alfo quotes that paffage from Ezekiel, which we have already confidered.

This ingenious writer has indeed ftrained every nerve, in order to fhew that there was no revelation of a future ftate under the Mofaic difpenfation. But on this point, fuffice it to fay, that all the learning he has difplayed is but a mere wafte of words, as long as we have the reasoning of Chrift with the Sadducees, in proof of the doctrine of a refurrection, from the language of God to Mofes. While the foundation of his fyftem is falfe, it is impoffible that the fuperftructure should be folid.

That these words, "The days come, that I "will make a new covenant with the house of

66

Ifrael," refer to the New Teftament, there is no ground to doubt; because they are thus applied by an infpired apoftle. But there is not the fame evidence as to the words preceding'. All that certainly appears is, that they immediately refer to the days fucceeding the captivity, and the refloration of the Jews to their own land; when they fhould not complain, as formerly, that they fuffered for the iniquity of their fathers, because a great portion of the deserved punishment fhould be inflicted on them in the furnace of Babylon. There is no reference in the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel to the gofpel difpenfation. There is nothing that carries forward the declaration, on which the objection is founded, to the New Teftament. God evidently speaks of his conduct towards the very fame people, who had K 2 accufed

k Luke xx. 37, 38.

1 Jer. xxxi. 29, 30.

accufed him of injuftice. He speaks of it as what fhould take place, not in any future age, but from that day forward: "As I live, faith the LORD God, ye fhall not have occafion any more to use "this proverb in Ifrael m.”

66

It must be acknowledged, however, that the paffage in Jeremiah has been underflood, by fome of the warmest friends of the doctrines of the gofpel, as refpecting New-Teftament times, and as denoting the greater mildness of this difpenfation. According to the general tenor of the Mofaic economy, indeed, God acted with far more feverity. Every tranfgreffion received a just recompence "of reward." This threatening, among others, was executed with more rigour and frequency; and the tokens of divine difpleafure were of a more fenfible and ftriking kind. As temporal rewards were more fuitable to the character of the difpenfation, fo were temporal punishments; when the eternal state was more obfcurely revealed, and to be difcerned especially through a multitude of fhadows. But although the threatening is not executed with the fame severity, it is not therefore abolished although the punishment is not fo ftriking to the fenfes, under the New Teftament, it will not follow that it was therefore peculiar to the Old. Even admitting that this declaration, "The fon "fhall not bear the iniquity of the father," refers to the New Teftament, it will not follow, that the threatening affixed to the fecond commandment is abrogated. For with equal propriety, according

m Ezek. xviii. S.

ing to this rigid mode of interpretation, it might be inferred, that under this new difpenfation no man's own fins fhall be imputed to him: because it follows, "I will remember their fin no more "." It might be argued with confiderable appearance of truth, that if both expreffions refer to the New Teftament, both muft refpect the fame perfons; and that these are fuch only as are truly forgiven of God and therefore that it no more proves that God will not punish the iniquities of fathers on their children, than it proves that he will not punish fin at all.

I fhall only add, that Chrift and his own prophets muft certainly agree. What they fay, therefore, must be understood in unifon with his denunciation againft the Jews, which we have already confidered, that upon them fhould "come "all the righteous blood fhed on the earth." This vifitation hath undoubtedly taken place during the new difpenfation. And fimilar is the vengeance he hath denounced against Rome. Have we not seen it awfully executed in our own day? What idea can we form of the dreadful deluge of blood in a neighbouring country, but that it is the vengeance of JEHOVAH, the vengeance of his temple? If ever any people have had blood to "drink," this undoubtedly has been their portion. Had we exact registers of families, we fhould fee, I am perfuaded, the awful retributions of justice to fucceeding generations, and the fins moft legibly expreffed in the circumftances of the punishment. K 3

□ Jer. xxxi. 34.

This

This vengeance has eminently purfued the royal family. On the devoted head of an unfortunate prince, have the crimes of his fathers, and especially of that vain-glorious tyrant and cruel perfecutor Louis XIV., been vifited. "What," may

it be faid, "was he not lefs guilty, nay, a more "amiable man, and a better prince, than the most "of his predeceffors?" We admit it. But fuch is the mysterious nature of the divine difpenfation. The wicked Ahab was fpared, and Jehoram fuffered, who, although he wrought evil, did not do fo "like his father, and like his mother "." Jeroboam, that great tranfgreffor, was fuffered to die in peace; and the vengeance laid hold of his pofterity, although not fo infamous as he for perfonal iniquity. Let it be admitted, that the enemies of Louis had no right to take his life; this does not alter the character of the punishment, as proceeding from the Supreme Judge. It is It is perfectly confiftent with his fpotlefs holinefs, to employ even the wrath of man." He hath "crea*ted the wafter to deftroy." He, who raifed up a Jehu against the houfe of Ahab, hath raised up wicked and bloodthirsty men as the inftruments of his vengeance against the house of Bourbon. Louis XVI. did not fhed the blood of the faints. He even manifefted a spirit of toleration. But he was not bumbled on account of that iniquity committed by his ancestors. Although he did not work evil like unto them, he "clave to the fins of "Jeroboam," by retaining "the mark of the "beast."

⚫ 2 Kings iii.

"beast." He adhered to the mother of harlots, and thus became a " partaker of her plagues."

The vengeance of God hath alfo been eminently displayed against the clergy of France, who have, in former ages, been the great inftigators and inftruments of the perfecution of the faints. As to them, there could not be a literal execution of the threatening. But God deals with focieties as with families. As parents are perpetuated in their pofterity, focieties, as has already been feen, are viewed as ftill the fame bodies, notwithstanding the change of individuals. God views fuc ceffors as adopting the fins of those who have preceded them, and fubjecting themselves to the deferved puuishment; in as far as they adopt those very principles which have naturally produced fuch fins. Now, Popery is always the fame. It is a religion that shall be overthrown, but can never be reformed. Whatever be the conduct or difpofitions of individuals, the general character of her votaries is, that they " repent not of their "deeds P."

Parents, mark what a ftriking beacon is here fet up to deter you from fin. Do you love the fruit of your body? Shew the fincerity of this love, by hating and avoiding fin; left you fubject your children to a judicial visitation from the righteous Judge. Are you eager to lay up treafure for them? Take heed that it be not a treafure of wrath. If you endeavour to accumulate wealth for their behoof, by unrighteous means,

x Rev. xvi, 9, II.

K 4

you