PART
WHEREIN ARE
CONSIDERED SOME EVIDENCES OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM FACTS AND EVENTS, AS FOUNDED BY
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE, TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIONS AND TESTIMONIES OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND THE CONFESSION AND ASSERTION OF OPPOSERS
CHAPTER II
UNIVERSAL
MORTALITY PROVES ORIGINAL SIN; PARTICULARLY THE DEATH OF INFANTS, WITH ITS
VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE
universal reign of death
over persons of all ages indiscriminately, with the awful circumstances and
attendants of death, prove that men come sinful into the world. — It is
needless here particularly to inquire, whether God has not a sovereign right to
set bounds to the lives of his own creates, be they sinful or not; and as he
gives life, so to take it away when he pleases? Or how far God has a right to
bring extreme suffering and calamity on an innocent moral agent? For death, with
the pains and agonies with which it is usually brought on, is not merely a
limiting of existence, but is a most terrible calamity; and to such a creature
as man — capable of conceiving of immortality, made with an earnest desire
after it, capable of foresight and reflection on approaching death, and having
an extreme dread of it — is a calamity above all others terrible. I say, it is
needless elaborately to consider, whether God may not, consistent with his
perfections by absolute sovereignty, bring so great a calamity on mankind when
perfectly innocent. It is sufficient, if we have good evidence from Scripture,
that it is not agreeable to God’s manner of dealing with mankind so to do.
It is manifest,
that mankind were not originally subjected to this calamity: God brought it on
them afterwards, on occasion of man’s sin, when manifesting his great
displeasure, and by a sentence pronounced by him as a judge; which Dr. T. often
confesses. Sin entered into the world, as the apostle says, and death by sin.
Which certainly leads us to suppose, that this affair was ordered, not merely by
the sovereignty of a creator, but by the righteousness of a judge. And the
Scripture everywhere speaks of all great afflictions and calamities, which God
in his providence brings on mankind, as testimonies of his displeasure for sin,
in the subjects of those calamities; excepting those sufferings which are to
atone for the sins of others. He ever taught his people to look on such
calamities as his rod, the rod of his anger, his frown, the
hidings of his face in displeasure. Hence such calamities are in
Scripture so often called by the name of judgments, being what God brings
on men as a judge, executing a righteous sentence for transgression. Yea,
they are often called by the name of wrath, especially calamities
consisting or issuing in death. (See Lev. 10:6; Num. 1:53, and 18:5; Jos. 9:20;
2 Chr. 24:18, and 19:2, 10, and 28:13, and 32:25; Ezra 7:23; Neh. 13:18; Zec.
7:12 and many other places.) And hence also is that which Dr. T. would have us
take so much notice of, that sometimes, in the Scripture, calamity and suffering
is called by such names as sin, iniquity, being guilty, etc. which is
evidently by a metonymy of the cause for the effect. It is not likely that, in
the language used of old among God’s people, calamity or suffering would have
been called by the names of sin and guilt, if it had been so far from having any
connection with sin, that even death itself, which is always spoken of as the
most terrible of calamities, is not so much as any sign of the sinfulness of the
subject, or any testimony of God’s displeasure for his guilt, as Dr. T.
supposes.
Death is spoken of
in Scripture as the chief of calamities, the most extreme and terrible of
all natural evils in this world. Deadly destruction is spoken of as the
most terrible destruction (1 Sam. 5:11). Deadly sorrow, as the most
extreme sorrow (Isa. 17:11; Mat. 26:38). And deadly enemies, as the most
bitter and terrible enemies (Psa. 17:9). The extremity of Christ’s sufferings
is represented by his suffering unto death (Phil. 2:8, and other places).
Hence the greatest testimonies of God’s anger for the sins of men in this
world, have been by inflicting death; as on the sinners of the old world;
on the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; on Onan, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians;
on Nadab and Abihu, Korah and his company, and the rest of the rebels in the
wilderness; on the wicked inhabitants of Canaan; on Hophni and Phinehas, Ananias
and Sapphira, and the unbelieving Jews, upon whom wrath came to the uttermost,
in the time of the last destruction of Jerusalem. This calamity is often spoken
of as in a peculiar manner the fruit of guilt. Exo. 28:43, “That they bear not
iniquity and die.” Lev. 22:9, “Lest they bear sin for it and die”
(so Num. 18:22, compared with Lev. 10:1, 2). The very light of nature, or
tradition from ancient revelation, led the heathen to conceive of death as in a
peculiar manner an evidence of divine vengeance. Thus we have an account (Acts
28:4), That “when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on Paul’s hand,
they said among themselves, no doubt this man is a murderer, whom though he hath
escaped the seas, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.”
