" what I never held, and "yielding" that which I never pretended to hold, and getting "converted" to my own doctrine, and giving up the controversy by refusing to debate what was never before us; but to see any thing but "miserable sophistry" in arguments based directly on the words of inspiration, is to him impossible.

66

But he charged me with "blowing hot and cold with one breath." The mistake was in applying it to me instead of to himself. He finds justification in the "commission" where the word does not occur; but he will not, and dare not, dispute my position 1st, That the passage relates directly to the future state; and, 2d, That the promise, that 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," implies the fulfilment of the covenant engagement involved in baptism. But if these points are true, his way of forcing baptism between the exercise of faith and the first act of pardon, is unauthorised and to be condemned. Special promises made to the baptized, depend not on the mere ceremony of baptism, but on the fulfilment of the baptismal engagements. Here the only promise made is future salvation. The application of this passage to justification is all wrong. When the time arrives for fulfilling this promise, all who have not lived up to their covenant obligations will be accounted unbaptized. Will my friend deny this? I therefore claim that, on this point, Mr. F. is "my prisoner."

In regard to Acts ii. 38, I remark that the gentleman did assume the essential points in the argument. I am willing to take the version as it is, and hold that, under some circumstances, baptism may be a means of pardon; but as I before remarked Mr. F. confounds the

308

means of justification with the condition. Mr. Wesley calls baptism a means of pardon. Reading the Bible, conversing with friends, attending upon the ministry of the word, and comme morating the death of Jesus, are all means of grace-meansof justification; but these are not the condition. Just so with repentance and baptism. We read, pray, sing, commune, repent, receive baptism, hear the word, talk with friends-all "for the remission of sins;" but not one of these acts can receive and appropriate the blessing-all of them together cannot fill the office of faith. But Mr. F. can see no difference between the means of grace and the condition of justification; hence his confu

sion.

But he reiterated his charge that the Discipline corrupts the words of Jesus in saying, "None can enter," &c. instead of saying, "Except a man be born again," &c. Now I know the Discipline does not pretend to quote the passage, but it does not corrupt it. The word man, which he emphasized, is not in the passage, and I challenge him to show that it is. He wants to get into the Greek, and I challenge him to take the Greek Testament and shew the word man in the place! It reads, ean me tis gennethe, &c. ; but anthropas is not there. Nor does entering the kingdom mean justification. But my time is expired.

MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTH REPLY.

I desire you to keep in mind the precise issue between us. Mr. M. does not contend that infantile justification is by faith only. Justification in this sense he excepts as not coming in the scope of our controversy. Justification in the sense of approval, on the part of the righteous, he not only excepts as not coming in the range of our argument, but he admits it to be by obedience or by works. Justification, also, in the day of judgment, he maintains, does not come within the purview of our debate. Justification in this sense, also, he knows, is not by faith only. So far as justification in these three senses is concerned, he has declined any debate, though he could, with just as much propriety, have taken justification in any one of these three senses, as the meaning of the Article in dispute,

66

Harbinger, Sept. 1, '63.

as the one he as fixed upon. He has given no reason, and can give no reason, why he should select justification in one sense only, and claim that it is by faith only, when the Article is treating of the general subject of justification, in which "we are justified before God." There can be no question, in an unsophisticated mind, but that in every sense, and in every case, I can find in the New Testament, where it is said, in so many words, or substantially in any form, we are justified before God," it comes legitimately in the scope of our debate. But then it would be cruel to compel Mr. M. to defend what he does not believe. Seeing, then, that he does not believe that infantile justification is by faith only, we are not to expect him to defend that. Since, too, he has granted that the justification of the righteous, in the sense of approval, is not by faith only, but by obedience-by works-we must excuse him here also. Inasmuch also as he has found that justification, in the judg ment, is not by faith only, but will be according to our works, he should not be compelled to maintain that it is by faith only. Having now evaded the argument on justification by faith only, in these three senses, he has but one pin to hang upon, or but one sense in which he maintains that we are justified by faith only. That is the sense of remission of sins, or pardon, in conversion. The simple question left, and the only question, is whether the sinner, in turning to God, in conversion, is jus tified by faith only. Faith is the act of the creature. Does that act, as Mr. M. says, do the work? Does it, and it only, justify? Why, then, does he employ the mourner's bench? Why tell the sinner to pray for pardon or justification then? Why tell the sinner, as he and all Methodist preachers do, that the publican prayed that he smote upon his breast and said, "God be merciful to me a sinner ?" Why keep the sinner agonizing, mourning, and pray ing, if justification is by faith only? If faith pardons, does the work, justifies

if faith only justifies, or remits sins, and is accounted for righteousness, the act of the creature remits sins, there is no sense in praying for mourners, or, at least, there is no sense in their praying for themselves, that God would pardon them. But here is where he is