because no power less than omniscient could, in all cases, keep clear of injustice in such an inquisition? But God not only reserved this method of punishment to himself, but has graciously condescended to inform us, by his Prophets, after what manner he was pleased to administer it. YOUR INIQUITIES (says he) AND THE INIQUITIES OF YOUR FATHERS TOGETHER, which have burnt incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom*. And again: "But ye say, Why? doth not the Son "bear the iniquity of the Father? When the Son hath "done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept "all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely "live. But when the Righteous turneth away from "his righteousness and committeth iniquity-shall he " live †?".

So much for that case in which the Posterity were iniquitous, and suffered punishment, in the strict and proper sense of the word. But doubtless, an innocent Posterity were sometimes punished, according to the denunciation of this Law, for the crimes of their wicked Fathers; as is done by modern States, in attaint of blood and confiscation: and this, with the highest equity in both cases.

In our Gothic Constitutions, the throne being the fountain of honour and source of property, Lands and Titles descend from it, and were held as FIEFS of it, under perpetual obligation of military and civil services. Hence the LAWS OF FORFEITURE for high

Isaiah lxv. 7.

Ezek. xviii. 19 & 24. And see note [GG] at the end.

This appears from the rise of that proverb in Israel, The Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the Children's teeth are set on edge.

treason,

treason*, the most violent breach of the condition on which those fiefs were granted. Nor was there any injustice in the forfeiture of what was acquired by no natural right, but by civil compact, how much soever the confiscation might affect an innocent posterity.

.

The same principles operated under a Theocracy. God supported the Israelites in Judea, by an extraordinary administration of his providence. The consequence of which were great temporal blessings to which they had no natural claim; given them on condition of obedience. Nothing therefore could be more equitable than, on the violation of that condition, to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the Children of a Father thus offending. How then can the Deist charge this Law with injustice? since a Posterity when innocent was affected only in their civil conditional rights; and, when deprived of those which were natural and unconditional, were always guilty.

66

From all this it appears, that the excellent GROTIUS himself had a very crude and imperfect notion of the whole matter, when he resolved the justice of it intirely into God's sovereign right over his creatures. Deus quidem in lege Hebræis data paternam impietatem in posteros se vindicaturum minatur: sed ipse Jus Dominii plenissimum habet, ut in res nostras, ita in vitam nostram, ut munus suum, quod "sine ulla causa & quovis tempore auferre cuivis, quando vult, potest †."

66

66

66

II. As to the second point, the charge of Gontradiction in the Dispensation, we now see, that, on the contrary, these different declarations of God's manner

*See note [HH] at the end of this Book.

+ De Jure Bel. & Pac. vol. ii. p. 593. Ed. Barbeyrac, Amst. 1720.

of

of punishing in two so distant periods, are the MOST DIVINE INSTANCE of constancy and uniformity in the manifestations of eternal Justice: So far are they from any indication of a milder or severer Spirit, as Tindal with equal insolence and folly hath objected to Revelation. For while a future state was kept hid from the Jews, there was absolute need of such a Law to restrain the more daring Spirits, by working on their instincts; or, as Cicero expresses it-ut caritas liberorum amiciores Parentes Reipublicæ redderet. But when a doctrine was brought to light which held them up, and continued them after death, the objects of divine justice, it had then no farther use; and was therefore reasonably to be abolished with the rest of the judicial Laws, peculiar to the Mosaic Dispensation. But these men have taken it into their heads (and what comes slowly in, will go slowly out) that it was repealed for its injustice; though another reason be as plainly intimated by the Prophets, as the circumstances of those times would permit; and so plainly by JEREMIAH, that none but such heads could either not see or not acknowledge it. In his thirty-firstchapter, foretelling the advent of the NEW Dispensation, he expressly says, this Law shall be revoked: IN THOSE DAYS they shall say no more, The Fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the Children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity. Yet, in the very next chapter, speaking of the OLD Dispensation, under which they then lived, he as expressly declares the Law to be still in force. When I had delivered the evidence of the purchase unto Baruch, I prayed unto the Lord, saying,-Thou shewest loving-kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their * See note [II] at the end of this Book.

