XXII.    MORAL DEPRAVITY   - FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE POSITION THAT HUMAN NATURE IS ALL BY ITSELF SINFUL.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

A     The defenders of the doctrine of a constitutional sinfulness also argue that sin is the universal result of human nature, and therefore human nature must be sinful.

1     Sin must be an abuse of our free will; and we may account for this if temptation is universal, but sin does not require a sinful constitution.  If sin requires a sinful nature, how did Adam and Eve sin?  Did they have sinful nature that caused their first sin?  How did those angels sin?  Did they also have a sinful nature?  Either sin does not require a sinful nature or Adam and the angels must have had sinful natures before they fell.

a     For every cause, there must be an effect.  Suppose we consider sin as an event or an effect.  An effect implies a cause.  Free, responsible will is an adequate cause in the presence of temptation, even without assuming a sinful constitution, as we see in the case of Adam and of the angels.  Once we find an adequate cause, it makes no sense to look for another cause.                      

b     Some say that we would not be tempted to sin if we didn’t have a sinful nature because there would be no sinful tastes, relishes, or appetites for those temptations to address.  For example, some might say that the presence of food would never tempt one to eat if there was no constitutional appetite terminating on food.  So, the presence of any object would not tempt anyone to sin if there was no constitutional craving for sin.  So, that sin in action would be impossible unless there was sin in our nature.  To this I reply:

c      Suppose we applied this objection to the sin of Adam and of the angels.  Can we account for Eve’s eating the forbidden fruit without supposing that she had a craving for sin?  The Bible tells us that her craving was for the fruit and for knowledge, and not for sin.  The words are, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.  She also gave to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”  (Gen. 3:6)  There is no mention here about a craving for sin.

d     Eating this fruit was indeed sinful; but the sin consisted in consenting to gratify her selfish appetites, not for sin, but for food and knowledge.  But the advocates of this theory say that something within our nature must answer to outward temptations, otherwise sin would be impossible.  This is true.  But, the question is, what is that something within, which responds to temptation?  Is it a craving for sin?  We have just seen what it was in the case of Adam and Eve.  That something within is simply the relationship that existed between the fruit and her desires; the presence of the fruit excited her desires for food and knowledge.  Eve then yielded to satisfying her selfish desires rather than obeying what she knew was God’s command.  But all men sin in exactly the same way.  They consent to gratify, not a craving for sin, but a craving for other things, and the consent to make self‑gratification their goal is sin. 

2     These theologians also believe that the appetites, passions, desires, and tendencies that are constitutional and completely involuntary, are sinful.  To this I reply, that Adam and Eve possessed them before they fell.  Christ possessed them, or He was not a man, nor, in any proper sense, a human being.  No, these appetites, passions, and tendencies are not sinful, even though they provide opportunities to sin.  They are a temptation for our will to seek to indulge in them unlawfully.  When the Bible speaks about these lusts or appetites as the “passions of sin,” or as “sinful lusts or passions,” it is not because they are sinful all by themselves, but because they provide opportunities for sin.                              

a     Many ask, “Why shouldn’t these appetites and tendencies be considered as sinful, since they are temptations to sin?”  Remember that appetites and tendencies are involuntary, and moral character can no more be determined by them just because they are temptations, than moral character can be determined by the fruit that tempted Eve.  Appetites and tendencies are constitutional, unintelligent, and involuntary; and it is impossible that they should determine moral character.  A moral agent is responsible for his emotions, desires, etc., only as far as they are under the direct or indirect control of his will, and no further.  We are always responsible for the way we gratify our desires.  If we indulge in them according to the law of God, we do not sin.  If we make our gratification our goal, we sin.  

b     The death and suffering of infants before they have had any chance to sin is used as an argument to prove that infants have a sinful nature.  To this I reply: This argument must assume that there must be sin wherever there is suffering and death.  But this assumption proves too much, since it would prove that animals have a sinful nature, or have committed sin.  An argument that proves too much proves nothing.                  

c      Physical sufferings only prove physical depravity.  Before the age of reason, infants are no more subjects of moral government than animals are.  Therefore, we can account for their sufferings and death the same way we account for the death of animals, namely, by ascribing sufferings and death to a physical interference with the laws of life and health.  

