Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Gal. ii. 16. By the works of the law shall no flesh liv

James ii. 21.

ing be justified.

Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works?

Paul treats of the justification of the ungodly, or the way in which sinners are accepted of God, and made heirs of eternal life. James speaks of the justification of the godly, or in what way it becomes evident that a man is approved of God. The former is by the righteousness of Christ: the latter is by works. The former of these is that which justifies: the latter is that by which it appears that we are justified. The term justification in the first of these passages is taken in a primary sense: in the last it is taken in a secondary sense only, as in Matt. xi. 19, and other places.

No. III.

Exodus xx. 5. I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate

me.

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.

NEITHER of these passages appear to be applicable to men, as the individual subjects of God's moral government, and with respect to a future world; but merely as

members of society in the present life. Nations, and oth er communities, as such, are considered in the Divine administration as persons. That which is done by them at one period, is visited upon them at another; as the history of Israel, and of all other nations evinces. The effects of the conduct of every generation not being confined to itself, but extended to their posterity, would in proportion as they were possessed of natural affection, furnish a powerful motive to righteousness; and to them who sinned, prove an aggravation to their punishment.

This part of Divine Providence was objected to in the times of Ezekiel as unjust. "The fathers (said they) have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge, the ways of the Lord are not equal.” this objection, two things were suggested in reply:

To

1. That though it was so that the sins from the times of Manasseh fell upon that generation, yet there was no injustice in it; but, on the contrary, much mercy: for what they bore was no more than what their own sins deserved: and its not having been inflicted before, was owing to Divine forbearance. God might have punished both their fathers and them. Hence, “As I live, said the Lord, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel, the soul that sinneth it shall die!" Which is as if he had said, I will no more forbear with you as I have done; but will punish both father and son, instead of the son only. Ezekiel xviii. 1-4.

2. That if the sins of the fathers fell upon the children, it was not without the children having adopted, and persisted in their fathers' crimes. The visiting

of the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation, is only of them that hate him; that is, where the fathers hate him, and the children tread in the fathers' steps. If Judah in the times of Ezekiel had been righteous, they had not gone into captivity for what was done in the times of Manasseh.

Gen. xiii. 17. Arise, walk through the land: for I will give it unto thee.

Gen. xxiii. 17, 18.

And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah; the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees which were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abraham, for a possession.

Acts vii. 5. He gave him non inheritance in it, no not

so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.

THE first of these passages is the language of promise: the last intimates that the promise was not performed to Abraham, but reserved for his posterity. It is true, he purchased a burying ground of the sons of Heth, according to the second passage: but that could hardly be called ground "to set his foot on," which expresses an idea different from that of a place to lay his bones in; and much less an inheritance of God's giving him, to set his foot on. His having to purchase even a grave, was rather a proof that he was considered as a stranger, than of his being a native of the soil. An inheritance given of God he had not: that only was such which his poster

[blocks in formation]

ity enjoyed without purchase, the inhabitants of the land being driven out before them.

Gen. xxxii. 30. I have seen God, face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exod. xxxiii. 20.

Thou canst not see my face; for

there shall no man see me, and live.

THE difference here seems to arise from the phrase, face of God. In the first instance it is expressive of great familiarity, compared with former visions and manifestations of the Divine glory: in the last, of a fulness of knowledge of this glory, which is incompatible with our mortal state, if not with our capacity as creatures. What Jacob said of himself, that he had seen God face to face, is repeatedly spoken of Moses, and as that by which he stood distinguished from other prophets. (Deut. xxxiv. 10.) Even in the same chapter wherein it is said, he "could not see his face and live,” it is said that Jehovah spake unto him, face to face. (Exod. xxxiii. 1, 20.) He whom Jacob saw had at least the appearance of a man, who conversed and wrestled with him till day-break. Yet before they parted, he was convinced that he was more than man, even God; who on that, as on other occasions, assumed a visible and tangible form to commune with his servants, as a prelude of his future incarnation. The face which was scen on this occasion was human; though belonging to one that was Divine, Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face." Thus also that which was beheld by Moses is called "the similitude of Jehovah," (Numb. xii. 8.) or a glorious Divine appearance; of which, though we

are unable to form an adequate idea, yet we may be certain that it came short of what he was afterwards told he "could not see and live." Though, in comparison of other dark speeches and visions, it was seeing him face to face; yet when compared with a perfect knowledge of the glory of God, it was but seeing what among creatures would be called the shadow, or at most "the back parts" of a great personage.

No. IV.

2 Sam. xxiv. 1. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, to say, Ge, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chron. xxi. 1. And satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

THE English translators consider the pronoun he in the former of these passages as relating not to Jehovah, but to satan, referring in the margin to the latter passage as a proof of it. But this seems to be a forced meaning; for not only is the name Jehovah placed as the immediate and only antecedent to the pronoun, but also a reason why he did it.

1. It is certain that God did not so move David to sin as either to partake of it, or to become his tempter: for he cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man. (Jas. i. 13.) It was satan that tempted David to sin, not Jehovah.

« ForrigeFortsæt »