^. iJi- . 1 2- 
 
 X tint m.tfA^k^^ ^ 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented by <:Lj\n £/ C/ \Ly\-V-Vn OY-*. 
 
 Division ■ ■ ■ .W^Vrr;\_-r'. . . « 
 Section ..A-v:i~,-.'.'r:Vr. , 
 
MAY 231912 
 
 iC4L 
 
 INFANT SALVATION 
 
 AND 
 
 Confessional 
 Revision 
 
 LUTHER LINK 
 
 Minister of the Presbyteritin Church in tlie 
 United States 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 ONWARD PRESS, PUBLISHERS 
 
 1912 
 
Copyright, 1912, by 
 LUTHER LINK 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The Southern Presbyterian Church has been wrestling for a long time 
 with the matter of the revision of the Westminster Confession, in one 
 form or another. First, there was a call for a revision of the proof- 
 texts attached to the various sections by way of giving the scriptural 
 basis for these statements. This has taken several years to finish, but 
 the work is illogical and incomplete because it was done on the under- 
 standing that the text of the Confession itself was not to be touched; 
 so where statements were not capable of being supported by Scripture 
 proof there ordinarily occurs a blank instead of such irrelevant texts as 
 formerly stood in many places for proof. The proof-text committee 
 made no recommendation of change in the Confession. But the fact that 
 any statements are incapable of proof of some kind calls for the 
 revision of the Confession itself, which in its very nature is simply a 
 declaration to the world of what we believe the Bible to teach. 
 
 Only one question of revision of the text of the Confession has so 
 far been before the church at large, and that is the revision of the 
 third section of chapter ten, commonly called the "elect infant clause." 
 Our church has wrestled with this question for a number of years, but 
 seems little nearer a solution of it than when the agitation began. The 
 anti-revisionists insist that the word "elect" shall stand, occupying the 
 inconsistent and even contradictory attitude of holding that they believe 
 in the salvation of all dying infants, but that the Bible does not definitely 
 teach that all such are saved. But a creed should contain only what we 
 are able to reasonably support by Scripture proof. They fail to see 
 that it is inconsistent to talk of an elect class of dying infants, because 
 an elect, that is, limited, class necessarily excludes the counterpart rem- 
 nant of the non-elect class. It may be esteemed only a question of doubt, 
 or we may say lack of knowledge, respecting this non-elect class which 
 is thus left out, but it is understood to embrace the children of the 
 heathen ; and the application of the word "elect" as a limiting term is to 
 the children of the church as contradistinguished from the children of 
 the heathen. But since elect and non-elect are necessarily counterparts, 
 a professed knowledge of one must imply a corresponding knowledge of 
 the other; and if we are ignorant of the latter class we must of necessity 
 be also of the former. The idea that we have a knowledge of an elect 
 class of dying infants is therefore a simple delusion, and it is inconsistent 
 in the anti-revisionists to demand absolute proof of universal infant 
 salvation as a necessary prelude to the elimination of the word "elect." 
 If they know nothing of a non-elect class they know nothing of an 
 elect class, and the Bible is as silent about the one as about the other. 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 The fact is that the Bible does not speak of election in connection with 
 dying infants. The question of their election must therefore be an infer- 
 ence from the prior fact of their salvation. The demand for the reverse 
 order of logic, namely, that the fact of their election be supplied as a 
 basis for the knowledge of their salvation, is unreasonable and incon- 
 sistent. We have no more knowledge of the election of adults than of 
 infants, except as they are known to be of the faith. As for infants 
 their inability to exercise faith is the basis of our judgment and knowl- 
 edge that it is not required of them unto salvation. This rational judg- 
 ment of common sense is supported by the Scripture which teaches that 
 the little ones are not held to the accountability of grown people. This 
 is .so . perfectly simple that every unsophisticated person is able to see 
 it, and only the theologically trained are blind to it. Assuredly there 
 is a reason for this blindness — this balking at the idea that even the 
 infant children of unbelievers and heathen are saved in the same way as 
 the. children of the church. 
 
 The discrimination which has been made is apparently the result of 
 two exegetical blunders. The first grows out of the doctrine of the cove- 
 nant .of works which by reason of the fall holds every soul of the 
 human race guilty of Adam's first sin ; and the logic is, that because 
 infants are just as subject to this effect of the fall as grown people, 
 therefore thej' are just as liable to the punishment of eternal death as 
 grown people. The logic which is thus so confidently relied upon is 
 defective and inconclusive in view of the fact that God provided salvation 
 for the world. Original sin is confounded with the final judgments of 
 God upon the simple idea that guilt is obligation to punishment. Infants 
 are guilty, and therefore must be liable to punishment, therefore the 
 children of the heathen must be lost, especially as there is no clear 
 revelation (they think) of the fact that they are saved. Such is the 
 one-sided and perverse logic of those who believe in possible or probable 
 infant damnation; and this is the real secret of the fact that the anti- 
 revisionists hold on with a persistent determination to the idea that we 
 really know nothing of the salvation of the infant children of the 
 heathen. Our church has simply played with this question, and the sur- 
 face of it has hardly been scratched, for only within the last year 
 have the real merits of the question been touched in the recent discus- 
 sions of infant salvation. At least this is the way it appears to us. 
 
 The writer was for a long time cut ofif from this debate. We tried 
 in vain to get published an answer to one of the prominent anti- 
 revisionists in the early stage of the discussion, and in spite of the fact 
 that the writer has spent years of time in the study on the theological 
 questions involved in this discussion, he found himself shut out of the 
 discussion and forced to provide his own means of access to the reading 
 public. With very great sorrow the writer came to the conclusion that 
 our religious press is free to a very limited extent. Instead of encourag- 
 ing discussion on the important questions which come up for decision, 
 discussion has l)een often suppressed by the arbitrary decision of papers 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 who furnish the journalism of our church. The consequence of this 
 editorial management is that the church is retrograding and reaching a 
 point where we rarely get anything discussed except in the most super- 
 ficial manner. We stand in imminent danger of losing our birthright, 
 because of the shortsighted policy of our journals. The demand for light 
 and popular and brief articles is fast freezing out our scholarship or 
 causing it to go into hiding. 
 
 The writer perceived long ago that the merits of this question, namely, 
 the doctrine of infant salvation had never received an adequate dis- 
 cussion or investigation. A careful reading of all the treatises on this 
 subject served only to reveal their defective nature, so we took up the 
 Scriptures for an original study of the question, and wrote a number 
 of articles as the passages were examined. The result was as before 
 mentioned. We were shut out of the discussion. We now appeal to the 
 people who feel enough interest in the truth to make them willing to 
 devote some earnest thought to these matters. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/infantsalvationcOOIink 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Covenant of Works 15 
 
 Relation to Covenant of Redemption and the Atonement. 
 Questioned by some theologians. Attitude of others. Defini- 
 tion of covenant of works. A theological conception. In- 
 ferred from Gen. 2: 17. Discussion of passage. Account of it 
 in the Larger Catechism. Dispensation of natural law. Con- 
 fession in ch. 7 not the same. Shorter Catechism non-com- 
 mittal. An independent judgment needed. Connection be- 
 tween Covenant of Works and Immediate Imputation. Teach- 
 ings of the theologians. Chas. Hodge — A promise suspended 
 upon a condition and corresponding penalty for disobedience. 
 Argues from new covenant. Criticism of argument and defini- 
 tions. Teaches that God did more than once offer salvation to a 
 legal obedience. This a great mistake. The word "covenant" 
 should not be applied to the transaction in Eden. The Larger 
 Catechism gives the true account of that transaction. Hodge 
 thinks perpetual obedience was not required. But appeal to 
 reason on this question is invalid. Discussion of "Parties to 
 the covenant," and kind of representation. A. A. Hodge adds 
 nothing by finding the support of the covenant in natural moral 
 obligation. Ambiguity of "covenant." Dabney's account of the 
 covenant. Thornwell saw the inconclusiveness of reasoning 
 from the Genesis passage. Dabney's argument from con- 
 science. Tree of life. Not a sacrament. Parallel between 
 Adam and Christ. Thornwell's argument from the repre- 
 sentative character of Christ. Imagines indefectibility with- 
 out justification. Argument sought in the Mosaic system 25 
 utterly unsound. Examination of Rom. 2: 6, 7. Thornwell's 
 interpretation. Hodge's interpretation. Examination of Rom. 
 7: 10; 8: 3, and the argument therefrom. Examination of 
 Luke 10: 25; Matt. 19: 16, etc. Conclusion against the theory 
 of a covenant of works. Confession should be revised to con- 
 form to the Larger Catechism. 
 
