We believe that the testimony of experience is on the other side. Every body knows, or may know, from his own experience, that disobedience, and disobedience only, constitutes him sinful: and that, in exact proportion to the repetition of such acts of disobedience, he becomes depraved. But experience knows of no other way in which sinfulness and depravity can be acquired,

It may still be urged, that all men feel, by experience, that they have within them a constitutional propensity or disposition to evil. We grant, that man's natural or animal propensities are liable to excess and abuse; and this undoubtedly every man feels; but that they are, in themselves sinful, we have no evidence, either from experience or any other source. The rational nature of man may be considered as the guardian of the animal propensities: and when these run into excess, the fault is not in them, but in the higher or rational nature, to whose government and direction they are committed.* We have before seen that those dispositions which are of a moral character, and to which alone blame, or approbation can attach, cannot be inherited-cannot be constitutional; but strictly and properly originate with the exercise of the rational powers. And it will be found that experience, when rightly consulted, will favour the opinion that those dispositions, not only so originate, but also that their adoption or rejection is perfectly optional.

* See the following section.

We all feel

that we ought not to entertain evil dispositions, but the contrary. Not to admit this, would overturn all our notions of human freedom and responsibility. It would seem that Adam, in the beginning, was rightly disposed-disposed to obey his Creator; but, hearkening to the tempter, he altered, or changed his disposition from good to evil It was not his maker who changed it, by any act of omnipotent power; which must, however, have been the case, had this disposition made any part of his physical constitution. Nor can it be said with propriety, that the temptation was the cause of such change; for temptation cannot exert the smallest influence beyond a mere enticement, or solicitation to do wrong. And, it follows, that the changing of his disposition was Adam's own proper act! and in the sight of his maker, no doubt, constituted the very essence of his crime.

But it is said, that inherent depravity manifests itself in the bad tempers and dispositions of little children from their first entrance into the world. This objection is so weak and trifling, that one cannot but suspect the cause which needs its support. What is there in the conduct of infants, we may ask, from which it can be inferred that they are a mass of sin and corruption? Is it because the dear little creatures cry when they are hungry? or when they suffer pain? or when they have lost their mother? Because they are sometimes fretful and uneasy, without being able to tell us the reason, shall we

infer that these are the outbreakings—the natural expressions of constitutional and inherent depravity? We think that prejudice, in favour of an hypothesis, must run very high indeed, when it can answer these questions in the affirmative. Was this the light, in which the Redeemer of the world viewed the character and state of little children, when he said, "suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven?"

Other sensitive beings are allowed to exhibit signs of suffering and pain; and, instinctively, to resent injuries and provocations offered to them, without its ever being suspected that such manifestations have their origin in a sinful and depraved nature. And why not allow the same to an infant? Its nature, at this period of its existence, is as purely animal as that of the inferior tribes; and it is as unaccountable for any thing which it does.

And if the crying, fretfulness, and resentments, observable in infants, may all be accounted for, on the ground, simply, of their being susceptible of sufferings, injuries, and provocations, why resort to a depravity of nature, or an innate disposition to evil, for a solution?

But are we not "All born proud, self-willed, lovers of the world, and not lovers of God?" That we are all born capable of those vices cannot, for a moment, be disputed; but to assert that the vices themselves are born with us, as part and parcel of our nature, is grossly ab

surd-an assertion unsupported by any kind of evidence. With as much propriety it might be argued, that, we are all born liars, drunkards, thieves, sabbath-breakers, adulterers, &c., because all may practice those evils, and thousands do practice them. What we have observed of the conduct of little children, evinces, that the period of childhood is characterized, not by pride, self-will, and love of the world; but by the most unaffected and artless simplicity. When the disciples of our Lord were anxious to know which of them should be greatest in his kingdom, he called unto him a little child, and said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." The state of infancy is here exhibited in a light considerably at variance with those representations, which are generally given of it.

It is said, if children be not sinful and depraved, there was no need that Christ should die for them. As this objection will be more particularly considered under section eighth, of the present chapter, it will be necessary only to observe here, that children are as much interested in the death of Jesus as the case required; or, as it is necessary for them to be. To it they are indebted for their very existence. Had no atonement been made, we Eternal life also, which is the

should never have lived.

"gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord," is inva

66

riably conferred on all who die in a state of infancy. Hence, infants are made partakers of life, and a blissful immortality, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, although they have neither moral depravity nor guilt. Eternal life can be conferred on a child just as consistently as on a believer. Neither of them deserves it. They both receive it as The gift of God. It is true, adults cannot receive this gift until they first obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and the purification of their hearts; but children may, because, not having sinned, they need no forgiveness-nothing stands in the way of their being admitted into heaven. Believers, of course, are under greater obligations to the Saviour than children are, because, through his merits, their many personal offences have been blotted out. In point of meetness, however, they are equally eligible for the abodes of eternal bliss.

But it is thought that the sufferings and death of young children, are proof sufficient of their being in a state of guilt and condemnation; for, it is argued, if they were not guilty and polluted, it would be unjust to punish them. To this it may be answered, that sufferings, and death are not always evidences of guilt. Our first parents in Paradise were subjected to the pain and suffering which arose from the temptations of the devil. And every state of probation or trial will have its sufferings, in a greater or less degree, and of one kind or other; for without this it could not be a state of trial.