That God may, and often does, vary his methods, or his dispensations, as times and circumstances vary, is very certain but to give a clear account of all such variations, the reasons of which are locked up in the Divine counsels, may be a great deal too much for this author, or a wiser man, to pretend to. Yet the strength of his opposition to sacrit Writ resolves generally into this false principle, this senseless vanity, that if there be any thing in the conduct of an all-wise God which an ignorant creature of yesterday cannot look into and account for, that is reason sufficient for rejecting an otherwise plain revelation. And so you will find him up and down, in his book, taking upon him to prescribe and dictate to an all-knowing God". If the subjects of any earthly kingdom were to go upon the like principle, rejecting every law, injunction, proclamation, or edict, whenever they could not see clearly into all the reasons of state upon which it is founded, what confusion would it not bring, and what madness would it not end in? And yet human counsels are not so deep as Divine: neither is the government of any kingdom upon earth fit to be compared with the government of Almighty God over the vast and wide universe. But this by the way only, to check the vain presumption and conceitedness of such a method of reasoning. Now to come to the point in hand. The reason, or account which the Objector has been pleased to give, is undoubtedly a false one. For if it had been a general rule that the spirit of the Old Testament should grow milder and milder as the Gospel approached, let him account for what God says by the same prophet Ezekiel, that when he should send out his sore judgments "to cut off man and beast," he would not spare one man among the wicked for the sake of the righteous, but the righteous should be alone preserved. The sentence is full and peremptory: THOUGH THESE " See instances in Christianity, &c. p. 3, 105, 111, 115, 116, 122, 124, 140, 196. * Ezek. xiv. 4. THREE MEN, NOAH, DANIEL, AND JOB, WERE IN IT, THEY SHOULD DELIVER BUT THEIR OWN SOULS BY THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS, SAITH THE LORD God. Yet time was, when God would have spared even that inhospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous city, Sodom, had there been but ten righteous persons found in it so mild was Almighty God in ancient days, so merciful and gentle were his dealings; seemingly more so than in the times of Ezekiel, though nearer to the times of the Gospel. I say then, that the Objector's rule or comment upon God's conduct is imaginary, and without foundation. I may further observe, that as to the particular case of "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children," there appears to have been no settled change, no standing abatement made of what is laid down in the Decalogue. The same thing was threatened, and the same discipline observed in the Gospel times, as well as before, and may have been frequently since in all ages of the Church down to this day. What our blessed Lord himself says, relating to our purpose, may deserve our special notice. THAT UPON YOU MAY COME ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED UPON THE EARTH, FROM THE BLOOD OF RIGHTEOUS ABEL UNTO THE BLOOD OF ZACHARIAS, &c.-VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, ALL THESE THINGS SHALL COME UPON THIS GENERATIONY. The threatening was fully verified in the dreadful destruction of Jerusalem, within less than forty years after. And I believe it will not be easy to find any more terrible example of Divine vengeance (excepting one only) before the times of y Matt. xxiii. 35, 36. To understand this, we must observe that the Scripture takes notice of a certain measure of iniquity which is filling up from one generation to another, till at last it makes a nation or family ripe for destruction: and although those persons on whom this final vengeance falls, suffer no more than their own personal sins deserved; yet because the sins of former generations, which they equal or outdo, make it time for God utterly to destroy them, the punishments due to the sins of many ages and generations are all said to fall upon them. Sherlock on Providence, chap. viii. p. 408. the Gospel, than this which has appeared since. Vain therefore are the dreams of this writer, as to God's growing milder in his judgments upon wicked men, the nearer we come to the Gospel times. But he will ask us, probably, how then do we reconcile the two texts, one of Moses in the Decalogue, and the other in the prophet Ezekiel? Very easily: For the seeming difference amounts only to this; that God may vary his methods, at different times, according as he sees cause, or according as the ends of providence or discipline require. He sometimes visits the sins of the fathers upon the children, and sometimes he does it not: and the reasons are to himself in both cases. "For who "hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his "counsellory?" Who shall instruct him in matters of discipline, or direct an all-wise God how to govern the world? As to the particular case of the Jews under