Page images
PDF
EPUB

my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" adding, soon after, as in Psalm xxxi. 5, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Thus He, who had

not the Spirit by measure-whose wisdom was infinite-and who spake as man never yet spake, when sorrows came upon Him, and death was close at hand, sought comfort in these inspired writings, and at last breathed forth His soul in David's words rather than in His own.

Nothing, surely, could convey to our minds a higher idea of any book, or give us stronger reasons for using it and meditating on its contents. It cannot, however, have escaped your notice that these Psalms, the compositions of holy men (for they were not all composed by David), and containing admirable lessons of piety, have many severe expressions against the wicked, and every kind of bad wishes or imprecations against enemies. For example, as in the words of my text, where David prays for his own safety and his enemies' defeat: "Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul; let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt. Let them be as chaff before the wind; and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way be dark and slippery; and let the angel of the Lord persecute them." And again in Psalm lxxi. 13: "Let them be confounded and consumed that are adversaries to my soul; let them be covered with reproach and dishonour that seek my hurt." These and similar passages have

again and again perplexed the pious reader of God's Word. Have you, my brethren, ever felt surprise at an apparent inconsistency, in this particular, between different portions of the Bible, which, having been dictated by the same Holy Spirit, must prove harmonious in what it teaches?

Those who are anxious to find the Gospel a "cunningly devised fable" gladly seize on this and similar imaginary discrepancies, in order to bring discredit upon a system which they do not choose to follow. The pious have often stumbled at passages of this kind; and unbelievers have gone even so far as to assert that the book which varies so greatly in its contents, and inculcates such opinions as those set forth in the text, is not inspired, and should be totally disregarded. This, then, being the case, I propose to devote the present opportunity to a brief explanation of the meaning of these violent and angry passages; to prove to you that in the doctrine of forgiveness the Old Testament does not in any wise contradict the New; and, with the assistance of Divine grace, which alone maketh human efforts effective, to show that, since the doctrine emanates from both Testaments, enforced by Prophets, preached by Apostles, commanded by Jesus Christ Himself, and also strikingly exemplified in His life and conversation-that, since it comes before us with sanctions so weighty and awakening, we must each one of us carefully put in practice what is plainly taught. May God, "without whom

nothing is strong, nothing is holy," and who is pleased, when He thinks good, to render useful the very feeblest instrument, bless what may be said, to the welfare of our souls!

Now, let us clearly understand the object I have in view.

ment.

Finding in Psalms xxxv., lxxi., lxxxiii., and elsewhere, certain angry and revengeful sentences, while in the New Testament we are commanded to forgive freely, else we shall never be forgiven our manifold trespasses by our heavenly Father, I wish to prove to you that nevertheless there is no disagreeThis indeed may appear at first sight somewhat paradoxical; yet hear me patiently; and I trust you will agree with me in thinking that, as the Holy Spirit enlightened the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Evangelists of the New, so sincere and universal charity is recommended and enforced under both dispensations. Our Saviour, it is true, has said: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John xiii. 34.) But the moral law had already commanded men to "love their neighbours themselves." (Lev. xix. 18.) He therefore implied that reciprocal and special love of believers to each other, of which He spake, and which was now to be explained with new clearness-enforced by new motives and obligations -illustrated by a new example-obeyed in a new manner. It was in this sense "a new commandment."

But here, again, I can imagine your surprise, when you call to mind what our Saviour said to His disciples in the Sermon on the Mount: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." (Matt. v. 38-43.) Do you infer from these words that it was Christ's intention to repeal an old law, and to substitute one of a milder character; and therefore that retaliation and revenge were actually permitted by the Divine law as delivered by Moses? You need not draw any inference of the kind; inasmuch as I can show that no such law ever existed amongst the Jews, except so far as it was introduced by their "vain traditions;" by which, indeed, as we are told on the highest authority, they had made the law of God in many respects of 66 none effect." The hardness and corruption of their hearts had made many unauthorized changes; and, with regard to that precept which we find in Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, the unauthorized change is manifest. We there read that Moses commanded "breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." But the context shows that private revenge never was in the lawgiver's contemplation; that in every case where this principle of retribution was to be applied, legally-appointed judges were to ascertain the nature of the offence, and public officers to execute the sentence. Thus, tradition (that fruitful source of error in ancient as in modern days) had

dared to add to this law what nullified its good effect; teaching, in addition, that men might individually hate their enemies, provided they loved their friends; and that each man should decide his own cause, and carry his own sentence into execu⚫tion. What a sad perversion! To condemn it, and to set His followers right, our Saviour delayed not, as His words already quoted so clearly prove.

This removes the objection which I assumed on your part, in order to refute it. Let me now show that the temper of mind which the Gospel inculcates, as essential to the Christian character, has been as strongly recommended in the Old Testament. And, for the sake of brevity, I will refer only to three passages, in three different writers of three distinct periods—namely, Moses, Job,* and Solomon. They believed, and they taught, that "vengeance belongeth only unto God;" that enemies must be forgiven; and that evil must be recompensed with good.

To ascertain what Moses would have men to practise, I refer you to Exod. xxiii. 4, 5, where these words appear: "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with

This is upon the supposition that Job himself was author of the book, or of the greater portion of the book, that bears his name.

« PreviousContinue »