66

What appears however at first sight a more serious argument against the doctrine of original sin is drawn from the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the apostle Paul, in reference to children. It will be most convenient to consider St. Paul's expression the first; Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." I Cor, xii. 20. Now if this proves that children are born without malice, it must also prove that they are born without understanding-which is not the fact. What is understanding but the exercise of the brain? And are children born without any brains? No; a child's brain is as perfect as a man's; the only difference is, that the powers of one are more developed and strengthened by exercise than the other. A new-born infant has the principle of understanding as much as a grown-up person, but it is so slightly drawn out into practice, as to be scarcely perceptible; it lies dormant. Therefore since the apostle here places children on the same footing as regards malice and understanding, we should naturally conclude, that, as they are born with the principle or seeds of understanding, that is with brains, so they are born with the principle or seeds of malice, that is a corrupt heart, "for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts," &c., &c. And now observe how properly the emblem of a child is here used to describe the Christian's freedom from malice" in malice be ye children," Does a Christian ever attain a state of perfect absolute innocence in this life? Let St. John answer; "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us 1 John i. 8. St. Paul too argues at large in the 7th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, that the principle of sin continues in us, and has to be struggled against all our lives. The standard we have to aim at is the perfection and holiness of God; but if we say we have reached it, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Well then may the apostle exhort Christians, "In malice be ye children; for in both cases the seeds of malice, as well as every other kind of evil, lie concealed in the heart, while in both cases its actings are suppressed; the propensities of the child not yet being developed, those of the Christian being subdued by the power of Divine grace. A new-born infant is as fit an emblem of innocence, as a new-born tiger is of gentleness and harmlessness. Look at it; how quiet

66

66

and peaceable it is! Why it would not hurt a child. "Instead of thinking that tigers are born with ferocious and cruel natures," Mr. Barker would argue, we wish every one was as innocent and harmless." So do we; but tigers are born with ferocious and cruel natures notwithstanding. Give it time and opportunity to shew its nature, to develop its propensities, and you will soon see what this quiet and gentle

looking animal will turn out: yet at present we might say to a person with perfect propriety, You should endeavour to be as gentle and harmless as this young tiger; in the same way that the apostle exhorts, "In malice be ye children." The same principle applies to all kinds of animals, who are born, as is well known, each with their own peculiar propensities; which propensities however very few of them display or carry out into action at first. The vegetable world also will furnish us with illustrations no less appropriate. Take two rose seeds; plant them in the same soil, at the same time, close together, so that they must be exposed to the same temperature, the same sun, and the same rain. They both grow up trees, and both trees bear roses; but the roses on one tree have a sweet scent, those on the other have no scent, or

scarcely any What makes the difference? Evidently the seed; it can be nothing else. The two seeds must have been of different kinds; yet if you had smelled them, you would have perceived no more smell in the one than the other, and of either of them you might have said, that such and such a thing was as scentless as this rose seed. It gives out no perceptible smell at present; but it contains that within itself, which, if allowed time and proper circumstances for developement, will infallibly produce a sweet-scented rose. Again, look at this young sapling just sprouting up from the ground; how tender and soft and pliable it is, a fit emblem at present of any thing that is easily bent or twisted. But give it time to grow and shew its real nature, and it will become a knotted oak, hard, firm and unbending. Nay, the germ of all that is seen in the full grown tree, was contained in the very acorn from which it grew, though the acorn shewed as little signs of it, as an infant does of the fallen nature he possesses. Such illustrations might of course be multiplied without end, all shewing the propriety of the apostle's exhortation, and its perfect agreement with the scriptural doctrine of original sin, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."

We now come to the two expressions of our Lord's, on which so much stress is laid. The first is found in Matt xviii. 2, 3. "And 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." Now if a little child is absolutely sinless and holy by nature, then no one can enter heaven, whose nature has not become absolutely sinless and holy in this life; for the becoming as little children is not said to take place after entering heaven, but is insisted on as a necessary qualification before entering it. Had St. John attained this state of perfect innocence, when he said, "If

we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"? Or St. Paul, when he wrote the 7th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans? Would any one dare to say he had attained it? If he did, it would indeed shew him to be in a state of the most utter spiritual blindness, ignorant alike of the nature of sin, and of the state of his own heart. Our Lord's meaning is seen plainly from the context, especially when compared with the account of the same story given by St. Mark, ch. ix 33, and by St. Luke, ch. ix. 46. The disciples had shown a proud ambitious spirit, by disputing among themselves who should be the greatest; in answer to which Jesus uses the words in question, and adds, "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." The child is set before them evidently as a pattern of humility; but this no more proves a child's nature to be sinless, than St. Paul's saying "In malice be ye children." The seeds of pride as well as of malice are in its nature, and so they are in the most advanced Christian's nature (see Rom, ch. vii); but in the one they have not yet been able to develop themselves, in the other they are subdued by Divine grace. A little child then, although born in a fallen nature, is as fit an emblem of one, who in the Lord's strength overcomes the pride of his heart, as of one who overcomes the malice of his heart.

