But it may be said that those sins, whatever they were, were ex- piated in the Babylonish captivity, and pardoned unto them upon their return, so that now they must suffer on the account of their sins committed under the second temple; to which he replies that this exception is of no force: “ Nam liberatio e Babylone nihil aliud fuit quam exploratio, qua Deus experiri voluit, an, cum restitu- tione regni et templi, possint abbreviari et expiari enormia, ista quae commiserant, adulterii, homicidii, et idololatrie peccata; sed pro an- tecedentium debitorum golutione, quam prestare debuerunt, nova insuper debita accumulaverunt ;’—“ For the deliverance from Baby- lon was nothing but a trial, whereby God would make an experi- ment, whether, with the restitution of their kingdom and temple, those enormous sins of adultery, murder, and idolatry, which they had committed, might have been cut off and expiated; but instead of a discharge of their former arrears, which they were obliged unto, they heaped up new debts by their sins.” Thus he. At their ae liverance out of Babylon, the people had no discharge of their former sins by the pardon of them, but were only tried how they would afresh acquit themselves, with a resolution in God, if they made not satisfaction then for those sins, to charge the guilt of them again upon themselves and all their posterity, for all the generations that are past until this day. But,—
First, This is plainly a fiction of this man’s own devising. Let him produce any one word from the Scripture, where it treats of these things, in the least giving countenance thereunto, or let him show how this procedure is suitable unto the justice of God, either unto the general notion that we have of it, or as unto any other instance recorded of it in the Scripture. But if these men may feign what they please, there is no doubt but they will justify them- selves and maintain their own cause.
Secondly, Why did none of the latter prophets whom God granted unto the people after their return from captivity, as Haggai, Zecha- riah, and Malachi, let the people know that this was the condition of their return unto their land, but only require of them to walk answer- ably unto the mercies they had then received ?
Thirdly, As the very nature of the dispensation did declare that God, having purged out the rebels of the people, and destroyed them with his sore judgments, had forgiven their sins, and was returned unto them in a way of mercy and grace, never to call over their fore-
358 JEWS’ TRADITIONS ABOUT THE [EXERC. XVI.
past iniquities any more, so the prophets that treated concerning that dispensation of God do in places innumerable assert the same, and plainly contradict this imagination,
Fourthly, God punisheth not the sins of the fathers upon their children unless the children continue in the sins of their fathers. This he declareth at large, Ezek. xviii, Now, what were the sins of this people under the first temple before their captivity? Our author reckons “ adultery, murder, and idolatry.” There is no doubt but many of them were adulterers, and that sin among others was charged on them by the prophets; but it is evident that their principal ruining sins were their idolatry, and persecution or killing of the prophets. And God by Ezekiel declares that, in and by their captivity, he would punish and take away all their idolatry and adulteries even from the land of Egypt, or their beginning to be his people, chap. xxiii, 11, 27. Now, were the Jews, that is, the body of the people, guilty of these sins under the second house? It is known that from all idolatry they preserved themselves, which was that sin that in an especial manner was their ruin before; and as for killing the prophets, they acknowledge that after Malachi they had none, so that none could be persecuted by them but those whom they will not own to be prophets. But,—
Fifthly, Suppose that all those under the second house continued in the sins of their forefathers, which yet is false, and denied by themselves as occasion requires, yet what have the Jews done for sixteen hundred years, since the destruction of that house? They plead themselves to be holy, and, in application of the prophecy, Isa. liii., unto themselves, proclaim themselves innocent and righteous; at least they would not have us to think that the generality of them are adulterers, murderers, and idolaters, Whence is it, then, that the punishment of their fathers’ sins lies so long on them? What rule of justice is observed herein? What instance of the like dispensa- tion can they produce? For our part, we affirm that they continue unto this day in the same sin for which their forefathers under the second house were rejected and destroyed, and so know the righteous- ness of God in their present captivities and miseries. Besides, —
Sixthly, They say they abhor the sins of their forefathers, repent of them, and do obtain remission of sins through their observation of the law of Moses. Wherein, then, is the faithfulness of God in his promises unto them? Why are they not delivered out of captivity, why not restored to their land, according to express testimonies of the covenant made with them unto that purpose? There is no colour of truth or reason, therefore, in this evasion, which they invented to countenance themselves in their obstinate blindness and unbelief.