infants,) with the dictates of reason and conscience. \Ve shall
now proceed, at once, to redeem this promise.
The divine goodness itself demands the punishment of moral
evil, in order to prevent the ravages and disorders which it
naturally tends to introduce into the world. Hence, there is
no difliculty in reconciling the existence of natural evil, or suf-
fering, with the goodness of God, in so far as itmay be regarded
as the punishment of sin. But there are many instances of
suffering in the world, which do not appear to be the punish-
ment of sin: such, for example, as the sullering of infants.
They frequently endure very great pain and calamities before
they are capable of transgression. \Vhy, then, do they suffer 2
\Vhy are such dreadful calamities permitted to fall upon them ?
Are they sent as a punishment for sin, or to serve some other
purpose in the wise economy of Divine Providence ?
This question presents one of the most deeply interesting
problems in the science of theology. The various solutions
which have been given of it, by learned and ingenious divines,
have long seemed to us to form one of the most wonderful
chapters in the history of the human mind. \Ve invite the at-
tention ofthe reader to a brief examination of these solutions or
hypotheses. This, it is believed, will be not only instructive in
itself, but it will also enable us to arrive at clear and consistent
views respecting the great problem to which these hypotheses
relate.
The great fundamental principle which pervades one class of
these hypotheses is, that there can be no sutiering or natural
evil under the good providence of God, except such as is a pun-
ishment for sin. It is contended, that all the suffering which
even infants are made to bear, is inflicted by tl1e hand of the
Almighty as a punishment of sin existing in them. Thus,
says a celebrated and learned divine,1 in relation to infants:
‘Pain and death are evils, and when inflicted by the hand of a
just God must be punishments; for although the innocent may
be harassed and destroyed by the arbitrary exercise of human
power, none but the guilty suffer under His administration’
The same doctrine is held by President Edwards: ‘\Ve may

1Dick's Lectures on Theology. Vol. I., p. 461.

argue from these things,' says he,' that infants are not sinless, but are by nature the children of wrath, seeing this terrible evil comes so heavily upon mankind at this early period. But besides the mortality of infants in general, there are sonie particular cases of their death attended with circumstances, which, in a peculiar manner, give evidence of their sinfulness, and of their just exposedness to divine wrath.' Dr. Bates, in his Harmony of the Divine Attributes, is equally explicit: 'How many troops of deadly diseases are ready to seize on them immediately after their entrance into the world, which are the apparent effects of God's displeasure; and therefore argue man to be guilty of some great crime from the womb.' The same principle is laid down by President Dwight: 1 We are compelled to one of these two conclusions; either that infants are contaminated in their moral nature, and born in the likeness of apostate Adam, a fact irresistibly proved so far as the most unexceptionable analogy proves anything, by the depraved moral conduct of every infant: or that God inflicts these sufferings on moral beings who are perfectly innocent. I leave the alternative to the choice of those who object against the doctrine'; that is, the doctrine of a proper sin in new-born infants. Calvin also says, that' infants themselves, as they bring their condemnation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the sinfulness of another. For though they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, yet they have the seed of it within them; even their whole nature is as it were a seed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Whence it follows, that it is properly accounted sin in the sight of God, because there can be no guilt, (i. e. liableness to punishment,) without «rime.''

This principle, that all suffering must needs be a punishment, is said to be derived from revelation as well as from the light of nature. 'The Scripture abundantly teaches us,' says President Edwards, ' to look on great calamities and sufferings which God brings on man, especially death, as marks of his displeasure

2 Institutes. Eook II., C h. I.

for sin, and for sin belonging to them who suffer.'3 'The very light of nature, or tradition from ancient revelation, led the heathen to conceive of death as in a peculiar manner an evidence of divine vengeance. Thus we have an account, That when the lmrbarians saw the venomous heast hang on Paul's hand, they said among themselves, no doubt this man is a murderer, whom though he hath escaped the seas, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.'4

The difficulty is solved, then, by the assumption that all who suffer deserve what falls on them. Infants are 'justly exposed to divine wrath ', on account of some great crime of which they 'arc guilty from the womb'. But here the question arises, are infants really guilty of any great crime? arc they justly exposed to the wrath of God? If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we shall, indeed, see why they suffer, and the great difficulty will be solved. But the very doctrine which is employed to remove the difficulty, may be attended with still greater difficulties of its own; and if so, we shall have gained nothing, except additional perplexity. It may be more difficult to conceive, how it is possible for infants to be sinners, or to deserve punishment, than it is to determine, why they suffer; and if so, we may well say, with President Edwards, that it is an ' odd way of solving difficulties to advance still greater in order to it'.