3     Another argument for a sinful constitution is that unless infants have a sinful nature, they do not need to be sanctified to go to heaven.  Answer:  This argument assumes that if they are not sinful they must be holy.  However, they are neither sinful nor holy until they become moral agents by either obeying or disobeying the moral law.  But, these people argue, “If they go to heaven, they must first be made holy or they must be sanctified”.  This objection assumes that to be holy one must first be sinful.  This is contrary to fact.  Were Adam and the angels first sinful before they were sanctified?  But, they assume that unless moral agents are first sinners, they do not need the Holy Spirit to influence them to be holy.  That is, unless their nature is sinful, they would become holy without the Holy Spirit.  But where does this thought come from?  Suppose that they have no moral character, and that their nature is neither holy nor sinful.  Will they become holy without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit?  Who says that they will?  

a     These theologians also argue, saying that infants have a sinful nature because of the institution of circumcision on the eighth day after birth.  They say that God designed circumcision to teach us the need for regeneration.  They also claim that circumcision implies the doctrine of moral depravity.  Now, it is true that circumcision was required eight days after birth, which is the earliest and best time that they could perform circumcision safely.  But from this, they conclude that infants are morally depraved from the day they are born.           

b     To answer this, I would like to say that infant circumcision was designed to teach us that we need to be saved from the dominion of the flesh by the Holy Spirit; that the influence of the flesh must literally be cut off, circumcised, or our soul will be lost.  This truth needs to be impressed on parents from the time their children are born.  This very significant, bloody, and painful rite, was designed to impress this truth on the parents, and to lead them, from the birth of their child, to watch over its development and monitor the child’s indulgences and preferences, and to pray for its sanctification.  Requiring circumcision so early in life was designed to indicate, that children are, from the beginning, under the dominion of their flesh.  However, this passage, in no way, suggests that their flesh was sinful from birth, or that the action of their will at that early age was sinful.  Before your reason develops, yielding your will to fleshly appetites cannot be sinful.  But whether yielding their will to gratify their the flesh is sinful or not, children must be delivered from it, or they can never be fitted for heaven, any more than an animal can be fitted for heaven.  The fact, that circumcision was required on the eighth day, and not before, seems to indicate, not that they are sinners from birth, but that they become sinners at a very early age, even from the time they become a moral agent.     

c      This rite must be performed at some time.  Unless God appoints a particular day, it would be very easy to the parent put it off until he didn’t do it all.  It is probable that God commanded that it should be done at the earliest time that it could be safely done, not only for the reasons I just gave you, but to prevent parents from procrastinating too long.  Circumcision would also be much less painful and dangerous at an early age, when the infant slept most of the time.  I have heard that the clotting ability of the blood is greatest about eight days after birth.  The longer parents neglect to do this the greater would be the temptation to neglect it altogether.  This would also become more painful and more difficult to perform, as the child grows older.  God needed to insist on this painful rite some time; and God saw that it best to perform this rite as early as it was safely possible.  Therefore, the argument that supports a native constitutional moral depravity really amounts to nothing.  

4     Some urge, that unless infants have a sinful nature, God could not save them by the grace of Christ if they die in infancy.    

a     To this I answer, that, in this situation, God would not, and could not send them to the place of punishment for sinners; because God cannot punish the innocent with the guilty. That is morally impossible for God to do.     

