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


vested. He could not pay on de
mand. The king therefore COM
manded a foreclosure. After the
legal custom of those days, all the
debtors goods, his wife, children
and himself, were to be sold and pay
ment to be made. But the debtor,
falling down before his lord, begged
for patience. He plead for an extern
sion, and declared that he would pay
the uttermost farthing-he would
pay all.
Now, we are told plainly here in
! the English language that "The
lord of that servant was moved with
compassion, and loosed him and for
gave him his debt" And farther on
the king told the debtor and said,-
ooh, thou wicked servant! l forgave
all that debt because thou desiredst
me. Shouldest not thou also have
had compassion on thy fellow serv-
ant, even as l had pity on thee?"
Let us not delude our common
sense and stumble over the definition
of a word. Is it probable that the
king had compassion as here repre-
sented in our tongue? Does common
human nature settle debts that way?
Did mercy require that the debtor
should pay nothing because he can
not pay all? But compassion was
not asked on the ground of absolute
inability, but on the ground of i'm
mediate inability. The debtor did
not pretend that he could not pay at
all, but that he could not pay at once.
"Have patience with me and l will
pay thee ALL" And the king processes
to have had compassion according to
the debtors request. II forgave thee
all that debt because thou desiredst
me-" Can we discover any obliga-
ton on the kings part to do more
than the servant implored9 And if
he did no more, he did not cancel
the debt, because he was not asked
to do that.
But the climax of proof that the
king did not forgive the debt is
found in the fact that the king did
not cancel the debt-did not relin-
quish his claim. And this fact is
substantiated by the kings fresh de-
mand for his money as soon as he
heard of the debtors ill-behavior to
his fellow servant. If the claim had
been liquidated by royal prerogative,
how could a second demand have
been made?
We have no proof in the parable,
therefore, that when the king forgave
the debt he Cancelled the debt. The
servant did not implore him to relin-
quish his claim. And his lord ex-
pected the full payment on the exer-
else of that patience for which his
debtor prayed.
What, therefore, is the key to this
confusioni How shall it be made to
appear that the apparent meaning of
the parable is not the real meaninga
The proper word in the place of "for-
give" is the key to this confusion. The
king Excused" the debtors delin-
quency as to payment of the debt on
demand. That is, he forgave the real
sin of his servant,-viz want of
promptness on demand of payment.
The king wanted his money immedi-
ately. But when he discovered how
this haste would crush and ruin his
distracted subject, he said, swell, I
will excuse you as to the debt-the
whole debit will have patience
even as you desire. Adjust your af-
fairs and pay me at convenience"
This was compassion. This was the
mercy asked for.
Hence this parable does not prove
that the forgiveness of sin is a remis.
sion of the penalty of sin, because,
though we say the debt stands for
sin, there is no remission of the debt
in the parable. The debt was simply
compassionately held in allegiance to
be collected in the future. Hence we
have the certainty of collection. The
parable therefore teaches the forgive
ness of sin and the certainty of pun
ishment. The matter of it is, Pay
what thou owest.
But we have not yet reached the
primary and most important purpose
of the parable, to-wit,- God forgives
sin under an imperative and irrevoca-
BILE condition, viz: That we forgive
the sins of our brethren against our
selves. 1t appears that Jesus never
forgets, and God never forgets, the
universal fatherhood of the Deity.
Hence arevengeful spirit toward even
transgressors, is rebuked and chas-
tised as if it were ill-will to God him
self. The king was compassionate