and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." The abundant pardon of God bestowed on the wicked and unrighteous, as expressed in this text must mean some important blessing. Pray what does God do for a sinner when he abundantly pardons him, if he does not remit the puishment he deserves? Universalists have sometimes asserted, when pressed on the doctrine of pardon, that it means salvation from the commission of sin in future; but this text fully refutes such a notion. Reformation from the commission of sin is here made a condition of the pardon promised in this text. The wicked must forsake his way and the unrighteous must forsake his thoughts, and they must turn unto the Lord before this pardon is available; hence, the pardon can relate only to past sins. A pardon cannot consist in that which must take place before such pardon can be received. As God requires us to break off from our sins first, to suppose the pardon promised in the text means no more than restraining grace, would be to understand him as promising to save us from the commission of sin, on condition that we will first save ourselves from the commission of sin. Jer. xxxiii. 8. "And I will cleanse them from all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned against me, and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned and whereby they have transgressed against me." Nothing can be more plain than that pardon is here applied to the removal of past sins, and not to the prevention of the commission of sin in future.

pun

Micah vii. 18. "Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy." The term pardon is here attended by three other expressions which fix its meaning. God pardons iniquity, and to show that the remission of ishment is intended, it is added that he passeth by transgression; that he retaineth not his anger forever because he delighteth in mercy. Enough has been said to show that God does pardon sin. Reasons have already been offered for understanding the pardon of an offence to imply the remission of the punishment it deserves, to which we will add the following:

1. We have no authority to use or understand the term,

pardon, in any other sense than that for which we contend. Dr. Webster says its meaning is, "to remit as a penalty," or "to excuse as a fault ;" or "the release of an offence, or of the obligation of the offender to suffer a penalty or to bear the displeasure of the offended party," or the "remission of a penalty." What linguist has ever told us that the word pardon means, to take away the love of sin, or to save from sin by preventing its commission in future, without, in the least, implying a deliverance from the punishment of sin which has been committed? Who understands the word pardon in this sense, when it is employed in the affairs which exist between man and man? Suppose the executive of the state to be vested with authority to pardon criminals convicted of crime and condemned to punishment; and should a convict, in one of our state penitentiaries, solicit his excellency's interference and obtain his pardon, what would be the disappointment of the expecting criminal, should he be informed that a pardon implies no remission of merited punishment 3 that he must still suffer the full penalty of the law? What wise counselor would hazard his reputation, before the Supreme Court in a plea on executive prerogative, by maintaining that the constitutional right of pardon gives the gov ernor no power to remit any penalty which the law inflicts, but simply to save offenders from the guilt of their crimes, in any way he can, without saving them from any punishment they deserve; or that it gives him the right to save them from the love of their crimes; or what is still more important, to save them from committing crime in future? It is presumed that no one would plead thus; and yet every counselor, who embraces modern universalism, must take this ground to be consistent with his own theory.

2. That the term pardon is used in the scriptures to signify the remission of punishment appears from the manner in which the negative particle is associated with it. It is said of wicked Manasseh, 2 Kings xxiv. 4. that "he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood which the Lord would not pardon." The meaning of this text must be exactly the reverse of what it would be, if it were said that God would pardon the same offence; hence, if the text now means that God would not remit the punishment that Manasseh's crimes de

served, which no doubt is its true meaning, then, when it is said that God does pardon, the true meaning must be that he remits a just punishment. On the other hand, if when it is said that God does pardon sin, it means no more than that he saves the offender from the love of his crimes, or from the commission of sin in future, in this case, in which it is said he would not pardon, the meaning must be that God would not save Manasseh from the love of his sin, or from a repetition of the same bloody and horrid crimes. This consequence we think no universalist will dare openly to avow; and yet it is a consequence which no one can evade, who denies that pardon implies a remission of punishment.

