תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." After a brief account of what Scripture informs us concerning the apostate angels and their prince-a warning against the popular mythology on this subject, and a general notice of the great conflict which Satan is carrying on against God, he proceeded to consider this conflict as it concerns individuals whom the enemy of souls is striving to subdue to his service, and to use as instruments in his cause.He pressed upon his hearers the necessity of continually having in mind, and being on their guard against the assaults to which they were thus exposed, and comforted the sincere and watchful Christian with the assurance of effectual support and the certainty of final victory. The sermon, which was an admirable one, seemed to me calculated to be extremely useful in impressing upon the minds of all present a lively sense of that awful struggle in which each one was engaged at one side or the other, and the practical neglect and forgetfulness of which, by those who are in every moment obnoxious to its perils, and who are daily witnessing its effects, seems not the least remarkable sign of that slumbering condition in which the church is represented at the period of the bridegroom's advent. What I heard on that occasion suggested to me various thoughts; some of these have assumed the following form, which, if you think it worth insertion in your Magazine, is at your service.

That in every case where good and evil are set before a man, there is something within which so distinguishes between them as to lay him under an obligation of following the good and eschewing the evil, by making him feel that he cannot adopt a contrary course without self-condemnation -this all have experienced, and all are ready to acknowledge. But, that in these cases there is also something within that strongly inclines men to follow the evil-which is a doctrine of Scripture-and which candid and impartial reflection may, I think, teach any one-this is by no means so generally admitted, but, on the contrary, the learned and vulgar have often concurred in denying it. Now the reason of this appears to be, that, in most cases, discipline and example have so formed and strengthened habits of abstinence from many of the grosser vices, and of exercise in the lesser virtues, which the constitution of society enforces, and renders necessary to the most moderate comfort and enjoyment of social life. Such habits, I say, have, in most cases, been so strengthened and combined from a very early period of our existence, that, in reference to these grosser vices, the principle which inclines us to evil is proportionably weakened, and the inclination often little felt; these, the pride of man's heart, leads him to account, from external causes, for that bias to sin of which he still continues very sensible in many other instances, and to discover the reason of his practising those lesser virtues of which we have spoken, in some natural love and admiration of what is good. But, be this as it may, the existence of these two principles of conscience and original sin, cannot be questioned by any one who will take the Bible for his guide, since their existence is therein not only often asserted, but also tacitly assumed in the important doctrines which it is the great object of that book to reveal and enforce.

Now it is, I think, of importance to observe, that neither one nor other of these were original principles in man's mind, by which I mean that they formed no part of his nature as first created. With respect to original sin this is evident. With respect to conscience, we are to consider that it was at his fall that man acquired the knowledge of things as good and evil, which, what it is but conscience, will be hard to determine; and

though it may at first sight appear to make great difficulty how without conscience man could be an accountable agent, or how he could be justly punished for that which he knew not to be sin; yet reflection will, I think, show that a great part of this difficulty arose from our confounding between our own cases, as fallen and imperfect creatures, and that of Adam in his unfallen and perfect state. If Adam when first created had no tendency to vice and disobedience, but, on the contrary, the tendency of his nature was to obedience and virtue, if, besides, we suppose him sufficiently forewarned of the consequences of doing violence to this tendency, of acting contrary to this virtuous inclination, there will then not be the slightest shadow of injustice in supposing him to suffer those consequences of which he was thus forewarned, whatsoever they might be, and this, although he might not previcusly know the forbidden action to be a sin, and the consequence a punishment, which is what conscience would tell him. But when we come to regard man as having a natural tendency to vice and disobedience, then does it seem necessary to his liability that he should have present means of knowing the natural action as a sin, and its consequence as a punishment, since the fullest assurance from without that the consequence of acting in compliance with the tendency of this nature, would be ever so considerable, can be never supposed of equal influence with this tendency from within; conscience does not only tell a man that some action which he has committed is a sin and will be punished, but it tells him previously that he cannot commit that action without self-condemnation, which is what we mean by telling him that it is a sin, and it tells him further that its commission will be punished. Of these two things Adam before the fall knew, I think, but one, and that not from within. He knew that the consequence of eating the fruit would be very considerable-the other he knew not, viz. that he would be presently selfcondemned; nor was it necessary that he should, because he had no natural tendency to disobedience, which such a forewarning of self-condemnation would be required to combat. Adam's eating of the apple was a sin, because it was a transgression of God's commandment; his first liability to the consequence arose not from his previously knowing it to be a sin, but from his being forewarned that such consequences would follow his acting contrary to the tendency of his first nature. When we transgress any part of the moral law we sin, because we transgress God's commandment; our first liability to punishment arises from our being forewarned by conscience that this act of transgression is a sin. These principles then of conscience and original sin, took their rise together in man's mind, and as it is the latter which affords his great advantage to Satan in his efforts to work out our ruin, so is it through the former that the blessed Spirit of God chiefly strives with us for our health and salvation. We are manifestly subject, previous to any assault of Satan, to strong temptation from the evil tendency of our nature, and of this St. James most probably speaks, when he says, "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust." Against such temptation the great natural security is conscience, which declares the thing to which we are tempted to be evil; it is clear then how much it would advance Satan's designs if to this evil were given the appearance of good, or, to the contrary good the appearance of evil. How many instances can we look back on when good and evil were set before us, which, to our remembrance, appear so manifestly distinguished as such, that we can hardly conceive it possible we should ever have hesitated between them, and yet at the time, the evil seemed mixed with so much good, and the good with so much evil, that we were sorely

[ocr errors]

perplexed in our decision. Now our natural tendency to evil seems to allure us rather by representing things as what we call pleasant, than as good; and, indeed, the existence of our other natural principle of conscience seems to render it unlikely that it should be competent of itself to represent things under the latter guise; but such a representation is wonderfully consistent with his character who was a liar from the beginning, and the father of lies; and hence I am inclined to think that the great general rule of distinguishing the temptations of our own nature from those of Satan is, that Satan generally contrives to give an appearance of good to the evil to which he would tempt us. I am the rather confirmed in this conclusion, that those temptations which Scripture expressly attributes to Satan, appear to have been of this description. Thus when he would have drawn the great captain of our salvation to unlawful acts, it was by quoting texts of Scripture which seemed to authorise those acts. The lure by which he drew St. Peter rashly to expose himself to a danger of which he had been forewarned, seems to have been representing this fool-hardiness in the light of love and affection for his Master. Judas again appears to have had some notion that our Lord would have delivered himself from his enemies by a miracle; and perhaps the bait to him was that the glory of his Master would be thereby more signally displayed.

Any attempt to distinguish between these two kinds of temptation, is not, I should hope, without its use, because it may tend to keep us more on our guard, and direct our attention to a particular kind of danger of which we are so apt to be neglectful. But the length to which my remarks have already extended, warns me not to trespass, at present at least, longer on your patience.

RETURN OF THE JEWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR, It surprises me a good deal, I confess, to see that the return of the Jews to the land of their fathers, is so generally admitted as a part of the providential scheme of Jehovah, in respect to that people. For my own part, so far am I from admitting the certainty of such an event, that it appears to me a matter of serious doubt, whether the expectation of it rests on any foundation, save a mistaken view of certain prophecies of the Old Testament.

As I do not wish to underrate the value of those reasons, upon which most interpreters of prophecy found their expectation of the literal return of the Jews to their own land, I shall, of course, consider myself subject to correction, if, through ignorance or mistake, I shall not, in any thing I may say, do justice to the arguments of those to whose opinions I am opposed. If I am not then deceived upon the subject, the principal grounds on which the literal restoration of the Jews is supposed to rest, are the following:-First, the possession of the land was to be an everlasting possession.

Secondly, The Jews never were in possession of the whole of the promised land.

Thirdly, The promises of return are conveyed in language that would not suit any events which have yet occurred, and must therefore, to do it justice, relate to a restoration yet to come.

