given to those who had destroying weapons, ready to execute the divine vengeance: "Go ye after him through the city, and smite; let not your eye spare, neither have pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women." Thus it appears that in God's threatenings and their execution, little children are not only involved with their more guilty parents, but are sometimes even particularly menaced and examplarily punished. Now if the period of infancy were that of perfect innocence, is it not strange that the period of childhood, which immediately succeeds it, should be represented as so guilty?

5. Christ establishes the doctrine of native depravity, by the argu. ment with which he enforces the necessity of a moral change. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John iii. 6, 7. Here the necessity of the second birth is based on the corruption of the first. As spirituality is represented to be the immediate consequence of being born of the Spirit, so carnality is the immediate consequence of being born of the flesh. Therefore it is that every one who is born of the flesh must be born again, born of the Spirit, in order to an entrance into the kingdom of heaven. But if an infant were not depraved, it would not need to be born of the Spirit. All who believe in the necessity of infant regeneration, must also believe in the depravity of infants. I proceed therefore to observe,

6. That whatever the scriptures have taught on the subject of the regeneration of infants, implying its necessity, practicability, or actual occurrence, will help establish the doctrine of native depravity. As to its necessity and practicability, what could teach them more impressively than infant circumcision? That this was a divinely instituted rite, is a point on which we are all agreed. And are we not all agreed in believing that the thing which gave to this rite its signifinancy was nothing less than the circumcision of the heart? By this significant rite was the church of God taught, during a long period, that their infants, in the earliest age, needed the grace of regeneration, and, of course, that they were to consider them as entering on life in a state of sin.*

Infant regeneration as an actual occurrence, if I mistake not, is exemplified in the case of Samuel. See 1 Sam. i. 24-28. The case of John the Baptist appears to be a deeided example of regeneration in infancy-infancy in its earliest stage. To Zacharias it was declared by the angel concerning his son, "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Luke i. 15. This was as much as if he had said, He shall be born of the Spirit as soon as he is born of the flesh-the second birth shall immediately succeed the first. What else could be intended by his being filled with the Holy Ghost? Miraculous gifts could not be intended; for with these he was never furnished through his whole life. If John needed the renewing of the Holy Ghost as soon as he was born, then he was a sinner as soon as he was

The baptism of infants, with those of us who believe in its divine appointment, must furnish the same argament in favor of the necessity and practicability of their being saved by the washing of regeneration.

born. And if this extraordinary child was born in sin, no doubt the same is true of every other child who comes into the world.

7. It is no slender argument in support of our doctrine, that infants actually appear like depraved creatures. Nor is it necessary to consider their depravity to be of a physical, instead of a moral nature. They are voluntary agents as much as men. They are selfish, proud illnatured, willful, and the like. In all these things they appear perfectly voluntary. They exhibit the buddings of that depravity which displays itself more fully as they advance in life. Now, if we do not denominate these unlovely tempers and dispositions depravity, when they are manifested by infants, why should we give them this name when they appear in children, and even in men? When men act perversely, we conclude they are perverse: and so of children; for "even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure and whether it be right." Prov. xx. 11. And why can not even an infant be known by his doings? Who is there that believes that the infant character is now just as it would have been, had man not revolted from God?

8. An argument of some weight, to establish the doctrine before us, is derived from the utter impracticability of fixing on any time posterior to the child's birth, of which it can be said, Here is the line that divides between a state of innocence and depravity. The expansion of the intellectual faculties is so gradual, as to be almost imperceptible; and the same is true of the manifestations of a depraved heart. If the selfish and perverse dispositions of the infant be viewed as free from moral evil at the first, how can any hour, or day, or month, or even year, be specified, when we may be allowed to denominate them sinful ? Ought we then to think it strange that they, who do not extend depravity back as far as to the birth of a child, should believe (as they often do) in its spotless innocency, until it has advanced in life, one, two, three, four, or even a greater number of years?

