Page images
PDF
EPUB

said, because that, when David heard the parable from the mouth of the prophet, he exclaimed, as the Lord liveth, this man is guilty of death; and therefore Nathan said, according to thine own verdict, thou hast decided and confessed that thou art guilty of death; but the Lord, in decreeing concerning thee, hath put away thy sin, so that thou shalt not die; for he hath not decreed against thyself, that thou shouldst die; but only against thy sons, and thy wives; and this he hath done, because all things are from him, and through him; and because he hath a tenderness for thee before the decree. The words, therefore, of the text, "the Lord also hath put away thy sin," are not to be expounded as consequent on the confession, but as antecedent to this, and as taking place at the time of the decree, when death was not awarded him, because the Lord had a tender re gard for him. Indeed it is evident, that the confession and repentance of David did not remove those punishments which had been awarded against him; though, by virtue of his repentance, his iniquities were expiated, and he was rescued from the hands of Absalom, and returned to his kingdom.' Com. in loc.

"Now, if any deference is to be paid to the authority of Abarbinel, the pardon which David obtained by the mouth of the prophet was not in consideration of his sorrow and repentance, but of that exuberant kindness which he had shown him from God; for, though the same author hath subjoined, that, by virtue of this repentance, his iniquities were forgiven him, it can only be meant that the blood of atonement was thereby rendered efficacious to the purgation of his guilt, as he lived under the Mosaic economy, and availed himself of that great day of atonement, of which the Jew, ever since the destruction of the temple, has been wholly deprived.

"There is not, indeed, in the whole volume of Scripture, any evidence, either direct or indirect, that remission of sins. was, under any age of the world, to be obtained by contri

tion and repentance. During the patriarchal dispensation we read of sacrifices having been offered for the purpose, as is reasonably supposed, of appeasing the wrath of God, and of conciliating his favor; but nowhere do we read that the efficacy of repentance was such as to be a substitute for sacrifice. In the Mosaic dispensation there was no atonement without the shedding of blood; on the contrary, it was by virtue of his oblation only, and not by his sorrow and contrition, that the pardon of the culprit was obtained, and his guilt obliterated. Nor have the prophets affirmed any thing to the prejudice of this doctrine. Their frequent calls to repentance are not to be understood of mere invitations to the people to reflect on their ways, and to be sorry for what was past; but as strenuous exhortations to the strict and punctual discharge of the ritual, as well as of the moral precepts; a considerable part of which consisted in the due and regular performance of sacrifice for sin and transgression. R. Saul Ben R. Arjeleb has attested the truth of this position in more places than one. These are his words: For it is evident there is no atonement except by blood.' Binyan Ariel, fol. 30. Again, in another preceding column of the same work, there is no ground of atonement except by blood.' Thus we find the Jew and the Christian maintaining the same language; that by sacrifice only, and nothing else, can sin be canceled and guilt obliterated.

"Indeed, that repentance is no ground of atonement, though highly pleasing to God in our fallen and sinful condition, and even necessary to the right performance of every sacrifice, is demonstrable on the authority of the Talmud, which inculcates, that for all transgressions, not legally expiated by instant sacrifice, the culprit, however intense or sincere his repentance might be, could obtain no pardon till the great day of atonement; that, for certain sins of a flagrant complexion, it was wholly unavailable; and that, for others of a trivial nature, it was absolutely unnecessary. For every violation of the divine law, and for all sins whatever,

committed against God, the victims slain on the great day of atonement, together with the emissary goat, made a full and sufficient expiation of themselves, except in one or two cases, in which it would have been highly presumptuous on the part of the offender to expect any atonement, without the most unfeigned repentance accompanying the expiation; and in matters of wrong between one man and another, where, to render the atonement of any avail, restitution and satisfaction were first to be made.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

That this is a correct statement of the manner in which remission of sins was obtained under the Mosaic dispensation, is apparent from the Mishna, Masecheth, Shebuoth, Perek I. Moreover, for the willful defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things, the goat which was disposed of within, and the day of atonement, made expiation; but for the other trangressions detailed in the law, whether light or heavy; whether committed in wantonness or in ignorance; whether with the knowledge of the thing eaten, or without the knowledge of it; whether against an affirmative or negative precept; whether amounting to the penalty of excision, or of death inflicted by the sanhedrim; the emissary goat makes expiation.'

"In this place there is no mention of the repentance of the culprit as a condition of the atonement being accepted, much less, according to the Jews of the present age, is its efficacy asserted to be of such avail as to procure for the offender the remission of his guilt without the medium of a sacrifice. Seeing, then, that for several gross sins repentance is denied to be of any avail; that for others of a less enormous complexion it is not thought necessary; and that, even in those few cases where it cannot be dispensed with, it sustains not the character of an atoning medium, but is merely the condition on which the expiatory sacrifice becomes efficacious; I am authorised (saith Mr. Oxlee) to contend, that the modern Jewish doctrine of repentance being self-sufficient for the expiation of all sin and transgression, is at variance with

the Scriptures, as well as with the Talmud; and has every appearance of having been dictated by the exigency of the circumstances in which the Jew is now placed, without any regard whatever to the real principles of Judaism. I cannot, therefore, but come to a very opposite conclusion with yourself on this important point; that it would imply mutability in the Supreme Being, were the Jews to expect that the most sincere contrition and repentance could now procure for them, whilst languishing under a state of punishment, the remission of their sins; when they could not obtain it, on such easy terms, whilst living in their own land, and enjoying the privileges of the Mosaic dispensation."

Farewell.

Letter XV.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Dear Benjamin,

§ 6. To return to our subject. It is unreasonable to expect that the most sincere repentance should be able to expiate for sin. Bare grief for an offence is not a compensation for an injury done to man, much less for affronts offered to God. Besides, it is not in the power of man truly to repent. What stone was ever seen to melt itself? No more can man break himself into true contrition. Is not captive man fond of his sin, and in love with his chains? And how can he, by nature, attain that which is so contrary to what he is by nature mightily delighted with? True repentance includes an ingenuous sorrow for sin past, and a sincere forsaking of it. Godly sorrow is accompanied with

a change in heart and life; respects the stain more than the punishment of sin; and arises from love to God, who is disobeyed and dishonored by it. Man's nature must first be changed before he can thus repent; but such a change cannot take place before a satisfaction is made: for it is not reasonable that the punishment of sin, which was a spiritual as well as eternal death, and consisted in leaving the soul under the power of those ill habits it had contracted, should be taken off till some satisfaction were made. Man can no more free himself from this spiritual death, than he can free himself from the death of the body; and we have no reason to think that God would do it before a satisfaction was made, for the law he had enacted would be broken by himself.

§ 7. Neither is any man able to make satisfaction by reformation or future obedience. This is evident from man's inability to come up to the demands of the law. To be sinners, and to be without strength, are one and the same. Rom. 5:6, 8. God requires an obedience to the law, not according to our measure, but according to his own righteousness, which is perfect; and this no sinful creature can arrive at of himself. We have already shown that our obedience must be universal, perfect, free from all sin, and perpetual. Every divine command must be obeyed, and none neglected. Our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, who did many things, but neglected the weightier matters of the law. The curse of God stands in full force against all those "who continue not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." Gal. 3: 10. If one command is laid aside, all our obedience will prove insufficient to justify us. As our obedience must extend to every command, so the obedience of every command must be perfect. It must have regard to thoughts, words, and actions. Saul of Tarsus thought himself perfectly righteous till he found, it is written, "Thou shalt not covet," which convinced him that the law requires purity of thought, or heart, as well as of life. It is equally necessary that our

« PreviousContinue »