Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

it clogged; and then to prove the satisfaction made for sin, by the death of Christ, so fully, as to leave no doubts on that subject in the minds of my hearers.

In the first place, then, among the many arguments, or rather cavils, raised against this imputation, I shall only take notice of such as the Scriptures seem to give some weight to; for I speak not now to those who reject the Scriptures.

[ocr errors]

It is objected by some, that justice can never allow one man either to be punished for the sin, or rewarded for the righteousness, of another; and that, accordingly, God tells us by Ezekiel xviii. 20, The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.'

These words, and a good deal more in that chapter to the same effect, are God's reply to the Israelites, who, alluding to the second commandment, had said, 'Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' They are likewise a close paraphrase on Deut. xxiv. 16. ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children, be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.' Now as the second commandment, was a part of the moral, so this is a part of the judicial, or civil law given by Moses; and therefore the one is, as to the Mosaic economy, appositely returned in answer to the other. Yet herein it is, by no means said, God will not, in his general and providential economy, 'visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation.' These words of the second commandment must be true, as well as those of the prophet; as true, I mean, in respect to God's providential visitations, as those of the prophet are in respect to the aforementioned precept of the judicial law: which precept is here made the basis, for so much, of a new and spiritual dispensation, namely, of the Christian; for it does not appear, that, from the days of the prophet to those of Christ, the Jews were on a different footing, as to this matter, from that on which they had been before the prophecy was uttered.

This is still made more evident by Jer. xxxi. 29, where the same proverb is objected, and thus answered: 'Ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. But every man shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;' ver. 30-32. From hence it is plain, that the entail of punishment is considered as founded on the moral part of the Mosaic dispensation, and the reversal of it promised as a part of the Christian. Experience makes it plain also, that this dispensation of reward or punishment to every man, according to his own deeds, is to be taken in a spiritual sense, and in reference to the equity of a future judgment; for, in this world, Christians, as well as others, suffer, both naturally and providentially, by the iniquity of their fathers. And here it may be observed, that, when Christians are so visited at this day, it is not in consequence of the Christian law; nor does it even seem any otherwise the effect of a particular providence, than as their sins, which have left them nothing but the mere name of Christians, have excluded them from the benefits of the Christian covenant. If such pretended Christians, and real transgressors, lie exposed to the natural course of things, and are made to bear the iniquities of their fathers, as well as their own, this can neither impeach the justice of Providence, nor be so construed as to contradict the sense of the prophets. Enough, I think, hath been said to clear the meaning of both the prophets on this subject.

And now, what, after all, hath this to do with the imputation of Adam's sin? Is there a single word concerning him, his sin, or the imputation of it, in these passages? No; but the same rule of equity, say the objectors, holds good in respect to all fathers, and their children. We must beg their pardon for demurring to this bold assertion; because, as we presently shall see, the case may be so differently circumstanced, as to make a different rule equitable. It will be sufficient for the present to observe, that the case of mere personal sins is very different from that of public

and common sins; and that, although the crimes of a private person are not to be punished in another private person, which is the precise thing forbidden in the twentyfourth of Deuteronomy, it does not follow, that those of a representative shall in no sense, or degree, be visited on the community he represents.

The other part of this objection, which is purely deistical, appears to have more in it, because it seems to be founded on natural reason and equity. Justice, say the objectors, can never allow one man either to be punished for the sin, or rewarded for the righteousness, of another. But deistical as this argument is, I shall not pass it by unnoticed; because the Arians, and others, pretending to be Christians, having endeavoured to graft it on the Scriptures, press us with it on all occasions.

It is not needful, on either side of this question, to make any distinction between degrees of punishment, or of reward; what is true of one degree being true of all, namely, that it is just or unjust, either fit or unfit, to be the matter of divine appointment. But it ought here to be laid down, that the question is, not whether one man's good or evil actions can become the very actions of another, which none but a fool will affirm; nor whether the merit or demerit of actions can so pass out of one into another, as to become the proper inherent merit or demerit of that other; but whether either may not be justly so imputed to, or entailed on another, as that the other may enjoy the effects of the first, or suffer those of the last, in the same manner as if they were properly his own. In this case, the person to whom the imputation is made, is said to be rewarded or punished; not, I own, in the strict sense of the words, but in a sense of equal significance as to the question in hand, which turns, not on the supposition of a transfer, acknowledged impossible, but on the justice or injustice of an imputation. In speaking to this subject, I shall draw my arguments from known facts, whether civil, natural, providential, or scriptural, as they

occur.