In opposition to the arguments which have been adduced in support of infant depravity, it will be urged,

First. That infants have not capacities sufficient for comparing good and evil, and thus making a choice. To this it may be replied; that a disposition, inclining us to choose the evil and refuse the good, may exist, before the judgment is able to make any regular comparison between them. Let us suppose some province in the dominions of the Supreme King, where sin has never entered, or been heard of. The inhabitants of such a province may never have instituted a comparison between the two moral opposites, holiness and sin; yet without doing this, they have always loved holiness. Let us also suppose, that in some other part of the universe there is a rational creature, whose hap. piness has always been of a selfish character, and who never heard or thought of any other, and, of course, had never made a comparison between that happiness which arises from selfish and that which arises from disinterested pursuits; is such a creature innocent in being self. ish? There may be some of the worshipers of Juggernaut, who never in their lives once compared the claims of Jehovah with those of their idol; perhaps they have never heard the name of the true God; but if they have not, are they on this account guiltless in their feeding on ashes? There are no doubt many of the readers of the Koran, who

never had the word of God to place by its side; but does this make their love to a selfish and voluptuous religion praiseworthy, or even innocent?

Secondly. It is urged that infants can not be sinners, since the scripture declares, "Where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. iv. 15. This declaration does not appear, however, to have been at all designed to tell us that any section of the earth, or any portion of its inhabitants, are exempt from the control of God's law, or that there are any of the human race who are not transgressors of it. In the next chapter there is a passage which will help us understand the one on which the present objection is built; "For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law." Rom. v. 13. This was as much as to say, An explicit revelation of God's will is not necessary to lay men under obligation to love and serve him. They can sin, where no such revelation is made. From the fact that sin is in the world, the apostle infers the existence of a divine law, whether that law has been known or not; for a knowledge of the law is not a prerequisite to the existence of transgression. Where a law is of a positive character, so that benevolence, even to perfection, would not dictate the obedience required, it must be revealed and propagated, in order to induce an obligation to render that obedience. When the Creator placed our first parents in Eden, they were under obliga. tion to love him with all their heart, even if they had no express command to this purpose: but their obligation to refrain from eating of a particular tree in the garden, arose from a positive law, interdicting the fruit of that tree.

The remarks which have now been made, will afford us help in understanding the apostle, when he says, "As many as have sinned without law shall perish without law." Rom. ii. 12. Those who sin without the knowledge of an explicit revelation, will not draw on themselves that aggravated punishment, which will be inflicted on such as press their way to death against all the light of God's holy word. Our sin is greatly enhanced by our distinguished privileges. But those who sit in all the darkness of heathenism, are considered as transgressors of the law of God, when their hearts and conduct are in opposition to it, though they have never heard that such a law, or such a God are in existence.* Selfishness, pride, and other similar affections, with their correspondent actions, are wrong, and, in God's account, a transgres

A few months ago, [in the fall of 1834,] as I was journeying through the county of Montgomery, in the state of New York, at the public house where I stopped, I found a boy of the age of eleven, who, though not at all embarrassed, was unable to answer such plain questions, as Who made you? Who made the sun, moon, and stars? Where do good people go when they die? and, Where do the wicked go when they die? By other means he gave proof that he was not at all deficient in his mental powers: but concerning the claims of God, or even his existence, it seemed that he had received no instructions, nor entertained any thoughts. I would now inquire whether this boy, though eleven years old, must not be put into the list of infants? If infants are not moral agents, and sinful agents, because they are unacquainted with the law of God, could this boy be considered as a moral agent or a sinner? Let us then only leave our children entirely destitute of religious instruction, like the boy referred to, and we shall effectually prevent their becoming sinners till they attain to the stature of men! In what class shall we put the deaf mutes? Unless they have had the advantage of that pecaliar institution, which Providence has in modern times prepared for them, they have no knowledge of their accountableness to God. Does this ignorance divest them of charactor, and take them from under the moral government of their Creator?

sion of his law, even where this divine rule has never been seen, or heard of by the transgressors.

A knowledge of the law is necessary to a proper conviction of sin, but not to its existence. Rom. vii. 7. There is no sin in the most depraved creature in the universe, except what is comprehended in selfishness. And I see no difficulty in understanding how a little child, or even an infant, can be selfish, even entirely selfish, in all his affections and actions. Infant depravity, therefore, is no unintelligible thing. It may perhaps be said, we ought no more to consider infantile selfishness to be the nature of sin, than we do that which appears in a mere animal. But does the objector mean to say, that an infant has no soul? If it has a rational immortal soul, it differs widely from a brute, even when to us that difference is scarcely discernible. In the infant there is a miniature mind; but it is not so with the brute. The apparent selfishness of the beast is nothing more than a mere animal instinct, and therefore perishes with its body; but the selfishness of the infant has its seat in the never dying soul, and increases with the expansion of its faculties. Nor is there any reason to believe that the character of the soul is essentially altered by the dissolution of the body, in whatever period of life it may take place.

