more strange than his use of words in that way when he said of certain "prophets," "inwardly they are ravening wolves;" and the former is even as much less strange than the latter, as a future life can be less easily than the present expressed with words not used figuratively. But the statement of that endurance, which he has, in this passage given, is no more figurative than at least some other statements of it that have been given by others who believe that such an endurance actually exists, and who even represent human souls in a world of spirits as being in connection with those bodies which they know to be "buried" in the earth. Will it be said that if he sanctioned as correct the belief of such an endurance, then he must have also sanctioned all the errors which others may have connected with such an endurance, even if he did not state those errors? Did he then sanction all the errors which others may have connected with the "false prophets" of whom he said, "inwardly they are ravening wolves?" When he called the Infinite Creator "a Spirit," did he sanction all the errors which others may have connected with that Creator? If because Christ, in the passage of "the rich man and "Lazarus," speaks of a future life with some words used figuratively, he utters a parable and teaches nothing of that life, then every individual who speaks of a future life with words used figuratively also utters a parable, and teaches not even his own belief of that life, and every reference to the Infinite Creator that has in it words used figuratively is a parable, and teaches nothing of him! Christ's sanction then, in this assage, of the belief that an endurance after death of such "torments" as are hopeless and as will be everlasting actually exists, can never be invalidated, since it cannot be proved that he ever, of the object of any erroneous belief of such prevalence and influence as those of the belief of such an endurance, made so clear and positive a statement without condemning it, as he has made of the object of this belief without condemning it.

4. As it is at least as obvious that in this passage there is stated an endurance after death of such "torments" as are hopeless and as will be everlasting, as it is that the "torments" which Christ says that "the rich man" experienced after he "died," are more than intimated by "Abraham" to be beyond "mercy" and relief, so even if it could be proved that this passage is a parable, or that Christ stated that endurance for representing another thing, it would even then follow that such an endurance is not unjust, not unscriptural, and not inconsistent with any divine attribute. While "trees" could as easily be made to talk as the beast of burden on which Balaam at a certain time rode was (according to Num. xxii, 28-30) made to speak, will it be said that that endurance is so

unjust, unscriptural, and inconsistent with divine attributes, that it cannot exist? Is it, then, not absurd to attempt, with a statement of that which is not unjust, not unscriptural, and not inconsistent with any divine attribute, to oppose or to explain a statement of that which is regarded as so unjust, unscriptural, and inconsistent with divine attributes, that it is supposed that it could no sooner exist than justice, the Bible, and the Infinite Creator can be annihilated? Can it be proved that Christ ever, without condemning, stated anything that is so unjust, unscriptural, and inconsistent with divine attributes, as an endurance after death of such “torments" as are hopeless and as will be everlasting is said to be? As it cannot be erroneous to do what he did, so they deserve at least no censure who, as he, in giving a statement of such an endurance, do not in the slightest degree condemn it. As only the Infinite Governor controls the state in which are those that have departed from the present life, does it not follow that Christ, in representing that endurance as being in that state, represents that Governor as inflicting it? When Christ represents "Abraham" as saying to "the rich man," "remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented," does he represent "Abraham" as vindicating a human government, and not a divine one? As, then, it is obvious that Christ would not for any purpose represent the Infinite Governor as inflicting that which is unjust, unscriptural, or inconsistent with any divine attribute, it follows that the endurance after death of such "torments" as are hopeless and as will be everlasting, which he by the passage of "the rich man” and “Lazarus" represents that Governor as inflicting, is not unjust, not unscriptural, and not inconsistent with any divine attribute.

ART. VIII-THE MORAL CONDITION OF INFANTS.

SECTION I.

IN the prefatory remarks to the "Order and Form of Baptism, inserted in the Brandenberg and Nuremberg Liturgy of 1553," it is premised that, "in all ecclesiastical usages we must diligently mark what God has commanded and instituted, and what men have added thereto, in order that we may hold the divine as the essential part, and diligently practice it, and on the other hand judge the human additions, whether or not they are things indifferent, and if indiffer

ent, whether they are also useful or not, in order that what is contrary to God's word, or otherwise unprofitable, may be done away."

The principles here laid down are the only safe guide to the Church of God. If she would be sound in doctrine her theology must be more Biblical than dogmatic, more exegetical than traditional. If she would be evangelical in piety her faith must rest more on conviction than prescriptive authority, and if she would preserve the ordinances in their primitive efficiency she must beware of all human additions.

From the days of Abraham children have been treated as eligible to the covenant relation, which is the fundamental idea of the Church relation and have been subjects of the visible seal of that covenant. But in Christian times their relation to the Church has not always been well defined, and hence their rights have not been well guarded. This results from the want of thorough Biblical Christianity. A prolific source of confusion has been found in the misapprehension of the moral condition of children. There is a moral fitness which underlies and pervades all the works of God. The whole structure of the covenant, or Church relation, is based on a moral fitness therefor, found in the character of all legitimate Church members. Dimness of perception, and a faltering faith as to the moral state of infants, will go far to defeat the ends of the Gospel with respect to them. The neglect of parents in presenting their offspring to God; the deficiency of Church training and moral discipline in their education; the paucity of instances of early piety like that of Samuel; the want of faith in parents in pleading the covenant promise, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee;" all naturally spring from the original doubt which rests on the subject of the real moral state of children.