 Original Sin 31 
 
 Original sin and its corollary Immediate Imputation. De- 
 fense of Wesley and Watson against misunderstanding. Not 
 to be classed with Whitby. Statement of Whitby's views. 
 Wesleyan device for obviating the effects of Immediate Im- 
 putation. Dabney's criticism. Statement of Watson. He de- 
 fends Arminius and the Wesleyan Methodists. Arminius' 
 statement conpared with Westminister Confession. A pity that 
 Watson did not reject the covenant of works. Miley quoted. 
 Suggestion for harmonizing of Wesleyan and Calvinistic sys- 
 tems. Discussion of Imputation. The noun "imputation" not 
 found in Scripture. "Impute" almost eliminated by Revised 
 Version. Dabney's acknowledgment that the Scripture does not 
 directly assert imputation of Adam's sin to us. Distinction 
 between the imputation of the guilt and the sin questionable. 
 
8 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Dabney founds imputation upon covenant of works. Dr. 
 Hodge's account of imputation. Asserts that all imputation 
 is the same. Adam's sin to us, our sins to Christ. Christ's 
 righteousness to believers. The second and third as needless 
 as the hrst. Usage of "impute" in the Old Testament. Rom. 
 5: 13 the same, and against the covenant of works and imme- 
 diate imputation. The theory contravenes the eternal prin- 
 ciples of God's Truth and Justice. Bearing of Rom. 4:15. 
 "Law worketh wrath," and salvation could never have been 
 otherwise than by faith in God. All the false theories con- 
 nected with the covenant of works depend upon the single 
 rotten support of the mistranslation of Rom. 5: 12. Realism 
 and Immediate Imputation no solution of the difficulties raised 
 by the covenant of works. 
 
 The Covenant Charter 44 
 
 Covenant wath Abraham the charter of the Church. Church 
 not to be dated from Moses or Pentecost. Proper understand- 
 ing of the promise to Abraham, and the significance of the 
 seal of highest importance. Passed over by majority of 
 ecclesiological writers wdthout proper attention. They pursue 
 a defective a priori method. Study of church in its historical 
 development the necessary preliminary to a correct definition. 
 The promise to Abraham on four different occasions essent- 
 ially one promise having temporal and spiritual elements. 
 Interpretation which makes two separate and distinct promises 
 erroneous. Seal of chapter 15 has reference to ownership of 
 land. Promise of chapter 17 a spiritual promise and the seal 
 a spiritual seal to the Church. 
 
 The Promise Absolute 48 
 
 Not a mere bargain suspended upon conditions. It secures 
 a continuity of godly seed to the church. Faith the channel 
 through which the blessing should come. The promise is to the 
 spiritual children of Abraham. But it was committed to the 
 visible church, and constitutes The Great Promise of Salva- 
 tion to Man. John M. Mason's view of the covenant. Should 
 be interpreted in the light of the New Testament Scrip- 
 tures. Meaning of the word "Covenant :" Absolute char- 50 
 acter. Definitions of Books must be modified. Definitions of 
 Hodge and Dabney. Examination of Scripture usage. 
 Hosea 6: 7. Old translation better than new. Meaning of 
 "like men." Examination of other covenants. With Noah. 
 Testament light to show that the covenant with Abraham shed 
 light upon its real nature as an absolute promise. The record 
 in Genesis examined with this in view. Covenant with Israel 
 at Sinai. Conditional in form ; an argreement between God 
 and his people. Covenant with David. New covenant, Jer. 
 31 : 31. Definition of covenant. • The covenant imposes an 
 obligation which does not wait upon individual consent. Rea- 
 son for conditional form of Sinai covenant. Additional New 56 
 New Testament light to show that the covenant with Abra- 
 ham is a promise of salvation to the true people of God. 
 Rom. 4: II. Gal 3: 16. It can hardly be supposed that 
 Abraham himself understood its full meaning. Paul gives 
 exposition in Galatians third and fourth chapters by the 
 contrast between the law and the promise. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Views of Writers 60 
 
 Kurtz. Oehler. Mason and Calvin. Calvin's statement 
 examined. Rom. n: 16. Rom. 15: 8. Matt. 8: 12. Several 
 ecclesiological writers lay little store by the patriarchal age. 
 The generally accepted view in our church that of John M. 
 Mason, which may be regarded as the second of Calvin's 
 inconsistent interpretations. The first account correct, and 
 the second must be eliminated and a dififerent answer sought 
 to the question, How did God's covenant with Abraham 
 constitute the church ? 
 
 False Issues and Incosistent Reasoning 64 
 
 In the matter of Infant Salvation. Dr. Webb's incorrect 
 starting point with a definition which assumes the point to be 
 proved. Too much time devoted to proving that infants are 
 guilty. This is not the question. Dr. Webb starts by giving 
 up his case. If the Scriptures are silent what right has Theo- 
 ology to lay claim to a settlement? His solution of no 
 value. Hardly consistent for an advocate of the covenant 
 of works and immediate imputation. Infants exempted upon 
 an incorrect interpretation of the passage which says that 
 judgment is to be according to works. Not necessary to 
 show that infants are guiltless in order to show that they are 
 saved. The question one of Scripture teaching. Philosophy 
 can give no help. The dictum that there can be no penal 
 suffering where the understanding does not apprehend its 
 nature is unreliable. The difficulty lies in regarding sin exclu- 
 sively in its legal aspect as a breach of law. This is not Paul's 
 account of sin. Guilt and condemnation to eternal punish- 
 ment not the same. Objection to "damnability." Calvin 
 unjustly charged with teaching infant damnation. His posi- 
 tion more correct than that of later theologians who credit 
 Calvin with their own views. Calvin's positive denial that 
 he taught an antenatal condemnation or reprobation. Clash 
 with Castalio, and proper interpretation of Calvin's reply. 
 
 Dr. S. S. Laws on Infant Salvation 69 
 
 Depends mainly upon the classic passages in Matthew 18: 
 19, and commends Calvin's exposition. Agrees with Calvin 
 in making a close connection between the passages. Calvin 
 evidently applied Matt. 19: 14 to the children of the church, 
 for he drew from it an argument in favor of infant bap- 
 tism. This requires the wrong meaning to be given to the 
 phrase "kingdom of heaven." Should be understood of 
 heaven itself as having reference to children in general who 
 have been called away to heaven in which case it bears 
 directly upon infant salvation. Argument from David's child 
 not satisfactory to anti-revisionists, because a child of the 
 covenant. Modifies or offsets the effects of the rule of 
 judgment according to works. His treatment of subject best 
 so far had. 
 
 Rev. H. B. Pratt on Infant Salvation 71 
 
 Adduces Matt. 19: 14 and Calvin's interpretation except 
 that he considers that it has no bearing on infant baptism,, 
 but his reasons for so concluding not satisfactory. His 
 attempted defense of Calvin against the charge of teach- 
 ing infant damnation not effective because only those who 
 
10 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE, 
 were of the church and had a right to the ordinance were 
 referred to as saved without baptism. His general defense 
 of Calvinism and the Confession ineffective. Damaging admis- 
 sion on p. 17 relative to the meaning of elect infant clause. 
 Suggested substitution of "elect persons dying in infancy" 
 shows that he has no conception of the real problem. Seeks 
 to broaden out the application of Matt 19: 14 to cover all 
 deceased infants, but inconsistently because of having adopted 
 Calvin's interpretation. Destroys the effective use of the pas- 
 sage by misinterpreting both members of the phrase "king- 
 dom of heaven." Asserts that "the kingdom is locally on 
 earth." Brief examination of the word. Another bad argu- 
 ment from Heb. 11. Does not understand the true spiritual 
 meaning of the Abrahamic covenant. He supposes that it 
 will be satisfied by the salvation of the infant dead of the 
 nations. This is a marvelous interpretation of prophecy. Dr. 
 Pratt's original interpretation of the parables of the Great 
 Supper and Marriage of the King's Son. Similar process of 
 interpretation applied to Psalms. Infant salvation should not 
 be used to set aside the prophecies of the church's glorious 
 triumph. 
 
