he begins:—“May it be acceptable in thy presence, O Lord, my God, and
the God of my fathers, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth; the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great God,
mighty and tremendous; to send me the holy and pure angels, who are
faithful ministers, and faithful in their message; and who are desirous
and willing to justify Israel; and also the great angel Patzpatziah, who
is appointed to present the merits of Israel, when they sound the cornet
this day; and likewise the great angel Tashbach, who is appointed to
declare the merits of Israel, and confound Satan with their sound of the
cornet; and the great princes, who are appointed over the cornet,
Enkatham and Pastam, and the great angels, Hadarniel and Sandalphon, who
are appointed over our sounding, who introduce our sounding before the
throne of thy glory; and also the angel Shamshiel, who is appointed over
the joyful sound; and the angel Prasta, who is appointed to superintend
קש׳׳רק that they may all be expeditious in their errand; to introduce
our soundings before the veil, and before the throne of thy glory; and
mayest thou be filed with mercy over thy people Israel; and lead us
within the temperate line of strict justice; and conduct thyself towards
thy children, with the attribute of mercy, and suffer our soundings to
ascend before the throne of thy glory.” (Prayers for the New Year, p.
81.) Here, then, we have, in the language of solemn prayer, the very
same monstrous doctrine, that the sounding of the cornet on the new year
can change God’s determinations; and we have it in even a more
objectionable form, for it is connected with other most unscriptural
superstitions. This prayer asserts what is nowhere found in Holy
Scripture, that there is a certain number of angels whose express office
it is to superintend the blowing of the horn, and to bear the soundings
thereof before the throne of God, and at the same time to advocate their
merits. In the first place, this is a pure invention, and a fond
superstition. In the Word of God, not one word is mentioned of anything
of the kind. We should be sorry to treat any religious tenet of any
people, but especially of the Jews, with ridicule, but we cannot help
asking the good sense of every reader, whether the representation here
given is not in the highest degree ridiculous? The angels are to be sent
down from heaven. For what purpose? Is it to warn men of the impending
wrath of God, or to announce the coming redemption of Israel, or to
execute God’s judgments? No, but to attend to the blowing of a ram’s
horn, and to carry up the sounds before the throne of God, that they may
turn his attribute of judgment into that of mercy. Is it necessary,
then, for the angels to interfere in this matter? cannot God hear the
sounding of the cornet, unless it be conveyed to him by angels? or do
the movings of his compassion depend upon the blowing of a cornet? What
would Elijah have said to such doctrine as this? When the priests of
Baal only cried aloud, he mocked them, and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a
God; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.” (1 Kings xviii. 27.) And
yet the priests of Baal were not sounding a cornet, that they might
rouse their pretended Deity to compassion. If we had not read this
prayer with our own eyes, we could scarcely have believed that even
Rabbinism itself could have fallen into such manifest absurdity. But the
subject is far too grave to be treated with levity. Upon this absurdity,
the rabbies teach Israel to rest their hope of salvation. Conscious that
the hope of justification by merit is fallacious, and yet unwilling to
give up what is so palatable to the pride of man, they seek about to
find something that will compensate for the deficiency, and in the
eagerness of desperation grasp at any thing. The trivial ceremony of
blowing the cornet was therefore turned into a mystery, and a suitable
apparatus of angels invented to meet the apprehensions of the
superstitious and unenlightened, and in some degree to take off the
apparent irrationality of believing that an act so insignificant should
effect a change so great in the purposes of the Almighty. But whatever
was the motive or the origin of this fable, there it now stands in the
prayers of the synagogue, to lead the ignorant away from the true means
of justification, and the true ideas of God’s justice and God’s
judgment. Let no man say it is an innocent error. No error is innocent.
Error in every form is pernicious; in religion it is deadly. And the
most mischievous of all religious errors are those which confirm men in
the idea, that external ceremonies will atone for moral delinquencies;
and this is precisely the tendency of the fable here noticed. An
ignorant and superstitious man, and there are many such in every
religion, finds in his Prayer-book that the blowing of the cornet can
change the attribute of judgment into the attribute of mercy: he
believes it to be true, not only because of the book where he finds it,
but because every man is glad to hear of a way of acceptance, which will
save the trouble of repentance and thorough change of heart and life. He
therefore perseveres through the year in the practice of those things
which his heart condemns, trusting that the blowing of the cornet will
set all straight, and thus he goes on from year to year until death
overtakes him hardened and impenitent, and he finds too late at the bar
of God, that he has been in fatal error. Upon whom then will the guilt
of such person’s destruction be charged? Not only upon those who
invented the falsehood, but on those also who sanction it, who leave it
in the Prayer-book, and thus practically teach the people superstition.