captivity, spoken of both by Jeremiah and Ezekiela, it appears to stand thus: the Jews had been visited, sent into captivity, for the sins of their fathers, as well as for their own, pursuant to the threatenings which God had before made by his prophets. The captive Jews hereupon complained, thinking it hard measure that they should so smart for the sins of their fathers, and should be punished beyond what, in the ordinary course of providence, their own sins would have called for. The fact was true; and God's reason, among others, was, to testify and demonstrate to the world his utter detestation of the sins of Manasseh, his abominable idolatries. But God, to comfort his captive people, lets them know, that this severe, though just dispensation towards them should not be lasting, for that he would be kind to them again, by restoring them to their own land, and then they should no longer have occasion. to complain, or to use that proverb mentioned by Jeremiah y Rom. xi. 34. a Ezek. xviii. 2. Jerem. xxxi. 29, 30. Lament. v. 7. and Ezekiel, in the places before cited: they had been severely chastised for their fathers' sins, as well as for their own; but their captivity should cease, and then that extraordinary visitation should cease also, and they should suffer only for their own faults: and God would be gracious to them in the mean while. This interpretation of Ezekiel I take in the main from Bishop Stillingfleet, who had well considered it, and who has cleared up the objected difficulty (as I conceive) the best of any. If it be farther asked, how it is justifiable at all to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, and more especially upon innocent children, as upon Achan's children, and upon David's first child by Bathshebad; to this I an swer: 1. First, as to the case of guilty children, they deserve the punishment which God inflicts, and they are punished for their own sins, in such cases, as well as for the sins of their fathers. But as God does not punish all that deserve it, and might remit the punishment due for their own sins if he so pleased, and would do it if their fathers had not sinned also; it may be justly said in such a case, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children, because he would not have taken the forfeiture, nor have punished the children in this life according to their own demerits, if the sins of their fathers, added to theirs, had not made it necessary, or proper, for answering the ends of discipline. 2. As to the case of innocent children, there can be no question but God may demand the life which he gave them, whenever he pleases; and it is no injury to them, to translate them from this world to a better, but a kindness and a comfort to them. And if an all-merciful God, while he demands their lives for their benefit, does it also at such a time and in such a manner as shall best answer the ends of discipline for the good of the world, there is с Stillingfleet of the Sufferings of Christ, against Crellius, chap. iii. d 2 Sam. xii. 18. nothing in this conduct but what redounds to the glory both of the wisdom and goodness of God. It is not indeed a proper rule for human judicatures to proceed by, because men have not that absolute right or power over the lives of others, as God has over all; neither can they judge when to use such a power, if they had it; neither, if they deprive persons of a present advantage, are they able afterwards to make them amends. Therefore no such power is ordinarily lodged in men. God himself has foreclosed all pretences to it, by his express prohibitions e. But the case is different with respect to God himself, who has sovereign authority, and whose infinite wisdom is a bar to his judg ing wrong, and his infinite power and goodness can compensate all seeming severities. In the mean while, his detestation of sin is more remarkably demonstrated, and the practice of righteousness more strongly guarded and secured, by thus punishing wickedness, not only at the first hand, but in the posterity also for several generations. So, taking the thing either way, there can be no just complaint made against the Divine proceedings in visiting the sins of the fathers upon their either sinful or innocent progeny. If Achan's family, supposing them entirely innocent, were destroyed for his single crime, they lost nothing that they had any strict right to; or if they had, yet God could make them amends. A good father derives a blessing upon his children, and a bad father entails a curse, but in respect only to this world: and it is good for the world it should be sof. The life to come will fully adjust all seeming inequalities of this kind: which is abundantly sufficient to answer all possible objections on this head. In a word, as God daily exercises such a power over innocent persons for the ends of his wise providence, so there is no just reason to be assigned why he may not also exercise the same power for the ends of discipline, which is but one species of his providential dispensations. e Deut. xxiv. 16. 2 Kings xiv. 5, 6. f See Sherlock on Providence, p. 410. Tertull. advers. Marcion. lib. ii. cap. 15. p. 389. |