b     But what grace could there be in saving infants from a sinful nature, that could not be exer­cised in saving them from circumstances that would certainly result in their becoming sinners?  In neither case would they need pardon for sin.  Grace is unearned favor, a gratuity.  If the child has a sinful nature, it is his misfortune and not his crime.  To save him from a sinful nature is to save him from those circumstances that will certainly result in actual transgres­sions, unless death or by the Holy Spirit rescues him.  So, his nature and circumstances would be such that he will surely sin unless rescued by death or by the Holy Spirit before he is capable of sinning.  It certainly must be an infinite favor to be rescued from such circum­stances, and especially to receive eternal life as a gratuity.  This surely is grace.  And these infants who God places into the hands of Christ will credit their salvation to the infinite grace of Christ. 
     “Isn’t it grace that saves us from sinning”?  What saves infants from sinning, by snatching them away from the circumstances of temptation if it isn’t grace?  How does grace save adults from sinning, other than keeping them from temptation, or by giving them grace to overcome temptation?  And, is there no grace in rescuing infants from circumstances that are certain to lead them into sin, if they are left in those circumstances?  All that we can justly say in either situation is, that if infants are saved at all, which I believe they are, they are rescued by the love of God from circumstances that would result in certain and eternal death, and are, by grace, made heirs of eternal life.  But, after all, it is useless to speculate about the character and destiny of those who are not moral agents.  The love of God will take care of them.  It is nonsense to insist on their moral depravity before they become moral agents, and it makes no sense to believe that they must be morally depraved as a condition of their being saved by grace.     

5     We deny that our human constitution is morally depraved because it is impossible that sin should be a quality of the substance of our soul or body.  Sin is, and must be, a quality of choice or intention, and not substance.  To make sin an attribute or quality of a substance is contrary to God’s definition of sin.  “Sin,” says the apostle, “is anomia,” a “transgression of, or a lack of conformity to the moral law.”  That is, sin consists in refusing to love God and our neighbor, or, in other words, sin consists in loving ourselves supremely.        

6     To say that human nature is sinful is to say that God, who is the author of our nature, is the author of sin.  To say that God is not the creator of our constitution, but that sin passes on, by natural generation, from Adam, who sinned only removes the objection one step further back, but does not eliminate it; because God established the physical laws that would naturally bring about this result.            

a     But how did Adam get his sinful nature?  Did his first sin change his nature?  Or did God change it as a penalty for sin?  What ground is there for believing that Adam’s nature became, all by itself, sinful by his sin?  To say that Adam’s nature became sinful when he sinned is a groundless, not to say a ridiculous assumption and it is absurd.  Sin an attribute of nature!  A sinful substance!  Sin a substance!  Is it a solid or a liquid, a material or a spiritual substance?  I received, from a brother, the following note on this subject: “The orthodox creeds are sometimes careful to say that original sin consists in the substance of neither soul nor body.  Thus Bretschneider, who is reckoned among the rationalists in Germany, says: ‘The symbolical books very rightly maintain that original sin is not in any sense the substance of man, his body or soul, as Flacius taught, but that it has been infused into human nature by Satan, and mixed with it, as poison and wine are mixed.’  They guard against the idea that they mean by the phrase ‘man’s nature,’ his substance, but something that is fixed in the substance.  They explain original sin, therefore, not as an essential attribute of man, that is, a necessary and essential part of his being, but as something accidental, which has come into human nature.  He quotes the Formula Concordantiae as saying: ‘Nature does not denote the substance itself of man, but something which attaches to the nature or substance.’  Accident is defined as, ‘what does not subsist by itself, but exists in some substance and can be distinguished from it.”  

b     Here is sin all by itself, and yet it is not a substance.  Neither does it exist by itself but it is not a part or attribute of the soul or body.  What can it be?  Does it consist in wrong action?  No, sin is not in action, sin is an accident that fixes itself in the nature of substance.  But, what can it be?  It is neither substance nor action.  But, if it is anything, it must be either substance or action.  If it is in a state of substance, what is this but substance in a particular state?  Do these writers think that their fancy arrangement of words relieves their doctrine of constitutional moral depravity of its intrinsic absurdity?        

c      I object to the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness, because it makes all sin a mere calamity and not a crime.  For those who believe that sin is an essential and inseparable part of our nature, to call it a crime is to talk nonsense.  What!  A sinful nature being the crime of him within whom it is placed without his knowledge or consent?  If human nature is sinful in such a sense that man’s actions must also be sinful, then the resulting sin must be a calamity, and cannot be a crime.  It is the natural result of a sinful nature.  This sin cannot be a crime, since the will has nothing to do with it.     

d     If we possess a sinful nature, then sin must be a calamity, and not a crime, and true repen­tance, either with or without the grace of God, is reasonably impossible.  If repentance implies self‑condemnation, we can never repent as long as we are exercising our reason.  Think about it!  It is impossible that we can condemn ourselves for a sinful nature, or for actions that are unavoidable.  The doctrine of original sin, or of a sinful constitution, which automatically leads to sinful actions, turns the whole moral government of God, the plan of salvation by Christ, and indeed every doctrine of the gospel, into a mere farce.  Under this doctrine, the law becomes tyranny, and the gospel becomes an insult to the unfortunate.            

e     It is impossible for those who really believe this doctrine, to urge the sinner to immediately repent and submit to God who feels that he is infinitely to blame unless he instantly complies with God’s demands.  If you heartily believe in a sinful nature, you cannot truly and heartily blame sinners for not doing what is naturally impossible for them to do.  Down deep, you are convinced that the sinner is not really to blame for being a sinner.  For if this doctrine is true, you cannot honestly blame a sinner for being a sinner any more than you can blame him for being a human being.  Everyone who believes in a sinful nature must know this.  It is useless for him to even pretend that he truly blames sinners for their nature, or for their unavoidable conduct.  He can no more blame sinners for a sinful nature, than he can honestly go against his own beliefs.  Therefore, the advocates of this theory must merely accept it as a theory without really believing in it, or else they must excuse the sinner. 

7     The doctrine of a sinful nature leads its advocates to attribute the atonement of Christ to justice rather than to grace, to regard atonement as God’s way to relieve the unfortunate, rather than to render the forgiveness of the inexcusable sinner.  (Atonement: to cover.  The governmental provision to forgive sin when man meets the necessary conditions).  The advocates of this theory see that the sinner is in a very difficult situation, and therefore, God is under an obligation to provide a way for him to escape his sinful nature which was forced on him in spite of himself, and to free him from his actual transgressions which naturally result from his sinful nature.  If all this is true, the sinner’s situation is infinitely hard, and God would appear to be the most unreasonable and cruel being in the universe if He did not provide a way for their escape.  These convictions will, and must, lodge deep in the mind of each person who really believes in the doctrine of a sinful nature.  The defenders of the doctrine of original sin sometimes affirm this.  

a     The fact that Christ died in place of and in behalf of sinners proves that God did not regard sinners as unfortunate, but as criminals and completely without excuse.  Surely, Christ did not have to die to atone for the misfortunes of men.  His death was to atone for their guilt, and not for their misfortunes.  But if sinners are without excuse for sin, they must be without a sinful nature that makes sin unavoidable.  If men are without excuse for sin, as the whole law and the gospel assumes and teaches, it cannot possibly be that their nature is sinful, for a sinful nature would be the best excuse of all for sin.

b     This doctrine is a stumbling‑block to both the church and the world.  It is infinitely dishonorable to God, and an abomination both to God and the human intellect, and it should be banished from every pulpit, from every doctrine, and from the world.  This doctrine is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was mixed into the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine.  You will discover this, if you take the time to examine these things for yourself.  This view of moral depravity, that I am opposing, has been the stronghold of Universalism for a long time.  They believe in the total worldwide ultimate salvation of each and every individual.  From it, the Universalists denounce the idea that sinners should be sent to an eternal hell.  Assuming the long‑defended doctrine of original or constitutional sinfulness, they proceeded to show, that it would be infinitely unreasonable and unjust for God to send them to hell.  What!  Create human beings with a sinful nature, from which transgressions automatically sprout, and then send them to an eternal hell for having this nature, and for those transgressions that are unavoidable!  “Impossible” they say.  And the human intellect responds, Amen.            

c      From the dogma of a sinful nature flows the doctrine of man’s inability to repent, and the need for a physical regeneration. (Dogma: a religious belief or opinion held to be absolute truth; a point of view or alleged authoritative tenet put forth a dogma without adequate grounds.)                                    

