be proved that a fallen personal angel, once a holy angel in heaven-represented as being bound in chains of darkness, yet roaming abroad through the whole earth like a roaring lion-can it be proved that such a being is the tempter of men's lusts? No NEVER! Let him who thinks the contrary, try a hand at it, and learn a lesson from inevitable defeat.

In conclusion we will lay before the reader some facts showing that the term devil was not used by Scripture writers to signify a personal being or a fallen angel.

Shaitan, the word rendered Satan in the Old Testament, occurs thifty-three times. It is applied to a well, to an angel of the Lord, a good being, to David, to the sons of Zeruiah, to the enemies of Solomon, to the evil passion or desire of David's own mind, to a piece of writing, etc., etc. Never once does it signify a personal fallen angel.

Diabolos, the word rendered devil in the New Testamont, occurs thirty-six times. It is translated devil thirty-three times, twice false accusers, and once slanderers. Donegan renders diabolos thus: an accuser a calumniator. Greenfield the same. Had the term been rendered by words that properly define it, no one would ever have dreimed that it was used to signify a fallen angel. In every text that our author has quoted, let the reader substitute either of the following words→→→ Slanderer, accuser, calumniator, opposer, enemy, or adversary, and he cannot fail of understanding them in their true sense.

Daimon and Daimonian.

These words are also ren

dered devil or devils in the New Testament: the first occurs five times, the second, sixty. Daimonion is al

ways used in reference to possessions-see those passages where Jesus is said to have cast out devils-and it should be understood that the demons by which men were said to be possessed, were a very different order of beings from the Devil or Satan, properly so called.No person is ever, in the New Testament, said to be possessed of ho diabolos the devil!

We recommend to those who wish to examine the subject further, Balfour's 2d Inquiry, Univ. Book of Ref.

20

FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

NO WHERE in the inspired writings does such a phrase occur as forgiveness of punishment. The gospel forgiveness is always the forgiveness of Sins. Hence the punishment of sin is always represented as UNAVOIDABLE and CERTAIN !

The language of the Scriptures on this point is very explicit: "Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished." Prov. xi. i. "The soul that sinneth it shall die. But if the wicked turn from all his sins and do that which is lawful and right he shall surely live, he shall not die-IN HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS that he hath done he shall live." "Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous SHALL NOT deliver him in THE DAY of transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in THE DAY that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in THE DAY that he sinneth"! Ex. xviii. 20. xxxiii. 12. Thus, though God will forgive on a return of the transgressor to obedience, yet so long as he continues in transgression, he is inevitably subject to that condemnation or death, which is the just portion of the disobedient. Take other examples: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," Gal. vi. 7. "Who will render to every man according to his deeds," Rom. ii. 6. "Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderests unto every man according to his deeds," Ps. lxii. 12. "For God shall

bring EVERY WORK into judgment, whether it be GOOD, or whether it be EVIL"! Eccl. xii. 14.

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 it 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!

66

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 expression, 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, according 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