Calamities, very
small in comparison of the universal temporal destruction of mankind by death,
are spoken of as manifest indications of God’s great displeasure for the
sinfulness of the subject; such as the destruction of particular cities,
countries, or numbers of men, by war or pestilence. Deu. 29:24, “All nations
shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the
heat of this great anger?” (Compare Deu. 32:30; 1 Kin. 9:8; and Jer. 22:8, 9.)
These calamities, thus spoken of as plain testimonies of God’s great anger,
consisted only in hastening on that death, which otherwise, by God’s
disposal, would most certainly have come in a short time. Now to take off thirty
or forty years from seventy or eighty, supposing it to be so much, one with
another, in the time of these extraordinary judgments, is but a small matter, in
comparison of God first making man mortal, cutting off his hope of immortality,
subjecting him to inevitable death, which his nature so exceedingly dreads; and
afterwards shortening his life further, by cutting off more than eight hundred
years of it: so bringing it to be less than a twelfth part of what is was in the
first ages of the world. Besides that innumerable multitudes in the common
course of things, without any extraordinary judgment, die in youth, in
childhood, and infancy. Therefore how inconsiderable a thing is the additional
or hastened destruction, that is sometimes brought on a particular city or
country by war, compared with that universal havoc which death makes of the
whole human race, from generation to generation, without distinction of sex,
age, quality, or condition; with all the infinitely various dismal
circumstances, torments, and agonies, which attend the death of old and young,
adult persons and little infants! if those particular and comparatively trivial
calamities, extending perhaps not to more than the thousandth part of one
generation, are clear evidences of God’s great anger; certainly this universal
destruction — by which the whole world, in all generations, is swallowed up,
as by a flood that nothing can resist — must be a most glaring manifestation
of God’s anger for the sinfulness of mankind. Yea, the Scripture is express,
that it is so: (Psa. 90:3, etc.) “Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest,
Return, ye children of men. — Thou carriest them away as with a flood: they
are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass, which groweth up; in the
morning it flourisheth and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down and
withereth. For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.
Thou has set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy
countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years
as a tale that is told. The days of our years are threescore years and ten: and
if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour
and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knoweth the power of
thine anger? According to thy fear, so is they wrath. So teach us to number our
days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.” How plain and full is this
testimony, that the general mortality of mankind is an evidence of God’s anger
for the sin of those who are the subjects of such a dispensation!
Abimelech speaks of
it as what he had reason to conclude from God’s nature and perfection, that
he would not slay a righteous nation. Gen. 20:4. By righteous
evidently meaning innocent. And if so, much less will God slay a
righteous world — consisting of so many nations, repeating the great
slaughter in every generation — or subject the whole world of mankind to
death, when they are considered as innocent, as Dr. T. supposes. We have from
time to time in Scripture such phrases as — worthy of death, and guilty
of death: but certainly the righteous Judge of all the earth will not bring
death on thousands of millions, not only that are not worthy of death, but are
worthy of no punishment at all.
Dr. T. from time to
time speaks of affliction and death as a great benefit, as they increase
the vanity of all earthly things, and tend to excite sober reflections, and to
induce us to be moderate in gratifying the appetites of the body, and to mortify
pride and ambition, etc. [P 21, 67, and other places.]
1. It is not denied
but God may see it needful for mankind in their present state, that they should
be mortal, and subject to outward afflictions, to restrain their lusts, mortify
their pride, etc. But then is it not an evidence of man’s depravity,
that it is so? Is it not an evidence of distemper of mind, yea, strong disease,
when man stands in need of such sharp medicines, such severe and terrible means
to restrain his lusts, keep down his pride, and to make him willing, and
obedient to God? It must be owing to a corrupt and ungrateful heart, if the
riches of divine bounty, in bestowing life and prosperity, things comfortable
and pleasant, will not engage the heart to God and virtue, love and obedience.
