DISCOURSE VII.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

WHEN HE WAS YET A GREAT WAY OFF, HIS FATHER SAW HIM, AND HAD COMPASSION ON HIM. - Luke xv. 20.

IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS, HE IS FAITHFUL AND JUST TO FORGIVE US. 1 John i. 9.

THE more closely I observe, the more am I persuaded that nearly all controversies, discussions, and even calm inquiries, might be narrowed down to a definition of terms, - an explanation of the sense in which we understand the words which we employ. For men are constantly using the same words as if they meant the same thing, when they differ widely in their meaning; and, again, using the same words as if attaching a different sense to them, while both are using them in exactly the same sense. Forgiveness is a term frequently employed in Scripture, and it is often employed in the common language of life. There appears to prevail much confusion of ideas in connection with it. On coming to examine closely the idea expressed by the term forgiveness, there seems indeed to be a peculiar indefiniteness in the word itself, though it should stand

for a very definite idea. In a religious, or scriptural, or theological sense, it is said that God forgives man's sins. Religion appears to be regarded by many, perhaps by most persons, by most Christians of every name, liberal and exclusive, as a plan, means, or agency by which men may obtain pardon, i. e. exemption from effects, entire justification from the Deity, for the commission of sin.

That sinful acts are necessary appears to be assumed, so far that the chief object of Christianity, it is alleged, is to secure, in some way, pardon or forgiveness from God for committing those necessary acts; i. e. that the Supreme Ruler shall overlook, or forget entirely, by some means, the wrong which man does, and regard him with approbation, as if no sin had been committed. In consistency with this view, several things are taken for granted. First, it is taken for granted that men must sin. Next, it is taken for granted that God is personally angry with men, and will punish them, not retributively, but vindictively, for sin. In the third place, it is taken for granted that God can, if he will, overlook, forget, or blot out, literally and entirely, the remembrance of men's sins, or, in other words, that he can allow men to sin without allowing any evil consequences whatever to result from sinning. And finally, it is taken for granted, that, by the use of some certain means, men may conciliate the divine favor, induce God, or place him under obligation, to turn away the consequences of sin, and secure that which is expressed by the term forgiveness.

The subject is one of universal, profound, and enduring interest, and worthy, therefore, of the most

earnest consideration.

This consideration let us en

deavor to give to the subject in the simplest and plainest language possible.

What is meant by forgiveness, either on the part of God towards man, or as exercised by man towards man? To obtain something like a satisfactory reply to this inquiry, we are not to assume that sin is necessary, that men must sin, and that to forgive is to remove responsibility for sinning, to deliver from the natural and just consequences of sinning. This would be simply to take everything for granted, and leave no room for inquiry. Further investigation would be useless. What, then, is sin? In the words of St. Paul, sin is the transgression of law; where there is no law, there is no transgression. What law is meant? In general terms, the law of our being, which is the law of God; the laws established by the Creator for the government of man, and by which our physical and intellectual and spiritual existence and action must be ruled.

Of some of the principles or laws which the Creative Intelligence has established to govern our existence and action, we are, in a greater or less degree, ignorant. With most of them, however, most men are acquainted. By intuition, or by reason, or by revelation, or by all combined, most men know when they do wrong; most men know when they violate the natural law, which, as proceeding from the Creator, is also the divine law, which should rule the body, or the mind, or the spirit. But whether or not men know, to search for, to discover, and submit to the principles or laws ordained by the Creator for our welfare, appears to be the chief end of our

temporal or visible existence. And in such inquiry, discovery, and submission consists our highest earthly happiness, our true well-being.

And first, let us illustrate as to forgiveness between man and man. What is effected when one person forgives another? A man with knowledge and design wrongs you in property and person. He thus occasions privation of outward comfort, bodily pain, and mental agony. What then is meant by your forgiving him? Is it meant that the injury which he has done ceases to be an injury, in consequence of your pardon? Does your forgiveness cause what was wrong to be no longer a wrong, but absolutely right, or blot it from existence and cause it to be nothing? Certainly not. Does your forgiveness of the injury restore to yourself your lost property, or recover to yourself your lost comfort and health? Certainly not. But he may replace by other property that which he has destroyed; he may measurably mitigate your pain of mind, and relieve your pain of body. Then does your forgiveness leave him innocent, as though he had never done the injury? Does the time in which he did the wrong cease to be time? does the property cease to be property? does the pain cease to be pain? is the act no longer an act? In a word, does your forgiveness cause all that was real to be unreal? does it annihilate fact? does it make something to be nothing? This is impossible, absolutely, in the very nature of things.

Then what is meant by the pardoning or forgiving of that same wrong, by the Supreme Ruler? For wrong, or sin, being the transgression of the laws of

our being, whether the injury be immediately to ourselves, or to another, is equally sin against God, the author of those laws.

When one prays for pardon for his sins, does he desire, and does he expect, that by forgiveness he is to be absolutely innocent, and the same as though he had never sinned? Does he desire and expect that God will annihilate the time in which he did wrong, and continue the thread of his existence as though no such time had ever been? Does he desire and expect that forgiveness shall cause the fact of his actions to be no longer fact? Or, in fine, does he desire and expect that by forgiveness God's remembrance, and his own remembrance, of the fact or identity of his act, shall at once and for ever perish? If so, I only ask, does he not desire and expect what is against nature, against reason, against experience, against revelation, which declares all shall receive for the wrong they do, and against all that he himself knows of the world, or of man, or of God? Or does he desire and expect either more or less than positive annihilation of his own being, the loss of his identity?

The question still remains with undiminished interest, What is meant by forgiveness? Here we have to confess, that we are limited on every side, by the imperfection and ambiguity of human language, we fail to express in terms the realities of thought and feeling. Let us here follow experience, and listen to her voice, as far as it is capable of distinct enunciation, and bring the result to the interpretation of Scripture language.

For an instance,

you are a parent; you desire