Every Jew who attends the worship of the synagogue is responsible in his
station and calling, for the error and falsehood which its prayers
propagate amongst the people. But at all events every person who
disbelieves this story of the angels carrying up the sounding of the
cornet, must grant that a system teaching such a method of salvation is
very unsafe; and that, as it grossly errs in this one article it is
suspicious in all. But besides the absurdity of this doctrine, we must
notice its inconsistency. The Prayer-book states that the blowing of the
cornet is necessary to the procuring of pardon; it therefore implies
that pardon is necessary, and therefore that Israel is guilty; what,
then, becomes of merits? If Israel can be justified by merits, the
blowing of the cornet is superfluous; for, in that case, all they want
is justice. Where a man can claim salvation because of all his good
deeds, he need not fear the attribute of righteousness, מדת הדין, and
does not want the attribute of mercy. But the moment that he
acknowledges his need of forgiveness, he confesses that he has no
merits. If, therefore, the Prayer-book be right in acknowledging sin and
praying for pardon, the oral law is wrong in teaching justification by
merits. One contradicts the other, and therefore they cannot both be
from God; and the man who believes both is guilty of renouncing his
reason. But the man who trusts his salvation to a system so inconsistent
with itself, is utterly devoid of wisdom. He is hazarding his eternal
welfare on the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself; who says
at one time, that a man can be saved by his merits, and at another time
that he has no merits that can stand the scrutiny of God’s righteous
judgment.
No. XXXV.
JUSTIFICATION.
The doctrine of justification by merits is agreeable, and seems very
reasonable, so long as a man can theorize, that is, so long as he is not
in earnest. But so soon as the prospect of death, or any other similar
circumstance, compels him to realize the act of Divine judgment upon
himself, it loses all its beauty and plausibility; the conscience is
unsatisfied by its consolations, and reason pronounces that the hope
built on merits is insecure. A solemn and earnest review of our past
years soon convinces, that our good deeds are but few, that our best
deeds are defiled by mixed motives; and, above all, that the love of God
has not been the heart’s dominant principle, and that, therefore, some
other mode of justification is absolutely necessary. The truth of this
statement is confirmed by the inconsistency of the oral law with itself.
The great principle of the oral law is, that the observance of any one
of its commands, purchases a certain quantity of merit, and that an
accumulation of these merits will, at last, constitute a sufficiency;
but when the solemn season of the New Year and the Day of Atonement
arrives, this sufficiency is found to be insufficient, and the alarmed
conscience eagerly looks round to find something, that may compensate
for the deficiency of merit. We have already noticed some of the
rabbinic inventions for this purpose, and now proceed to consider
another, and that is, _the merit of their progenitors_. One of the main
props of rabbinic hope is the righteousness of their forefathers, as may
be seen almost on every page of the Jewish Prayer-book, and as is
apparent in the following extracts:—
קשת רוח אשר הועקרה , רופאה לקץ תשעים כנתבקרה , שלחה פאורות ולא שקרה ,
תפן בנצרים אשר חוללו כהיום , ושלש עקרות שהפקדו בזה יום , תצדיק בצדקתם
מיחליך איום ׃
“She who was sorrowful when barren, was made to rejoice with good
tidings when ninety years of age; she then sent forth shoots that failed
not. Regard the merit of your ancestors who were born on this day, and
the three barren ones, who were visited on this day: justify, through
their righteousness, those who hope in thee, O Thou, who art
tremendous.” (Levi’s Prayer for the New Year, p. 61.)
