"FORGIVENESS."

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2906, 8 June 1878, Page 4

"FORGIVENESS."

(To the Editor of the Evening- Stab.) Having opened your columns to the insertion of the article headed " Forgiveness," it may not be out of place to allow a short space in the same fora few thoughts which a careful reading of the article has introduced to my mind, and which I place at your disposal. In starting I may say I scarcely like to characterise my comments as a " criticism," seeing whom I would be criticising; nevertheless, the defects and fallacies (as appearing to me) of the reasoning induces me to be thus bold. I believe, sir, that the subject is cleverly dealt with, yet I doubt whether it is wisely so: it might work mischief in the minds of many. Though not avowedly the purpose, I take it to bo the practical result of the paper to deny the efficacy of prayer in regard to sin, on which subject we know much has been written. To sum up briefly the deductions of the writer's arguments they are these: —1. Prayer is ineffectual because GodJias not

the supposed anger against us for sin we conceive to have committed against him, 2. Prayer is ineffectual, because we, in seeking remission, fail to realise that sin must inevitably have its punishment aa a natural result. 3. Prayer is ineffectual because it is injudicious for God to relieve us from the consequences of sin, they being {i.e., the punishments) for our own God. The three distinct ideas in

supplication are of course brought out by . the writer aa showing the different views of different persons in regard to prayer for pardon. I purpose to briefly cope with each. It is not necessary that I should quote lengthily from Scripture to prove this statement —God's anger can be raised against us. Here are two verses : " O, Lord God, to whom vengeance bolongeth," &c, Psalms xciv. eh,, i. y.-. " We are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled." Psalms, xc. eh., vii. v. Many more could be quoted, if it were necessary. The belief in the in-

spiration of the Bible entails an accept,ance of these statements, however disagreeable to some may be the fact that God is capable of anger and vengeance towards His sinful crea'.ures. Nor does this acceptance necessarily create in us a low estimate of God's character. He, as our Creator, instituted laws which we are called upon to keep—laws moral and social—'the "which we break at our peril. Becall for a -moment the account of Adams-creation and fall; made upright, and holy, one great commandment was given him, with this caution: "In the day.thou eatestthereof, thoushalt surely die." Adam did transgress, and the sentence was carried into effect. Now, sir, I strongly contend that Adam's death was not the natural result of the sin, but rather the execution of the sentence God had pronounced against him for his disobedience. The simple deductions from these truths are, that God's

anger was and can be raised against his creatures for wilful violation of His commandments ; and that he can forgive the sinner : for God had no sooner pronounced judgment of death on the victim of the Devil, than he promised a means of- pardon and redemption for Adam and his unhappy progeny. Unhappy, inasmuch as they all were condemned in the condemnation of their progenitor, and representative; for "The wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ." Secondly, comes Greg's next argument, that God will not interpose between sin and its consequence. This proposition is at once so unreasonable, awful, and unscriptural, that it is quite enough to condemn the article aa suicidal, and even

sceptical. If this is true, let the world mourn, for it is lost—mankind altogether are ruined, and withoui hope, and for this

reason: "If,we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." True, original sin, inherent sin, works death, but the grace of God eternal''life'.. .'■."As-in .Adain'all die," so in Christ shall all be made alive." But Greg, in his wisdom, ignores Christ (another fact implying sceptical tendencies), and nonsensically affirms in his third-argument, "we can be saved from the punishment of sin ' only by beiDg saved from its commission.'" He would have us be all Popes—infallible, I suppose; otherwise all lost, as in conclusion he says, if his reflections are sound, " the awful yet wholesome conviction presses upon our minds that there can be no forgiveness of sin." Well, fortunately, we feel sure they are not sound : woeful is the lot of humanity if they are ; and terrible the God who called them into being. E. W. Greg's mind seems to be one of those who are led astray by " vain philosophy." Season, which is God's greatest gift in. man, is used rather. to establish inconsistency and error, where there is room for reason, than to endeavor to discern the reasonableness of God's dealings. God's visible creation (as seen in the universe) confirms much he tells us. God's nature is hidden from us. Of His characterwe only.,,know so much as He has thought fit toltiake us acquainted with in Hisrevelationstous. It is surely presumption in any man to say it is foreign to His nature to entertain anger towards us for having wilfully disobeyed his commandment ; equally so to say that he has instituted universal laws which make it iropera tive that that disobedience should work endless distraction; and simply absurd to aver that the pardon of that disobedience involves a miracle. Hoping, sir, that I have not trespassed too far on your space, i —l am, &c , ~ E. D.

Hape Creek, June 3, 78.