world. The vices of the father and mother bring poverty, disgrace, and disease on the children, When tho thief is sent to prison his childre □ are left without brel\d. Frnrful diseases appear in the constitution of innocent children following their parents' pro- fligacy. 2. Children inherit the appetites and habits of their parents. 'l'he child of tho drunkard is predisposed to inebriety. This physical inheritance in brain a □ d nerve is confit·med by the ceaseless, powerful, unanswerable lessons of example. Where bhe head of the family leads a loose life the children are brought up under evil influences. II. TI!E FALSITY OF THE PROVERB, 1. God does not inflict real punishment on innocent children. They suffer, but they are not punished; for there is no element of Divine anger towards them in what they endure. God permits the suffering, and he uses it, as he uses other troubles of his children, for discipline. But be cannot look upon the poor victims of the vices of others with any disfavour. It is a piece of hypocritical -Pharisaism on the part of society to treat the children who come of sinful parentage as though they were disgraced by their birth. The effect of sour grapes is purely physical. When we transfer the physical fact to the moral world we fall into a mistake. 2, Actual sin is not hereditary. If it were, men would be doomecl to sin apart from their own choice. But the essence of sin is a self-willed rebellion against God. vVhen freedom of choice is taken out of it the evil thing ceases to be sin; it becomes a moral disease, So long as we have individuality and personal wills we can choose for our- selves. No one is utterly the slave of moral disease, or, if such a person exists, he is a moral lunatic, and not responsible for his action. Therefore he should be put under lock and key. Moreover, responsibility is measured by opportunity, and moral conduct is seen in the amount of resistance offered to the terrible slavery of an inherited tendency to evil habits. The proverb of the sour grapes was not only a discouragement to children; it was an excuse for impenitence among grown-up men. III. THE EXPOSURE AND REJECTION OF THE PROVERB. 1. Afami1iar saying may be false. It may be a venerable lie, or, if true in its first utterance, it may have been exaggerated and so presented as to be false in its present application. 2. It is the duty of the teacher of religion to correct popular notions. This is the second occasion on wbici:J. Ezekiel has exposed and repudiated a popular fallacy enshrined in the form of a proverb (eh. xii. 22), Christ fought prevalent delusions (e.g. Luke xiii. 1-5); so did St. PJ.ul (Rom. ii. 25). 3. There is an advance in revelation. The proverb of the sour grnpes was never given with the authority of a Divine truth. But in the earlier stages oi revelation there was not enough light to liberate men from the illusion on which it WWI founded. As revelation advances it dissolves moral difficulties and clarifies our vision of Divine righteousness.
Ver. 4.-The death-penalty. I. THE PENALTY OF BIN 1s DEATH, This is taken fo1 granted in the present passage. The prophet is not now describing the kind of punish- ment that follows sin; be is indicating the persons on whom that punishment shall fall. When asked who is to die, he answers-The sinner; not bis child, but the sinner himself. But the very fact that the nature of the death-penalty is taken for grnnted makes it the more apparent that the prophet had no doubt about it. Now, we cannot say that Ezekiel's language about the dying of the soul had any reference to a second death in Hades in which the conscious personality is annihilated. We should be missing the historical perspective if we supposed that any such idea would occur to a Hebrew prophet of the Old Testament. The Old Te$tament religion was concerned with this present life, and its sanctions were secular. The p~m)ty of transgressions of the Law was to be" cut off" from among the people, i.e. to be killed-stoned or stabbed. The soul is the life, and to the ancient Hebrow for the soul to die is just for the man to have his earthly death. Still, there is in this no hope of a glorious resurrection for the sinner. His doom is final as far as man can follow it. Moreover, dying, not merely sufl'erincr, is the penalty of the impenitent, while wholesome pain is the chastisement of the penitent (Heb. xii. 6). Sin destroys body, character, faculty, affection. It is a killing influence in all respects (Rom. vi. 23). II. 'l'HE DEATH-PENALTY OF SIN FALLS ONLY ON THE SINNER. Other consequence.s of sin reach the innocent; but not this. Herein lies the solution of the terrible en4,'llla presented by the spectacle of children suffering for the sins of their fathers-or rather, a p1utial solution of it. 'l'he real punishment of the sin does not fall upon th,·m. 326 THE BOOK OF TRE PROPHET EZEKIEL. (on. xvm.1-82,
,vhen the guilty father is drowned in his own wickedness, he sprinkles some of the foul spray on his _childrei:i, a~d it burns them like spots of fire; but he does not drag them down with hrm to his dismal doom unless they freely choose to follow his bad example. Now, for the guilty man there is this dark prospect-he cannot shirk his responsibility and cast his punishment upon another. There is an awful loneliness in guilt. Every one must bear the load of his own sin. III. Turs JUST ARRANGEME1'ni' IS SECURED BY GoD's OWNERSHIP OF SOULS. All belonc, to God; therefore he will not permit final injnstice. The discarded proverb (ver. 2) rested on a sense of fatalism. 'l'he idea it contained was not just, but it seemed to be ine ... itable. The tragedies of lEschylus and Sophocles exhibit the operation of a Nemesis pursuing the descendants of a. guilty man until the original crime of their ancestor is expiated: Physicall:i:-, ~oll:1ethin~ of the kind does often occur ; but in the higher moral and spmtual realm 1t 1s 1mposs1ble, so long as a personal God takes persona.I interest. in indi,idual souls. The modern Nemesis is physical law, We can only escape from some form of unjust fatalism by a belief in a personal God and his direct dealings with souls. IV. CHRIST Dms FOR THE SINS OF OTHERS. 1. Here is a grand exception to the order of punishment. The soul that does not sin dies for the souls that do sin. But with this fa.et we are in a new order. Christ's death is not a consequence of moral law. (1) He comes in grace. (2) His act is voluntary. 2. Here is the hope of our deliver- ance from death. We have all sinned. Therefore we all deserve death, for there is no exception to the law, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." But not only has Christ died for us; he dies in us, we are crucified in him, and dying to sin through h.ia grace we are spared the fearful dying/or sin.