 /o 
 
 Scriptures Examined 
 
 Mark 10: 14; Matt. 19: 14. Meaning of "Of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven." Quotation from the Institutes Ch. 16, 
 Sec. 7, and interpretation. Calvin defended from charge of 
 teaching infant damnation. Infant salvation asserted in Matt. 78 
 18:14. Exposition. Meyer's interpretation. 
 
 The Little Ones. Num. 14 : 31 80 
 
 The passage does not refer to the final judgment, but 
 nevertheless teaches a principle of judgment. Luke 12: 48 
 quoted in connection. Isa. 5, 3, 4. 
 
 Genesis 4: 6, 7 82 
 
 God deals with great gentleness with the first erring child, 
 just as an earthly parent if wise would do. Shows the trouble 
 to be in a sinful heart and desire. The treatment to be ac- 
 counted for by his youth. An a fortiori argument to show 
 that God does not hold little children to the responsibility 
 of grown people. Considerations which indicate Cain's youth. 
 Numbers 31 : 18. A block of heathendom incorporated into the 84 
 church, showing God's favor to the heathen children. Deut. 
 31 : 12, 13. Special provision for the instruction of the 
 heathen children. Jonah, Ch. 4: 11. Zechariah 13: 7. "But 85 
 I will turn my hand to the little ones. Isaiah 40: 11. The 86 
 evangelist of Zion announces that the coming Saviour "will 
 gather the lambs in his arm and carry them in his bosom." 
 
 The Wording of the Clause 87 
 
 The elect infant clause should be so changed in its wording 
 as to express in unambigious language a belief in general in- 
 fant salvation. "Elect" must be eliminated because understood 
 to limit the class spoken of, viz., dying infants. Infants and 
 other incapables must be treated as exceptional classes. A 
 wording suggested. Section 2 should be omitted and the ex- 
 ceptional clause allowed to follow immediately the clause 
 to which it it exceptional. 
 
CONTENTS. II 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Dr. Webb's Interpretation and Analysis 88 
 
 Goes to emphasize the necessity for a changed wording. 
 He adopts the very common interpretation which takes "elect 
 infants" to cover the whole of the elect. But "dying in infancy" 
 makes this an impossible interpretation. The question which Dr. 
 Webb puts into the mouth of the anti-Calvinist purely imagin- 
 ary. If elect infants die, it does not follow that non-elect infants 
 live on. The interpretation which makes "elect infants" co- 
 incide with "the elect," does not accord with the contest in 
 Sec. I. No reason why the same class should be so designated. 
 No need for such a reference. The supposition that all the 
 non-elect live past infancy has nothing to sustain it on his 
 account of Scriptures. A pure assumption. Also that all penal 
 suffering must be apprehended as such not proved. Negative 
 argument equally unsatisfactory. No more powerful argu- 
 ment for revision can be constructed than his assertion that 
 nobody but Calvanists can understand the language of elect 
 infant clause. If an elect class be singled out of dying infants 
 it leaves by necessary inference a non-elect division of the 
 same class. Dr. Webb's efforts to avoid the inference unavail- 
 ing. Best to change the wording. 
 
 Revision of Chapter Seven 91 
 
 General sense of "covenant" in the Confession. This the 
 source of ambiguity and misunderstanding. How the confes- 
 sional statement may be harmonized with the Larger Catechism. 
 "Covenant" used of the law considered as a rule of life in Qu. 
 97 — called "a covenant of works." The language seems to 
 imply that the law was offered to the world as a means of 
 justification and salvation. Providential aspect of the law 
 partly justifies use of word "covenant." Confession ch. 19, sec. 
 6, uses similar language, using "covenant of works" in the 
 sense of "dispensation of law." Meaning of promise of life in 
 section 2, ch. 7, suggestion for avoiding ambiguity, and har- 
 monizing with catechism. Expression "made himself incap- 
 able of life." Section 3 criticised. Change suggested. State- 
 ment regarding Holy Spirit misleading and objectionable. 
 Language of section i criticised. The word "covenant" needs 
 definition. 
 
 Does General Infant Salvation Conflict with the Doctrine 
 
 OF Election ? 94 
 
 It is a mistake to so represent it, the error being in wrong 
 understanding of "unconditional." Contingent" in section l 
 criticised, and different wording suggested. Exscision of sec- 
 tion 2 suggested, and section 5 criticised for its purely ab- 
 stract view of election. Section 3 discussed and a scriptural 
 statement of election and pretention suggested. Comment upon 
 same. Sections 4 and 5 should be omitted. 
 
 Does the Doctrine of General Infant S.^lvatiox Conflict with the 
 
 Doctrine of the Atonement ? 98 
 
 The two things not directly connected; but if the infants of 
 the heathen are non-elect, it is clearer that they are excluded 
 from the benefits of the atonement, and so easy to see that 
 in this case they must be lost. The limited atonement does, in 
 
12 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 fact, have an effect upon the belief in infant damnation. The 
 limited atonement taught in section 6. No objection to the 
 first statement. But the last sentence uses "redeemed" in the 
 sense of providing salvation, and limits this to the elect. 
 This obscures the gospel message to the world. To say that 
 "neither are any others redeemed by Christ" is incorrect if 
 "redeemed" expresses the provided propitiation. The language 
 defective and misleading. Addition to last sentence of section 
 6 suggested. Larger Catechism Qu. 13 examined, and omis- 
 sion of words suggested. Important that the gospel for the 
 world be presented. General expression of desire and purpose 
 in this discussion. 
 
Infant Salvation 
 
 AND 
 
 Confessional Revision 
 
 REVISION OF THE CONFESSION. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 In discussing the Revision of the Confession, it seems best to begin 
 with that question which is just now before the Presbyteries for their 
 decision. That question is the revision of the elect infant clause and 
 section. 
 
 The last Assembly (1911) simply marks time on this question by 
 sending down a wording which ornits "elect" in the first clause, but 
 retains it in the second in such a way as to make it apply to both. Of 
 course there is nothing gained by this, and it simply means that the anti- 
 revisionists have not moved a peg in their position, and are determined 
 not to yield an inch until driven to it by a three-fourths majority. It 
 would be easy to make a statement of simply the manner of infant sal- 
 vation, and this would eliminate "elect" from both clauses, leaving out 
 of view entirely the question of who or how many infants and idiots are 
 saved. But the last Assembly has given the death blow to that unworthy 
 effort to avoid the implication which necessarily goes with the use of 
 "elect," in the limiting sense. Having omitted "elect" from the first 
 clause, the statement becomes what anti-revisionists have all along 
 claimed it to be, a statement simply of the way in which infants are 
 saved. But when the parties who constructed the new wording came to 
 the second clause, instead of omitting "elect," and making it a strict 
 parallel, they retained "elect" and changed the wording so as to avoid 
 the clear implication that all of these classes are elect. "So also are all 
 others who are included in the election of grace," etc. Thus what they 
 took away with one hand they restore with the other. They appear at 
 first to take away "elect," and seem to remove the difficulty, else why 
 make any change? But they restore it by implication, the only advantage 
 being that the inference will probably be overlooked. This appears to 
 be simply trifling with a great issue and to be beneath the dignity of a 
 church like ours. An open profession of faith in possible or probable 
 infant damnation, — or better, an excision of the clause, — is infinitely 
 superior to such a patent dodge. 
 
