The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-07-06

agree. The old thought and the new
would agree that all this is implied
in repentance, though the old thought
sometimes treats repentance as
though it were all summed up in sor-
row for sin. But in its relation to
punishment there is a radical distinc
ton between the old thought and the
new. In the old thought repentance
is means of escaping punishment.
You repent in order to avoid being
punished. After you have sinned, a
time for repentance is granted, and
if you do not repent you are punished,
but if you do repent you are not pun
ished at all. Timely repentance
saves you from all punishment. Re.
pentance therefore is not the result
of punishment but the means of escap-
ing punishment. The new thought
reverses all this. 1t puts repentance
after punishment and not before.
Punishment is means of repentance
and is never inflicted because we
don't repent. Punishment is the
consequence of sin and not of non
repentance. There is no time for re-
pentance between sin and its punish
ment, but punishment begins as soon
as the sin is committed and continues
until repentance is produced. Pun
ishment is inflicted to produce re-
pentance, therefore it never ceases
until repentance is produced. Re-
pentance therefore is the result of
punishment and always follows it and
is never a means or way of escap-
ing it.
Forgiveness.
There is a radical difference also be-
tween the old thought and the new,
on the subject of forgiveness. In the
old thought forgiveness always means
the remission of punishment. The
forgiveness of sin in this thought
means the remission of the punish
ment due sin. To forgive sin is to
remit the punishment of sin.
According to this thought, sin and
punishment do not stand to each
other as cause and effect, but pun
ishment is an arbitrary penalty in
flicted in the next world. If we die
without repentance this penalty is in
ficted, but if we repent before we die
this penalty is remittedk and the re-
mission of this penalty is the forgive
ness of sin.
The new thought changes all this.
1t holds that sin and punishment
stand to each other as cause and ef-
feet SO that if you sin punishment is
inevitable. There is no escaping the
retributive consequences of wrong
doing. Hence there is no forgiveness
of punishment. Further, punishment
is means of repentance; it is infict-
ed to producer repentance; hence it
cannot be remitted. To remit it
would be to stop the workings of the
grace of God through punishment, to
the salvation of the soul.
Still further punishment precedes
repentance and comes to an end be
fore forgiveness begins. Punishment
produces the condition we call repen-
tance and it's work is done. Having
caused the sinner to sincerely repent,
it has accomplished its purpose and
has nothing more to do in his case.
Now he is an object of mercy; now he
is a subject for forgiveness. Punish
ment and repentance having done
their perfect work, forgiveness takes
him in hand. 1t covers or takes
away his sin, makes him conscious of
the restored love and favor of God
and gives peace to his soul. Forgive
ness therefore has nothing to do with
punishment, it deals exclusively with
the sin. 1t blots out the remembrance
of it and restores the lost peace and
harmony.
Salvation.
Again the old thought and the new
are wide apart on the nature of sal
vation. According to the old thought
salvation consists in escaping place
of punishment after death and en-
trance into one of safety and happi-
ness. Gospel salvation is deliverance
from the threatened penalty of the
law, endless suffering, by securing the
promised reward of obedience, end
less happiness.
In the new thought salvation is a
condition of goodness and conse-
quentlY, blessedness. 1t is not es-
cape from any place of punishment or