The Rev. James Keith, of Bridgewater, took a different view of the ſubject, and gave more benignant interpretations. In a letter to Mr. Cotton of the ſame date with Dr. Mather's, he ſays, "I long to hear what becomes of Philip's wife and his ſon. I know there is ſome difficulty in that pſalm, 137, 8, 9, though I think it may be conſidered, whether there be not ſome ſpecialty and ſomewhat extraordinary in it. That law, Deut. 24: 16, compared with the commended example of Amaſias, 2 Chron. 25: 4, doth ſway much with me, in the caſe under conſideration. I hope God will direct thoſe whom it doth concern to a good iſſue. Let us join our prayers, at the throne of grace, with all our might, that the Lord would ſo diſpoſe of all public motions and affairs, that his Jeruſalem in this wilderneſs may be the habitation of juſtice and the mountain of holineſs; that ſo it may be, alſo, a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that ſhall not be taken down."
The queſtion thus ſeriouſly agitated would not, in modern times, occur in any nation in Chriſtendom. Principles of public law, ſentiments of humanity, and the mild influence of the Goſpel, in preference to a recurrence of the Jewiſh diſpenſation, ſo much regarded by our anceſtors in their deliberations and deciſions,[1] would forbid the thought of inflicting puniſhment on children for the offences of a parent. It is gratifying to learn, that, in this inſtance, the meditated ſeverities were not carried into execution, but that the merciful
- ↑ In this diſcuſſion, however, both ſeripture rule and example were in favour of the priſoner. The caſe quoted by Mr. Keith from 2 Chronicles is directly in point. "But he ſlew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moſes," &c.