The first of these reasons is evidently one which cannot be maintained. It will prove too much, and cannot, therefore, support the inference deduced from it. Had the Jew met the apostle's argument, respecting the termination of the first covenant, with such an answer as this, he would have been supported by the letter of the Scripture, but his reasoning would have been unsound, and his conclusion illogical. It is scarcely necessary to produce instances in which "for ever" is of necessity to be understood in a limited sense. Such passages as the following frequently occur, "an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever," where the reference is to institutions that were to pass away, as soon as the Messiah should appear. What conclusions would the following passage warrant, if we were to construe the term everlasting, in a rigid sense? "But since ye say, the burden of the Lord.... Therefore, behold I, even I, will forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence; and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." Jer. xxiii. 38. It will not do, to tell us, that, by qualifying the word everlasting, and for eter, we unsettle foundations, and raise doubts as to the eternity of the believer's happiness. If this were really the case, the objection would apply not to those who take things as they find them, but to the things themselves. The fact is incontrovertible, that the words in question are, in a multitude of instances, employed to denote a limited duration; and our shutting our eyes to this fact, would still leave things exactly in the situation in which they are, when we admit it. But does the eternity of the believer's blessedness depend upon the circumstance of our always understanding the words everlasting, and for ever, in their rigid sense, as meaning duration without end? I should be truly grieved to be obliged to admit this; and yet the objection I am speaking of, supposes such a necessity. When I have referred to passages, in which everlasting must be qualified, in order to show how fallacious the reasoning is, by which the return of the Jews is inferred from the employment of the term, I have been gravely cautioned, as if such a consideration had any thing to do with the question. It is evidently a question of fact; and it is not they who admit a limitation, which cannot reasonably be denied, but they who fear the consequences of such an admission, that bring into doubt the eternity of the believer's blessedness. Happily, this all-important fact is independent of any argument arising out of such a consideration as this; but we need not pursue this point any farther.

We have now to estimate the value of the second reason given for the return of the Jews; namely, that the promise to the seed of Abraham has never yet been fulfilled, in respect to the extent of territory promised. If this can be established, I am ready to admit, that there is good ground to expect the return of the Jews to the land of their fathers, provided always that the promise was unconditional; but, is it a fact, that the children of Israel did not get possession of the whole of the promised land? I should rather think, that the contrary position is almost demonstrable. If we look to Joshua xxi. 43, we have a distinct statement to this effect: "And the Lord gave unto Israel, all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein." I do not myself see, at present, how this express declaration can be evaded; but this is not all. It can be shown, I conceive, that no more than the land possessed at this time, was ever contemplated, as included in the promise of God; and this, by something less equivocal than words. In Deuteronomy xix. 7-9, we find it written as follows: "Wherefore, 1 command thee, saying, thou

shalt separate three cities for thee; and if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers, if thou shalt keep all these commandiments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways, then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, besides these three." From this passage, it appears that, at no time, was a portion of territory contemplated larger than what three additional cities of refuge would suffice for. These cities are specially pointed out in another place; and were those set apart on the east side of Jordan, where the two tribes and a half were established. Do not these passages seem sufficiently to justify the conclusion, that the land intended was all given to the Israelites? It seems to me that it does.

The third ground on which the return of the Jews is contended for, is, that the promises of restoration are conveyed in language that cannot be acccounted for, except on the supposition of a future occupation of the land of Canaan. If this can be established, the point is settled, and the return of the Jews will and must take place. I am ready to admit, that there are many passages of the prophets, in which the deliverance of the Jews is spoken of in language of the most glowing description; but it still remains to be shown, that of necessity, this cannot be interpreted of events, which have already taken place. My own opinion is, that it can, nay, indeed, that it must.

First, it is contended, that the language employed to describe the deliverance and return, is too animated and too triumphant to admit the supposition that it could only relate to the return of the Jews from Babylon.

Secondly, that the words of the prophets contain promises, not fulfilled on the above supposition.

As to the first of these objections, I have only to say, that I think I can show passages, in which language as strong is used as that of any other that can be produced; and that, notwithstanding this, we cannot, without palpable violence to the context, apply it to any literal deliverance, except that which was to terminate the Babylonian captivity. Take the following as a specimen: "And now, therefore, thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, it shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; behold I will gather them out of all countries whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again into this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." Jeremiah xxxii. 36, 37. This seems to be as strong language as any that can be supposed inconsistent with the supposition for which I am contending; and yet, that this did relate to the return of the Jews from Babylon, and to no other return into their own land does, I conceive appear from what follows. Jeremiah had received directions to make a purchase of land, belonging to his uncle Hanameel; and after having obeyed the directions, he had applied to God, for an explanation of what appeared to him so unaccountable, as that, at the moment when the country was in the hands of the Chaldeans, and the city about to be taken, he should be ordered to make a bargain, that, as he thought, could never take effect. The explanation is vouchsafed to him; and he is given

[ocr errors]
« הקודםהמשך »