the most ingenuity, cover up, keep out of sight, or explain away the meaning; but how we shall fairly, fully, honestly, and impartially develope it? I do not believe, for the nature of the case does not permit me to believe, that the Saviour here refers to little children as exemplars of positive holiness, humility, and benevolence; but that he refers to them as examples of persons in whom all the wicked passions are yet quiet, inactive, unexerted, undeveloped, and who therefore commit no actual or active sin, must be true, unless the comparison which he employs is destitute of all force.

That the Saviour here takes the same view of little children, which is every day spontaneously taken by us when we do not think of polemics in theology, and so call them innocent, harmless, etc., lies upon the very face of the language which he employs. What court of justice or equity on the face of all the earth, from the beginning of the world down to the present day, what parent, what guardian of little children, ever thought of taxing them with crime, or of alleging real sin as a matter with which they stood chargeable?

Once more, and then I shall have done with this part of my topic. After our Saviour had said: "Whoso shall receive such little child in my name, receiveth me" (Matt. 18: 5), he cautions his disciples against despising or overlooking little children, and then adds: "I say unto you, their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven," Matt. 18: 10; in other words: These children stand high in the estimation of my Father in heaven, for he appoints his presenceangels, i. e. angels of the highest order, to be their guardians.'

With such declarations as these in view, how can we characterize children as being sinners, in any sense which comports with Vitringa's definition of sin? Surely we cannot do this with any consistency; and all such as believe that sin consists only in voluntary transgression of a known law by a rational, moral, and free agent, cannot therefore maintain, either on scriptural grounds or on those of reason, that infants (in the sense above defined) are sinners.

But the advocates of original sin, with whom we are now concerned, and who stand on the ground of Turretin, or on that of Edwards, (there is no inconsiderable discrepancy between some of the views of these two theologians), take a position much less objectionable, in some respects, and certainly much more consonant with Scripture and with facts. I do not speak now of 6

SECOND SERIES, VOL. II. NO. III.

extremists, who make no difference between original and actual sin, either as to guilt or punishment; if indeed there be any who do really believe in such a doctrine. I should have doubted once, whether such persons could be found; but I have been compelled to believe it. Yet it is very certain that their views differ exceedingly from those of Turretin. With him, original inherent sin is a part of our very nature, antecedent to all thought, volition, assertion, or action. It is a vitiositas, not a peccatum nor even a vitium in the sense which Vitringa gives to this word, viz. sinful habitude of mind.

Will the advocates of original sin now do me the justice to believe, (I mean of course the moderate and sober advocates of this doctrine), that I am, as I have already intimated more than once, so far from calling in question the main facts at which I understand them to aim in the expression of their opinions, that I most fully accord in the belief of them? It is principally to their terminology, and to the consequences which some of them deduce from the doctrine of what they call original sin, that I object..

I will still further explain myself as briefly as possible. I regard such texts as the following, viz. "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and "By nature we are children of wrath;" as deciding the point that men, while in an unregenerate state, have no holiness and never do any thing morally and spiritually acceptable to God. I do believe that infants, if saved, (their salvation in common with most who hold the old form of the doctrine of original sin I admit as probable), are not, and cannot be, saved on the ground of any holiness or positive righteousness of their own. They must be regenerated, they must be renewed, they must be sanctified, i. e. rendered positively holy, or rather, brought by the influences of the divine Spirit to such a state that they will develope affections and exercises positively holy; for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." It is essential to the happiness of heaven, that those who enjoy it should be positively holy; and therefore infants, as well as others, must be regenerated in order to enjoy it.

But this does not prove, that infants are actually moral agents in the present world, before they arrive at a state in which they are able to distinguish between moral good and evil. An acorn is not an oak-tree; nor even a young scion a tree. There is that within an infant, which, at the proper period of develop

ment, will constitute him a free and moral agent, and he will then become an actual sinner. So there is that in the acorn, which will in due time come to be an oak-tree and oak-timber. But it is neither tree nor timber while it is an acorn.

Paul says, in so many words, of children before their birth, that "they do neither good nor evil." I wish for no argument beyond his authority to settle this point; although I might appeal to the first elements of moral consciousness and judgment, in every human being whom system has not wrought upon, in defence and support of such a principle.

Suppose then that infants die in this state; or suppose they die at any period before they become capable of distinguishing between good and evil; what is their condition to be in a future world? Pelagius said, that they were, while very young, like to Adam in his original state of innocence. I am no Pelagian; I do not believe at all in this position. I think it to be radically and fundamentally erroneous. Whatever susceptibility of impression from objects of sinful enticement Adam may have had in his original state, it is manifest that infants have this susceptibility, (although in a nascent and yet unmatured state), in a far greater degree than Adam. In Adam the vir tuous susceptibilities, (if I may so speak in order to characterize susceptibilities concerned in inclining him to virtuous action), were beyond all question strongly predominant. They remained so until his fall. But in infants now, the case is wholly reversed. The dominant susceptibilities are those which lead to sin; so dominant, that from the moment a child becomes capable of moral action, he begins to sin; and he will continue to do so until he becomes regenerated or sanctified by the Spirit of God. The views of Pelagius, then, in respect to this matter, were as far from mine and opposite to them, as the nature of the case renders it possible.