Whereas he must always have the rod held over him, be often chastised,
and held under the apprehensions of death, to keep him from running wild in
pride, contempt, and rebellion; ungratefully using the blessings dealt forth
from God’s hand, in sinning against him, and serving his enemies. If man has
no natural disingenuity of heart, it must be a mysterious thing indeed, that the
sweet blessings of God’s bounty have not as powerful an influence to restrain
him from sinning against God, as terrible afflictions. If anything can be a
proof of a perverse and vile disposition, this must be a proof of a perverse and
vile disposition, this must be a proof of it, that men should be most apt to
forget and despise God, when his providence is most kind; and that they should
need to have God chastising them with great severity, and even killing them, to
keep them in order. If we were as much disposed to gratitude to God for his
benefits, as we are to anger at our fellow-creatures for injuries, as we must be
(so far as I can see) if we are not of a depraved heart; then the sweetness of
divine bounty, and the height of every enjoyment pleasing to innocent human
nature, would be as powerful incentives to a proper regard for God — tending
as much to promote religion and virtue — as to have the world filled with
calamities, and to have God (to use the language of Hezekiah, Isa. 38:13,
describing death and its agonies) as a lion, breaking all our bones, and from
day even to night, making an end of us.
Dr. T himself (p.
252) says, “that our first parents before the fall were placed in a condition
proper to engage their gratitude, love, and obedience.” Which is as much as to
say, a condition proper to engage them to the exercise and practice of all
religion. And if the paradisaical state was proper to engage to all religion and
duty, and men still come into the world with hearts as good as the two first of
the species, why is it not proper to engage them to it still? What need of so
vastly changing man’s state, depriving him of all those blessings, and instead
of them allotting to him a world full of briers and thorns, affliction,
calamity, and death, to engage him to it? The taking away of life, and all those
pleasant enjoyments man had at first, by a permanent constitution, would be no
stated benefit to mankind, unless there was in them a stated disposition to
abuse such blessings. The taking of them away, is supposed to be a benefit,
under the notion of their tending to lead men to sin: but they would have no
such tendency, at least in a stated manner, unless there was in men a fixed
tendency to make that unreasonable misimprovement of them. Such a temper of
mind, as amounts to a disposition to make such a misimprovement of blessings, is
often spoken of in Scripture as most astonishingly vile and perverse. So
concerning Israel abusing the blessings of Canaan, that land flowing with milk
and honey; their ingratitude in it is spoken of by the prophets, as enough to
astonish all heaven and earth, and as more than brutish stupidity and vileness.
Jer. 2:7, “I brought them into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof,
and the goodness thereof. But when ye entered, ye defiled my land,” etc. See
the following verses, especially verse 12, “Be astonished, O ye heavens, at
this.” So Isa. 1:2-4, “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; I have
nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox
knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but my people doth not know,
Israel doth not consider. Ah, sinful nation! a people laden with iniquity, a
seed of evil-doers, children that are corrupters.” (Compare Deu. 32:6-19.) If
to be disposed thus to abuse the blessings of so fruitful and pleasant a land as
Canaan, showed so great depravity, surely it would be an evidence of a
corruption no less astonishing, to be inclined to abuse the blessings of Eden,
and the garden of God.
2. If death be
brought on mankind only as a benefit, and in that manner which Dr. T. mentions
— to mortify or moderate their carnal appetites and affections, wean them from
the world, excite them to sober reflections, and lead them to the fear and
obedience of God, etc. — is it not strange that it should fall so heavily on
infants, who are not capable of making any such improvement of it; so that many
more of mankind suffer death in infancy, than in any other equal part of the age
of man? Our author sometimes hints, that the death of infants may be for the
correction and punishment of parents. But hath God any need of such methods to
add to parents’ afflictions? Are there not other ways for increasing their
trouble, without destroying the lives of such multitudes of those who are
perfectly innocent, and who, on the supposition, have in no respect any sin
belonging to them? On whom death comes at an age, when not only the subjects are
not capable of reflection, or making any improvement of it, either in suffering,
or the expectation of it: but also at an age, when parents and friends — who
alone can improve, and whom Dr. T. supposes alone to be punished by it —
suffer least by being bereaved of them; though the infants themselves sometimes
suffer to great extremity?