14 IN FAX T SALVATION AND 
 
 The anti-revisionists have been driven to the wall, and forced in this 
 way to acknowledge that they do believe in probable infant damnation, 
 for otherwise they would not insist on speaking of the salvation of an 
 elect class of dying infants and idiots. 
 
 The question then arises at once, What is the explanation of the 
 tenacious hold which infant damnation has upon many of our people? 
 One explanation we dare say is found in the doctrine of the covenant of 
 works applied to the particular classes in question. It is the doctrine 
 that men are held guilty of Adam's act of disobedience in eating the 
 forbidden fruit. If it were not for the prior theory of a covenant of 
 works, as a contract between God and Adam, the above supposition 
 would appear at once abhorrent to every sense of justice and right. 
 Its acceptance depends purely upon the alleged fact that God did 
 it. This alone silences cavil, for "shall not the judge of all the earth 
 do right"? So positive have the theologians been in the assertion 
 of this strange transaction that it has been long accepted for a fact, 
 and men have forgotten to examine the foundation upon which the 
 alleged fact rests. The boldness and baldness of the doctrine of 
 immediate imputation can alone account for that dulling of the sense of 
 justice which makes the doctrine of infant damnation seem possible not 
 to say probable. 
 
 The second mistake consists of confounding this guilt so obtained with 
 final judgment and eternal damnation; and this mistake has been erron- 
 eously attributed even to Calvin himself by one of our book writers, 
 who tried inconsistently to make Calvin teach the doctrine of universal 
 infant salvation. The inconsistency is not Calvin's. He really held 
 neither of these positions, for he does not discuss at all the salvation 
 or damnation of the infants of the heathen as a class, or of infants as a 
 general class of humanity. 
 
 It may be granted that had God provided no salvation for the world 
 the inference that guilt necessarily means final death would hold; but 
 in view of the fact that a salvation has been provided, it is false and 
 inconclusive reasoning. It simply shuts its eyes to the most important 
 element of the problem, and asks everybody else to be equally blind. The 
 anti-revisionists appear to conclude arbitrarily that Christ could not die 
 for the salvation of heathen infants as well as for the balance of the 
 world. 
 
 The idea of a limited atonement, or the exclusive application of 
 the atonement to the elect only tends toward this same end, for who 
 knows whether the dying infants of the heathen are elect, independently 
 of Scripture teaching regarding infant salvation? This is another 
 theological blunder which works hand in hand with the others. This 
 teaching confounds Christ's work of atonement with salvation in fact, 
 which is the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing to an acceptance of 
 the atonement those (adults) who are capable of understanding the 
 plan, and in producing the regeneration by which even those who die 
 infants are similarly born again by God's almighty power. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 13 
 
 The setting off of the infants of the heathen in the doubtful column 
 is furthermore caused by the superior status of the children of the 
 church. The promise to Abraham and his seed has been taken to apply 
 to all the natural children, thus embracing all the children of the church 
 in a promise of salvation to the exculsion of all others. This is an 
 exegetical blunder which is in direct conflict with Paul's interpretation of 
 that covenant. Paul tells us that the promise had reference to the 
 spiritual children in its highest significance, rather than the natural seed. 
 They were not all Israel who were of Israel as a people. Who knows 
 then whether all the dying infants of the heathen may not have been 
 embraced in that covenant, just as we are told that all believers among the 
 Gentiles are so included? In proportion as we know, or have reason to 
 believe, that they are saved we know that they are so included. They have 
 been excluded upon a false theory, and if we know that all the children 
 of the church dying infants are saved, it is not because we previously 
 knew them to be partakers of the covenant of salvation, but because 
 they are taken away before they come to years of discretion or responsi- 
 bility, and this is precisely the same ground upon which we base a belief 
 in the salvation of the dying infants of the heathen. 
 
 When these theological blunders are swept away the light of divine 
 truth will shine out so clearly that there will be no longer any doubt about 
 the salvation of all who are not able to apprehend the plan of salva- 
 tion which God prepared for the world. We shall then cease to demand 
 a knowledge of their election as a reason for a faith in their salvation. 
 We shall see that we put the cart before the horse, and this will tend to 
 clarify our ideas on the general subject of election. We shall see that 
 as regards the personnel of the elect there is no difference whether we 
 take the viewpoint of God in a past eternity or the viewpoint of the end, 
 or during the present at any time we judge like the apostles the elect 
 to be those who appear to be faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 There can be no conflict between the theoretical and the practical view- 
 point, because God's knowledge is according to truth, and he sees the end 
 from the beginning. 
 
 Let us proceed now to a study of the covenant of works. 
 
 THE COVENANT OF WORKS. 
 
 The covenant of works, so-called, has had a very wide influence upon 
 our theology, affecting even the doctrine of the atonement itself. It 
 unquestionably has had its influence in shaping men's conception of 
 infant salvation and damnation. In view of a provided atonement for 
 the world it seems impossible that the doctrine of infant damnation 
 could have ever seemed to be possible or even rational, except for the 
 teaching that men are held responsible for the sin of Adam in eating the 
 forbidden fruit, not merely that they share by heredity the death which he 
 induced in himself by his disobedience, but that men are initially guilty 
 and consequentially corrupt. But this teaching is a great mistake. The 
 
i6 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 covenant of works, so-called in its theological conception, is a most 
 unfortunate and far reaching blunder. 
 
 In Presbyterian circles it is pretty widely known that the covenant of 
 works is rejected by Shedd. It is also rejected by Dr. Augustus H. 
 Strong, of Rochester Seminary, a Baptist theologian, and by William B. 
 Pope, of Manchester, England, a Methodist theologian. The present 
 writer formed his own opinion before reading any of these authors, 
 by his own independent study; in fact, he does not yet know how Shedd 
 supports his contention, and as for the others, while they decidedly reject 
 the coveannt of works they make no argument directly against it. Some 
 of our own theologians appear to be partly aware that the foundations of 
 this covenant are insecure. Dabney, although he accepts it, begins his 
 argument in favor of it by answering objections and his argument 
 professes to be simply a statement of the points given in the standard 
 authors. 
 
 Dr. Thornwell has acknowledged that it is not a legitimate conclusion 
 from the narrative in the first chapter of Genesis, and he attempts to 
 support it in other ways. He says, "It is true that Moses says nothing 
 directly of a promise" made to Adam, and that "he gives no intimation of 
 the nature of the reward which was promised to fidelity." He "does not 
 even affirm that one was proposed." This being the case the question 
 will occur. How do we know then that there was such a covenant ? 
 The answer must be. We do not know that God promised eternal life to 
 Adam and his posterity upon a limited obedience. The inference has 
 been inconclusively drawn from the words "but of the tree of the knowl- 
 edge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou 
 eatest thereof thou shalt (wilt) surely die." God had given the privilege 
 of access to all the trees of the garden with this single exception. Adam 
 was commanded not to eat of that fruit, and warned that a breach of the 
 commandment meant death. It is commonly understood that the words 
 are a threat, and the inference is drawn that if God threatened death for 
 disobedience, he must have implied a promise of life for obedience. But 
 a little inspection will show how much influence the imagination has been 
 allowed in the shaping of the conception. In the first place, how do we 
 know that this is a threat? We may read "thou will certainly die" (lit. 
 dying thou wilt die) more justly than "thou shalt surely die." It is a 
 simple future, and since "shall" is so largely used in the king James 
 version even with the second and third persons, as a simple future, it is 
 impossible to say that the translators so intended it. But this does 
 away with the idea of the threat, and makes it a simple warning of the 
 natural and inevitable result of the disobedience. There was no intrinsic 
 danger in the fruit itself, but it stood as the symbol of evil, the symbol 
 of disobedience, because it could not be touched except through a dis- 
 regard of God's word and a breach of his positive command. And what 
 God warned them of actually took place. They did not die physically in 
 the day that they ate of the forbidden fruit, but they did die spiritually, 
 and they knew it. They were aware of an immediate change in their 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 17 
 
 relations to God, and at once they became afraid of him. Now if there 
 was no threat, but only a warning, how is it possible to draw the con- 
 clusion that God promised them eternal life for a limited obedience? 
 Dr. Dabney says that the correlative of death is life. Yes, but the 
 correlative of death is not eternal life. Nor is there a word said about 
 a limited obedience, by which the promise of eternal life could be 
 earned. Of course as God's creatures men were under the natural and 
 necessary obligation of obedience, and they were bound to believe God 
 who cannot lie. And yet they did disbelieve him, or at least Eve did, 
 thus making him a liar, and they disobeyed his positive command, thus 
 becoming rebels against his authority, and this without the slightest 
 provocation. 
 
 There is no serious objection to the use of the word covenant in this 
 connection, if it only means a dispensation of God's providence. This 
 is clearly the idea of the Larger Catechism, but it is not the conception 
 of the theologians, nor does it appear to satisfy the confessional state- 
 ment in chapter seven. Par. 2. 
 
 The Larger Catechism (Q. 20), after speaking of man's creation, and 
 circumstances in the garden of Eden, tells us that God entered into "a 
 covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect and 
 perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and for- 
 bidding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, upon 
 pain of death." If the tree of life stood as a pledge, God must have 
 made an implied promise, but not of eternal life upon a limited obedience. 
 On the other hand, the language "personal, perfect, and perpetual obedi- 
 ence," absolutely excludes the theological conception of that covenant. 
 It was a covenant with man, it does not sa}^ with Adam ; and it required 
 personal obedience of all, and there was no limit because it was to be 
 perpetual. This must have been simply a dispensation of natural law, 
 and its nature is satisfactorily explained in Q. 93, where the moral law 
 is described as the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing 
 and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and 
 obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, 
 soul and body, and in the performance of all those duties of holiness 
 and righteousness which he oweth to God and man; promising life (not 
 eternal life) upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach 
 of it." This makes the matter perfectly clear that it was a dispensation 
 of natural law, and God can be said to have "entered into" such a cove- 
 nant only in the sense that he promised immunity so long as the obedience 
 was maintained. This immunity is truly inferred from the threat, or 
 warning concerning death, and this is all that can be justly inferred from 
 the record. 
 
 Now if the Larger Catechism stood by itself, or if the confessional state- 
 ment of chapter seven agreed with it, our interpretation on this question 
 would be unassailable, but unfortunately the account of God's covenant 
 with man, as it is given in chapter seven, seems irreconcilable with the 
 statements of the Larger Catechism. The "covenant with man" becomes 
 
i8 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 transformed in that chapter into a covenant of works with Adam "wherein 
 Hfe was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition 
 of perfect and personal obedience." It will be observed that the word 
 perpetual is not there, and the word personal is made very naturally to 
 apply to Adam only, since it was in him that life was promised. 
 
 It seems fair to conclude from the wording that the committee which 
 constructed the statement of the Confession proper must have been a 
 different committee from that which drew up the statements of the 
 Larger Catechism. And this is a historical fact. We turn to Q. 12 of the 
 Shorter Catechism, and find that it is not sufiiciently definite to be placed 
 on one side or the other ; it may be understood either way according *o 
 one's preconceived idea. In form it follows more closely the Larger 
 Catechism, for the covenant is with man, and the clauses are parallel 
 with that statement, although the absence of both "personal" and 
 "perpetual" might be regarded as making it conform to the Confession. 
 It looks like a compromise constructed to suit each of two irreconcilable 
 parties. 
 
 It was with profound sorrow that the writer discovered this hopeless 
 confusion in the Westminster standards. Alas, alas, if the covenant is 
 the moulding idea of the Calvinistic theology, it follows a very uncertain 
 guiding star. But the unbiased mind will easily distinguish between 
 Calvinism, as the word stands for a system of Scripture truth, and 
 certain errors which have crept into the Westminster Confession. 
 
 If the discovery of the irreconcilable difference between the Confession 
 and the Larger Catechism will serve to show the subscribers of the 
 Westminster Confession that that document, with all its excellence, is 
 not perfect, there will be an important compensation for the sorrow which 
 such discovery must produce. There has been too much a tendency 
 to trust in man-made documents, and a feeling of undue satisfaction 
 with the heritages of the past is exceedingly inimical to advancement in 
 the present and the future. Let us not be content to let other people do 
 our thinking for us, but ever be mindful of the fact that we are called 
 upon to do our own thinking, and are responsible for our own conclu- 
 sions. The tendency to accept perviously constructed statements without 
 question will account for a number of the long standing errors of 
 theology. 
 
 This so-called covenant becomes the fountain-head of that hurtful 
 theory of immediate imputation, which has played such an important 
 part in the contentions of Arminianism and Calvinism. 
 
 Let us now see what the theologians have to say about this covenant. 
 Dr. Chas. Hodge (p. 117) starts out by giving the Shorter Catechism 
 statement, coupled with a part of answer ten. He says, however, that 
 "this statement does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scrip- 
 tures," although it is to be taken as a "concise and correct mode of 
 asserting a plain scriptural fact, namely, that God made to Adam a 
 promise suspended upon a condition, and attached to disobedience a 
 certain penalty." This is all that is meant by the term covenant, he says. 
 
CONFESSIOX.^L REVISION. 19 
 
 He tells us that the word itself is nowhere in Scripture applied to this 
 transaction, and yet he endeavors to justify this extra-scriptural use of 
 the word by the claim that the New Covenant is spoken of in antithesis 
 to this covenant, as well as to that of Sinai, without appearing to recog- 
 nize that this is a pure assumption, and that the logic is a circle. How 
 could it be used in antithesis to a covenant that did not exist, according 
 to the Scripture use of the word? The antithesis is first assumed and 
 then the covenant argued from the antithesis, when the antithesis must 
 depend upon the prior assumption that the Eden transaction was a cove- 
 nant. The new covenant, he says, is "new not merely in antithesis to 
 that made at Sinai, but new in reference to all legal covenants whatever" ; 
 he therefore thinks it "plain that the Bible does represent the arrangement 
 made with Adam as a truly federal transaction." 
 
 It will be seen that the antithesis to the covenant of works is gotten 
 in under a general statement concerning "legal covenants." This term 
 as descriptive of the Eden transaction embodies a most serious error, 
 namely, that God more than once proposed the law as a method of salva- 
 tion. This is a most serious misinterpretation of the Sinai covenant, and 
 besides the classing of a transaction before the fall with one after the 
 fall is not to be justified by simply saying that they were legal. The 
 fact remains that in Scripture the term covenant is definitely applied to 
 the one and is not applied to the other. The classification fails to take 
 any account of the difi'erence in the situation of man in the two cases. 
 The one was with man un fallen, and the other with man fallen and sinful. 
 
 This sort of reasoning will not stand the test of a moment's examina- 
 tion. It tacitly assumes what has just before been excluded by definition 
 when it was said that the so-called covenant of works is only a promise 
 suspended upon a condition. If this is all that is meant, by what species 
 of logic is it classed with the Sinai covenant? Before such classification 
 can be made, it is necessary to inquire. What promise and what 
 condition? It is tacitly assumed that the promise of life means eternal 
 life. But this could not be, if life was promised to perpetual obedience, 
 as the larger catechism puts it. What condition? A limited obedience? 
 And Adam's obedience for the race, and his righteousness to be credited 
 to them? Let it be recognized that to argue the covenant of works in 
 its theological conception from the Scripture use of the phrase "new 
 covenant" is just as far from conclusive as anything can be. If the 
 covenant of works is constructed out o^ this sort of gossamer web. the 
 sooner it is swept away the better. It is assumed that all legal cove- 
 nants are covenants of salvation. 
 
 But the bad logic is not the only thing bad in this presentation, perhaps 
 the chief difficulty lies in the teaching that God did more than once (for 
 the word is plural, "legal covenants") propose to man a schem.e of 
 salvation by law. Dr. Hodge says, "The Scriptures know nothing of any 
 other than two methods of attaining eternal life; the one that which 
 demands perfect obedience, and the other that which demands faith. 
 