The other passage is in Matt. xix. 14. "And Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Heaven is not made up of wicked persons, it is argued. and therefore children cannot have wicked hearts. Now in the first place let us ask,

If these children, whatever their age might be, were not sinners in some way, and consequently in need of a Saviour, why were they brought to Jesus "that he should put his hands on them and pray"? Would not the disciples have been right in rebuking their parents? And would not Jesus instead of saying, "Suffer them to come unto me," have said, Take them away, they are sinless and don't want a Saviour; I have nothing to do with such innocent creatures; the whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick; the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost; I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and little children are neither sick nor lost; don't bring them to me." Such would undoubtedly have been his language, if children were what Unitarians assert; and the welcome he gave them is as plain a proof as can be required, that they were sinners, and therefore that the Unitarian interpretation of the words, “Of such is the kingdom," cannot possibly be a correct one. If heaven is inhabited by such beings as those children then were, what

need of their being brought to Jesus at all? They must have been quite fit for heaven already; what more could be wanted? The very argument carries its own answer on the face of it. Still the question remains, What did Jesus mean by it? Now there are two interpretations usually given of the words, both of which I will lay before you. The first supposes them to refer to infant baptism. In order to understand this, you must remember that "the kingdom of heaven," or "the kingdom of God," (which is the same thing) very often in St. Matthew's gospel means the Christian dispensation, the outward and visible Church upon earth, not in heaven,, especially in reference to the character, condition, and privileges of its members. It is perhaps more generally used to denote the millennial reign of Christ on the earth; but it certainly is, and that not unfrequently, also applied to the preparatory or intermediate dispensation, during which Christ is gathering out his Bride, the elect Church, which is to share the glory of his kingdom. Witness the following passages. After hearing the parable of the sower, which evidently refers to the kingdom of grace on earth, not glory in heaven, "the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Matt. xiii. 10, 11. The promise to Peter, Matt. xvi. 19, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," no doubt refers to his being the chosen instrument of opening the doors of the Christian Church to the whole Gentile world, and admitting them to the privileges of the gospel. Acts x. and xi. Again, But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Matt. xii. 28. "Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matt. xxi, 43. Beloved, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke xvii. 21. Such then being the constant use of the expression "kingdom of heaven "kingdom of God," there is no difficulty at all in supposing our Lord's meaning to be, that, as under the Jewish dispensation infants were admitted into the outward Church, so they would continue to be under the Christian dispensation: nor do I think it any objection to this view, that he says nothing concerning the change which was afterwards made in the rite, when baptism took the place of circumcision, Infants were still to be, as they always had been, received into outward covenant with God, and therefore let no one "forbid them" to be brought to Jesus for his blessing. But there is another interpretation which the words will bear equally well, and which agrees better with what immediately follows.* For

66

See Mark x. 15, and Luke xviii. 15.

or

both Mark and Luke, in their account of the story, relate that, after saying "For of such is the kingdom of God," our Lord added, "Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." From this, the meaning of the disputed words would appear to be, that all members of "the kingdom of heaven," or the Christian Church, ought to have, and that all true members would have, such a teachable, humble, gentle disposition, as those little children: which agrees with what he himself had said just before," Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven;" and with what St. Paul said afterwards, In malice be ye children." These are the two views taken of the passage: the first seems better to suit what goes before, the second what comes after, while neither of them are at all inconsistent with the doctrine of original sin. I have little doubt myself, that our Lord intended his words to bear this double meaning, and consequently, that both the interpretations are correct; that he meant one of the two things I have no doubt whatever; that he could not possibly mean what the Unitarian would make out is perfectly demonstrable. And yet on the strength of this text with the two others already noticed, Mr. Barker throws overboard the whole body of scriptural evidence to prove the depravity of human nature. So conscious does he appear of the impossibility of fairly meeting it, that he is driven to the following summary method of disposing of it. He first forces a meaning of his own upon two expressions of our Lord's and one of St Paul's, which not one of the three will bear, and then says, "that if any passage really contradict this doctrine of the purity and sinlessness of little children, that passage must be a falsehood or a forgery I ought perhaps to say that he adds, "no passage in the Bible does contradict this doctrine"; but he does not "enter upon an examination of those passages which are supposed to contradict it," though he "may do so at a future period." Whether the period ever arrived i know not; but I think even his ingenuity would be rather severely taxed, to explain away some of the following proofs.

To Gen. vi. 5, it might be replied, that the description applied only to the children of mankind at that particular time. But without staying to ask, how there came about such a state of universal wickedness that " every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually," what are we to make of the still clearer declaration after the flood? 'The Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Gen. viii. 21. God had just destroyed the earth with a flood, and he now promises never to do so