Harbinger, May 1, '63.

DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION.

MAY, 1863.

149

PUBLIC DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION.

OUR esteemed Brother B. Franklin | occupy the human mind. has, some time since, published a discussion upon Justification and Baptism. His opponent was the Rev. S. M. Merrill, pastor of the Methodist Episcopal church, Portsmouth, Ohio. The following brief preface will show that both parties admit the fairness of the report:

PREFACE.

"The following is substantially the discussion held in Portsmouth, Ohio, though we have allowed each other some latitude in correcting, amending, and adding some things not in the oral discussion. Some minor matters are omitted, repetitions avoided, and changes made, though the same points are discussed and more thoroughly investigated here than in the oral debate. The speeches were written out by the parties as they now appear in print. We mutually agree to submit our speeches to a thinking and intelligent public, in print and in the same order as delivered, simply (desiring all who shall read them solemnly to examine the subjects discussed, and honestly to decide for themselves, as they shall answer in the great day. Our only desire is, that truth and righteousness may prevail. BENJ. FRANKLIN. April 14th, 1858. S. M. MERRILL."

How can

man be justified before God? By what means, or on what terms, can the guilty, sinful creature approach into the presence of the Holy Creator and find acceptance? The proposition which I affirm sets this matter, as I conceive, in a clear and comprehensive light. It exhibits at a glance the scriptural prin ciple of justification, securing to the Redeemer the glory of his own work, and leaving the responsibility of failure where it rightly belongs upon the creature who refuses compliance with the expression. In order to bring the subject as distinctly as possible before us, I again read the proposition. It is the ninth article of religion, as found in the Methodist Discipline: "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; wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." According to the terms of our agreement, I am to affirm the doctrine contained in this article. That doctrine, when properly understood, is so plainly scriptural, that it is a matter of no little astonishment that one can be found willing to make a public de

We purpose to reprint the discussion of the first proposition entire. As the first speech of each debatant is longer than the subsequent speeches, the opening speech of S. M. Merrill will be now given, and the first speech of B. Frank-nial of it. I can only account for the lin will appear in the next number, after which there will be inserted two speeches in each issue. This will complete the discussion in the current vol

ume.

ED.

position my friend, the respondent, has taken in regard to this proposition on the supposition, that his prejudice against all creeds has induced him to presume that this, being part of a creed, must necessarily be erroneous; and that without carefully examining the doctrine, he has hastily pronounced against the creed, and therefore against each article of it. However this may be, he will have ample opportunity to define his own position, and to assign reasons for assailing this article.

Without detaining with preliminary remarks, I shall proceed to ascertain

150

66

DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION.

the doctrine contained in the proposition before us, that you may see precisely what I affirm, and what my friend denies. But few of the terms in the proposition need to be defined. The word "justified" is to be understood in the sense of being "accounted righteous." It is not only used in this sense here, but also in the Scriptures. It is the act of God by which he pardons our sins, accepts our persons, and accounts us righteous, and treats us as righteous persons, only for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. But what is meant by that little word "only?" We must notice this particularly, for it is the occurrence of this little word in the last part of the article, that has aroused the opposition of my friend. The word only" occurs twice in the article, and thus explains itself: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith; wherefore, that we are justified by faith only," &c. It will be soen that the last "only" corresponds with the first, and that the word is used in both places to exclude all idea of human merit as the ground or procuring cause of pardon or justification. It is not used to exclude anything that properly belongs to the great work of bringing the sinner into a state of reconciliation with God, such as the grace of God, the blood of Christ, &c. ; nor is it designed to exclude anything that properly belongs to or accompanies the exercise of genuine faith, but simply to exclude the merit of human actions as the ground of our acceptance with God. "Faith only" stands in opposition to the merit of "our own works or deservings." It is not the abstract definition of the word, but the use and application here made of it, that I am seeking after. It is an exclusive term, but we are not to make it exclude anything and everything we may see fit, without regard to the connection in which it stands. Hence my respondent will not be at liberty to take this word out of

Harbinger, May 1, '63.