d     These doctrines have been a sad stumbling‑block to Universalists, as everyone knows who is familiar with the history of Universalism.  They conclude that all men will be saved from the fact of God’s love and unlimited universal power!  God is almighty, and He is love.  Men are constitutionally depraved, and are unable to repent.  God will not, cannot send them to hell.  They do not deserve it.  Since sin is a calamity, God cannot only save them, but He should save them.  This is the substance of their argument, and assuming the truth of their premises, there is no evading their conclusion.  But the whole argument is built on “such stuff as dreams are made of.”  Strike out the erroneous doctrine of a sinful nature, and the whole edifice of Universalism comes crashing to the ground in a moment.     

B     It is now time for us to consider the proper method of accounting for moral depravity.

1     The Bible tells us how sin was introduced into our world; and from this narrative, we clearly see that the first sin consisted in selfishness or in consenting to indulge in fleshly desires in a prohibited manner.  In other words, the first sin consisted in yielding their will to their emotional impulses instead of abiding by the law of God that He revealed to them.  Thus, the Bible says that the first sin of our race was the result of the influence of temptation. 

2     The Bible once, and only once, incidentally suggests that Adam’s first sin, in some way, had been the occasion, but not necessarily the physical cause of all the sins of men.  “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned  (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.  Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.  But the free gift is not like the offense.  For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.  And the gift is not like something that came through the one who sinned.  For the judgment that came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift that came from many offenses resulted in justification.  For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)  Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.  For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”  (Rom. 5:12‑19) 
     This passage does not say or suggest anything concerning how Adam’s sin produced this result.  It only inciden­tally recognizes the fact, and then leaves it, as if the reason is too obvious to need explanation.  In other parts of the Bible, we are informed how we should account for the existence of sin among men.  James says, that a man is tempted when he is drawn aside because his own lusts, (epithumia‑“desires”) and enticed.  “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed” (James 1:14)  That is, his lusts are his temptations.  When his desires overcome his will, he sins.  Paul and other inspired writers represent sin as consisting in a carnal or fleshly mind, in the mind of the flesh, or in minding the flesh.  It is clear that by the word flesh they mean our physical sensations, as distinguished from our mind, and that they represent sin as consisting in obeying our physical impulses.  They represent the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as the three great sources of temptation.  It is clear that the world and Satan tempt by appeals to the flesh, or to fleshly sensations.  Hence, the apostles have a lot to say about the need to destroy the flesh, the need to destroy its members, and the need to put off the old man with his deeds, etc.  Now, it is worthy to note that all this effort on the part of the scriptures to pinpoint the source of our sin, and to advise us how to account for sin, and also how to avoid sin, has caused many philosophers and theologians, who have not carefully examined the entire subject, to take a view of sin which is directly opposite to the truth intended by the inspired writers.  Because the Bible says so much about the influence of our flesh over our mind, they have concluded that the nature and physical constitution of man, all by itself, must be sinful.  But, the Scripture represents our body as the occasion of sin.  The law in our members, that war against the law of our mind, that Paul mentions, is the impulse of our flesh that opposes the law of our reason.  Our physical passions and desires bring us into captivity, that is, it influences our will in spite of all our convictions to the contrary.         

3     Remember that moral depravity consists in committing our will to gratifying of self, in allowing the impulses and desires of our flesh to govern our will, instead of submitting our will to the law of God. 

4     This definition of moral depravity shows how we can account for it, namely: our flesh acts as a powerful influence over our will from the moment we are born, and secures the consent and activity of our will to gratify our flesh, before our reason has had a chance to develop.  And so we commit our will to gratify our feelings and appetites by the time our idea of moral obligation develops.  This committed state of our will is not moral depravity, and has no moral character, until our idea of moral obligation develops.  The moment our idea of moral depravity develops, se must stop committing our will to self‑indulgence or it becomes selfishness.  But, since our will is already committed, and has already formed the habit of gratifying our feelings, and since the idea of moral obligation is feebly developed at first, unless the Holy Spirit intervenes to shed light on our soul, we can expect our will to retain its hold on self‑gratification.  Here is where our moral character begins, and must begin.  No one can say that it begins any earlier.               

