The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1896-05-23

OUR Lord spoke this parable to
\ illustrate his doctrine of forgive

ness. REFER udu iH4uiiCV ~" Wv
his brother should trespass against
him and he should forgive him. The
disciples were instructed to forgive,
not seven times merely, but seventy
times seven,-i. e. indefinitely. They
were also taught that, except we for
give men their trespasses against us,
neither will the heavenly Father for
give our trespasses against himself.
Hence the religion of Jesus is en-
phatic as to the duty and virtue OF
forgiveness. forgiveness is uni
versal duty. And God himself is not
exempt from this duty under the
specified conditions, viz, that we for
give others. Is it not clear, therefore,
that if forgiveness meant the remls-
sion of penalty, and everybody ex-
ercised the virtue of forgiveness, in
Guiding God himself, then there
could be no possible imposition of
penalty, for everybody, and God too,
would be obliged to remit all penal
ties. Mankind might continue to do
wrong, but punishment would be out
of the question. Universal sin, fol-
lowed by universal forgiveness, would
result in universal exemption from
penalty. But instead OF this what
do we fnd9 The Bible declares the
fact of universal transgression. Jesus
teaches the duty of universal forgive
ness, and the whole Scriptures en-
phasize the certainty of universal
penalty. Hence it follows that for
giveness is the forgiveness OF sin, and
not the remission of penalty.
How, therefore, shall we interpret
the parable of the unforgiving SER
want? Does not this parable conflict
with the doctrine of the certainty OF
punishment Did not the king for
give the debt itself? And was not
his debtor to go free of all payment?
Was not the penalty of his indebted
ness to the king freely discharged?
Hence may we not say that the
penalty was not certain, but was
simply optional with the king and de-
pendent on his forgiveness or nonfor-
giveness7
Yes, all these things would seem to
be so if we accept the parable with
out reflection. In many cases the ap-
parent meaning of a portion OF
Scripture is not the real meaning. In
the first place it is false conclusion
that all debts are sins. Sin is the
transgression of the law. From the
dawn of civilization there has been
no law against contracted indebted
ness. Half the town may be indebted
on their homesteads, or in various
ways universally indebted to each
other. But is there any sin about
that? A thousand commercial men
having paper coming due at the
bank-are they financial sinners in
the eyes of the bank or of the law7
By no means. Every bank note which
we hold in our pockets shows that the
bank or the United States are in
debted to us in so much. Have they
therefore become sinners in our sight
because they are in our debts In all
the cases of lawful indebtedness
which | have named, has the creditor
anything to forgive? No, because
there has been no sin, no transgression
of laws or of custom. And If every
creditor in all these cases should for
give the debt in the sense OF relin-
gushing his claim, then ne would not
have forgiven sin in the Bible sense,
because no sin has been committed.
He would have performed simple
act of grace, of beneyolence toward
his debtors, not of forgiveness. And
men are not commonly bound to for
give debts that way. The Christian
religion does not require that we
should cancel every mans debts sim
ply because we are asked to do so.
The common rule between man and
man, and between God and men, is
Pay what thou owest. Hence it is
plain that all debts are not sinful.
And creditors are not bound to can
eel all Indebtedness simply because
the debtors pray for REIMBURSEMENT.
Let us turn now again to our para
BILE. There must be something in
the parable which illustrates the for
giveness of sin, because the forgive
ness of sin was the subject matter of
our Lords discourse. Now if we de-
sire to, discover what was forgiven,
we must first learn what was the sin
which needed forgiveness. Well,-it
was not the debt No occasion, there
fore, for that to be forgiven. There
is no intimation that the debtor had
done wrong in the accumulation of
the debt. He was one among many
who held offices of trust. And the