And again—
את חיל יום פקודה , באימיו כל לחום לשקדה , גשים בו ברך ליקודה , דעם לישר
כעל מוקדה , היוצר יחד כסל נשפט , ושוע ודל בפלוס יושפט , זכר לא יעשה משפט
, חין ערכו יזכר במשפט , טרם כל מפעל חצב , יזם במחשבת צור חוצב , כאחור
וקדם בתוך נחצב , ליהב עליו כל המחצב , מנתו כהיום כח דושנה , נצר להחניט
לתשעים שנה , סוימה אות היות לשושנה , עבור לפניו בזה ראש השנה , פולצו
פרחיה בזה יום , צגתם פני כס איום , קול דבובם ירחישו כהיום , רוגשים להריע
למצוא פדיום , שעונים עליה בה להפקדה , שואגים בלהק דלתות לשקדה , תמוכים
בדשן שה עקידה , תשר אשר בו נפקדה ׃
“The fearful day of visitation is come, its dread goads all flesh; they
present themselves with bended knees; O may their repentance be
accounted as a burnt-offering. Thou who hast formed them judgest all
their thoughts: the rich and poor are all weighed in the balance;
_remember the merit of_ him who said, ‘Shall he not do justice?’ O,
remember the tenor of his prayer in judgment. Ere ought was created
didst thou purpose to ordain him the rock from whence the nation was to
spring; he was as the centre, the support of all creatures. His wife was
on this day endued with youth, to cause the branch to put forth at
ninety years of age; she was appointed as a sign to those who are
likened to the rose, who are to pass before thee in judgment on this New
Year’s-day. Her posterity tremble this day; when they stand before thy
terrible throne; they utter the voice of prayer this day; they assemble
to sound the cornet, that they may obtain redemption. _They depend on
her merit_ to be visited like her; their assemblies cry aloud and hasten
to enter into thy doors. They depend on the ashes of him who was bound
as a lamb,[30] with whom she was visited in the month Tishri.” (Ibid.,
p. 57.) The offering of Isaac is regarded as particularly meritorious,
and constantly urged as a plea for merit. Thus—
והסתכל באפרו של יצחק הצבור על גבי המזבח וזכור לנו עקדתו היום לזרעו של
יצחק ׃
“Attentively view the ashes of Isaac, heaped upon the altar;[31] and
remember this day unto his seed, his being bound on the altar.” (Ibid.,
p. 81.) And again—
סמוכים בצדקת אב היה אחד , נשענים בסבך יחיד ומיוחד , מובטחים בתם וביושר
אב אחד ׃
“They depend on the righteousness of the first patriarch, and rest on
the merit of the only peculiar Son, and are secure in the perfection and
rectitude of the father of the nation.” (Ibid., p. 105.)
These passages show plainly that, after all, the rabbies felt their own
doctrine of justification by merits very unsafe ground on which to build
their hope of salvation; and that they were glad to flee to merits more
adequate, which they hoped to find in the righteousness of their
ancestors. The modern Jews, who still adopt these prayers, profess to
entertain the same hope, and we therefore proceed to inquire, whether it
be built on a better foundation than that which they are compelled to
relinquish. We think that it is not; for, in the first place, the saints
of old, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though we revere them as pious and
holy men, were after all only sinful men like ourselves. They did not,
and could not, save themselves by their own righteousness, and if they
did not save themselves, it is folly to think that they can save us.
Abraham, though by the grace of God, the father of the faithful, was yet
in himself so weak in faith, and so distrustful in the goodness and
mercy of God, as to endeavour to save himself from the Egyptians by
means of a deliberate falsehood. Sarah had so little faith as to laugh
within herself at the promise of God, and then to defend herself by a
lie. Isaac was guilty of similar conduct, and Jacob’s sin in deceiving
his brother plainly shows, that he also was a poor sinful creature.
Where then are their superabundant merits, whereby they are to justify
all their posterity? The Word of God says expressly,—
אח לא פדה יפדה איש לא יתן לאלהים כפרו ׃
“No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom
for him.” (Ps. xlix. 8.) How then are these three men to redeem all
their posterity? If they have got merits sufficient to compensate for
the unrighteousness of their children, then they have a ransom; and then
the Word of God, which says that no man has a ransom, is not true. But
if the words of the Psalm be true,—and he is no Jew who thinks them
false,—then the patriarchs have no superabundant merits, and no ransom
to offer for their children, and then the hope built on their
righteousness is deceitful, and those that lean on it will find
themselves mistaken in the hour of judgment. Nay, more, they will find
themselves accursed for departing from the Lord. He that trusts in the
righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to deliver him from the
wrath to come, is evidently trusting in man, and making flesh his arm.
