it is j)lain, tliat besides these national promises, there was also the j)romise of redemption made to Abraham, which promise, the Apos- tle expressly says, lias come upon us. (Gal. iii. 14.) Tiiat is, we (all believers) are included in the covenant made with Abraham. It is no less plain that circumcision was the sign and seal of that covenant. This is clear, because the Apostle teaches thtit Abraham received circumcision as a seal of the rio-liteousness of faith. That is, it was the seal of that covenant which promised and secured, lighteousness on the condition of faith. It is also plain because tlie S'-riptures teacii that circumcision had a spiritual import. It signified inward purification. It was administered in order to teach men that those who received the rite, needed such purifica- tion, and tliat this great blessing was promised to those faithful to the covenant, of which circumcision was the seal. Hence, the Scriptures speak of the circumcision of the heart ; of an inward circumcision effected by the Spirit as distinguished from that wIugI) was outward in the flesh. Compare Deut. x. 16 ; xxx. 6 ; Ezek. xliv. 7 ; Acts vii. 51 ; Rom. ii. 28. From all this it is clear that circumcision could not be administered according to its divinely constituted design to any who did not need the circumcision or regeneration of heart, to fit them for the presence and service of God. And as it was by divine command administered to infants when eight days old, the conclusion is inevitable that in the sight of God such infants need regeneration, and therefore are born in sin.
The same argument obviously applies to infant baptism. Bap- tism is an ordinance instituted by Christ, to signify and seal the purification of the soul, by the sprinkling of his blood, and its regen- eration by the Holy Ghost. It can therefore be properly adminis- tered only to those who are in a state of guilt and pollution. It is, however, administered to infants, and therefore infants are assumed to need pardon and sanctification. This is the argument which Pelagius and his followers, more than all others, found it most difficult to answer. They could not deny the import of the rite. They could not deny that it was properly administered to infants, and yet they refused to admit the unavoidable conclusion, that in- fants are born in sin. They were therefore driven to the unnat- ural evasion, that baptism was administered to infants, not on the ground of their present state, but on the assumption of their proba- ble future condition. They were not sinners, but would probably become such, and thus need the benefits of which baptism is the sign and pledge. Even the Council of Trent found it necessary
248 PART n. Ch. VUI. — SIN.
to protest against such a manifest perversion of a solemn sacra- ment, which reduced it to a mockery. The form of baptism a3 prescribed by Christ, and universally adopted by the Church, sup- poses tliat tliose to whom the sacrament is administered are sinners and need the remission of sin and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. Thus the doctrine of original sin is inwrought into the very tex- ture of Christianity, and lies at the foundation of the institutions of the gospel.
Argument from the Universality of Death.
Another decisive argument on this subject, is drawn from the universality of death. Death, according to the Scriptures, is a penal evil. It presupposes sin. No rational moral creature is subject to death except on account of sin. Infants die, therefore infants are the subjects of sin. The only way to evade this argu- ment is to deny that death is a penal evil. This is the ground taken by those who reject the doctrine of original sin. They as- sert that it is a natural evil, flowino- from the original constitution of our nature, and that it is therefore no more a proof that all men are sinnei-s, than the death of brutes is a proof that they are sin- ners. In answer to this objection, it is obvious to remark that men are not brutes. That irrational animals, incapable of sin, are sub- ject to death, is therefore no evidence that moral creatures may be justly subject to the same evil, although free from sin. But, in the second place, what is of far more weight, the objection is in direct opposition to the declarations of the Word of God. Accord- ing to the Bible, death in the case of man is a punishment. It was threatened against Adam as the penalty of transgres.sion. If he had not sinned, neither had he died. The Apostle expressly de- clares that death is the wages (or punishment) of sin; and death is on account of sin. (Rom. vi. 23 and v. 12.) He not oidy asserts this as a fact, but assumes it as a principle, and makes it the foun- dation of his whole argument in Roin. v. 12-20. His doctrine as there st;4ted is, where there is no law tlieiv is no sin. And where there is no sin there is no pnnisiiment. All men arc pun- ished, therefore all men are sinners. That all men are i>nnished, he proves from the fact that all men die. Death is punishment. Death, he says, reigned from Adam to Moses. It reigns even over those who had not sinned in their own persons, by voluntary trans- gression, as Adam did. It reigns over infants. It has jiassed ab- solutely on all men because all are sinners. It cannot be ques- tioned that such is the argument of the Apostle; neither can it bo