had he yielded to the proposals of the adversary, he would have been "drawn away [not tempted] of his own lusts;" but "tempted of the devil." The fact that Christ had all the lusts of the flesh before the devil came to him that he ever had, and that he retained them all after the adversary left him, ought to be of itself sufficient to convince us that the devil which tempted him was not his lusts; and this being so, it follows that the scriptural doctrine of the devil is against Universalism, though the devil himself may be in favor of it! In conclusion we remark, that there is not a text in the Bible which speaks of the devil as the lusts of the flesh:-not one! But suppose there were a text which figuratively applied the term devil to the lusts of the flesh; if this would prove that there is no real personal devil, and that the lust of the flesh is all the devil there is: then it follows because Paul says concerning some who were the enemies of the cross of Christ: “Whose god is their belly ;” (Phil. 3. 19,) that there is no other God in the universe except a man's belly! This seems to a large extent the practical belief of the world, but it will hardly pass as a Bible doctrine!

CHAPTER VI.

66 THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

"But he being full of Compassion, forgave their Iniquity, and Destroyed them not."-Psalm 78. 38.

Of all the unscriptural, unphilosophical speculations, connected with modern Universalism, that which relates to the forgiveness of sins, is apparently the most perfectly unreasonable. This system of faith teaches that the sinner, by an immutable decree of the Almighty, is doomed unconditionally to suffer the full demands of justice for every sin he commits (let that demand be little or much) before he can be forgiven, and that forgiveness in no case shields from deserved punishment. This doctrine teaches that, notwithstanding all the efforts on the part of the Messiah, in bringing about a remedial system,-notwithstanding all the merciful provisions of the gospel of peace, with all its exceeding great and precious promises, and notwithstanding the God and Father of our spirits out of unbounded compassion bowed the heavens and gave his only and well-beloved Son to suffer and die for the sinner; yet, there is no way made possible by which he can escape the penalty of a broken law, -no mercy can be extended towards him until he has supped the last bitter dreg from the cup of punishment; and then will God forgive his sins! What nonsense!

We expect in this chapter to urge weighty considerations against this hypothesis, and to prove from the plain teachings of revelation and from the nature of God's moral government, that the forgiveness of sins consists in the remission or warding off of deserved punishment, and that there would be no such thing as the exercise of mercy in the economy of salvation were such not the case.

Universalists quote several texts of scripture which we shall examine, and which they claim as positive proof in favor of the assumption that God never forgives the sinner until he has inflicted upon him all the punishment his sins deserve. "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." [Is. 40. 2.] This is the most prominent text in the Bible upon which the doctrine relies as favoring the above position. But does this verse prove that Jerusalem was pardoned because she had received punishment to the full demands of justice? By no means as we shall show. But admit, for the sake of the argument, that "double for all her sins" does as Universalists contend relate to punishment, it would prove too much for the theory, and consequently prove nothing. For if God did not forgive Jerusalem

until he had inflicted "double" the amount of punishment due "for all her sins," then "take heed lest he spare not you." Is this forgiving upon receipt of the full amount of punishment? If God forgives the sinner after inflicting double the demands of justice, may he not vary as much the other way and forgive him when half the just amount of punishment is inflicted? And if God varies so much from the Universalist rule as to inflict punishment to double the demands of justice may he not punish to all eternity? Is it not a true principle that he who will be unjust in little will also be unjust in much?

But the double" which Jerusalem received did not refer to punishment. The prophet speaking of Jerusalem bears me out in this assertion. "After all that is come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve and hast given us such deliverance as this.” [Ezra 9. 13.] Thus it is manifest that the double does not refer to punishment; for Ezra informs us that they were punished less than their sins deserved, and hence the "double" which they received has reference to something else. But what? "For your shame you shall have double, and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double; everlasting joy shall be unto them." [Isa. 61. 7.] This needs no comment. Again: "Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished." [Prov. 11. 21.] This is heard in nearly every sermon in defense of Universalism. But even taking it in an unconditional sense, it contradicts the doctrine, for hundreds and thousands of wicked men in the height of their wickedness fall instan ly dead, and consequently go to heaven unpunished. Universalists will not take the ground that death is the punishment for sin, for they teach that God designed when he created man that he should die, and that death is in no sense of the word a consequence of transgression. Universalism thus teaches that death is a work of God, and John classes it among "the works of the devil" which Christ came to destroy; hence God and the devil signify the same thing! Neither will they take the position that the wicked who leave this world without punishment receive it in the next: hence they are compelled to admit according to their teaching that the wicked (many of them) shall go unpunished.