3. To suppose, as
Dr. T. does, that death is brought on mankind in consequence of Adam’s
sin, not at all as a calamity but only as a favor and benefit, is
contrary to the gospel; which teaches, that when Christ, as the second Adam,
comes to remove and destroy that death, which came by the first Adam, he
finds it not as a friend, but an enemy. 1 Cor. 15:22, “For as in Adam all die,
so in Christ shall all be made alive” (with 1 Cor. 15:25, 26), “For he must
reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy
that shall be destroyed, is death.”
Dr. T urges, that
the afflictions to which mankind are subjected, and particularly their common
mortality, are represented in Scripture as the chastisements of our heavenly
Father; and therefore are designed for our spiritual good, and consequently are
not of the nature of punishments. (So in p. 68, 69. 38, 39. S.)
Though I think the
thing asserted far from being true, viz. that the Scripture represents
the afflictions of mankind in general, and particularly their common mortality,
as the chastisement of a heavenly Father; yet it is needless to stand to dispute
that matter. For if it be so, it will be no argument that the afflictions and
death of mankind are not evidences of their sinfulness. Those would be strange
chastisements from the hand of a wise and good Father, which are wholly for
nothing; especially such severe chastisements, as to break the child’s bones,
when at the same time the father does not suppose any guilt, fault, or offense,
in any respect, belonging to the child; but it is chastised in this terrible
manner, only for fear that it will be faulty hereafter. I say, these would be a
strange sort of chastisements; yea, though he should be able to make it up to
the child afterwards. Dr. T speaks of representations made by the whole current
of Scripture; I am certain, it is not agreeable to the current of Scripture, to
represent divine fatherly chastisements after this manner. It is true, the
Scripture supposes such chastenings to be the fruit of God’s goodness; yet at
the same time it evermore represents them as being for the sin of the
subject, and as evidences of the divine displeasure for its sinfulness.
Thus the apostle (1 Cor. 11:30-32) speaks of God chastening his people by mortal
sickness, for their good, that they might not be condemned with the world, and
yet signifies that it was for their sin; for
this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep: that
is, for the profaneness and sinful disorder before mentioned. So Elihu (Job
33:16-20, etc.) speaks of the same chastening by sickness, as for men’s
good; to withdraw man from his sinful purpose, and to hide pride from
man, and keep back his soul from the pit; that therefore God chastens man with
pain on his bed, and the multitude of this bones with strong pain. But these
chastenings are for his sins, as appears by what follows (Job 33:28). Where it is
observed, that when God by this means has brought men to repent, and
humbly confess their sins, he delivers them. Again, the same Elihu,
speaking of the unfailing love of God to the righteous, even when he chastens
them, and they are bound in fetters, and holden in cords of affliction (Job
36:7-8, etc.) yet speaks of these chastenings as being for their sins
(verse 9) “Then he showeth them their work, and their transgressions,
that they have exceeded.” So David (Psa. 30) speaks of God’s chastening
by some afflictions, as being for his good, and issuing joyfully; and yet being
the fruit of God’s anger for his sin (Psa. 30:5). God’s anger
endureth but for a moment, etc. (Compare Psa. 119:67, 71, 75.)
God’s fatherly chastisements are spoken of as being for sin. (2 Sam. 7:14, 15)
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I
will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of
men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him.” So the prophet Jeremiah
speaks of the great affliction that God’s people suffered in the time of the
captivity, as being for their good. (Lam. 3:25, etc.) But yet these
chastisements are spoken of as being for their sin
(see especially verse 39-40). So Christ says, Rev. 3:19, “As many as I love, I
rebuke and chasten.” But the words following show, that these chastenings from
love are for sin that should be repented of: “Be zealous therefore, and
repent.” And though Christ tells us, they are blessed that are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake, and have reason to rejoice and be exceeding glad; yet
even the persecutions of God’s people, as ordered in divine providence, are
spoken of as divine chastenings for sin, like the just corrections of a father,
when the children deserve them, Heb. 12. The apostle there speaking to the
Christians concerning the persecutions which they suffered, calls their
sufferings by the name of divine rebukes; which implies testifying against
a fault: and that they may not be discouraged, puts them in mind, that whom
the Lord loves he chastens, and scourges every son that he receiveth. It is also
very plain, that the persecutions of God’s people, as they are from the
disposing hand of God, are chastisements for sin.
