Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

My Lord, continually do I stand on my watch-tower by day; And on my ward do I keep watch whole nights.

And behold! there cometh cavalry, horsemen two and two.

9 Then continued he his report and said, "Fallen, fallen is Baby!on; And all her idol gods are dashed to the ground."

10 O my crushed, afflicted [pcople,] · What I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, God of Israel,

I have made known to you.

In these verses we have a vivid prophetic description of the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians. The prophecy was delivered about two centuries before the event happened, and more than one previously to the captivity of the Jews at Babylon.

In phrophetic vision, the writer foresaw the affliction of his nation, and the arrogance and cruelty of their enemies. The oppressed, God was about to rescue, the oppressor, to chastise; and this he designed to effect by the destruction of their proud capital, and the subversion of their government.

The storm which was gathering over the devoted city the prophet represents by the raging of tempests, which in their progress from the wilderness south of India, were exceedingly violent and destructive. He then declares that a vision, replete with terror, had been disclosed to him. He beholds the wast

er of nations shorn of his strength. He hears Elam, and Persia, and Media, commissioned to besiege the city, that an end might be put to the sighing of the oppressed. The surprise and perturbation of the besieged, he then describes with admirable simplicity, "I am filled," says he, presenting himself as viewing the scene, "I am filled with terror, anguish hath seized me so that I am deprived of hearing and sight, my heart utterly fails; my anticipated hilarity is turned to dismay." This consternation was the greater on account of the sudden transition from a state of entire security, to one of the most iminent danger. This circumstance is graphically described. A luxurious feast is prepared: the watch is set; the Babylonians eat; they drink; when suddenly the alarm is sounded; "Up, ye princes, anoint the shield"- a common usage among the orientals, to render their shields, which were of leather, more manageable, as it were to furbish them as other armour is furbished by scouring it:-prepare for the attack.

The result of this attack upon the city, the writer describes in an inimitable manner. He represents himself as (in compliance with the direction of God) stationing a watchman on a tower, and bidding him give the result of his observavations. He beholds cavalry and beasts of burden, riders on asses and camels, symbolic representatives of the Median and Persian armies. Their movements he watches with the deepest interest: he listens with the most wakeful attention. Having made the full discovery, he cries aloud to the prophet and describes what he had witnessed. Then after a short, but fearfully interesting pause, the watchman announces the fate of the city"Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all her idol gods are dashed to the ground." The prophet concludes by a tender address to the Israel

ites, who had been crushed and beaten as the grain of the threshing floor, by the Babylonians, assuring them that he had made a true statement of what God would accomplish on their behalf.

The similarity between the events here predicted and the events which occurred at the taking of Babylon, as stated by Herodotus and Xenophon, and by the sacred writer, is so striking that it may seem almost like an entire coincidence. Just fifty years before the fulfilment of this prophecy, the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed Jerusalem, demolished the temple, and carried the Jews into captivity. Nebuchadnezzar dying, Belshazzar his son succeeded to the throne. Upon this king, the Medes and Persians, under Darius, or Cyaxares, and Cyrus, made war, defeated him in battle, and having shut him up in Babylon, laid siege to the city. The besieged, strongly fortified, and amply provided with means of defence, derided all attempts to subjugate them. After two years of severe labor, Cyrus found means to enter the city with his army. To accomplish his designs with the least danger, he pitched upon a season of great festivity among the Babylonians. During this night Belshazzar celebrated a most impious feast; drank wine with a thousand of his lords; defiled the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar, his father, had plundered from the house of the God of Israel, and in the height of his festivity, praised his own gods of gold, and silver, and wood, and stone. But the storm was about to burst on his guilty head. One moment all was hilarity and joy; the next, the shout of battle interrupted the songs of Bel, and before the morning light all the idols of Babylon and their worshippers were prostrate in the dust.

This passage is remakable for its rapid movements, its sudden transitions, its graphic descriptions,-for VOL I,-No. XII.

79

1

its beauty and force. The painting is exquisitely fine. The storm, the consternation, the security, and sudden alarm, are almost blended in beautiful coloring, yet so as to preserve a distinct impression of each. The stationing of the watchman,and the result of his observations, are the strokes of a master hand. The design of the prophecy is admirably expressed in the concluding verse. For the consolation of God's people was this vision disclosed-this! prediction uttered. To correct them for their wanderings, he had raised up a terrible scourge; when this was effected, he removed it; and while they beheld the proud city of Babylon swept with the besom of destruction, well might they exclaim, "So let thine enemies perish, O Lord!"

PRESIDENT EDWARDS'S VIEW OF

ORIGINAL SIN.

