believe the doctrine of Original Sin, as though they taught
sinlessness and entire fitness for the kingdom. But if we accept this
interpretation, then the Scriptures contradict themselves; for we have
seen that, in many places, they clearly teach the opposite. These
passages can only mean that children are _relatively_ innocent.
Compared with the forbidding, haughty, loveless disciples, little
children are much _better subjects_ for the kingdom. While the
roots of sin are there, that sin has not yet done its hardening work.

They do not wilfully resist the good. They are much more tender,
docile, trustful and loving. The Grace of God has less to overcome in
them. They are more easily reached, and thus are fit subjects to be
brought into the kingdom of God. In this sense only can it be said,
"_Suffer the little children to come unto me_," that I may touch
them, bless them, impart my Grace to them, and thus make them
partakers of my kingdom. "_Of such is the kingdom_" because I
desire and purpose to bring them into the kingdom.

Thus far we can safely go. This much in favor of the child, over
against the adult, we freely admit. But this does not say that the
child is innocent, pure and holy by nature. The undeveloped roots and
germs of sin are still there. Its nature is evil. It must be saved
from that moral nature. How?

Here again we meet those who have a very easy solution of the
difficulty. They say: "Admitting that the child has sin, this will in
no way endanger its salvation, because Christ died to take away sin.
They have no _conscious_ sin. Therefore, the atonement of Christ
covers their case, and, without anything further, they pass into
heaven, if they die in their infancy."