abandoned the idea that the sufferings of infants are on account of the first transgression, he finds it necessary to account for their being treated as sinners. That they suffer the evils of the present life, and natural death, are facts too plain to be denied but how does he account for these things on his principle? Why, astonishing to relate! he attempts to make it appear that an infant, not a day old, and that knows not its right hand from its left, or its father from its mother, or whether it has any, is capable of knowing sufficient of God and his law, the nature and work of repen tence, faith, &c. to act under a consciousness of its accountability to God!! If this is the most easy way of getting along with this subject, I am not surprised that Mr. H. should consider it a most difficult question to answer. This seems to be the subtance of his argument. evils of the present life, and natural death, are the natural consequences of actual transgression; but infants de suffer both-therefore, infants are actual sinners. The flaw in this argument is in the first proposition; for although the evils of the present life and death, are the consequences of actual sin; yet it was the actual sin of Adam, not of infants. 1. Cor. xv. 22. "In Adam all die." "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all." To prove that infants are

actual sinners, Mr. H. quotes Rom. v. 12.

sin entered into the world, and death by sin,

passed upon all men,

for that all have sinned."

The

"By one man

and so death

It is readily granted that in some sense all have sinned; but it is not granted, neither can it be proved, that infants are actual sinners. The Apostle, it would seem, apprehended that such a use might be made of this text, by some, and therefore adds the following words,-"For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law.— Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over

them that had not sinned, after the similitude of Adam's transgression."

Whoever the persons were of whom the Apostle says, they had not sinned as Adam did, it is certain they were not actual sinners, for this was the similitude of his transgression. It is also certain that where there is no knowledge of a law, there is no sin imputed. Now the Apostle certainly meant to apply these remarks to somebody who lived at the time mentioned, (from Adam to Moses,) and that it cannot apply to adults, is equally true, for there are none who are entirely without law.-Rom. ii. 14, 15. The conclusion is they were infants. They had, in some way, so fallen, in Adam, and percipitated in the consequences of his sin, that they suffered death on account of it, and yet actual sin was not imputed to them. I conclude, then, that taken in its proper connexion, the twelfth verse is only designed to teach that as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so, (i. e. by one man,) death passed upon all men, for that all (in him as their representative,) have sinned.Again, he says," But what evidence have we, that they may not be actual sinners, as soon as they are born?" p.98.

I answer, this is a manifest begging the question. Mr. H. has assumed the affirmative, and it is his business to support it. Men are very prone to wish to shift the laboring oar upon some one else, especially, when they have a heavy current of evidence against them. However, we shall not refuse to ply the oar of truth a few moments in defence of the Gospel of Christ. 1. Then, infants have no knowledge of any moral law whatever; and until they have, there can be no actual sin. Rom. v. 13. That some knowledge of a law is necessary to constitute actual sin, is also evident, from the words of Christ; "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now ye say, we see, therefore your sin remaineth."

John, ix, 41,-see also, John, xv, 22, 24. 2. They are not capable of repentance, faith, or any moral action; at least we have no evidence that they are; the whole is, therefore, mere presumption, and not to be relied on. Common sense teaches the reverse. And to suppose that God has placed them in circumstances where they can sin, but cannot repent, is a base reflection upon his character. 3. The commands of the Gospel are not addressed to infants, but to persons capable of understanding and complying with them.Neither do I believe that Mr. H. was ever known to give 4. We have not the godly advice to an infant of a day old! least intimation from the word of God, that a single infant was ever lost; neither have we any evidence that they repent. If, therefore, they are actual sinners, many of them

be damned, which is contrary to the express declaration may of Christ. "Even so it is not the will of your Father, which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." And how often did he say, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven."?

But if infants are actual sinners, one of two things is true; either all who die in infancy repent, believe, and love God, before they die, (though they should live but one hour,) or some infants are damned! I know not which of these alternatives Mr. H. will choose, but if he is a consistent man, he must choose one or the other. Again he says,—“ It must be supposed that they possess all the faculties of soul, that are possessed by adults, or they cannot be moral beings. If the faculties, though feeble, be not entire, we cannot conceive how they can be moral beings; of course we can. not conceive how they can be subjects of rewards or punishments." To this I reply-Mr. H. has here conceded one ef three things. 1. That infants are punished for the sin of Adam-or, 2, that they are for their own sins, in this life

or, 3, that they are punished with everlasting death in the world to come. The first, (that infants are obnoxious to natural death for Adam's sin,) he objects to. The second (that they are punished in this life for their own sins,) he also objects to, and thinks it would be "mingling the scenes of probation and trial with those of retribution." p. 87.The third is, of course, his sentiment, viz :—that infants are punished with everlasting death, in the world to come. But further, what is it to be a "moral being"? Is it not to be the subject of a moral government; and must not the subject be acquainted with the law under which he is to act, and according to which he is to be judged? And must not the capacity of the subject be equal to the demands of the law? Now let common sense answer the question, whether an imfant of a day old, is a moral being, or capable of committing actual sin! But he says, "it must be supposed that they possess all the faculties of soul which are possessed by adults." And so does the germ of every plant, possess all the properties of a full grown plant in miniature; but who, in his senses, could expect, on this account, that a young scion can bear fruit? As soon, however, might this be expected, as that an infant, of a day old, can be expected to bear the fruits of righteousness! But if they are not "moral beings, how can they be the subjects of rewards or punishments ? With respect to rewards, I answer, the sufferings of this present time, which are but for a moment, work out for them, a far more exceeding and an eternal weight of glory, as well as for the adult Christian. Moreover the meritorious cause of their rewards, is the same as those of adults. "By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." As to punishments, although they are involved in suffering on account

of the first transgression, yet they are not guilty of actual sin and as to future punishments, not one of them all who die in infancy, will ever taste one drop of that cup.

Again, he observes, "It is universally conceded by all who believe the Bible, that there will be none of our race received to heaven, but through the mediation of Christ. But surely we cannot suppose that they can be pardoned through his blood, when they are so far from being moral agents as not to possess an entire soul." Here again Mr. H. takes for granted what he should have proved, viz. that infants are actual sinners. When he proves this, then he may talk of their being pardoned. But if they have no actual sin to be pardoned how can they be "received to heaven through the mediation of Christ ?" Why, by the same rule that the work of sanctification and glorification are both through the mediation of Christ in the case of adults who die pardoned. The depravity of their natures is washed away in the atoning blood before they are received to heaven. Hence all that reach that happy world, will delight to sing, "Unto him that loved us and washed us in his own blood," &c. Another error into which Mr. H. has fallen, is the confounding the soul with its faculties. He seems to suppose that if the infant do not " possess all the faculties which are possessed by adults, they have not an entire soul!" Suppose the soul and its faculties to be the same thing, and how easy a matter is it to show, that man has no soul after death! Mr. H, will not deny but reason is a faculty of the soul; and yet it is certain that this is often suspended while we are dying. The same may be said of the faculty of memory. Moreover, if his principle be true, there are thousands of adults who have not an "entire soul;" for how many are there who have lost their reason! But again he says, "But if it be granted that they are in possession of all the faculties