[ocr errors]

PRESIDENT Edwards, in his work on Original Sin, Part IV.Ch. 3, says, "Therefore I am humbly of opinion, that if any have supposed the children of Adam to come into the world with a double guilt, one the guilt of Adam's sin, another the guilt arising from their having a corrupt heart, they have not so well conceived of the matter. The guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence, is one and simple, viz. ! the guilt of the original apostacy, the guilt of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God. This and the guilt arising from the first corruption or depraved disposition of the heart, are not to be looked upon as two things, distinctly imputed and charged upon men in the sight of God. Indeed the guilt that arises from the corruption of the heart as it remains a confirmed principle, and appears in its subsequent operations, is a distinct and additional guilt: But the guilt arising from the first existing of a depraved disposition in Adam's posterity, I

[ocr errors]

apprehend is not distinct from their guilt of Adam's first sin."

In accordance with this language, it is not Adom's sin, which is imputed to his posterity, it is their own sin, which they commit from the influence of their connexion with Adam. Precisely the same sin which was imputed to Adam was imputed to them; and they had therefore the same guilt. They are in fact personally partakers in his particular, individual sin His sin is not charged upon them; but they are considered as existing with him, and sinning with him; and as condemned with him, not for his sin, but for their own sin. I do not see how the language of Edwards can fairly be construed differently. A writer in the Christian Spectator for November, 1824, does however give another meaning to it. "Here then," he says, 66 our author, maintaining the personal identity, according to the divine constitution, of Adam and his posterity, declares that men do not come into the world with a double guilt, one the guilt of Adam's sin, and the other the guilt of having a corrupt heart; that the guilt which a man has upon his soul at his first existence, is one and simple, viz. the guilt of the original apostacy; that the inspired declaration, all have sinned, in respect to infants can be true only of their sinning by Adam's sin; that infants can be sinners in no other way but by Adam's transgression; and that they are not capable of any moral action at all. But how could Edwards, without falling into an inconsistency too gross to be imputed to him, maintain that the only guilt which belongs to man when he comes into the world is the imputed guilt of Adam's sin, and yet maintain that he is the subject of a natural propensity which is in itself sinful and deserving of punishment ?"

Our duty assuredly is not to lay it down as a principle that Edwards

could not think and write inconsistently; and then to explain his language by unnatural constructions, so that, in our view, he will be consistent with himself. So far was President Edwards from supposing that the only guilt of man when he comes into the world is the guilt of Adam's sin, in distinction from the guilt of having a corrupt heart, that he represents this last named guilt as existing first. Edwards writes, Part IV. Chap. 3, "The first being of an evil disposition in the heart of a child of Adam, whereby he is disposed to approve of the sin of his first father, as fully as he himself approved of it when he committed it, or so far as to imply a full and perfect consent of heart to it, I think, is not to be looked upon as a consequence of the imputation of that first sin, any more than the full consent of Adam's own heart, in the act of sinning; which was not consequent on the imputation of his sin to himself, but rather prior to it in the order of nature. deed the derivation of the evil disposition to the hearts of Adam's posterity. or rather the co-existence of the evil disposition, implied in Adam's first rebellion, in the root and branches, is a consequence of the union that the wise author of the world has established between Adam and his posterity; but not properly a consequence of the imputation of his sin; nay, rather antecedent to it, as it was in Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of that sin, are both the consequence of that established union; but yet in such an order, that the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam himself."

In

Did T. R., the writer in the Christian Spectator before alluded to, read this language? Does not Edwards here assert that man "is the subject of a natural propensity which is in itself sinful and deser

1

[ocr errors]

ving of punishment"? T. R. perceived that Edwards had "peculiar views respecting the imputation of Adam's sin"; at least he found he used peculiar language. He does not, however, suffer Edwards to have peculiar views, but he asserts that "he most unequivocally and abundantly affirms that the guilt, and the only guilt, which belongs to man on his first existe ice, is the imputed guilt of Adam's sin." He appears to me to teach unequivocally and abundantly, that the evil disposition in the heart of Adam's posterity is "not properly a consequence of the imputation of his sin; nay, rather antecedent to it, as it was in Adam himself."

Edwards does indeed say "The guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence, is one and simple, viz. the guilt of the original apostacy; the guilt of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God." Edwards then proceeds to exhibit peculiar views of this "sin." He says "The first existing of a corrupt disposition in the hearts of Adam's posterity, is not to be considered as a sin belonging to them, distinct from their participation of Adam's first sin:" The only way, by which I can understand Edwards, is, that the first existing of a corrupt disposition makes man guilty; and this first existing of a corrupt disposition, though it is the moral depravity aud guilt of the individual is yet a participation of the first sin of Adam. "The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of that sin, are both the consequences of that established union; but yet in such an order, that the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam himself."