But in this text as well as in many other such expressions, there is a condition implied though not here expressed as in the promise to Abraham. (See exam. of Gen. 22. 18. chap 1.) It is to be understood the same as though it had read thus: " Though hand join in hand the wicked shall not be unpunished, unless they turn from their wickedness." This condition is implied in this case because clearly expressed upon the same subject in another connection. "The soul that sinneth it shall die. [This is as emphatic as the expression, "the wicked shall not be unpunished."] But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed and keep all my statutes,

and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." [Ezek. 18, 20. 21.] or (which is exactly the same), the punishment which was threatened shall not be inflicted. Thus, notwithstanding God should threaten a wicked man with death (which was deserved punishment unquestionably or else God would not have threatened it,) still that wicked man can escape this punishment by reformation and by obtaining pardon, as the prophet assures us. Hence, there is a condition implied in all such declarations if not expressed, find them where you will in the Bible! This rule of implication will be found an exceeding troublesome thing to Universalists.

Another text is presented. "The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and truth; kceping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." [Exodus 34. 6, 7.] According to the Universalist exposition of this text, God will certainly punish a wicked man all that his sins deserve, let him repent, turn from his wickedness, or do what he will. Such an interpretation makes the text most positively contradict itself. "The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness; and therefore he will never cease to punish the sinner, let him repent as he may, until the very last stripe demanded by inflexible justice is inflicted! Two declarations more palpably contradictory are hardly to be found. It is about like this: "The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness,"-therefore he is the most unmerciful being in the universe!

But it may be thought that my view of the subject presents as much of a contradiction as the above. Not so. I claim with the Bible, that God "will by no means clear the guilty,”—no, not by forgiveness, nor punishment, nor any thing else. But Universalism teaches that God clears the guilty by punishment! When in fact, let a man be punished to any degree, he is just as guilty as though he had not been punished at all. Put a man into the penitentiary three years for theft, and when he serves his time out he is no more innocent than when he commenced! But you ask how this apparent difficulty will be disposed of? In this way, and in this way only.The guilty man must cease to be guilty, by becoming innocent; and he must become innocent, by complying with the Lord's own terms of pardon, and by receiving the forgiveness of his sins and the removal of guilt from his conscience. Thus, God can be abundant in goodness, and yet by no means clear the guilty. But he can clear the innocent and be good to the guilty in giving them an opportunity of becoming innocent,―obtaining the forgiveness of sins, and thus be cleared from suffering the punishment, which would most surely have been inflicted had they continued guilty. This text, as we discover, proves the exact opposite of the theory that forgiveness does not shield from justly deserved punishment. If there be no provis.

ion made by which the sinner may escape the sentence of retributive justice, then the "goodness" of God is far from being "abundant !” Talking of a "God of cruelty" and "a system of vindictive tyranny," comes with a poor grace from those who look upon the character of God in the light of Universalism. If the God and Father of our spirits be as destitute of mercy and goodness as this doctrine represents, how we are to infer a universal salvation from his character and attributes is a mystery which I do not expect to understand!

Let us now look at a few texts of scripture which clearly prove that the mercy or goodness of the Lord exercised in the forgiveness of sins shields men from justly deserved punishment. The verse at the head of this chapter is one directly to the point: "But he being full of compassion forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not." [Psalm 78. 38.] From this it is evident that the only reason they were not destroyed was because God "forgave their iniquity." This cannot be doubted. Now since God would have destroyed them had he not forgiven their iniquity, it follows that forgiveness in this case delivered them from deserved punishment; for had they not deserved this destruction there would have been no danger of the Almighty inflicting it!" This testimony cannot be set aside.

Again: "The Lord is merciful and gracious slow to anger and plenteous in mercy; he hath not dealt with us after our sins nor rewarded us according to our iniquities; for as the heaven is high above the earth so great is his mercy toward them that fear him: as far as the east is from the west so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." [Psalms 103. 8-12.] Had we no other testimony this one text would be of itself sufficient to overturn this doctrine relative to the forgiveness of sins. This passage teaches that on account of the fact that God is merciful and gracious, he did not deal with men according to their sins nor reward them according to their iniquity, but removed their transgressions from them as far as the east is from the west! This shows that God exercises mercy in forgiving men's sins by not dealing with them according as their sins deserve, or by not rewarding them according to their iniquity. Jeremiah prays to God concerning the wicked who had dug a pit for him: 66 Forgive not their iniquity neither blot out their sins from thy sight, but let them be overthrown." This proves that they would not be overthrown if God should forgive their iniquity; and as God would not overthrow them unless they deserved it, it follows that forgiveness shields from deserved punishment!

Now hear the language of God to the prophet concerning Judah: "It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way that I may forgive their iniquity and sin." [Jer. 36. 3.] And what would be the result? "If so be they will hearken and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I purposed to do unto them." [Jer 26. 3.] Thus, when God forgives a