If the merits of the patriarchs can save their children from the wrath
of God, then God is not the Saviour of Israel, but the patriarchs are
Israel’s redeemers, and poor mortal men are their hope and their trust:
but the Prophet says,—
ארור הגבר אשר יבטח באדם ושם בשר זרועו ומן ה׳ יסור לבו ׃
“Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and
whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Jer. xvii. 5.) So far, then, from
being secure by trusting in the righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, this trust increases the sinner’s guilt, and draws down upon him
a double curse. But it has pleased God himself to argue this question at
large with the Jews, to suppose the case of a righteous father who has
an unrighteous son, and to declare that the son cannot be saved by the
righteousness of the father. In the Prophet Ezekiel, God says, “If a man
be just, and do that which is lawful and right—he is just, he shall
surely live, saith the Lord God. If he beget a son that is a robber, a
shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any of these things, and
that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the
mountains, and defileth his neighbour’s wife, hath oppressed the poor
and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and
hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath
given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he
shall not live: he hath done all these abominations: he shall surely
die; his blood shall be upon him.” (Ezek. xviii. 5-13.) Here God sets
the matter at rest, and decides that the righteousness of a father is of
no use to an unrighteous son, and cannot deliver him from the punishment
due to his evil deeds. The doctrine, then, of justification by the
merits of ancestors, is directly opposed to the plain declaration of God
himself, and, therefore, in this case also the Jewish prayers and the
oral law teach error, and seduce the Jews to their everlasting
destruction, by teaching them to trust in that which can do them no
good. It is an awful and melancholy spectacle to see God’s ancient
people thus misled. At this season of the year, the devout amongst them
endeavour to turn to God, fast and pray, and yet neither the one nor the
other is accepted, because they put their trust in the merits of men,
and their heart is turned away from God their Saviour. The prayers of
the synagogue, instead of drawing down a blessing, only help to
accumulate wrath, by seducing them from the Redeemer of Israel to
refuges of lies. And hence it happens that all the fasts and the prayers
of Israel for these seventeen centuries have been disregarded by God,
and that Israel still continues in captivity. But as every lie and every
error is built upon some truth as its foundation, it will be well to
inquire what truth it was that gave rise to this error of justification
by the merits of ancestors? The principle is _that the guilty may be
saved by the merits of another person, who is righteous_: how, then, did
this principle become current among the Jews? It was certainly not the
invention of human reason, for reason can discover no necessary
connexion between the merits of one righteous man and the pardon of
another who is guilty. The principle does not hold in the ordinary
judicial proceedings of this world: a robber or a murderer is not and
cannot be pardoned because another member of the community, or of his
family, is a good and righteous man. We must therefore look elsewhere
for the origin of the principle, and we find it in the revealed will of
God. We see it in the appointment of sacrifice and atonement, according
to which a guilty man was pardoned by the suffering of an innocent
animal. Here is at once the principle of substitution of the innocent
for the guilty; and human reason, when it once has the substratum, can
easily proceed to erect the superstructure. In the present case it
naturally argued, if the death of one of the brute creation could effect
so much, how much more would the merits of a righteous man avail, if
such an one could be found? The error, then, is not in the principle,
but in its application. According to the Scripture, it is true that the
innocent may be substituted for the guilty; but the rabbies were wrong
in applying this truth to the case of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other
men, who were only sinners as themselves. The Word of God, which gave
the principle, also directs us to the right application. It tells us of
one for whose righteousness’ sake the Lord will forgive sin:—
ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר ׃
“The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify
the law and make it honourable.” (Isa. xlii. 21.) Who, then, is this
person? The preceding verses tell us that it is the servant of the Lord.
Who, then, is the servant of the Lord? Kimchi says, on this verse, that
the servant of the Lord is the prophet; but this cannot possibly be
true, for the prophet was not righteous, but a sinner, as he himself
tells us in the sixth chapter—“I am a man of unclean lips.” The servant
mentioned in the nineteenth verse is the same person as he who is called
“My servant,” in the first verse of the chapter—“Behold my servant, whom
I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit
upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” But here
Kimchi says,—
זה הוא מלך המשיח כמו שפירשנו ׃
“This is the King Messiah, as we have interpreted.” If then, in the
first verse, “The servant of the Lord” means the Messiah, it must mean
the same through the chapter, and the Messiah is the person for whose
righteousness’ sake the Lord is well pleased.