Thirdly. Some will say, All your arguments to support the doctrine of native depravity, are set aside by what Christ said in commendation of the infant character. I know that he encouraged the bringing of infants to him, to obtain for them his benediction. But does not this very thing furnish one argument in support of our doctrine; for had they been without sin they would not have needed to be brought to the Savior of sinners? He came to seek and save that, and that only, which was lost. When the Savior said concerning little children, “Of such is the kingdom of God," he must not be understood to contradict what he had before said to Nicodemus, concerning the fleshly nature which is immediately consequent on the first birth. Nor is there any need of understanding him to say, that infants have any natural fitness for his kingdom; but only, that his kingdom made room for them, as well as for sinners in the other stages of life. He would not have them des. pised and overlooked, because they are so little, and so incapable of presenting to him their own wants.

Christ, we know, made use of a little child (one which appears to have been advanced somewhat beyond helpless infancy) to illustrate the Christian character. Matthew informs us that "Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them; and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. xviii. 2, 3. I can hardly believe that any, who have paid a careful attention to the subject, will consider this passage as furnishing any solid argument against the doctrine of this Article. Things animate and inanimate, rational and irrational, together with intelligent beings of different characters, were made use of by the divine teacher, to promote the moral improvement of his disciples. In one thing he would have them to resemble the dove, and in another the serpent. The unjust steward was presented to them for their imitation in one particular, namely, in making such a use of present advantages as to provide for future exigencies.

So in the little child he finds something illustrative of the simplicity, meekness, lowliness, dependent spirit, &c. which go to form the Christian character. We ought not to understand him to have said that every little child is actually a Christian; nor indeed to have decided any thing concerning the state of a child's heart; but only to have taught us that a little child (especially one well disciplined) has traits of natural character, which are a bright emblem of the Christian graces.

My remarks on native depravity have been protracted beyond what I first intended. The doctrine I have advocated, I know, is unpopular. The man who teaches that babes are little sinners, will be stigmatized as being rigid and contracted in his views. But if, after all, it shall prove true (and do not the scriptures furnish strong reasons for believing it will?) that babes are sinners, who is it that acts the part of their friend, the man who denies the fact, or he who asserts it? A belief in the sinless innocency of little children, if it be not true, cannot be a harmless error. Its practical results must be very unfavorable to the best interests of these young immortals. Who will care for their souls, while they are believed as yet to have none? Or if it be thought that they have souls, which are not yet contaminated with sin, who will bring them to the arms of the Savior, to seek for them the blessings of his salvation? Can even Christian parents become vigorously engaged in using means, by prayer or otherwise, for the immediate renovation of their children, when in their opinion they may be dwellers on the earth for some length of time (they know not how long) before they posses that depravity which renders a renovation needful? And I would seriously inquire, whether a denial of infant depravity has not some tendency to lead us to a denial of adult depravity; at least, in that view of it, which supposes every exercise of the unregenerate heart to be vitiated with sin? This brings me, as was proposed,

II. To show what is the degree of human depravity. Is it partial or total? This is a question of primary importance. The answer we give to it will do much to stamp the character of our theology. The doctrines of grace (so called) will stand or fall, according to the side which we shall take in relation to this very interesting question. Several of the leading doctrines in the scheme of grace must be given up by those who adopt the sentiment, that man's depravity is but partial. But if any doctrine of the Bible is capable of clear and abundant proof, the entireness of human depravity is certainly one. By entire depravity we do not mean the destruction of free moral agency, but the absence of holiness in a moral agent. Intelligent creatures, before their apostacy, were free from sin; but after it, they were "free from righteousness." The fallen angels, by not keeping their first estate, lost all their holiness, and are now nothing but devils, i. e. evil ones. And was the fall of our first parents any less complete than theirs? Did they not also lose the whole of God's moral image? And is it not an entirely depraved nature which is transmitted to all the generations of their children? And does not the depravity remain entire, so long as they remain uurecovered by regenerating grace? Let us now repair to the law and to the testimony to obtain light on this interesting topic. The entire sinfulness of men, in their state of unregeneracy, is proved,