God would not be just, it is said, if he permitted the innocent to suffer. No such cruel and tyrannical thing as the suffering of the innocent ever takes place under his perfect administration. Infants, then, must be sinners, and deserve all the frightful calamities to which they are exposed. But. how do they come by this sinfulness, this desert of punishment, this just exposedness to divine wrath? The hvpotheses which have been invented to answer this question, or rather that have been employed to explain it, are exceedingly discordant and conflicting. Let us briefly examine them, and see if we may not extract the elements of harmonv from these discordant theories. The First Hypothesis.

The first theory on the subject is, that infants are sinners, a Original Sin. Part I., Chap. II. 4 Ibid.

.and deserve punishment, because they were present in Adam and sinned in him. 'All the posterity of Adam', it has been contended,' were, in the most literal sense, already in him, and sinned in him,—in his person; and that Adam's sin is therefore justly imputed to all his posterity. This hypothesis has its ground in the opinion, that the souls of children have existed either in reality, or at least potentially, in their parents, and this as far back as Adam; and that in this way, the souls .of all his posterity participate in the actions done in his person, although they themselves were never after conscious of such action. This was the doctrine of the Traduciani, which Tertullian also professed. And it was upon this ground principally, that the strict doctrine of imputation was maintained in the Latin Church; even Ambrosius placed his defence of it upon this basis. But this doctrine was argued with the greatest zeal by Augustine in opposition to Pelagius, and after his time was generally received in the "Western Church; although Augustine himself was often doubtful in respect to Traducianism. What Paul had taught in a loose, popular way, was now taken by Augustine and his followers in a strict, philosophical, and logical sense.' 3

This scheme of thought was not confined to Augustine and his followers. It was maintained by Arminius himself, as well as by his adversaries in the Svnod of Dort. In relation to the transgression of Adam, Arminius says: 'The whole sin is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the whole race of their posterity; who, at the time when they sinned, were in their loins, and afterwards descended by natural generation from them. For all sinned in. Adam. Whatever punishment, ,therefore, was inflicted on our first parents, has gone down through, and still rests on, all their posterity; so that all are children of wrath by nature, being obnoxious to condemnation, to death temporal and eternal, and to a destitution of original righteousness and holiness. To these evils they will remain eternally subject, unless they are delivered from them by Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever.'

That such a theory should ever have obtained in the Chris

5 Knapp's Theology. Vol. II., Art. IX., J 76.

tian world, is certainly a most impressive and instructive historical fact. It does not deserve, and, at the present day, it does not demand a serious refutation. But there was a period, when it extensively prevailed, and, having secured the authority of great names, especially that of Augustine, it was made the very test and standard of orthodoxy. All were deemed heretics who would not consent to bring their minds into this dark cell of orthodoxy; but that time has passed away. Traces of this absurd hypothesis may, indeed, be still found in the writings of some of the most admired authors of modern times; they exist, however, only as the receding shadows of the night before theadvancing glories of the day.

The hypothesis in question, is not one whit less wild and chimerical than that of the preexistence of the soul; which was adopted by Plato, and other ancient philosophers, to account for the natural evils of the present life. Indeed, it is little more than a modification of that ancient dream , for it supposes that an infant suffers now, because its soul existed in Adam six thousand years ago, and in that preexistent state transgressed the law of God! It is true, that those who maintained this doctrine did not rest on philosophical proofs of its truth; they adopted the word of God, taken in its literal and strict, but not in its true, sense, as their guide.

'As the theory of Augustine', says Dr. Knapp, (Vol. II., pp. 48-9,)' rests upon a baseless hypothesis, it does not need a formal refutation. It was the prevailing theory among the schoolmen, and even throughout the sixteenth century, and until about the middle of the seventeenth, when it was contested by the French Reformed theologians, Joshua Placseus, and Moses Amyraldus; who, however, were violently opposed. In England, too, it was contested by Thomas Burnet. The advocates of this theory endeavored to defend it by means of the theory of Spermatic animalcula', which arose about the middle of the eighteenth century. When by means of the magnifying glass, these spermatic animalculfe were observed, the thought occurred, that they were the causes of impregnation. And tome then affirmed, that the souls of all men were in Adam, had their 6eat in these invisible animalculn?, participated in