5     We call this selfish commitment a wicked heart, which generates the tendency to sin that actually causes transgressions.  This sinful commitment is also properly called indwelling sin.  It is the latent, standing, controlling preference of our heart and it is the source of our entire outward and active life.  It is not choosing all by itself, but choosing self‑gratification that is the sinful choice.       

6     Remember that the physical depravity of our race has a lot to do with our moral depravity.  A diseased physical body makes our appetites, passions, tempers, and tendencies more active and demanding.  A diseased physical body constantly encourages selfishness by confirming and strengthening it.  Although physical depravity has no moral character all by itself, it is a source of fierce temptation to yield to selfish desires.  Our flesh is deeply physically depraved; and since sin consists in committing our will to the gratification of our flesh, the more our body is physically depraved, the more our physical depravity will strengthen our moral depravity.  Therefore, moral depravity is indirectly the result of temptation.  That is, our soul is tempted to engage in self‑indulgence, and yields to temptation, and it is this yielding, and not the temptation, that is sin or moral depravity.  This is how Adam and Eve became morally depraved.  The temptation to indulge in satisfying their fleshly appetites in opposition to God’s command overcame them.  The sin did not lie in their constitutional desire for food or knowledge, or in the excited state of their appetites or desires, but in the consent of their will to indulge in what God prohibited.  It is in this exact same way that all men have become sinners, that is, they become morally depraved by yielding to the temptation to gratify self in one way or another.  Indeed, it is impossible for them to become morally depraved in any other way.  To deny this would be to overlook the very nature of moral depravity.  

C    To sum up the truth on this subject in a few words, I would say:  

1     Moral depravity occurred in our first parents when they gave in to the temptation that addressed the un-perverted feelings of their nature.  When these feelings became strongly excited, it overcame their will; that is, Adam and Eve were over‑persuaded, and they gave in to the temptation.

2     All moral depravity begins in substantially the same way.  Proof:  

a     The impulses of our physical senses develop gradually, beginning at birth.  The rate of its development depends on our physical development and growth.  

b     Our first conscious decisions are in obedience to these impulses.

c      Self-gratification governs our lives before our reason develops.  

d     We willfully indulge in our appetites until self-indulgence becomes a habit.

e     By the time our reason establishes our moral obligation, our will has already gotten into the habit of yielding to the impulses of our flesh

f        The demands of our physical senses become more oppressive every time we indulge in them.  

g     In this state, unless the Holy Spirit intervenes, our idea of moral obligation will not develop properly. 

h     Our will now rejects the bidding of our reason, and clings to self‑indulgence.  

i        Our will continues to decide in favor of our appetites, against the claims of our conscience and of God. 

j        Once you reject light, it will become much easier for you to resist that light the next time.  And it becomes easier every time you reject it until that light is nearly extinguished altogether. 

k      Selfishness naturally confirms, strengthens, and perpetuates itself.  It grows as the sinner’s grows, and strengthens as the sinner strengthens; and will continue to do so forever, unless overcome by the Holy Spirit through the truth.  

D    Remarks

1     Adam, being the natural head of our human race, would naturally affect his decedents.

2     His sin in many ways exposed his decedents to aggravated temptation.  Not only the physical constitution of all men, but all the influences under which they first form their moral character, are widely different from what they would have been if sin had never been introduced.

3     When we understand that selfishness is the sum of moral depravity, then the way in which moral depravity comes into existence becomes obvious.  A clear idea of selfishness will instantly reveal how people can become morally depraved.

4     The only difficulty in accounting for moral depravity has been the false assumption that there must be something sinful other than free will, which is the cause behind the exercise of free will. 

5     If holy Adam, and holy angels could fall under temptations addressed to their un-depraved nature, it is absurd to conclude that the sin in those who are born with a physically depraved constitution, has to be accounted for by blaming their sinning on original sin, or to a nature that is all by itself sinful.  

