Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

own principle," as though they had been what they vainly imagined themselves, sinless men, who needed no Saviour, in directing them to his precepts, the observance of which he knew utterly impossible, and in holding out promises* of eternal salvation as the necessary consequence of their obedience to those sayings? Were we to follow the mode of interpretation adopted in this instance by the Editor, the Bible would serve only to suit our convenience, and would not be esteemed any longer as a guide to mankind; for, according to the same mode of interpretation, would it not be justifiable to explain Matt. xxviii. 19, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c., that Jesus took his apostles 66 upon their own principle," as firmly persuaded to believe in the sanctification attainable by the baptism introduced by John the Baptist, although he was aware that immersion in water could produce no effect in changing the state of the heart?

In reply to his question, "Did Jesus, who knew the hearts of all, regard this lawyer as perfectly sinless, an exception to all mankind?" (page 9,) I must say, that the context seems to me to shew that neither Jesus considered the lawyer to be a sinless, perfect man, (as is evident from his directing him to the Scriptures for a guide to salvation-" Do this, and thou shalt live," and "Go and do thou likewise,") nor did the lawyer vainly imagine himself

* Matt. vii. 24, 25.

"a sinless man who needed no Saviour," though he endeavoured to put the claim of Jesus to that title to the proof, in these words, " Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Although I declared in the Second Appeal, (page 150,) that by the term "law," in the verse "If righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain,” all the commandments found in the books of Moses are understood, yet the Reverend Editor charges me with an unintelligible expression, and intimates his inability to ascertain whether I meant by "law," the ceremonial or the moral part of the books of Moses. (Page 507.) I therefore beg to explain the verse more fully, that the Reverend Editor may have an opportunity of commenting upon it at large. St. Paul, knowing the efficacy of the perfection introduced by Jesus into the law given by Moses, declares, that had the system of the Mosaical law been sufficient to produce light among the Jews and Gentiles, without being perfected by Jesus, this attempt made by Christ to perfect it would have been superfluous, and his death, which was the consequence of his candid instructions, would have been to no purpose.

The Editor notices frequently my expression of the neglect of duty on the part of man to the Creator and to his fellow-creatures; nevertheless, he fills up more than two pages in proving this point. He has not, however, attempted to counteract the force of the passages I quoted in both of my Appeals,

shewing that the guilt occasioned by the want of due obedience to the precepts in question may be pardoned through repentance, prescribed by the author of those precepts as the sure and only remedy for human failure. I therefore beg to ask the Editor to give a plain explanation of the following passages, selected from my Appeals, that the reader may be able to judge whether or not repentance can procure us the blessings of pardon for our constant omissions in the discharge of the duties laid down in the precepts of Jesus. Luke v. 32: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Does not Jesus here declare a chief object of his mission to be the calling of sinners to repentance? Luke xxiv. 47: "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." Did not Jesus by this commandment to his disciples declare the remission of sins as an immediate and necessary consequence of repentance? In Luke xiii. 3, "Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish," the indispensability of repentance for the forgiveness of sins is explicitly declared. Is not also the mercy of God illustrated by the example of a father forgiving the transgressions of his son through his sincere repentance alone, in the parable of the Prodigal Son? Those who place confidence in the divine mission of Jesus, or even in his veracity, will not hesitate, I trust, for a moment, to admit that Jesus has directed us to sincere repentance as the only means of procuring pardon, knowing the inability of

men to give entire obedience to his precepts; and that Jesus would have recommended the lawyer, whom he directed to righteousness, to have recourse to repentance" had he gone and sincerely attempted" to obey his precepts, "watching his own heart to discern those constant neglects of the duty he owed to the Creator and to his fellow-creatures," and then applied to Jesus for the remedy of his discerned imperfections.

I find abundant passages in the Old Testament also representing other sources than sacrifices, as sufficient means of procuring pardon for sin. Psalm li. 17: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ezekiel xviii. 30: " Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin." Prov. xvi. 6: "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged,

and by the fear of the

Isaiah i. 18:
Isaiah i. 18: "Come

Lord men depart from evil." now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

To shew the inefficacy of repentance to procure pardon, the Editor appeals to human justice, which, as he says, "inquires not about the repentance of the robber and murderer, but respecting his guilt. The law, indeed, knows no repentance." (Page 506.) I therefore wish to know whether or not human justice suffers an innocent man to be killed to atone for

the guilt of theft or murder committed by another? It is, at all events, more consistent with justice, that a judge who has the privilege of shewing mercy, should forgive the crimes of those that truly feel the pain and distress of mind inseparable from sincere repentance, than that he should put an innocent man to death, or destroy his own life, to atone for the guilt of some of his condemned culprits.

« AnteriorContinuar »