(See 1 Pet. 4:17, 18, compared with Pro. 11:31. See also Psa. 69:4-9.)
If divine
chastisements in general are certain evidences that the subjects are not wholly
without sin, some way belonging to them, then in a peculiar manner is death so;
for these reasons:
(1.) Because
slaying, or delivering to death, is often spoken of as, in general, a more awful
thing than the chastisements which are endured in this life. Thus, Psa. 118:17,
18, “I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord
hath chastened me sore; but he hath not given me over unto death.” So the
Psalmist (Psa. 88:15) setting forth the extremity of his affliction, represents
it as what was next to death. “I am afflicted, and ready to die, — while I
suffer thy terrors, I am distracted.” (see 1 Sam. 20:3) And so God’s
tenderness towards persons under chastisement, is, from time to time, set forth,
that he did not proceed so far, as to make an end of them by death. (As in Psa.
78:38, 39; Psa. 103:9, with verse 14, 15; Psa. 30:2, 3, 9, and Job 33:22-24.)
Especially may
death be looked upon as the most extreme of all temporal sufferings, when
attended with such dreadful circumstances, and extreme pains, as those with
which Providence sometimes brings it on infants; as on the children that
were offered up to Moloch, and some other idols, who were tormented to death in
burning brass. Dr. T. says (p. 83, 128. S.) “The Lord of all being can never
want time, and place, and power, to compensate abundantly any sufferings infants
now undergo in subserviency to his good providence.” But there are no bounds
to such a license, in evading evidences from fact. It might as well be said,
that there is not and cannot be any such thing as evidence, from events of
God’s displeasure; which is most contrary to the whole current of Scripture,
as may appear in part from what has been observed. This gentleman might as well
go further still, and say, that God may cast guiltless persons into hell fire,
to remain there in the most unutterable torments for ages of ages (which bear no
greater proportion to eternity than a quarter of an hour), and if he does so, it
is no evidence of God’s displeasure; because he can never want time, place,
and power, abundantly to compensate their sufferings afterwards. If it be so, it
is not to the purpose, as long as the Scripture so abundantly teaches us to look
on great calamities and sufferings which God brings on men, especially death, as
marks of his displeasure for sin, and for sin belonging to them who suffer.
(2.) Another thing
— which may well lead us to suppose death, in a peculiar manner, above other
temporal sufferings, to be intended as a testimony of God’s displeasure for
sin — is, that death is attended with that awful appearance, that gloomy and
terrible aspect, which naturally suggests to our minds God’s awful
displeasure. Of this Dr. T. himself takes particular notice, when (p. 69).
speaking of death; “Herein (says he) have we before our eyes a striking
demonstration, that sin is infinitely hateful to God, and the corruption and
ruin of our nature. Nothing is more proper than such a sight to give us the
utmost abhorrence of all iniquity,” etc. Now, if death be no testimony of
God’s displeasure for sin — no evidence that the subject is looked upon, by
him who inflicts it, as any other than perfectly innocent, free from all
imputation of guilt, and treated only as an object of favor — is it not
strange, that God should annex to it such affecting appearances of his hatred
and anger for sin, more than to other chastisements? Which yet the Scripture
teaches us are always for sin. These gloomy and striking manifestations of
God’s hatred of sin attending death, are equivalent to the awful frowns of God
attending the stroke of his hand. If we should see a wise and just father
chastising his child, mixing terrible frowns with severe strokes, we should
justly argue, that the father considered his child as having in him something
displeasing, and that he did not thus treat his child only under a notion
of mortifying him, and preventing his being faulty hereafter, and
making it up to him afterwards, when he had been perfectly innocent, and without
fault, either of action or disposition.
We may well argue
from these things, that infants are not sinless, but are by nature children of
wrath, seeing this terrible evil comes so heavily on mankind at this early
period. But, besides the mortality of infants in general, there are some particular
cases of their death attended with circumstances, which, in a peculiar
manner, give evidence of their sinfulness, and of their just exposedness to
divine wrath. Particularly,
The destroying of
the infants in Sodom and the neighboring cities, may be pleaded in evidence; for
these cities destroyed in so miraculous and awful a manner, are set forth as a
signal example of God’s dreadful vengeance for sin. (Jude, verse 7.) God did
not reprove, but manifestly countenanced, Abraham, when he said, with respect to
the destruction of Sodom (Gen. 18:23, 25), “Wilt thou destroy the righteous
with the wicked? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the
righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that
be far from thee. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Abraham’s
words imply that God would not destroy the innocent with the guilty.
