Christ himself, though "without sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," yet he suffererd, was afflicted, and died. Believers also, who have obtained pardon, have been "made free from sin, and have their fruit unto holiness," still suffer affliction and death. But the objection takes it for granted, that afflictions and death are inflicted upon mankind as a punishment for sin. Now the fact appears to be, that, under the present dispensation, sufferings and death form an important part of those trials which constitute man's probationary state: and which are mostly disciplinary, and amongst the most powerful means of weakening his earthly attachments, and of urging on his attention the higher concerns of religion, and the world to come. "Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word."* "Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. "+

We grant that the sufferings and death of infants cannot benefit them, in reference to a preparation for a future state; yet, even in this respect, they are of use to others, and, at the same time, issue in the everlasting felicity of the little sufferers themselves.

Children do not suffer death as a punishment for the sin of Adam, nor because they are themselves guilty

* Psalm cxix. 67.

† 2 Cor. iv. 17.

appointment of God:

and deserve to die; but because it is the will and the "It is appointed unto men once to die."* "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." These plain passages of scripture will guide us in the interpretation of some others, the meaning of which is not quite so obvious. For, as they clearly and positively assert, that death is of divine appointment, it is evident, no other portions of scripture can teach a contrary doctrine. The bible cannot contradict in one place, what it plainly teaches in another.

Since, then, afflictions and death, under the wise and righteous administration of the great father of all, tend ultimately to the good of mankind, their appointment, so far from creating any reasonable ground of complaint, displays, in a very signal manner, the wisdom and goodness of God. Especially when it is considered, that, in Christ Jesus, ample provision has been made for the final conquest of death, the glorious resurrection of the body, and the full, and endless felicity of body and soul in the world to come.

Against the notion, therefore, that temporal death is inflicted as a punishment for sin, the case of infants and believers, presents a formidable difficulty. Who will venture to say that a child deserves to die for sins which itself has committed? Or, that it ought to die for a sin

*Heb. ix. 27.

Gen. iii. 19

which Adam committed some hundreds, or thousands of

years before it was born?

And how can the death of

believers be inflicted as a penalty for sin? When Christ

pardons, he says, "Thy sins which were forgiven thee."*

from sin."+

many are all

Yea, they are said to be "Made free Now if believers suffer death as a punishment for sin, it is evident that pardon does not exempt a man from the punishment due to those very sins which had been forgiven; and is, therefore, a useless and unavailing act; or else that, when a believer is pardoned, those sins, for which he deserved to die, are not includ

ed in the grant! Either of which suppositions is quite inconsistent with the free and full pardon proclaimed in the gospel of God our Saviour.

Some timid souls may take the alarm at what is here advanced, because it admits the possibility of infants obtaining an entrance into heaven without regeneration, contrary to the declaration of our Lord to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." If this text proves the necessity of infant regeneration, the following will prove, as clearly, that all little children must repent, believe, and obey: "except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish;" he that believeth not shall be damned"§ "He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. "||

* Luke vii. 47

Col. ii. 13 + Rom. ii 22. ¶ John iii. 3. Luke xiii. 3 § Mark xvi. 16. || Hebrews v. 9,

F

The notion that infants must experience a change, or undergo some sort of moral renovation, before they can be admitted into heaven, is unscriptural: and the thing unnecessary and impossible. Where does the bible teach

the necessity of such a change? And how, from the nature of the case, can its necessity be shown? A child, having contracted no guilt or pollution, through any act of disobedience or rebellion, can have no sin to repent of, or uncleanness to wash away. But such a change is also impossible. An infant, which is incapable of moral action, must be incapable of moral renovation likewise, and we venture to affirm, that infant regeneration would never have been thought of, had not the dogma of propagated depravity first been invented.

But cannot the Spirit of God produce the change in question? We ask, can the Holy Spirit effect a moral change in a creature which is incapable of it? It is the truth, carried home by the Spirit, by which mankind are regenerated or born again; but infants can neither receive the truth nor be influenced by it; and are, therefore, incapable of regeneration.

The last objection which we shall here notice, is, that the doctrine defended in this section is opposed to some of the clearest statements of holy scripture,

That a few passages may be found in the bible which appear to decide against our views, we by no

means deny; and that, in attempting to bring every such passage into harmony with those views, difficulties may present themselves, which we shall be unable wholly to remove, is what we also as readily confess. These are concessions, however, which we are compelled to make, in reference to other important subjects of inquiry, as well as that under consideration. But we believe that the doctrine of human depravity, as stated and defended in these pages, will, not only be attended with fewer scriptural difficulties, than are found to beset the generally received notion of it, but will also enable us to illustrate and explain a great many texts which are utterly unintelligible when viewed in any other light.

The objection which we are now to consider, is an appeal to the sacred volume, in favour of what is called original sin, or the transmission of moral pollution from Adam, through all successive generations of men, down to the present time. To such an appeal we unhesitateingly respond, and to its righteous decision shall most readily bow.

If the reader's attention has not been specially directed to this subject, he will be somewhat surprised to find it so seldom referred to by the inspired writers. We believe there are not more than two places to be found in all the old testament, in which the effects, or consequences of Adam's transgression, are certainly and clearly mentioned; and that no mention whatever is