And, to begin with the imputation of actual merit, or, according to our state of the question, with that enjoyment of good which one man reaps by the merit of another; we know, that, in most countries, estates and honours are con

ferred on the son solely for the merit of his father. We know also, that for this, the equity of national communities is never called in question, nor indeed ought to be, since the thing is not unlawful in itself, and may be turned to good account in the society; but more especially since God, in a natural way, does the same. God hath by nature impressed on the heart of a father an ardent love of his son. This puts him on a proportionable endeavour to acquire a fortune for that son; which fortune, so acquired, the son enjoys on a right as indisputable as that of the father who made it, although the son did not labour for it; although perhaps he does not, in any respect, deserve it. What God does thus naturally, he likewise does providentially. The covenant or promise made to David, that his children's children should sit on his throne for evermore,' was only on condition that they should keep this covenant on their part, Psal. cxxxii. 11; yet, wicked as Abijam was, the Lord his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord,' 1 Kings xv. 4, 5. How often do we see, both in sacred and profane history, a whole people blessed for the goodness of their ruler! a people who are wicked, and ripe for that punishment which awaits them at the end of his reign! This sort of imputation, however, is easily admitted, because men are seldom ready to dispute their own title to a benefit.

[ocr errors]

But the imputation of sin, or what, on the present state of the question, is the same thing, the sharing in the miserable effects of other men's sins, is a doctrine more likely to be questioned. Yet that high treason is a sin, or that forfeiture of estates and titles is a punishment, can hardly be doubted. Now we know there are few countries in the world where this transgression of the father is not deemed justly punished by that forfeiture, as to all his posterity. The whoredom of the father is not only punished by certain disorders inflicted on himself, but visited in a sickly habit of body on his children. The equity of nations, and the natural course of things, which is fixed by the hand of their Creator, hath, we see, made one to suffer for the crimes of another. Wicked princes bring innumerable evils, often total destruction or captivity, on their subjects, in which the children are involved with those of riper years, and the innocent with the guilty. How

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

often does this happen under ambitious kings, who, having unjustly made war with their neighbours, are worsted, and, in their turns, invaded, to the ruin and desolation of their subjects, as well innocent as guilty! The people,' says Horace, are punished for the madness of their kings.' A whole city,' says Hesiod, often suffers on account of one bad man.' This now, whenever it happens, is the necessary consequence of living in society. Yet such is the nature God hath given us, that we cannot live out of society. Wherefore to object this as unjust, is Atheism, or blasphemy. 'I will visit,' saith God in the second commandment, the sins of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation.' If men may not in any case justly suffer for the sins of others, why did the hardness of Pharaoh's heart bring so many plagues and deaths on his subjects? Why were the wives and children of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, swallowed up in the earth with those contumacious transgressors? Why were the Israelites, by the appointment of God, worsted in their first attempt on Ai, for the sin of Achan, who had secreted a share of the spoil taken at Jericho? And why was this sin of one imputed or charged, as well as punished, on the people in general, as appears by God's own words on this occasion? Israel have sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded; for they have taken the accursed thing, and have stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.' Why was Saul ordered, by the express commandment of God, to extirpate the Amalekites for that which their ancestors had done four hundred years before? Why were the seven sons of Saul hanged in Gibeah, after the death of their father, for his having slain the Gibeonites, and that in order to avert a famine wherewith God had afflicted the Israelites for this crime of their first king? Why is untimely death, and total destruction, prophesied to the family of Jeroboam, for the idolatry of this prince, who himself reigned two and twenty years, and died in his bed? Why is the like foretold to Ahab's posterity, on account of his sins? Why does Zion say, Lam. v. 7, 'Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have borne their iniquities.' And, to make an end of instances, why does our Saviour tell

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »