And in an authoritative explanation of this section they say, "That this sin [the fall] was permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of God." And still further in explanation: "Its purpose being God's general plan, and one eminently wise and righteous, to introduce all the new created subjects of moral government into a state of probation for a time in which he makes their permanent character and destiny depend upon their own action." Still, this sin described as being permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of the Deity, God designed "to order it to his own glory;" but it no where appears according to this confession of faith that the results of the fall are to be of any benefit to man. The only thing consulted in the theory of this creed seems to be the manifestation of the glory of God--a thing which represents God as a most selfish being--but just how the glory of God can be manifested by the "fall" which, according to this creed, results in the eternal damnation of the overwhelming majority of his "creatures," is not quite apparent. Those who made this Westminster Confession, as also the large following which accept it, concede that their theory involves them at least in two difficulties which they confess it is impossible for them to meet. These are, respectively: First, "How could sinful desires or volitions originate in the soul of moral agents created holy like Adam and Eve;" and, second, "how can sin be permissively embraced in the eternal purpose of God and not involve him as responsible for the sin?" "If it be asked," say they "why God, who abhors sin, and who benevolently desires the excellence and happiness of his creatures, should sovereignly determine to permit such a fountain of pollution, degradation, and misery to be opened, we can only say, with profound reverence, 'Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.'"[A] [Footnote A: Commentary on the Confession of Faith, A. D. Hodge, pp. 105-108.] These difficulties, however, are the creed's and those who accept it, not ours, and do not further concern our discussion at this point. Infidels--under which general term (and I do not use it offensively) I mean all those who do not accept the Christian creeds, nor believe the Bible to be a revelation--infidels, I say, quite generally deride the fall of man as represented both in the creeds of Christendom and in the Bible. They regard the tremendous consequences attendant upon eating the forbidden fruit as altogether out of proportion with the act itself, and universally hold that a moral economy which would either design or permit such a calamity as the fall is generally supposed to be, as altogether unworthy of an all-merciful and just Deity. Thomas Paine referring to it says: