The minister thought these matters over until his mind was bewildered with doubts and tossed to and fro on that stormy deep of thought heaving forever beneath the conflict of windy dogmas.  He laid by his old sermon.  He put back a pile of old commentators with their eyes and mouths and hearts full of the dust of the schools.  Then he opened the book of Genesis at the eighteenth chapter and read that remarkable argument of Abraham’s with his Maker in which he boldly appeals to first principles.  He took as his text, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” and began to write his sermon, afterwards so famous, “On the Obligations of an Infinite Creator to a Finite Creature.”

It astonished the good people, who had been accustomed so long to repeat mechanically their Oriental hyperboles of self-abasement, to hear their worthy minister maintaining that the dignified attitude of the old Patriarch, insisting on what was reasonable and fair with reference to his fellow-creatures, was really much more respectful to his Maker, and a great deal manlier and more to his credit, than if he had yielded the whole matter, and pretended that men had not rights as well as duties.  The same logic which had carried him to certain conclusions with reference to human nature, this same irresistible logic carried him straight on from his text until he arrived at those other results, which not only astonished his people, as was said, but surprised himself.  He went so far in defence of the rights of man, that he put his foot into several heresies, for which men had been burned so often, it was time, if ever it could be, to acknowledge the demonstration of the argumentum ad ignem.  He did not believe in the responsibility of idiots.  He did not believe a new-born infant was morally answerable for other people’s acts.  He thought a man with a crooked spine would never be called to account for not walking erect.  He thought if the crook was in his brain, instead of his back, he could not fairly be blamed for any consequence of this natural defect, whatever lawyers or divines might call it.  He argued, that, if a person inherited a perfect mind, body, and disposition, and had perfect teaching from infancy, that person could do nothing more than keep the moral law perfectly.  But supposing that the Creator allows a person to be born with an hereditary or ingrafted organic tendency, and then puts this person into the hands of teachers incompetent or positively bad, is not what is called sin or transgression of the law necessarily involved in the premises?  Is not a Creator bound to guard his children against the ruin which inherited ignorance might entail on them?  Would it be fair for a parent to put into a child’s hands the title-deeds to all its future possessions, and a bunch of matches?  And are not men children, nay, babes, in the eye of Omniscience?—­The minister grew bold in his questions.  Had not he as good right to ask questions as Abraham?