Questions on Chapter 13.

Once more: the theory under review, while it admits in words the doctrine of native depravity, does, in effect, set it aside. The advocates of the theory admit that, “had it not been for mediatorial interposition, no child of Adam would have been born, and the consequences of the first transgression would have terminated on the first guilty pair.” From this it follows that we are indebted to the atonement for our very being, and all our faculties of whatever kind. Hence it must be admitted that if perfect innocence and regeneration belong to our nature, as soon as we have a nature, (as the theory teaches,) they must belong to that nature as soon as do the faculties of sight and hearing, or any native faculty we possess. And if these faculties or qualities — sight, hearing, innocence, regeneration — all flow through the atonement, and come to us at the same time — as soon as we exist — why is not the one as natural as the others? If we are by nature possessed of sight and hearing, are we not by nature possessed of perfect innocence and regeneration? If all begin as soon as we possess a nature, and flow from the same source, how can any of them be acquired or superinduced? Are they not all equally natural? And if so, are we not as naturally innocent and regenerate beings as we are hearing, seeing, breathing, or living beings? Hence, how can we be naturally sinful and unholy? In other words, how can the doctrine of native human depravity be true? We do not charge the advocates of the theory here opposed with denying the doctrine of man’s native depravity. They intend no such thing. We only advance the opinion that their theory and the doctrine of the native depravity of human nature are logically irreconcilable.

Thus have we endeavored to show that the doctrine of innate total depravity, as connected with the character of infants, is consistent with the nature of the divine administration.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 13.

QUESTION 1. What are the different theories presented in reference to infants?

2. Who have advocated the first?

3.The second?

4.The third?

5.The fourth?

6. The fifth?

7. The sixth?

8. Which theory best accords with the Bible?

9. In what does the sixth differ from the fourth?

10. In what does it differ from the fifth?

11. Who have believed in the destruction of infants?

12. From what quotations is this made to appear?

13. What is the proof that all infants will be saved?

14. What is the definition of guilt and justification?

15. What scriptures are brought to prove the native guilt of infants?

16. From what divines are quotations brought?

17. What are the four difficulties named in reference to the doctrine of the perfect innocence of infants?

18. In what way are brutes referred to, in objecting to the doctrine of the guilt of infants?

19. How is this objection answered?

20. How is the objection answered in reference to the death of justified and sanctified Christians?

21. How is the objection, that it is absurd to make the innocent guilty for the act of another, answered?

22. How is the objection, that the guilt of infants has already been removed through the atonement, answered?

23. What scripture is used in answering this objection?