This same prophet tells us again, concerning this servant,—
בדעתו יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים ועונותם הוא יסבול ׃
“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall
bear their iniquities.” (Isa. liii. 11.) That the Messiah is here
intended no Jew can doubt, who uses the Synagogue Prayers; for on the
Day of Atonement and at the Passover, this chapter is applied to
him.[32] Here, then, it is expressly stated, that the Messiah, by his
righteousness, shall justify the guilty. And, therefore, the prophet
calls the Messiah יהוה צדקנו “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jer. xxiii.
6.) That the Messiah is here intended there can be no doubt, for he is
described as “the righteous branch” of David, and thus all the
commentators explain it. In these three passages, then, of the Word of
God, sinners are pointed to the Messiah as their hope and their
righteousness. He is God’s righteous servant, and his sufferings and his
merits are all-sufficient to do that which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
cannot do. The great mistake of the oral law is to point to wrong
persons, who have no righteousness, and almost totally to pass by Him
whom God hath set forth as the hope of sinners. But it may here be
asked, if Messiah be a man, how can he have merits more than Abraham, or
any other of the children of Adam? The answer is, that though very man,
he is not a sinful man as we are, neither is he a mere man. If he were a
man like us, he could have no merits, and therefore could not justify us
any more than we could justify him. The declaration, therefore, that he
is the Lord’s righteous servant, and that he is appointed for the
justification of sinners, necessarily implies that he is more than a
man, and the title given him by the Prophet Jeremiah puts this beyond
doubt. Jeremiah calls him by the incommunicable name of God יהוה ,
concerning which God himself says:—
אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא אתן ׃
“I am the LORD: that is my name, and my glory will I not give to
another.” (Isa. xlii. 8.) If then יהוה be the name of God, then that
Being who is called by that holy name must be God. Some of the modern
rabbies reply, that this holy name is also given to the city of
Jerusalem, both by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But even if we admit this,
still this is no answer to our argument. There is no fear that a city
which, however great or noble, is only a mass of stones and mortar,
should be mistaken for the living God, the Creator of the Universe.
When, therefore, the name of God is attributed to the city, God’s honour
is not given to it. But when we are told of the Messiah, first that he
is righteous, secondly that his righteousness is so great as to justify
the guilty, and lastly that his name is יהוה, “THE LORD our
Righteousness;” that is when we see that the attributes and the name of
God are attributed to him, then we must conclude either that he is God,
or that God has done what he has declared that he would not do, and
given his honour to another. Righteousness is the attribute of God
alone, and so Daniel says:—
לך ה׳ הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים כיום הזה ׃
“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of
faces, as at this day.” (Dan. ix. 7.) But, in the above passages,
righteousness is said to belong to the Messiah, and that in such an
immeasurable degree as to be sufficient to justify the guilty sons of
men; if then he have this attribute of God, he must also have the nature
of God. Again, another prophet says, that of God men will say that they
have righteousness in him:—
אך בה׳ לי אמר צדקות ועוז ׃
“Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength.
(Isa. xlv. 24.) And again:—
בה׳ יצדקו ויתהללו כל זרע ישראל ׃
“In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall
glory.” Here it is said that God is our righteousness, and that in Him
we shall be justified; but in the passages quoted above, it is said that
the Messiah is our Righteousness, and that in Him we shall be justified;
the person then intended in these different passages must be one and
identical. Thus the difficulties are all removed, and we have one in
whose righteousness we may safely trust, without making ourselves liable
to the curse denounced against those who put their trust in sinful men.
This is the Christian’s hope. Many Jews think, and speak, and argue too,
as if Christians had departed from the living God and put their trust in
a man; but that of which they accuse us, they have done themselves. We
have not departed from the living God. Our hope and trust and confidence
is in יהוה צדקנו, The LORD our Righteousness. You have departed from the
Lord, for in your prayers you say that your hope and trust is in the
merits of sinful men. Our confidence is based upon the Word of God, and
your hope is taught you by the rabbies, who are fallible men. Your
doctrine is the doctrine of men, and your hope is in the merits of men.
You have, therefore, doubly departed from God, both from his word and
his righteousness. Our desire is that you would return to Him, not to
us,—to his word, and not to ours. You have no merits more than we have.
Your forefathers have no more than either of us, and the blowing of a
ram’s horn is but a poor foundation on which to build our hope of
salvation; and yet these are the things on which your rabbies have
taught you to depend. Examine your prayers, and compare them with the
Word of God, and you will find, that as long as the Jewish nation
continues to offer such petitions, their cry cannot be heard; and that
if they wish for salvation, they must forsake their arm of flesh, and
return to Him who was the hope of their fathers.