20 INFANT SAW AT ION AND 
 
 If the latter is called a covenant, the former is declared to l)e of the 
 same nature." 
 
 By what right is it asserted that Grod ever did propose obedience to 
 law as a scheme of salvation? If the assertion is grounded upon such a 
 conception of the Sinai covenant, it is a gross misinterpretation of that 
 covenant, and the whole of the Mosaic economy. God never did propose 
 but one method of salvation, unless he did it in the covenant of works; 
 but we failed to find it there. 
 
 Dr. Hodge says. "It is of great importance tiiat tlie scriptural form 
 of presenting truth be retained." Would it not then be better to 
 abandon even the word covenant as a description of the unique position 
 of Adam in the garden before the fall, because it is so liable to mislead. 
 As a dispensation of God's providence it was entirely different from the 
 plan of redemption which he has been working out ever since. There 
 is not the slightest evidence that God's glorious plan of salvation in 
 Christ is simph- a patched up scheme to take the place of a previous plan 
 of salvation bj- law which failed. It is an insult to the intelligence of 
 the omnipotent God to teach that he seriously proposed a scheme of 
 salvation which he knew could not work at all. The Larger Catechism 
 has given us the truth on this subject, let us hold to it, and correct what 
 is out of harmony with it ; and let us abandon even the word as a 
 description of a dispensation of pure law. since it finds no parallel even 
 in the general use of "covenant," according to which (in the phrase 
 "covenant of grace") it covers the whole dispensation of the plan of 
 redemption. 
 
 According to the true view of the matter there was no condition of 
 a covenant implied in God's words, "In the Any thou eatest thereof thou 
 wilt certainly die." Of course, if Adam did not die, he would live, it 
 required no promise to give assurance of that. The fact of his creation 
 was assurance of continued existence as long as he was sinless ; but there 
 is no possibilitj- of constructing a promise of assured eternal life in 
 righteousness out of this natural relation of the creature to the Creator. 
 Dabney says the correlative of death is life; true, but the correlative of 
 death is not eternal life. Death is naturally and necessarily eternal, unless 
 God intervene to bring about a resurrection; but this is not true of life. 
 Rather is it true that all life that is created must come to an end unless 
 upheld by God the Creator. There can be no eternal life except that 
 which God gives and secures. It seems therefore to be a mistake to 
 find the condition of a covenant promise in Gen. 2: 17. 
 
 Dr. Hodge asks the question "whether perpetual as well as perfect 
 obedience was the condition of the covenant with Adam," and tells us 
 that it is probably to be answered in the negative, but appears to be 
 unmindful of the fact that this answer is unconsistent with the Larger 
 Catechism. He says, "It seems to be reasonable in itself and plainly 
 implied in the Scriptures that all rational creatures have a definite period 
 of probation." But reason cannot supply the deficiency if revelation is 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 21 
 
 silent on the subject. There can be no data for reasoning on the matter, 
 except what is found in the Scriptures. And if the case of the angels be 
 made a basis for inference, it is against the supposition that God offered 
 to the whole race of man eternal life upon the limited obedience of one 
 man. Every angel had to stand for himself, and reason, as far as it can 
 speak on the subject, would pronounce this the just course. To hold a 
 man responsible for another's sin is repugnant to man's innate sense of 
 justice, and to reward one man for what has been done by another is 
 about as contrary to reason as the other. If man is held criminally 
 responsible for Adam's individual act, there ought to be a clear state- 
 ment of Scripture to prove it; but this statement cannot be produced; the 
 single passage in Romans which has been supposed to assert it is a gross 
 mistranslation. Rom. 5, 12. 
 
 Under the heading, "Parties to the Covenant of Works," Dr. Hodge 
 argues that "the parties to the original covenant were God and Adam," 
 since Adam was the representative of the whole race. This, he thinks, 
 sustains the assertion that "everything said to him had as much reference 
 to his posterity as to Adam himself. But this is a groundless assumption, 
 if anything more is meant than that his fall would affect his posterity. 
 There is nothing to show that Adam's sustained righteousness for a 
 certain time would have been credited to his posterity. If he had had 
 a child before his fall, of course that child would have inherited the 
 same holy nature, but to say that it would be exempt from a personal test 
 of that righteousness is not to be assumed without proof. 
 
 Dr. Hodge says the Jews inferred the representative character of 
 Adam from the record in Genesis. But did they infer the covenant 
 headship for which Dr. Hodge contends? If they did, their inference is 
 worth no more than his own. Adam was necessarily a representative, 
 inasmuch as he was to be the progenitor of the race, but any other 
 representation needs proof. Dr. Hodge understands Paul to say that 
 "the sentence of condemnation passed on all men for one offense," but 
 this is not what Paul says; and if it is not found in the fifth chapter of 
 Romans it is nowhere to be found. The impression that Paul said it is 
 due to mistranslation. What he does say is, that death passed through 
 unto all men, whereupon (epi ho, "upon which") all sinned, so that 
 through one that sinned the judgment came or resulted unto condemna- 
 tion. Of course then it is a mistake to say, "This great fact (meaning 
 Adam's representative character) is made the ground on which the whole 
 plan of redemption is founded." The conception of Christ's representa- 
 tive character as the same as that of Adam is something which the Scrip- 
 ture nowhere asserts, as the famous passages in i Cor. 15 and Rom. 5 
 go to show. But upon the understanding that they are the same Dr. 
 Hodge argues that "to deny the principle in the one case is to deny it in 
 the other," p. 121. He even goes so far as to say that the "principle 
 involved in the headship of Adam underlies all the religious institutions 
 ever ordained by God for men. * * * It is therefore one of the 
 
22 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 fundamental principles (he says) both of natural and of revealed 
 religion." 
 
 In opposition to this statement it may be said that covenant headship, 
 so far from being a fundamental principle cannot be shown to be a 
 principle at all, or to have anything to do with the atonement. Christ 
 becomes a representative of his people, it is true, but not therefore a 
 covenant head, he is their ransom, who brings them rescue from death not 
 by what he covenanted but by what he did. 
 
 Dr. A. A. Hodge adds nothing to the argument, but rather confuses the 
 issue by trying to make the idea of natural moral obligation pass for a 
 covenant. By way of explaining the "contracting parties" he gives this 
 account: (i) God, the moral Governor, by necessity of nature and rela- 
 tion demsmding perfect conformity to the moral law. (2) Adam the free 
 moral agent, by necessity of nature and relation under the inalienable 
 obligations of moral law." This account of the relations is correct; the 
 trouble is, the covenant is thus made to take its origin from a necessity 
 of nature; in other words, the natural moral relation is erected into a 
 covenant. There would be no objection to this in the sense in which the 
 Larger Catechism describes this covenant, but it is not satisfactory 
 proof of the existence of "contracting parties" to a covenant defined as a 
 reciprocal promise. It is about as easy to say that Adam contracted with 
 reference to his creation before he had an existence. If this was physi- 
 cally impossible, the other seems morally impossible, that is to say, it 
 is morally impossible that God and man should have contracted in refer- 
 ence to something that was already and necessarily a finished fact. 
 "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made 
 me thus?" But the real difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the word 
 "covenant," by which an easy transition is made from the one meaning 
 to the other without perceiving that the word is thus made to stand for 
 totally different ideas. A dispensation of pure law is turned into a 
 conditional promise in which the condition is limited obedience, and the 
 promised reward eternal life. 
 
 If any one doubts that this is really the process, he has only to refer 
 to Dr. Hodge's own language in which he explains the condition of the 
 covenant to be "the promises of life and favor. Matt. 19, 15, 17; Gal. 
 3. 12." 
 
 A reference to the passages will serve' to show that "the promises of life 
 and favor" are understood to be eternal life. The citations imply false 
 interpretations of both passages, which apparently makes them nothing less 
 than a gross misconception and misinterpretation of the whole Old Testa- 
 ment economy. But since Dr. Thornwell has entered into this subject at 
 length, while yielding the other points, it is best to reserve further 
 examination of this point until we hear what he has to say. 
 
