questioned that this argument is founded on the assumption that death, in the case of man, is a penal evil, and its infliction an un- deniable proof of guilt. We must, therefore, either reject the authorit}' of the Scriptures, or we must admit that the death of infants is a proof of their sinfulness.
Although the Ai)ostle's argument as above stated is a direct proof of original sin (or inherent, hereditary corruption), it is no less a proof, as urged on another occasion, of the imputation of Adam's sin. Paul does argue, in Rom. v. 12—20, to prove that as in our justification the righteousness on the ground of which we are ac- cepted is not subjectively ours, but the righteousness of another, even Christ ; so tlie primary ground of our condemnation to death is the sin of Adam, something outside of ourselves, and not person- ally ours. But it is to be borne in mind that the death of which he speaks in accordance with the uniform usage of Scripture, in such connections, is the death of a man ; a death appropriate to his nature as a moral being formed in the image of God. The death threatened to Adam was not the mere dissolution of his body, but spiritual death, the loss of the life of God. The physical death of infants is a patent proof that they are subject to the penalty which came on men (which entered the woi'ld and passed on all men) on account of one man, or by one man's disobedience. And as that penalty was death spiritual as well as tiie dissolution of the body, the death of infants is a Scriptural and decisive j)roof of their being born destitute of original righteousness and infected with a sinful corruption of nature. Their physical death is proof that they are involved in the penalty the principal element of which is the spiritual death of the soul. It was by the disobedience of one man that all are constituted sinners, not only by imputation (which is true and most important), but also by inherent depravity: as it is by the obedience of one that all are constituted righteous, not on^y by imputation (which also is true and vitally important), but also by the consequent renewing of their nature flowing from their reconciliation to God.
Argument from the Common Consent of Christians.
Finally, it is fair, on this subject, to appeal to the faith of the Church universal. Protestants, in rejecting the doctrine of tradi- tion, and in asserting that the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, do not reject the authority of the Church as a teacher. They do not isolate themselves from the great com-
250 PART n. Cn. \Tn. — SIN.
pany of the faithful in all ages, and set up a new faith. They hold that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead liis people into the knowledge of the truth ; that the Spirit does dwell as a teacher in all the children of God, and that those who are born of God are thus led to the knowledge and belief of the truth. There is tlie-re- fore to the true Church, or the true people of God, but one faith, as there is but one Lord and one God the Father of all. Any doctrine, therefoi'e, which can be proved to be a part of the faith (not of the external and visible Ciiurch, but) of the true children of God in all ages of the world, must be true. It is to be received not because it is thus universally believed, but because its being universally believed by true Christians is a proof that it is taught by the Spirit both in his Word and in the hearts of his peo])le. This is a sound principle recognized by all Protestants. This universal faith of the Church is not to be sought so much in the decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as in the formulas of devotion which have prevailed among the people. It is, as often remarked, in the prayers, in the hymnology, in the devotional writings which true believers make the channel of their communion with God, and the medium through which they express their most intimate religious convictions, that we must look for the universal faith. From tlie faith of God's people no man can separate himself without forfeiting the commun- ion of saints, and placing himself outside of the pale of true believei-s. If these things bo admitted we must admit the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine has indeed been variously explained, and in many cases explained away by theologians and by councils, but it is indelibly impressed on the faith of the true Church. It ))er- vades the prayers, the worship, and the institutions of the Ciiurch. All true Christians are convinced of sin ; they are convinced not only of individual transgressions, but also of the depravity of their heart and nature. They recognize this depravity as innate and controlling. They groan under it as a grievous burden. They know that they are by nature the children of wrath. Parents bring their children to Christ to be washed by his blood and renewed by his Spirit, as anxiously as mothers crowded around our Lord when on earth, with their suffering infants that they miglit be healed by his grace and ])ower. Whatever difficulties, therefore, may attend the doctrine of original sin, we must accept it as clearly taught in the Scriptures, confirmed by the testimony of consciousness and history, and sustained by the faith of the Church universal.
je