It was not by his own merits, nor the merits of his forefathers, nor by
any ceremonial observance, that Abraham was justified, but by faith in
the LORD, יהוה, as it is written:—
והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה ׃
“And he believed in the LORD, and it was counted to him for
righteousness.” (Gen. xv. 6.) David the King did not expect to be
forgiven and justified on account of Abraham’s or his other ancestors’
merits; neither did he say, Blessed is the man who puts his trust in the
righteousness of the patriarchs, but—
אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה , אשרי אדם לא יחשב ה׳ לו עון ואין ברוחו רמיה ׃
“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in
whose spirit there is no guile.” (Ps. xxxii. 1.) Every one, then, who
desires to have this blessing, must renounce all pretensions to merit,
and acknowledge himself a sinner needing forgiveness; and for this
forgiveness he must look not to anything that man had done, or can do,
but to the mercy of God in passing by transgression and sin. And
therefore the Prophet Habakkuk lays it down as a general rule—
וצדיק באמונתו יהיה ׃
“The just shall live by his faith.” (Habak. ii. 4.) This is the
Scriptural mode of justification, and this the hope of Abraham, David,
and Habakkuk. Will the Jews, then, cast in their lot with their father
Abraham, and trust to that way of justification in which he walked? or
will they refuse to be justified as he was, and still persist in
following the inventions of men, which are not even consistent with
themselves? If the oral law pointed out one way of justification, and
then consistently adhered to it, there would at least be an appearance
of reason in following its directions. But it points out two ways as
opposite as east and west. It says a man may be justified by his own
merits, and then it tells him he is to be justified by the merits of
another. Both cannot possibly be true. It is the duty, then, of every
man earnestly to inquire which is the true way of Salvation, and to
decide, whether he is to be saved by his own merits, or the merits of
his forefathers, or the merits of “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Footnote 30:
Isaac.
Footnote 31:
“Alluding to Isaac’s being bound; and thus considered as if he had
been offered, and his body burnt to ashes on the altar.” (Levi’s
note.)
Footnote 32:
See the Machsor for the Day of Atonement, in אז מלפני בראשית and for
the Passover, in ברה דודי.
No. XXXVI.
DAY OF ATONEMENT.
The law and the prophets both abound with plain declarations entirely
subversive of the rabbinic doctrine of human merit. But it has pleased
God, besides these plain and repeated declarations, to ordain a public
and solemn act to instruct even the most ignorant, and to convince the
most obstinate, that by human merit there is no salvation. He commanded
that, once every year, an atonement should be made by the high-priest,
for himself, and for all the people of every class and degree.
וכפר את מקדש הקודש ואת אהל מועד ואת המזבח יכפר ועל הכהנים ועל כל עם הקהל
יכפר ׃
“And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall
make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the
altar; and he shall make an atonement for the priests and for all the
people of the congregation.” (Levit. xvi. 33.) Now this ordinance
implies, that all Israel, the high-priest, the priests, and the people,
are all sinners, all need an atonement; and, therefore, utterly
annihilates all idea of justification by merits. If Israel could have
been justified either by their own merits, or by the merits of their
forefathers, the solemn act of annual atonement would have been
superfluous. But if this atonement be necessary,—and if it were not, why
did God appoint it—then there is no room for the assertion of human
merits. But the truth is, as we have already seen, that the rabbies felt
that their doctrine was insufficient to quiet the awakened conscience,
and gladly fled to any refuge that they could discover; it is no wonder
then that they have clung with uncommon tenacity to the shadow of that
hope that was held out in the law of Moses. In spite of their doctrine
of merit, they are glad to have even the appearance of a day of
atonement to reconcile them to the Almighty. It is true they have no
high-priest and no sacrifice, yet so convinced are they of the need of
an atonement, that rather than confess that they have absolutely none,
they teach that repentance and the day itself will atone for all sin:—
בזמן הזה שאין בית המקדש קיים ואין לנו מזבח כפרה אין שם אלא תשובה ,
התשובה מכפרת על כל העבירות אפילו רשע כל ימיו ועשה תשובה באחרונה אין
מזכירין לו שום דבר מרשעו , שנאמר רשעת הרשע לא יכשל בה ביום שובו מרשעו ,
ועצמו של יום הכפורים מכפר לשבים שנאמר כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם ׃