But whilst the Scriptures are so positive in asserting the just punishment of every man who sins, at the same time they hold out to the sinner the inducement of being forgiven of his sins on a return to virtue. And hence, it is a Scripture fact, that people have been rewarded according to their sins, and yet been forgiven. Here is a thus sayeth the Lord for it: "Speak ye comfortably unto Jerusalem-her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received at the Lord's hand double for all he sins.” Isa. xl. 2. Again: "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughters of my people, is greater than the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hand stayed on her. The punishment of their iniquity is accomplished, O, daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into Captivity:" "For, I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more." Lam. iv. 6, 22.-Jer. xxxi. 34. No terms can be more explicit than these, that, though a punishment was accomplished greater than that of Sodom, yet the iniquity which occasioned it, was forgiven and remembered no more. And if Jerusalem could be punished according to her deserts, and yet experience the divine forgiveness, so could Sodom; and so can every other people, whether we can understand the whys and wherefores or not!

If it be objected that the term 'double,' implies that a greater amount of punishment was inflicted than was deserved, we answer by another quotation: "Thou our God hast punished us LESS than our iniquities deserve"! Ezra ix. 13. It is evident that the words less and double, as here used, are hyperbolic modes of expres sion, simply used by way of emphasis, either to express the severity of God's Judgments, or the greatness of

his mercies. In no other way can the Divine Spirit be made to harmonize.-Our author's attempt to relieve himself from the difficulties in which the text evidently involves his theory of slip-shod and go-easy justice with a long pay-day, is perfectly ridiculous. He quotes the following passage as explanative of the text; or, in proof that it does not refer to punishment: "For your shame you shall have double-everlasting joy shall be unto them," Isa. lxi. 7. Singular, that our wise author, with all his precision about the moodes and tenses, should not have discovered that the text in dispute is in the past tense-" She HATH received" -while this passage is in the future-"Shall have double." And besides, it strikes us as rather queer that the 'double' the wicked Jerusalem had received for all her SINS was everlasting joy!!

Take another example: "Thou wast a God that FORGAVEST them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions," Ps. xc. 8. Thus, it is as clear as language can make it, that the punishment of sin is not at the same time incompatible with its forgiveness !

Here, then, we have two undeniable facts: First, that punishment for sin is certain and unavoidable; and second, that sin has been and may be punished, and yet forgiven.

But the inquiry is naturally suggested: In what does the divine forgiveness consist? Let us first understand the true import of the term forgive. The original word translated forgive is aphiemi, and it signifies, aecording to Greenfield, 'To send away, dismiss, suffer to depart, to emit, to omit, to pass over, to permit,' &c. &c. We now answer, that in a general sense, the divine forgiveness consists in reinstating the transgressor in his

former position-in regarding and treating him as if he had not sinned!

This is what mere punishment can never effect. Its province does not comprise the mind. The severest penal chastisements cannot restore a person to lost favor, nor confer upon him the sweet consciousness that he is again received to confidence, the past overlooked and no more remembered to his disadvantage. Your child whom you have severely punished-visiting his transgressions with a rod and his iniquities with stripes, requires at last your forgiveness, your pardon. The past must be overlooked, and the criminal must be made to feel that he is once more in his former position, that he enjoys your confidence, and the blessings of your favor. This is the general sense of Bible forgiveness-a forgiveness, not of punishment, but a forgiveness of sins. This is just what the word of God promises the penitent. God punished Jerusalem for all her sins; but when her warfare was accomplished, the word of comfort was spoken, and her iniquity was pardoned, her sins forgiven. The prodigal son bitterly suffered the consequences of his follies and crimes; but when his penitence brought him once more to his home, the father delightedly bestowed upon him his forgiveness-the past was overlooked, and the erring wanderer was again restored to former favor-yea, the father rejoiced over him more than over the elder brother who had not gone astray! All sinners are prodigals from God's house; and, the unchanging order of the divine government compels them to pass through the retribution which is consequent upon their follies, before they can rejoice in the blessings of a father's unpurchased pardon!

The scripture by which our author opposes this view

of the divine forgiveness, is most emphatically in its favor. For example, notice the following: "But he being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not." Ps. lxxviii. 38. The meaning is, he suffered or permitted their iniquity; for this is one of the meanings of the original word, and it agrees precisely with the Psalmists meaning as any one can see by examining the context. See Matt. v. 40: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Here the same original word is used; but it would not sound well to read, forgive him thy cloak also. The meaning is, suffer him to take thy cloak also! Thus falls the first witness.

Again: "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy; HE WILL NOT ALWAYS CHIDE; NEITHER WILL HE KEEP HIS ANGER FOREVER!! He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.". Ps. ciii. 8, 12. This is another instance of hyperbole, such as we noticed in the commencement of the chapter. The remarks there made are applicable to this case also. Thus falls the second witness.

Great stress is laid upon the following: Jesus tarried in the house of a Pharisee. A woman which was a sinner, came and annointed his feet with ointment. The Pharisee saw it, and said within himself, This man if he were a prophet, would have known that this woman was a sinner. Jesus knew his thoughts, and proposed to him the following question: There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty: And when they had nothing to Which of them will

pay, he frankly forgave them both:

he love the most? The Pharisee answered, he to whom

he forgave most. Jesus approved of the answer, and said, Her sins which are many, are forgiven.

The fallacy of Mr. Hall's application of this case, consists in supposing the sinner owes something to God which he, on repentance, remits. If this is correct, we inquire, What does the sinner owe to God? Love and obedience? Does God remit that? No, that would never do. What then? Is it punishment the sinner owes to God? If so, it is very reasonable to suppose God would be willing to escape being punished, and hence would be quite likely to forgive the sinner! The truth is, our author has planted his feet fast in his own snare, and the rope which he twisted for others will choke him to death. The woman owed nothing to God but love and obedience; and that Christ did not forgive. Neither did he forgive her the punishment of her sins, for that she had suffered. What then did he forgive? Christ himself answers: "Her SINS which are many, are forgiven"!! Thus falls the chief witness.

We conceive our case is clearly made out; and if the reader has an atom of intelligence, he will readily see the gross outrage which Mr. Hall daringly perpetrates on one of the plainest doctrines of the Bible! When a man utterly and most wickedly misrepresents the views of an opponent, he is answered in a few words.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

Want of space compels us to defer many subjects which we should be pleased to notice more at large. In concluding, we shall glance briefly at the remaining topics of our authors book.

Chapter VII, headed " Compunctions of conscience," is a single battery which admits of but one direction; and hence all we have to do to avoid the threatened ruin, is merely to step aside, and at once his mighty preparation becomes dead loss. He represents Universalists as teaching that all "the punishment God invariably inflicts upon the sinner, is mental anguish, or remorse of conscience"! This is all false, most utterly false! We are safe in saying, no well informed Universalist ever taught such a doctrine. His chapter of