† Ver. 29, 30. children

children after them*. Is this like a man who had forgot himself, or who suspected the Law of cruelty or injustice?

But the ignorance of Free-thinking was here unaffected; and indeed the more excusable, as the matter had of old perplexed both Jews and Christians. The Synagogue was so scandalized at EZEKIEL'S Declarations against this mode of punishment, that they deliberated a long time whether he should not be thrown out of the Canon, for contradicting Moses in so open a manner f. And Sentence had at last past upon him, but that one Chananias promised to reconcile the two Prophets. How he kept his word, is not known, for there is nothing of his extant upon the subject; only we are told that he approved himself a man of honour, and, with great labour and study, at length did the business .·

ORIGEN was so perplexed with the different assertions of these two Prophets, that he could find no better way of reconciling them than by having recourse to his allegorical fanaticism, and supposing the words of the first to be a Parable or Mystic speech; which, however, he would not pretend to decipher. The learned Father, having quoted some pagan Oracles intimating that Children were punished for the

* Ver. 16 & 18.

Les Juifs disent qu' Ezechiel etoit serviteur de Jérémie, & que le Sanhedrin delibera long-tems, si l'on rejetteroit son Livre 48 Canon des Ecritures. Le sujet de leur chagrin contre ce Prophete vient de son extreme obscurité, & de ce qu'il enseigne diverses choses contraires à Moise --Fzechiel, disent-ils, a declaré, Que le fils ne porteroit plus l'iniquité de son pere, contre ce que Moise dit expressement, Que le Seigneur venge l'iniquité des Feres sur les Enjens, jusqu'à la troisieme & quatrieme generation. Calmet, Dissert, vol. i. p. 361.

See note [KM] at the end of this Book. • Exod. xx. Ezek. xvin

crimes of their Forefathers, goes on in this manner: "How much more equitable is what our Scriptures

say on this point: 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, DEUT. xxiv. 16, &c.-But if any one should object that this verse " of the oracle,

46

On the Children's Children and their Posterity; "is very like what Scripture says, that GoD visits "the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children unto "the third and fourth Generation of them that hate

him, Exod. xx. 5. he may learn from Ezekiel that "those words are a PARABLE; for the Prophets re

prove such as say, The Fathers have eaten sour Grapes, and the Children's teeth are set on edge; "and then it follows: As I live, saith the Lord, every one shall die for his own sins only. But this is not the place to explain what is meant by the "PARABLE of visiting iniquity unto the third and "fourth generation*." There could hardly be more

mistakes in so few words. The two texts in Deuteronomy and Exodus, which Origen represents as treating of the same subject, treat of subjects very different: the first, as we have shewn above, concerns the Magistrate's execution of the Law; the other,

Ὅρα δὲ ὅσῳ τέτε βέλτιον τὸ, Οὐκ ἀποθανένται, &c. ἐὰν δέ τις ὅμοιον εἶναι λέγη τῷ

Ἐς παίδων παῖδας οἳ καὶ ὄπισθεν γένωνται,

τὸν ̓Αποδιδὲς ἁμαρτίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα, ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην γενεὰν τοῖς μισᾶσί [με] μαθέτω, ὅτι ἐν τῷ Ἰεζεκιήλ παραβολὴ τὸ τοιῦτον εἶναι λέλεκται, αἰτιωμένω τὰς λέγοντας. Οἱ πατέρες ἔφαίον όμφακα, καὶ οἱ οθόνες τῶν τέκνων ἡμωδίασαν ᾧ ἐπιφέρεται, Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριο, ἀλλ ̓ ἡ ἔκαςΘ τῇ ἑαυτὸ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀποθανεῖται. Οὐ κατὰ τὸν παρόντα δὲ καιρόν ἔτι, διηγήσασθαι τί σημαίνει ἡ περὶ τῷ τρίτην καὶ τελάρτην γενεὰν ἀποδι δίασθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας παραβολή. Cont. Cels. p. 403.

that