The above view is farther supported by those scriptures which speak of the forgiveness of sin. This class of texts is so numerous that we can only produce a small portion of them as a specimen of the whole. Mark ii. 5. "Jesus said unto the sick of the palsy, son thy sins be forgiven thee." Luke xxiii. 34. "Then said Jesus, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Ps. lxxviii. 38." But he being full of compassion forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a time turned he his anger away and did not stir up all his wrath." This last text is deserving of particular attention. The forgiveness of iniquity is here attributed to divine compassion, he being full of compassion forgave them." If forgiveness does not imply remission of punishment, it must be difficult to see why it should result from the fullness of divine compassion any more than from wisdom, justice, or holiness. But to show more fully what is meant by forgiveness, the text specifies in what way it manifested itself, as well as the source from whence it proceeded: "he forgave them their iniquities and destroyed them not." Here destruction is marked as the just punishment of their iniquity, and their preservation is represented as the result of their forgiveness. And to show that this is the common mode of the divine procedure, the text adds, "many a time turned he his anger away and did not stir up all his wrath." As forgiveness proceeds from the divine compassion, so punishment proceeds from the divine anger; hence, by his turning away his anger, is meant his forbearing to punish them for their sins; and by his not stirring up all his wrath, is meant his punishing them less

than their sins really deserved; all of which supposes salvation from the punishment of sin after it has been committed. Dan. ix. 9, 19. "To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses though we have rebelled against him; O Lord hear, O Lord forgive." Ps. xxxii. 5. "Thou forgivest the iniquity of my sin." Ps. xxxii. 1. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." This text is quoted by the apostle, Rom. iv. 7, and applied to the gospel mode of justification by faith. Ps. ciii. 2, 3. "Bless the Lord O my soul and forget not all his benefits, who forgiveth all thine iniquities." Ps. cxxx. 3, 4. "If thou Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord who shall stand, but there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared." In this text, forgiveness is opposed to God's marking iniquity, so that when God marks iniquity, in the sense of this passage, he does not forgive; and when he forgives he does not mark iniquity. Taking this view, the text contains three reasons for understanding forgiveness to mean the remission of punishment.

1. Marking iniquity can mean nothing less than taking account of our sins, and holding us to answer the penalty of the law for the same; hence, as forgiveness is exactly the reverse of marking iniquity, it must mean passing by our sins in some way without inflicting the punishment they deserve. But suppose that forgiveness means no remission of punishment, but simply a preservation from the commission of sin in future, as marking iniquity is opposed to forgiveness, it must consist in leaving men to commit sin without restraint. This indeed would be an uncommon way of marking iniquity. The notion is too absurd to be indulged for a moment.

2. The text under consideration, intimates that no man could stand, i. e. be saved, or enjoy the divine favour, if God should mark iniquity, i. e. if God should judge and punish us for all our sins. Now, if every man does and must suffer for all the sin he commits, and if the infliction of the full penalty. of the law is consistent with salvation, then God does mark iniquity and men stand too, which is opposed to the text: "If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord who shall stand." 3. The text makes forgiveness the ground of that filial fear which the scriptures every where inculcate: "There is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared."

This supposes that the doctrine of forgiveness is essential to the true fear of God, which cannot be explained consistently, only on the ground that forgiveness implies the remission of punishment. None could stand if God should mark iniquity; hence, if forgiveness stands opposed to his marking iniquity, it is by this that we stand. This marks forgiveness as the only ground of our hope, and hope is essential to that fear of God which he requires; for he, who has no hope of the divine favour, cannot exercise a filial fear towards God: his fear would be that of a devil and not that of a christian. Thus we see that the full punishment of sin, if endured, cuts the offender off from all hope in the divine favour, and that forgiveness implies the remission of such punishment, giving hope to offenders, that they may fear God, with that fear which is equally opposed to presumption and despair.

It is unnecessary to multiply quotations to prove that God forgives sin; a few only shall be added in proof that we have not mistaken the nature of forgiveness. Matt. vi. 12. "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Luke xi. 4. Forgive us our sins for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us." Here we are taught to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins, in the same sense in which we forgive one another. To understand, then, what God does for us when he forgives our sins, we need only ask ourselves what we do for our fellows when we forgive them. If, when we forgive those who are indebted to us, or who have trespassed against us, we discharge the debt or relinquish the punishment which we might inflict on them, then, when God forgives our sins, he remits the punishment we deserve; but if, when God forgives our sins, he does not remit the punishment we deserve, then he does not require us to forgive our enemies in this sense; for he has directed us to pray, forgive us as, i. e. in the same manner, as we forgive our debtors.

Eph. iv. 32. "And be ye kind, one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Col. iii. 13. " Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." Nothing can be more plain than that we are here taught by the apostle, that we are to forgive those who have injured us in the