The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-13
CAN SINNERS DEMAND
MERCY?

Adte aIelOle III your paper Will not seem 10 you
untimely. The article referred to, taken from
the New York Observer" appeared under the
caption, "Was God Bound to Make an Offer OF
Mercy' And Must the Door be Left Open after
Death ."
In substance. the writer seems to answer the
question first by the negative assertion that sin
does not need to be coupled with rejection of
offered mercy in order to Justify the infection of
penalty; secondly by the positive assertion that
sin is an absolute thing and that mercy is an
addendum only, grace giving the sinner pardon
despite the previous right of Justice to decree
against him.
In other words Lie is opposed to Truth, Devil
to God. Sin to the Albright Therefore if one
sin he antithesises himself to the Albright, and
by necessary law of Justice is guilty of wrong
and deserving of the penalty of this wrong. In
reply, therefore, to the How then shall God
judge the world?" let the answer be: Judge
him that doeth the absolute thing of wrong. an
enemy against God, and him that doeth the
Right lover of God. Mercy is an after-thought
with reference to the two relative absolutes Sin
and Right; then conscience defines them in the
breast and Eternal Justice Furnishes the one and
rewards the other. If a eection of Mercy were
necessary to the infection of the sn-penalty,
then Justice must needs ask in each case, has he
rejected Mercy. But the act of sin existed be-
fore the offering of Mercy, and had there not
already been sin there would now be no need
of Mercy, so that sin being necessary opposite
to Right must not be in any way COMPOUNDED
with that Mercy which follows, but must be re-
garded as punishable because OF its ant-God ele-
ments and not because one has in addition re-
jected atonement for this sin.
The above, tr"st is a fair development of
the writer's position, position it seems to me
in no wise luminous with proper distinctions
Suppose parent be wrecked by disease near
unto certain death The child has the seeds of
1t by inheritance. The parent has come to his
crisis Ignorant of skill that might have been
used for relief by imprudent life The parent
has acted to bring disease, the act itself has
been done, and his death is only the working
out of natural justice. But experience has
taught him that healing physician offered to
his child will save it. The physician is offered
the child rejects him and death here is natural
Justice But suppose the parent with the knowl-
edge of the healing power of the physician had
yet failed to give the child the chances of re-
ceiving him the child would have died, but
would Justice have been fully worked out? In
the death of the child. ignorant of help, would
have gone hand in hand the injustice of the pa
rent in failing to offer help that he knew would
save. So with regard to the first sin. Right
and Wrong were before the actors they took
the Wrong and received Justly the Death-curse :
generations received into them the faint of sin ::
rNby j
of his mediation we, despite of intuitiye convic-
tons of Sin and Right, yet choose sin and die
the Adam-cursed death. We have sin inst as
surely as did the first parents, but might we not
have chosen to take the means of healing that
sin, had we known of the physician of the
Cross Therefore, we say of death accom-
panied by an ignorance of power that might
have prevented it, that in truth 1T is the result
of sin, but, nevertheless, that Justice was not
fully carried out in depriving the subject of
aught that might have saved. To whom must
we look for knowledge of this physician to the
ALl-Just therefore, if without knowledge of
mediation our death would be unjust, can it be
possible that any CNn be allowed to die without
this knowledge. God beng adjust?
Adams sin was different from ours his con-
tanned two elements, Right and Wrong, with no
saving grace ours contains three elements,
Right, Wrong, and Christ. Christ stands be-
tween the two extremes, and the adjust God
will not allow us to walk into death without
first giving us the privilege of taking the saving
hand of Him whose mission was to save sinners
In our humble opinion, therefore, while we
may absolutely Sia without knowledge of Mercy,
yet we may not fatally sin without this knowl-
edge. We do not deem it fair objection to
say, if one class may plead that they have not
had decisive probation, another may do the
same" and again, that q" second probation
implies third and that fourth, and so on H.
definitely" There can be no question of the
decisveness of the probation in Christ: for
Christ is Christ to all nor can there any more
be a second probation for, as a Mediator, Christ
il first and last.
Answer
There is so much erroneous and crude
opinion on this subject that we publish
the above in order to make the matter
plain as it really exists. There is great
confusion of thought in the minds of a
great many people about Adam s sin and
the guilt Of his descendants. We are not
surprised at it, for it is deep and diff
fcult subject Deep and mysterious al