6     Without Divine illumination, the influence of our flesh forms our moral character.  That is, our fleshly tendencies and desires will influence our will, unless the Holy Spirit influences our developed reason.

7     The doctrine that says moral depravity is constitutional is a part of the doctrine that says that the will is not completely free.  It is a branch of a grossly false and heathenish philosophy.  It is infinitely absurd, dangerous, and unjust to incorporate it into the foundation of our Christian doctrine, to give it the place of an indispensable article of faith, and denounce as heretics all who will not swallow its absurdities!  

8     We are unable to precisely say at what age infants become moral agents, and of course how early they become sinners.  There is no doubt that some children reach this age of reason much earlier than other children do.  Reason develops in some children earlier than in other children.  It depends on their constitution and circumstances. 
     Thoroughly considering the subject will lead to the conviction that children become moral agents much earlier than many think.  The conditions of moral agency are 1) That we possess the powers of a moral agent and 2) that we know what is good or important, we know what our moral obligation is, we know right from wrong, and what is worthy of praise and blame.  I have tried to show that mental satisfaction, blessedness, or happiness, is the ultimate good.  Satisfaction that comes from gratifying fleshly appetites is one of the earliest experiences of human beings.  This suggests that the idea of what is good or important develops at a very early age.  This idea certainly develops long before the child understands the words that express this idea.  Children know that happiness is good, and they seek it in the form of self‑gratification long before they understand the words that designate this state of mind.  They know that their own enjoyment is worth seeking, and certainly, they know this at a very young age.  They get the idea that the enjoyment of others is worth seeking, and affirm to themselves, not in words, but in thoughts, that they should please their parents and those around them.  They know, in fact, even before they understand, that they love to be gratified, and to be happy.  They love and seek enjoyment for themselves, and they certainly have the idea that they should not displease and distress those around them, but that they should try to please and satisfy them.  The idea of what is good, important, and desirable is probably among the first ideas, if not the very first idea that develops in their reason, and the idea of moral obligation, or of right and wrong, is the next idea that develops. 
     I say again, these ideas are, and must develop before they can understand the signs or words that express those ideas.  Without first developing the idea, we can never understand one word that expresses this idea.  We always find that as soon as children can understand words, they already have the idea of obligation, and of right and wrong.  As soon as they understand these words, they recognize them as expressing ideas already in their own minds, and some of the ideas they have had, go further back than they can remember.  Some, and indeed most people, seem to have the idea that children affirm themselves to be under moral obligation before they have the idea of what is good; that they affirm their obligation to obey their parents before they know what is good or important.  But, this is wrong.  They affirm their obligation to obey their parents before they can express it in words, and before they would understand a statement about the ground of their obligation.  They first must have the idea or they could not confirm their obligation.  

9     Why is sin so natural to mankind?  Not because our nature is sinful, but because our appetites and passions so strongly tend towards self‑indulgence.  These are temptations to sin.  However, sin, all by itself, does not consist in these appetites and tendencies, but in voluntarily committing our will to indulging in them.  This is selfishness, and once our will yields to selfishness, it naturally sins.  As soon as our will becomes committed to self-indulgence as its end, selfish actions automatically follow.

10     The constitution of a moral being, as a whole, when all the powers of our soul become developed, does not tend to sin, but tends in the opposite direction.  This is clear from the fact that when the Holy Spirit thoroughly develops our reason, it becomes more than a match for our senses, and our heart turns towards God.  The problem is, that our senses get a hold of our reason first, and uses it to devise ways to gratify self, and thus prevents other ideas from developing which would help control our will.  It is this morbid development that the Holy Spirit wants to correct, by so forcing truth on our attention, that it develops our reason in the right direction.  To do this, God brings our will under the influence of truth.  Our senses reveal to us all the objects that are related to our animal nature and tendencies.  The Holy Spirit reveals God and the spiritual world, and all those objects that are related to our higher nature.  The Holy Spirit tries to get our reason to control our will.  This is regeneration and sanctification, as we will see as we progress in our study of systematic theology.