its connection to put an arbitrary construction upon it, and then infer that the article teaches thus and so, and make war upon his forced inference, as upon the doctrine which I affirm. He must take the word in its connectionunderstand it as expounded by the church which adopts it—and then he will assail the doctrine contained in the proposition, and not merely a man of straw. I remark further, that we must distinguish between "faith only" and "faith alone." Faith is not alone. It involves the elements of repentance, and is accompanied by good works as fruits; but while it is not in the nature of things alone, it is only the faith that justifies. Faith implies repentance and obedience, but neither the repentance nor the obedience can be accounted for righteousness, but the faith only. I may also premise that the Scriptures speak of four distinct justifications. These must be carefully distinguished from each other, for we cannot confound them without producing confusion. The first has been called infantile justification. It has respect to the spiritual state of man when first brought into conscious existence. "By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." But we have no controversy respecting this justification. The second is that about which we dispute. It is the justification of the sinner in the sense of pardon. This is the act of God by which he reverses the sentence of the law, and discharges the sinner from guilt and liability to punishment. It is called in the Scriptures pardon, remission, the non-imputation of sin, the imputation of righteousness, but it is the same act. It is a forensic term, and has respect to the claims of the law of God. After this comes the third

the justification of the righteous by obedience, in the sense of approval. Of this St. James speaks in his Epistle, and illustrates it by the justification of Abraham "when he offered his son

Harbinger, May 1, '63.

DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION.

151

ing cause for the sake of convenience, and to guard against misapprehension. It is sometimes called the instrumental cause, and sometimes the conditional. It is that which is required on the part of the person, and hence is a condition; and it is that by which the individual lays hold upon the merit of Christ and receives the blessing, and on this account it may be called the receiving cause of justification, without danger of deceiving. And as the only originating cause is the grace of God, and the only procuring cause is the blood of Jesus Christ, so the only receiving cause, the only condition, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the doctrine of the article which forms the proposition before us, and this is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, as I shall now have the pleasure of proving in your presence.

Isaac upon the altar." Abraham had been justified by faith many years before this event, and was consequently a righteous man when he received the command to offer his son upon the altar; for it is written of him," that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," before Isaac was born. It is, therefore, plain that St. James speaks of the justification of believers, who by works evince their faith, and prove their justification to themselves and others, and thus obtain the farther favor and approbation of Heaven. Hence the justification spoken of by St. James cannot be opposed to that of which my proposition speaks, which is that of the sinner, in the sense of pardon, by faith in Jesus Christ as the only procurer of salvation. The fourth justification taught in the Scriptures has respect to the transactions of the day of judgment. Then men will be justified or condemned, not because of, but according to, their works. The reason of this final justification of the righteous will not be found in them, but in the Saviour; nevertheless, the final decision will be according to the deeds done in the body, or upon the testimony of works as the fruits of faithly affirming this. He may confine his or unbelief. But as this justification is not in dispute, I dwell not upon it. I refer to these different justifications for the purpose of avoiding confusion, and that we may get at the precise point in dispute. I fear my friend has them all confused in his mind, but I hope now to be able to keep the issue so clearly before you, as that you will see when either of us turns aside to raise false issues.

The different causes of justification must also be carefully noted. Confining the justification to the sense of pardon the causes are three-the originating, the procuring, and the receiving. The first is the grace of God, the second is the blood of Christ, and the third is faith. The third cause is that about which we dispute. I call it the receiv

In denying this proposition my friend denies that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and virtually affirms that we are accounted righteous before God, not for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, but for our own works or deservings. He cannot say nay to the proposition without virtual

opposition principally to the last clause of the article, but that being only a corollary or deduction from the first part, must be interpreted by the first part. It being a deduction from the premises laid down, it cannot legitimately be held to contain anything more than is contained in the premises. The opposition of my friend must therefore be to the premises as well as to the conclusion; and in saying nay to the premises in this article of religion, he must assert what is here denied. In a discussion like this he cannot occupy merely a negative position. He must take ground that can be understood. In denying that we are accounted righteous only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, he must shew for whose merit we are accounted righteous, and

DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION.

DEBATE ON JUSTIFICATION.