 Dr. Dabney's inference from the supposed threat in Genesis 2 has 
 been already noticed in a cursory way, but it deserves a more careful 
 attention. His. argument is this : "That the promise of life was clearly 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 23 
 
 implied is shown by the fact itself, that life is the correlative of death, 
 which was threatened in the covenant." But the correlative of death 
 is not eternal life, which means a condition of indefectible holiness. If 
 Adam had not died he would have lived, that is plain, but that he would 
 have secured eternal life, an indefectible state, by a limited obedience is 
 by no means indicated. Death is naturally and necessarily eternal, in 
 itself considered, but not so with life. Nor will it do to argue that 
 because death is naturally eternal, therefore its correlative must be 
 eternal life. It would not follow if God had threatened eternal death for 
 disobedience; but God did not threaten eternal death as the result of 
 eating the forbidden fruit, for he had plans for robbing death of its 
 prey, and of bringing eternal life out of death. 
 
 Dr. Thornwell was more perspicacious than the other theologians when 
 he perceived that a promise could not justl}^ be inferred from a threat. 
 He says, "Unless the Scriptures directly or indirectly authenticate the 
 promise, we are not to presume that the promise w-as made. I am willing 
 to admit," he says, "that nothing can be inferred from the threatening 
 We cannot deduce one contrary from another. The sole promise 
 involved in a threatening is impunity as long as the threatening is 
 respected." He might have gone further and pointed out that even 
 the threat itself is an uncertain inference from the language used, 
 but his admission goes far enough to destroy the very foundation 
 of the covenant of works, as it is conceived by himself and other 
 theologians. 
 
 Dabney argues again from the law of conscience, which "expects 
 life for obedience, as death for transgression." But does the natural 
 law of conscience teach us to expect eternal life as the result of a 
 limited obedience? No, indeed. Let Thornwell answer: "The sole 
 promise involved in a threatening is impunity as long as the threatening 
 is respected." Conscience gives us nothing except a judgment of what 
 is right and what is wrong, with the corresponding sense of obligation 
 to do the right and refrain from doing the wrong. 
 
 The same remark applies to the next point: "During his rectitude 
 Adam evidently enjoyed the use of the 'tree of life' which was a sacra- 
 mental pledge to him of the promised result. And when the covenant 
 was broken his partaking of this seal was forbidden, as utterly incon- 
 sistent with the new state of things. Unless Adam had had before him 
 the promise of life for obedience this would have been idle." 
 
 But no one denies that he had a promise of life as long, as he obeyed, 
 and to make the tree of life stand for more than this, a symbol of 
 life during obedience, is pure presumption; indeed it is a presumption 
 based upon the prior presumption that a promise of eternal life was 
 made, for otherwise how could it be the seal of such a promise? Thus 
 it is seen that the argument is a circle, and begs the c^uestion by assuming 
 the thing to be proved. To designate the symbol of the tree of life 
 as a sacrament is simply an embodiment of this argument for it is 
 nowhere called a sacrament. God drove man out of the garden lest he 
 
24 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 deceive himself with reference to that symhol, as the devil had already 
 deceived him with reference to the symbol of the tree of the knowledge 
 of good and evil ; but it was not because there was any natural efficacy 
 in the tree itself, but to prevent Adam from resting upon false hopes. 
 It is impossible to evolve truth out of the devil's lie. If it had really 
 been a sacrament representing a provided salvation for the sinner, 
 there seems no reason why he might not still have had access to it. 
 But the incongruity of making it such a sign is manifest. How could 
 it represent a salvation from death before death entered into the 
 world? To call the tree of life a sacrament is an abuse of language 
 which springs out of the broad sense in which the old fathers used the 
 word. 
 
 The next point is the parallel between Adam and Christ, which there 
 is no need to dwell upon, because we have already seen that the supposed 
 parallel is a misconception. It supposes that Christ simply undertook 
 what Adam failed to accomplish, but this is disproved by the contrast 
 drawn between the two in the tifth chapter of Romans. To argue that 
 Adam must have stood for eternal life for himself and his descendants, 
 for the reason that Christ has brought eternal life is as baseless as 
 the fabric of a dream. 
 
 Thornwell, who so freely acknowledged the invalidity of the argument 
 from contraries at another point, thinks the argument from the repre- 
 sentative character of Adam is solid. He says, "It is morally certain 
 that a peculiar promise of some sort must have been given, depending 
 upon a limited obedience, from the circumstance that Adam was made 
 a representative of the race. He could not have been treated as a 
 public person, and yet placed under a law of perpetual obedience." Let 
 us pause just here and ask. How do we know? In what respect was 
 he a public person? We are told that "through one man sin entered 
 into the world, and death through sin ;" that "through one man's dis- 
 obedience many were made sinners," but we are nowhere told that by 
 obedience Adam would have rendered his seed indefectible. But Dr. 
 Thornwell takes it for granted that this would have been the result. 
 He says that to suppose him placed under a law of perpetual obedience 
 (which, by the way, the Larger Catechism tells us to have been the fact)' 
 "were to suppose the monstrous anomaly that his descendants might 
 have successively come into being, and yet without being justified have 
 been exempt from the possibility of sin ; or in case of sin have been 
 exempt from the petialty of transgression." 1'his is certainly interest- 
 ing, but the predicamenr which is here represented makes one think 
 that the theologians when they come to deal with this question have 
 short memories. He starts out to explain what would be the condition 
 under a state of natural law, and comes back on the same old track, 
 .•upposing that Adam's descendants must have been promised indefecti- 
 bility upon Adam's limited obedience. A condition of natural law 
 is converted mto o covenant of works. Verily there is something fatal 
 about this question, it is enchanted ground, and to wander about 
 
CONFESSIO.W^L REVISION. 25 
 
 in it has the same ei'fect as drinking of the waters of Lethe. The 
 suggested monstrous condition is purely imaginary. If Adam had been 
 placed in a condition of natural law which required perpetual obedience 
 and he had had a child born in his estate of innocence, would he not 
 have been in precisely Adam's condition? The supposition of indefect- 
 ilility without justification results from contradictory suppositions. 
 
 The discussion of this question presents the most striking illustration 
 of the power of prejudice. The persistence of the idea of the covenant 
 of works is something marvelous. Adam it is argued "could not have 
 beevi treated as a public person, and yet placed under a law of perpetual 
 obedience." The answer is. No, not if it be assumed beforehand that 
 the public character of Adam was that of a representative or covenant 
 lieaci under the covenant of works as ordinarily conceived. The rejected 
 supposition is just what the Larger Catechism asserts in two places 
 ID have been the fact. 
 
 Again, it is said, "if there were no limit to his probation, he never 
 could be justified." But where is it said that God expected him to be 
 justified liy his own righteousness? This is the very point at issue, 
 and imagination cannot be relied upon to make a solid argument. 
 
 THE MOSAIC COVENANT. 
 
 We come now to that interpretation of the Mosaic system which is 
 supposed to give support to the theory of a covenant of works. We 
 have already seen it alluded to in the discussions of Chas. Hodge and 
 A. A. Hodge, but it is also found in Dabney, and is especially depended 
 upon by Thornwell, who puts the matter thus : "I maintain that the 
 Scriptures indirectly teach us that there must have been a promise, 
 and positively declare what the promise was." This appears almost 
 self-contradictory, for if the Scriptures positively declare what the 
 promise was, why say that they indirectly teach that there must have 
 been a promise? The quotations show what is meant: "the law — that 
 is the law given upon Sinai — "was ordained unto life." "If thou wilt 
 enter into life, keep the commandments." "Who will render to every 
 man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well 
 doing seek for glory honor and immortality, eternal life." 
 
