The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-03 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN.

Mit. Eterrott—lt is a great disadvantage at
tending the present modes of worship add instruc

lion in all Christian Churches, excepting only
among the Quakers, that the congreg►►tion have
no opportunity for reply in matters of doctrine,
petitioning, or precept ; and that however un-
just, or erroneous, the opinions of the preacher
may be in reality, all that he says must be re-
ceived as an ipso dixit, to be heard, but not
replied to, so that it is no wonder to see thou-
sands become sectarians, and wander from one
sect to another, from the mere tingling of the
ears under ruthless and unpleasant preachers,
especially such as deal in damnation like mer-
chandize, and think that the wore abundant
torrent they can pour out, the more zealous ser-
vants they are of• a great and good God. Not
to be condemned of being wholly speechless,
however, I shall beg of you, as the only means
left me, just to venture a word or two in reply
to an attack directly personal, whether intended
to be so or not, through the medium of your
Paper. The subject is Forgiveness.

July, 1825.

Your's
A CONSTANT READER.

To the Rev. , Afternoon Preacher at --Chapel.
" SIR—I need not tell you, for you must know
very well, that there is often something more
than a mere gossip of unfriendly feelings, when
a pulpit reproof appears to strike home to any
particular individual in a congregation. And as
the apparently random manner in which the
attack is made, the drawing of a how at a yen-
tore, admits only of a Partition answer, a kind of
flying fight, you must excuse being cited before
a tribunal thus constituted. I give you full
credit for intending to settle the differences of
opponents; but you must excuse my not being
in the same haste with yourself to comply with
your admonition. The sudden, and therefore
superficial, healing that you recommend is un-
worthy the little dignity and discretion that
remain to us ; for even in the age of mi-
racles the heart was never known to be
changed, save once or twice, from folly to
wisdom, or from badness to goodness, as you
would have it, in the twinkling of an eye. I
have a word or two therefore to say about for-
giveness, which I expect of you, first of all, to set
me right about. In the first place Ido not as-
sent to the received translation of your text. The
Greek stands thus, ex(pEc ru4v va 0d)E0021.4x7a.
oic xxt 7;thstc ccOst,t.sy 'Talc ocf)EcAiiatc qty.:v. I shall
confine myself to the words acbss og,ElAqhala. and
ws xac.

The word acPEc does not mean " forgive," ac-
cording to the received sense of that word ; but,
dismiss. To dismiss sins, is not to prevent the
effects of sin, which must needs happen ; but to
remove from the heart the sin or guilt that pro-
duced them, a4Ecev7at Tot ai ap,a7tai is ren-
dered, thy sins be forgiven thee. But it is asto-
nishing to me, how even to this day, to remove
sin, has never been distinguished from removing
the effects of sin. Now I cannot call to mind
that we are any where commanded to remove the
effects of sin, but the sin or cause of those ef.
fects: and there is nothing more true than that
the same cause, under similar circumstances,
must always produce the same effect, VI sow
L.UY.OVCOEfOY, not as our translation has it," which
is easier ;" but, " which is the better work, to
" say, thy sins be dismissed thee, or to say, arise
" and walk." Obviously the first ; for to say
arise and walk is merely to say the effect of sin
has ceased, but the root of sin itself remains; but
to say, thy sins be dismissed thee, is to assure
me that not only the effects of sin, but the very
cause of those effects, the sin itself, is rooted up.
Oqbvskwala is literally things that ought to be,
that are not, and not debts or trespasses, in the
common acceptation of those words ; a+if ,ra
4.siXri.a7a therefore is, remove our defects, and
not forgive our trespasses, which are merely the
consequences of those defects. And this inter-
pretation seems to me to stand to reason. For if
it were merely forgiveness that were meant, and
that forgiveness merely restricted to debts of
money and so forth, this part of the prayer, as
far as property and temporals were concerned, I
must have been wholly inapplicable to the pri-
mitive Jewish Christians among themselves.—
For we are told that they had all things in com-
mon ; and therefore one man could not be in
debt to another; so that for them to have prayed
" Forgive us our debts as we forgive others,"
and by debts I understand the consequences of
sin, and not sin itself, but here money matters
would have been absurd, seeing that having de-
nied all private right of property they could have
had no debts to forgive ; and yet it was expressly
for these very men, the disciples of Jesus, that
the prayer was made. And this brings me to
object to your remark that the text was given to
the Jews, because they were a revengeful pee
pie; for it was not given to the Jews, but to the
disciples of Jesus, and as St. Luke informs us
at the solicitation of one of the disciples them-
selves, who. were no longer Jews, but Christians.
Of the words tti- xai 1 shall merely say that
our translation omits the >cal entirely, the inser-
tion of which would alter the sense of the pas- I
sage; and that St. Luke has 'cat yap submitted
for them, which our translation has, " for also,"
but vs hick I should prefer rendering, perhaps, ,