From all this it is plain, that no inference can be deduced from the above passage in proof of your tenets. But, Sir, there is a doctrine clearly taught by this example, and by the subsequent conduct of David, which is fatal to your view. We learn from it, that such temporal penalties inflicted for sin cannot be averted. Was the threatened punishment of David averted by his prayers, fastings, tears, prostrations, and other works of "satisfaction?" No! The child died. How vain therefore is it for you to imagine that such temporal penalties of sin can be averted! Observe too, that when temporal punishments were afterwards sent to David in the case of Absalom, and of the numbering of the people, he did not attempt to avert them by any works of satisfaction. He submitted to the Divine will, and his example is meant to teach us the duty of submission to all similar dispensations of God.

Tournely continues thus :

"In the same II Book of Kings [Samuel] c. xxiv, although God had pardoned David's sin, which "he had committed in numbering the people, yet "in verse 12, a remaining punishment is set forth "to be discharged, and he is given the option "of war, famine, or the plague." (Tournely, ibid.)

On this argument I must observe, first, that there is no evidence whatever that God had pardoned David's sin. It is true indeed that David "said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that "I have done; and now, I beseech thee, O Lord,

"take away the iniquity of thy servant : for I have "done very foolishly." But all we know of the result is, that God offered him the choice of three grievous penalties. There is not any allusion to God's having pardoned his sin when the penalty was inflicted. Consequently this passage does not relate to the question before us. If it did, however, if David's sin had been pardoned when the Prophet offered him the choice of war, pestilence, or famine, the conclusion would be fatal to your doctrine. The punishment was inflicted, and David instructed by the case of Uriah, that such punishments could not be averted by any works of satisfaction or penance, submitted himself to the Divine will.

Tournely continues : "In the 32d chapter of "Exodus, when Moses interceded with God not to destroy the whole people on account of their "crime in adoring the golden calf, God is said to

have been appeased verse 14, yet in verse 34 "God saith, 'Nevertheless, in the day when I visit "I will visit their sin upon them.'" (Ibid.)

In this case God evidently did not forgive the sin of the children of Israel, He only commuted the sentence of utter destruction which He had pronounced against that people for their idolatry, into chastisements of a different character, at the prayer and intercession of Moses. There is no evidence that the people repented and were forgiven their sin. On the contrary, the Lord said unto Moses, in reply to his entreaties for their forgiveness,

66

"Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I "blot out of my book." (verse 33.) And in sign of his wrath we find, that "the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron "made." (verse 35.) What advantage then can you derive from this passage? It is adduced to prove that sins pardoned are subject to temporal punishment. But the sin of the children of Israel here mentioned was not pardoned.

I return to Tournely. "In the 14th chapter of "Numbers, the Lord was angry at the murmuring "of the people, and was so appeased by the prayer "of Moses as to say, (ver. 20.) I have pardoned I according to thy word;' yet adds, (ver. 22.) All "those men which have seen my glory and my "miracles which I did . . . . shall not see the "land." (Ibid.)

In this case it is obvious, that the " pardon" granted by God did not imply the forgiveness of the sin committed, and the justification of those who had committed it, for He speaks of the congregation as those that "have tempted me now "these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice," (ver. 22.); "them that provoked me," (ver. 23.); "this evil congregation which murmur against me," (ver. 27.) He says, "Your little “ones .... shall know the land which ye have despised," (ver. 31.) "Each day for a year shall ye bear your iniquities," (ver. 34.) "I the Lord "have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil

congregation that are gathered together against me," (ver. 35.) Such is the language of God to the congregation of Israel after he had "pardoned" them, (ver. 20.) And it is plain therefore that this pardon was not a remission of their sin, but a remission of the immediate destruction by pestilence, and the disinheritance which God had threatened, (ver. 12.) The temporal punishments then with which they were visited, were not punishments of sin remitted-punishments of the justified. They were chastisements of unbelieving and impenitent sinners. Is this the interpretation of unaided human reason? Is it not the interpretation of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where speaking of those that fell in the wilderness in consequence of this Divine decree, he says, "To "whom sware he that they should not enter "into his rest, but to them that believed not? "So we see that they could not enter in because "of their unbelief," (Hebr. iii. 18, 19.) And is it this unbelieving, this impenitent, this evil congregation, that you would hold up as a proof that temporal penalties are inflicted on the believing and justified penitent?

66

I return to your proofs. "Add to these those places of Scripture in which just and holy men "declare that they are punished and afflicted in "this life for their sins,-doubtless past and already pardoned by God. Thus Tobias, c. iii. v. 4. "said, Because we have not obeyed thy com

mandments, therefore we have been delivered "for a spoil, and unto captivity, and unto death, "and for a proverb of reproach to all the nations among which we are dispersed. Deal not with "me according to my sins and my father's, &c.'" (Tournely, ibid.)

There is no evidence whatever that Tobias, in offering this prayer, believed that his sins had been pardoned. On the contrary, his prayer infers throughout, that he believed himself still subject to God's displeasure for sin, and to the punishment which resulted from it. He prays God "not to "punish him for his sins and ignorances," (ver. 3.) evidently supposing that he was still liable to the full measure of penalty due to them. This passage therefore cannot afford any support to your doctrine of a portion of the punishment due to sin remaining after the greater part of its penalties have been remitted, and after the sin has been remitted, and the sinner justified by the sacrament of Penance.

"In the third chapter of Daniel, v. 28. the "three children placed in the furnace say, · In "truth and in judgment thou hast brought on "us all these things, because of our sins,' &c. (Tournely, ibid.)

I might object to this passage at once, as an interpolation, and as forming no part of the word of God, because it is not found in the Hebrew original of the Book of Daniel. But it is needless