The Methodist Episcopal Church has professed, in advance of all other Churches, to believe in the final salvation of all children dying in immature childhood, and that all are alike included in the redemptive plan and purpose. Our advanced position in theology obliges us, in consistency of character, to take a corresponding liturgical advance. We must adapt our Church provisions and treatment to our faith. But this, hitherto, we have not done. The progress of the age in religious light and zeal has brought the subject of the claims of children before the Churches, and we are called upon by an unexampled concurrence of providential events to stand out before. the world and take the responsibility of the full and well-defined Scriptural and Arminian position as a Church. We need wisdom and piety and courage to do this. It is an important moment for the

Church of God, and our prayer is that the Methodist Episcopal Church may know her duty and fulfill it. It is no time for petty disputes; it is a time for great thoughts, comprehensive views, and decided action.

The object of the present treatise is to set forth the moral state of children on grounds of Scriptural evidence and authority. This is justly considered the first requisite to a settled order of Church faith and practice. Before we ask, "What is our duty, as a Church, to children?" it is legitimate to ask, "What is the moral state of children?" This must be determined, not by canvassing human opinions, and tracing backward the sinuous path of Church tradition, but by an appeal to the word of God. Our argument is purely exegetical. If Holy Scripture throws down a rock for the Church to stand upon, she may thereon rest her faith and practice securely; but if not, the position of the Church will never become steady by the support and proppings of human opinions. In this direction we shall push our inquiry, in the present essay, to an extent sufficient to determine the question, not attempting to exhaust the resources of the Scriptural argument.

Two forces have been brought to bear upon our common nature; the one is sin, the other is grace. In the case of infants, where as yet there is no personal transgression, the force of sin must be hereditary, innate, natural. This is commonly denoted by the term depravity, and is referable, primarily, to the sin of Adam as its cause. This depravity, according to Scripture, is not a mere negation of good, but a positive force; not merely sensational, but affecting the mind as well as the body; not the effect of bad example and education, but natural; not partial and casual in its influence, but universal and constant. The heart of man, apart from grace, and left to its own instincts, always goes wrong. Its tendency is away from God. The testimony of God is, that "every formation of the devices or purposes, in, of his heart is only evil every day." Gen. vi, 5. And a holy apostle has said of the " carnal mind," that is, of the human mind as apart from grace, and in its natural state, that it "oux Toтaσσeтal, does not subject itself to the law of God, ovde yap dvvarai, for indeed it is not able [to subject itself."] Rom. viii, 7. "So, then, they that are in the flesh, ov dvvavrai, have no power to please God," ver. 8. They are "by nature children of wrath." Such is the condition of our nature apart from grace. But is it left here? Does grace reach it with efficacious relief prior to any act of the creature, and as a direct gift of the atonement? We claim that it does, and bring the question directly to the Scriptural test.

SECTION II.

We come, then, to inquire into the effects of Christ's redemption upon our race. The question is, How does the atonement affect the infant portion of our race, or the condition of our human nature? Does the Bible reckon children simply as in a state of nature, or rather actually in a state of grace? Are they spoken of and treated in Scripture as under the power of Adam's transgression, or of Christ's redemption? Are they classed with aliens, or with citizens? Are they counted to the Church, or to the world? as the heirs of life, or the children of wrath? as condemned, or righteous? as dead in sin, or as quickened and alive in Christ? as morally eligible to covenant relation to God, or as morally unfit for such privilege?

These are grave questions, and we take the ground that children. are reckoned to Christ and his Church; that as soon as their distinct entity or individuality is established, as soon as they become human, possessed of a rational soul and endued with the faculties (undeveloped) of a moral being, as soon as the ego of percipient existence is formed, so that the capacity for moral happiness or misery becomes a property or a possibility of being, so soon the human soul comes within the all-comprehensive and gracious provisions of atonement. The date of redemptive power and grace to each individual of our race is coincident with the date of existence. If David could say in truth, "I was brought forth in iniquity, in sin did my mother conceive me," (Ps. li, 5,) with equal truth, and in a sense no less spiritual and pertinent, could he say: "Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from the womb of my mother." (Ps. xxii, 9, 10.)

The efficacy of this grace is sufficient to secure instant acquittal from all condemnation which fell upon our race through the first transgression, present acceptance with God, meetness for the kingdom of heaven, the implantation of the principle of spiritual life, and provision for all prospective demands of probation. We now pass to examine the Bible grounds for this view of the gracious state of infants. I. Our first proof is contained in the argument of Paul, (Rom. v, 12-21.)

The main design of this passage lies upon the face of it, and is, says Prof. Stuart,

"To impress on our minds the certainty of salvation through redeeming blood, and to exalt our views respecting the greatness of the blessings which Christ has procured for us, by a comparison of them with the evil consequences which ensued upon the fall of our first ancestor, and by showing that the blessings extend not only to the removal of these evils, but even far beyond this."