Imágenes de páginas

milies for the sake of the infants that were therein, nor take any care that they should not be involved in the destruction; but often with particular care repeated his express commands, that their infants should not be spared, but should be utterly destroyed, without any pity; while Rahab the harlot (who had been far from innocence, though she expressed her faith in entertaining, and safely dismissing the spies) was preserved, and all her friends for her sake. And when God execut→ ed his wrath on the Egyptians, by slaying their first born, though the children of Israel, who were most of them wicked men, as was 'before shewn, were wonderfully spared by the destroying angel, yet such first born of the Egyptians as were infants, were not spared. They not only were not rescued by the angel, and no miracle wrought to save them (as was observed in the case of the infants of Sodom) but the angel destroyed them by his own immediate hand, and a miracle was wrought to kill them.

Here, not to stay to be particular concerning the command by Moses, respecting the destruction of the infants of the Midianites, Num, xxxi. 17. And that given to Saul to destroy all the infants of the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xv. 3, and what is said concerning Edom, Psalm cxxxvii. 9. "Happy shall he be that taketh, and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. I proceed to take notice of something remarkable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, represented in Ezek. ix. when command was given to them, that had charge over the eity, to destroy the inhabitants, verse 1....8 And this reason is given for it, that their iniquity required it, and it was a just recompense of their sin, verse 9, 10. And God at the same time was most particular and exact in his care that such should by no means be involved in the slaughter, as had prov ed by their behavior, that they were not partakers in the abominations of the city. Command was given to the ange! to go through the city, and set a mark upon their foreheads, and the destroying angel had a strict charge not to come near any man, on whom was the mark; yet the infants were not marked, nor a word said of sparing them: On the contrary, infants were expressly mentioned as those that should be utter

ly destroyed, without pity, verse 5, 6. "Go through the city and smite: Let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity, Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark.

And if any should suspect that such instances as these were peculiar to a more severe dispensation, under the Old Testament, let us consider a remarkable instance in the days of the glorious gospel of the grace of God; even the last destruction of Jerusalem; which was far more terrible, and with greater testimonies of God's wrath and indignation, than the destruction of Sodom, or of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's time, or any thing that ever had happened to any city or people, from the beginning of the world to that time: Agreeable to Matth. xxiv. 21, and Luke xxi. 22, 23. But at that time particular care was taken to distinguish and deliver God's people, as was foretold Dan. xii. 1. And we have in the New Testament a particular account of the care Christ took for the preservation of his followers: He gave them a sign, by which they might know when the desolation of the city was nigh, that they that were in Jerusalem might flee to the mountains, and escape. And as history gives account, the Christians followed the directions given, and escaped to a place in the mountains called Pella, and were preserved. Yet no care was taken to preserve the infants of the city, in general; but, according to the predictions of that event, they were involved with others in that great destruction: So heavily did the calamity fall upon them, that those words were verified, Luke xxiii. 29. "Behold the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. And that prophecy in Deut. xxxii. 21....25, which has undoubtedly special respect to this very time, and is so applied by the best commentators. "I will provoke them to jealousy, with those that are not a people; for a fire is kindled in mine anger; and it shall burn to the lowest hell. I will heap mischiefs upon them : I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and bitter destruction. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy

both the young man, and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of grey hairs." And it appears by the history of that destruction, that at that time was a remarkable fulfilment of that in Deut. xxviii. 53....57, concerning parents' eating their children in the siege; and the tender and delicate woman eating her newborn child. And here it must be remembered, that these very destructions of that city and land are spoken of in those places forementioned, as clear evidences of God's wrath, to all nations which shall behold them. And if so, they were evidences of God's wrath towards infants; who, equally with the rest, were the subjects of the destruction. If a particular kind or rank of persons, which made a very considerable part of the inhabitants, were from time to time partakers of the overthrow, without any distinction made in divine providence, and yet this was no evidence at all of God's displeasure with any of them; then a being the subjects of such a calamity could not be an evidence of God's wrath against any of the inhabitants, to the reason of all nations, or any nation, or so much as one person.


Containing observations on particular parts of the
Holy Scripture, which prove the Doctrine of
Original Sin.


Observations relating to things contained in the three first Chapters of Genesis, with reference to the Doctrine of Original Sin.


Concerning Original Righteousness; and whether our first Parents were created with Righteousness, or moral rectitude of Heart?

THE doctrine of Original Righteousness, or the creation of our first parents with holy principles and dispositions, has a close connexion, in ́several respects, with the doctrine of Original Sin. Dr Taylor was sensible of this; and accordingly he strenuously opposes this doctrine, in his book against Original sin. And therefore in handling the subject, I would in the first place remove this author's main objection against this doctrine, and then shew how the doctrine may be inferred from the account which Moses gives us, in the three first chapters of Genesis.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Taylor's grand objection against this doctrine, which he abundantly insists on, is this: That it is utterly inconsist ent with the nature of virtue, that it should be concreated with any person; because, if so, it must be by an act of God's absolute power, without our knowledge or concurrence; and that moral virtue, in its very nature implieth the choice and consent of the moral agent, without which it cannot be virtue and holiness: That a necessary holiness is no holiness. So p. 180, where he observes, "That Adam must exist, he must be created, yea he must exercise thought and reflection, before he was righteous.” See also p. 250, 251. In p. 161. S. he says, "To say, that God not only endowed Adam with a capacity of being righteous, but more- | over that righteousness and true holiness were created with him, or wrought into his nature, at the same time he was made, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness." And in like manner Dr. Turnbull in many places insists upon it, that it is necessary to the very being of virtue, that it be owing to our own choice, and diligent culture.

With respect to this, I would observe, that it consists in a notion of virtue quite inconsistent with the nature of things, and the common notions of mankind; and also inconsistent with Dr. Taylor's own notions of virtue. Therefore if it be truly so, that to affirm that to be virtue or holiness, which is not the fruit of preceding thought, reflection and choice, is to affirm a contradiction, I shall shew plainly, that for him to affirm otherwise, is a contradiction to himself.

In the first place, I think it a contradiction to the nature of things, as judged of by the common sense of mankind. It is agreeable to the sense of the minds of men in all nations and ages, not only that the fruit or effect of a good choice is virtuous, but the good choice itself, from whence that effect proceeds; yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good disposition, temper, or affection of mind, from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. This is the general notion, not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that actions derive their goodness from the principles

« AnteriorContinuar »