We may well understand innocent as included in the word righteous,
according to the language usual in Scripture, in speaking of such cases of
judgment and punishment (Gen. 20:4; Exo. 23:7; Deu. 25:1; 2 Sam. 4:11; 2 Chr.
6:23, and Pro. 18:5). Eliphaz says, Job 4:7, “Who ever perished, being innocent?
or where were the righteous cut off?” We see what great care God took
that Lot should not be involved in that destruction. He was miraculously
rescued by angels, sent on purpose; who laid hold on him, brought him, set him
without the gates of the city, and told him that they could do nothing till he
was out of the way (Gen. 19:22). And not only was he thus miraculously
delivered, but his two wicked daughters for his sake. The whole affair, both the
destruction and the rescue, was miraculous; and God could as easily have
delivered the infants which were in those cities. And if they had been without
sin, their perfect innocence, one should think, would have pleaded much more
strongly for them, than those lewd women’s relation to Lot pleaded for them.
When in such a case, we must suppose these infants much further from deserving
to be involved in that destruction, than even Lot himself. To say, that God
could make it up to those infants in another world, must be an insufficient
reply. For so he could as easily have made it up to Lot, or to ten
or fifty righteous, if they had been destroyed in the same fire.
Nevertheless, it is plainly signified, that this would not have been agreeable
to the wise and holy proceedings of the judge of all the earth.
Since God declared,
that if there had been found but then righteous in Sodom, he would have spared
the whole city for their sakes, may we not well suppose, if infants are
perfectly innocent, that he would have spared the old world, in which
there were, without doubt, many hundred thousand infants, and in general, one in
every family, whose perfect innocence pleaded for its preservation? Especially
when such vast care was taken to save Noah and his family (some of whom, one at
least, seem to have been none of the best), that they might not be involved in
that destruction. If the perfect sinlessness of infants had been a notion
entertained among the people of God, in the ages next following the flood —
handed down from Noah and his children, who well knew that vast multitudes of
infants perished in the flood — is it likely that Eliphaz, who lived within a
few generations of Shem and Noah, would have said to Job (Job 4:7), “Who ever
perished, being innocent? and when were the righteous cut off? Especially, since
in the same discourse (Job 5:1) he appeals to the tradition of the ancients for
a confirmation of this very point (also in Job 15:7-10, and 22:15, 16.) and he
mentions the destruction of the wicked by the flood, as an instance of that
perishing of the wicked, which he supposes to be peculiar to them, for Job’s
conviction; in which the wicked were cut down out of time, their foundation
being overflown with a flood. Where it is also observable, that he speaks of
such an untimeliness of death as they suffered by the flood, as one
evidence of guilt; as he also does, Job 15:32, 33, “It shall be accomplished
before his time; and his branch shall not be green.” But those who were
destroyed by the flood in infancy, above all the rest, were cut down out of
time; when instead of living above nine hundred years, according to the
common period of man’s life, at that time, many were cut down before they were
one year old.
When God executed
vengeance on the ancient inhabitants of Canaan, he not only did not spare
their cities and families for the sake of their infants, nor took care that they
should not be involved in the destruction; but he often 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) were preserved, and all her friends for her sake. And when
God executed 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 shown,
were wonderfully spared by the destroying angel, yet — the Egyptian 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.
Not to be
particular, concerning the command by Moses, respecting the destruction of the
infants of the Midianites (Num. 31:17); and that given to Saul to destroy all
the infants of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:3); and what is said concerning Edom (Psa.
137:9), “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 Eze. 9, when command was given 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 (Eze. 9:9, 10).
God, at the same time, was most particular and exact in his care, that such as
had proved by their behavior, that they were not partakers in the abominations
of the city, should by no means be involved in the slaughter. Command was given
to the angel 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 utterly
destroyed, without pity (Eze 9:5, 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.”
Next > Part II: Chapter I
Index < Content