But I return to the question: On the supposition that infants are saved, on what ground must it be? I have already answered this question in part. Not on the ground of holiness, righteousness, moral purity, or the not having committed any actual sin. This last circumstance may, indeed, be a reason why God should exercise his mercy toward them in a special manner; but then mere innocence, i. e. merely not having sinned, does not of itself qualify any one for the happiness of heaven. If so, then the brute animals, yea the inanimate objects of nature, might be qualified for celestial happiness; for these have committed no sin.

Something positive then is to be done for children, in order to make them happy in heaven. They must have some development of their faculties, as human beings; they must come in some way to know the difference between good and evil; they must come to a state in which voluntary and holy affections and desires will be put forth; they must come to a state of conscious and actual obedience to the great law of love. The susceptibilities of their native state, which in their development here, i. e. in our present world, would have certainly led them to sin, and only to sin, so far as moral actions were concerned-these susceptibilities will, as a matter of course, be greatly diminished when they lay aside a carnal body and quit a world full of excitement and allurement to sin. But still, there seems to be something more needed, in their case, than such a change. The soul itself, in our fallen state, possesses a susceptibility of being enticed to sin in a measure altogether predominant; so that all the motives to virtue are actually insufficient to overcome the force of enticements to sin, when human nature attains its maturer development, and remains still unregenerate. This germ in our very nature, (for such I believe it to be, so that I have no dispute here with Turretin or those who harmonize with him), is to be in some way, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, so regulated, changed, modified, or eradicated even (if it must be so), that the development of the infant in the world of glory will be one of positive obedience and perfect holiness.

With what justice then can it be said by objectors, as it has often been said, not without some shew of exultation: "How then can infants be saved by Christ, if they are not sinners? He is the Saviour of sinners, and of such only."

But who may not see, after a little consideration, that this question, if it has any force in it, strikes upon Paul as hardly as upon those who agree in opinion with me? Paul says, that children do neither good nor evil before they are born. Are infants then, who die before birth, saved or lost? Or are we to believe that anak leyóμevov in theology, not long since sent forth into the world, which maintains that infants before birth have no souls, and asks, with apparent confidence: "Who ever heard that infants had souls before they were born?"

Even a modicum of theological knowledge might have reversed the question, and put it in this shape: Who ever heard that infants had not souls, before they were born? Did the

author of such a question ever read the common-law definition of murder, viz., 'destroying, with malice prepense, the life of a reasonable being;' and did he not know that the laws of all civilized countries punish as murder the malicious destruction of an infant's life, before its birth? Are infants, then, reasonable beings before they have souls? Yet he asks, as though no answer could be given to a question so plain, except the one which he would give: "Who ever heard that infants bave souls before their birth?" And at the same time, but a few pages from this, the same author strenuously contends that David was a sinner before he was born, yea from the first moment of his conception, and appeals to Ps. 51: 5 in support of such a sentiment. David then was a sinner, before he had a soul!! But I am not, and choose not to be, on polemic ground; I return therefore to our subject.

Is Christ the Saviour of infants? If they are saved, (which 1 believe to be matter of fact, although I cannot prove it), beyond all reasonable doubt he is their Saviour. This is my answer. But in what sense are they saved? In the sense that he has made atonement for their actual sins? Certainly not, in case they die before they have committed, or could commit, such sins. What then remains for him to accomplish? A great work; yea, one which none but he who can send his Spirit and bestow his grace, can perform. Infants are to be saved from the direful effects of the fall of Adam. Ever since that fall, their nature is degraded in some highly important respects. In Adam, before his fall, the whole bent of his propensities, or to speak more correctly, the predominant tendency of every susceptibility to receive impressions adapted to excite him to action of any kind, was altogether in favour of the good. This was the proper or moral diathesis of his nature. In infants, born since the fall, the predominant tendency of these susceptibilities is reversed, and so much reversed, that as soon as they come to moral agency, the doing of evil will always take place in regard to every moral action; and this will continue until divine grace interposes.

From this wretched and fearful state they are to be delivered, if they are ever saved at all, by divine grace. Grace it must be that saves them; for grace is unmerited favor; and clear it is that infants do nothing, I might say, can do nothing, to merit the divine favour. Christ then has wrought out their redemption. from this wretched, and in itself helpless, condition. He saves them from these terrible consequences of sin. It is he who has