I can conceive of man's being personally sinful on his first exisence, and of his being so in consequence of his relation to fallen Adam; but I cannot conceive how his personal sin can be a part of

Adam's sin or one thing with it. Butthe simple question is, what does Edwards teach on these points," be it consistent or inconsistent with itself?

[ocr errors]

T. R. says, While it is undeniable that he [Edwards] maintains that guilt and desert of punishment pertain to nan, and even to his depraved disposition on its first existence; still the question is, in what does this guilt consist, according to this writer? Concerning the true answer to this inquiry, he has left us at no loss. For he most unequivocally and abundantly affirms, that the guilt and the only guilt which belongs to man on his first existence, is the imputed guilt of Adam's sin."

How can this be? Guilt and desert of punishment pertain to man's depraved disposition on its first existence, and this guilt is only the imputed guilt of Adam's sin. If T. R. will adopt Edwards's views of Adam's sin, and will suppose it in cludes the first personal sin of eve ry one of his posterity, he will be consistent with himself on this point. But this is the point at which he aims all his shafts. This point which. I deem Edwards's strong hold, he labours to batter down.

If it is true that the first existing of depravity in us, is Adam's sin and that this sin belongs to man at his first existence, then, T. R's. "epitomised view of Edwards's theory respecting the origin of sin' is not correct. Edwards does main tain what he calls the imputation. but he supposes that in the order of nature, corruption of dispositior precedes imputation, and makes the imputation reasonable and just. Ir my own view it is not Adam's sin which is imputed, but it is the personal sin of his posterity; but Edwards deemed the first sin of his posterity the same with his own sin.

Edwards's grand argument in reply to the great objection against his doctrine is, that men are per

sonally corrupt, and that therefore the imputation of sin to them is just. He endeavours to illustrate the fall of the human race by a tree, whose branches all exist, and have a connexion with the trunk. Such he supposes the connexion of men with Adam, and their fall is as if hey all existed with him, and at the same time that he sinned, they all sinned.

Let us go back to the beginning of Edwards's treatise on Original Sin, and ascertain what he underook to prove. He says, Part I. Chap. 1. Sect. 1, "By Original Sin as the phrase has been comnonly used by divines, is meant, he innate sinful depravity of the Leart. But yet, when the doctrine of Original Sin is spoken of, it is ulgarly understood in that latitude, s to include not only the depravity f nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin." "As all moral ualities, all principles either of irtue or vice, lie in the disposition of the heart, I shall consider whethr we have any evidence, that the heart of man is naturally of a corupt and evil disposition." Can T. R. ask, "does Edwards mean by his tendency, propensity, disposiion, &c. a substantial property of ur nature which is in itself sinful nd deserving of punishment ?" Can he ask this, and yet declare hat Edwards" maintains that guilt nd desert of punishment pertain to nan, and even to his depraved disosition on its first existence"?

Edwards maintains that men, when they come into the world ave a disposition which is corrupt, inful, and deserving of punishment. 'o prove this he shews that all men, s soon as they can exhibit to us heir moral character, display a corupt, sinful disposition; and Edards's inference is, that this dispoition commenced with the existnce of the individual. This in uence he leaves out of view in his irst section, that the argument

might not be embarrassed by it. Must not every fair reasoner do the same? Because Edwards does not prove in his first section that man has in his first existence a disposition sinful, and deserving of punishment, does it follow that he does not prove it, nor believe it? Because he is wise enough to take one step at a time, does it follow that he goes no higher, and does not reach the head of the stairs?

In his first section he undertakes to prove "that every one of mankind, at least, of them that are capable of acting as moral agents, are guilty of sin." He does not take it for granted that men" come guilty into the world," but having proved his proposition in the first section, he draws the inference in the second, "that all mankind are under the influence of a prevailing, effectual tendency in their nature, to that sin and wickedness, which implies their utter and eternal ruin." He says in the caption of the third section, "That propensity, which has been proved to be in the nature of mankind, must be a very evil, depraved, and pernicious propensity; making it manifest, that the soul of man, as it is by nature, is in a corrupt, fallen, and ruined state; which is the other part of the consequence, drawn from the proposition laid down in the first section.”

Can the question then be, "Does Edwards mean by this tendency, propensity, disposition, &c. a substantial property of our nature, which is in itself, sinful and deserving of punishment?" If the language of Edwards was designed to mean any thing else, he was a poor master of words, and his book is not safe without a glossary, and a commentary. If Edwards, who thought with extraordinary depth and acuteness, and who expressed himself with unusual accuracy and fulness, found our language so deficient, we need a new nomenclature in moral metaphysics. Did Edwards say that the

« PreviousContinue »