 Now in the first place it would not be conclusive to apply the pas^ 
 sages which have a clear reference to the law of Moses to the cove- 
 nant of works, even in its aspect of a regime of natural law, unless 
 it can be shown that the law of Moses was such a dispensation of law, 
 which must suppose it to be a scheme of redemption by law. But this 
 is not merely a gross misinterpretation of the Scripture, it is con- 
 tradictory of its positive assertions. The supposition that the Mosaic 
 law is the old covenant of works, or dispensation of law, renewed, is a 
 supposition of extreme violence, for it supposes that God proposed the 
 same plan to fallen man which he had (supposedly) proposed to man 
 unfallen. It is a gross misinterpretation of the covenant with Israel. 
 
26 INFANT SAU'ATION AND 
 
 In examining Dr. Thornwell's proof texts, let us take first Rom. 2: 6, 
 7, a passage upon which he lays great stress. He says, "This passage is 
 decisive, as its design is evidently to show the nature of the dispensation 
 under which man was placed in innocency, as preparatory to a just 
 apprehension of the gospel. The promise of eternal life is no part of 
 the law as such. It is peculiar to it by virtue of the limited probation 
 upon which man was placed. The law of creation was life during the 
 period of obedience, and eternal life could only be the reward of eternal 
 obedience, but the law as modified by grace was patient continuance 
 in well-doing for a season, and this for everlasting security and bliss. 
 This was the law under which all men were placed in Adam ; this the 
 promise explicitly announced to them as the incentive to fidelity." Dr. 
 Thornwell seems to think that the application of this passage to the 
 case in hand is so plain that it needs no exposition. But an examination 
 of the passage in the light of its context serves to show that it is a 
 total misconception of it to make it have any reference to a dispensa- 
 tion of law, much less to man's condition in his estate of innocence. 
 The passage speaks of something which will take place "in the day 
 of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God," in other 
 words, in the day of judgment. The passage cited announces a principle 
 of judgment, which was to be "rendered to every man according to his 
 works." This does not mean that works were to be the ground of justi- 
 fication, for the judgment is "according to my gospel." It is true men 
 are to be judged in accordance with their characters, for God's saved 
 people will by "patience in well doing seek for glory, honor and 
 incorruption" ; but not as the means of attaining salvation, but 
 pursuing salvation itself in its subjective aspect; while the wicked 
 will infallibly manifest a factious or rebellious spirit, as mani- 
 fested by their disobedience, and their preference for unrighteousness. 
 Since evangelical obedience cannot be the ground of salvation, there 
 is no probation in the passage, in the sense supposed. Nor is this pro- 
 bation, of whatever nature, a limited probation, making it parallel with 
 a limited probation of Adam, nor does it furnish any basis for the sup- 
 position of such an arrangement. This probation ends only with death 
 or the judgment. Adam's probation is supposed to be necessarily short, 
 for if continued beyond the birth of his first child, according to Thorn- 
 well, the monstrous condition of unjustified indefectibility must have 
 been the result. Thornwell then misinterprets the passage when he 
 says it describes "the law under which all men were placed in Adam." 
 Hodge in his commentary appears to make the same mistake when he 
 makes the passage teach that "the ground of the judgment of God 
 is the works of men, not their relations or professions." God will ren- 
 der to every one, Jew as w^ell as Gentile, according to his works in 
 opposition to any other ground of judgment." Just below he tells us 
 that the righteous seek glory honor and immortality "by well doing, by 
 the persevering performance of all duty." Under verse 10: "This is the 
 ground of decision with respect to all. because God is perfectly impartial." 
 
COXPESSiOXAL REIISIOX. 27 
 
 V. 12: '"The ground of judgment is their works, the standard of judg- 
 ment is their knowledge." 
 
 It would seem that the word "ground" must be intended to express 
 something different from what Dr. Thornwell probably takes the pas- 
 sage to mean, after all, for he says under verse 13: when Paul says 
 the doers of the law shall be justified, he is of course not to be under- 
 stood as teaching contrary to his repeated declarations and arguments 
 that men are actually to be justified by obedience to the law. He is 
 speaking not of the method of justification available for sinners, but of 
 the principles on which all who are out of Christ are to be judged." 
 This last statement saves Hodge's orthodoxy, but it hardly justifies his 
 use of language. The phrases "ground of decision" and "ground of 
 judgment" (vs. 6, 12) are evidently misleading, and it is not surprising 
 that Thornwell perhaps and others should have been misled by them. 
 The last sentence quoted (v. 13) shows that Hodge is himself not clear 
 on the matter. Why does he emphasize the fact that the verse has 
 reference to those who are out of Christ? Did he not tell us under 
 v. 10 that this same "ground of decision" had respect to all; and if this 
 phrase does not mean cause for justification or condemnation what does 
 it mean? It would not be easy to establish a distinction between the 
 phrases "worketh good" and "doers of the law" (vs. 10, 13) and yet 
 Hodge makes one apply to all, and the other to a particular class of 
 men. If these phrases announce a principle of judgment, must it not 
 be a principle which applies equally to all, seeing that the apostle applies 
 it both to the righteous and the wicked ? 
 
 The trouble seems to be in the interpretation of the phrase "according 
 to his works" (v. 6), which is the key to the whole passage. This does 
 not mean that works are the ground of judgment, but that judgment 
 is to be in both cases in accordance with men's characters as evinced 
 by their works. This is very ditterent from saying that the righteous 
 are justified by law. There is a sense in which "the doers of law" 
 (not the law, as in the A. V.) are justified by law, but it simply shows 
 that law cannot condemn as long as obedience is rendered. See James 
 2 : 21, 24, 25. But this conception is purely abstract on the part of 
 the apostle and lends no excuse for constructing a scheme of salvation by 
 law. Law promises nothing but immunity for obedience; after we ha\e 
 done all we are unprofitable servants (Luke 17) ; we have simply done 
 what it was our duty to do. Jesus does not mean to say, any more 
 than the apostle, that any mere man ever did do his whole duty, but 
 simply to explain the condition of a person under a dispensation of 
 pure law ; and the purpose of both is the same, viz. : to show that it 
 is impossible for man to save himself by law. This is not God's plan at 
 all. Under a sense of the extreme difficulty of human nature to measure 
 up to the requirement of forgiveness which Jesus had laid down, the 
 disciples cry. Lord increase our faith ; and the Saviour in this connection 
 ■teaches them that we are not saved by law. Who then can show that 
 the scheme of salvation by law was ever proposed, even to Adam in his 
 
28 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 estate of innocence ? The other passages which are quoted in support 
 of the theory of salvation by law are equally beside the mark, and as 
 interpreted they make botli Paul and the Saviour contradict them- 
 selves. 
 
 Thornwell's next quotation is from Rom. 7: 10; 8: 3. "And the com- 
 mand which was ordained unto life, this I found to be unto death." 
 "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh." 
 etc. "This passage teaches unequivocally" he says, "that the law proposed 
 a scheme of justification; a scheme by virtue of which men could be 
 reputed not merely innocent, but righteous ; and that the reason why 
 eternal life has not been secured by it is not the inadequacy of its own 
 promise, but the failure of man to comply with the condition. No candid 
 man," he says, "can weigh these texts without being impressed with the 
 conviction that Paul thinks of man as having been placed in a state 
 in which he might have secured everlasting life by a temporary 
 obedience." 
 
 It is a matter of satisfaction that this advocate of the covenant of 
 works gives in such unequivocal language his interpretation of the 
 Mosaic law, upon which he seeks to establish the covenant of works. 
 Its purpose is manifest, and it forces the reflection, how completely can 
 a man be blinded by a theory, and how easy it is to warp Scripture 
 when going in search of passages to support a pet theory; and others 
 are in the same boat. It is refreshing to see that Thornwell sees the 
 issue so clearly, and undertakes to meet it so fairly. His idea is 
 that if the Mosaic law placed man in a state in which he might have 
 secured everlasting life by a temporary obedience, then the promise of 
 eternal life to a temporary obedience in Eden is established. 
 
 Before discussing the question as to what we are to get out of his 
 quotations, let us inspect the logic by which Thornwell brings to bear 
 his own interpretations. It is simply this, If God gave a law, or 
 made a covenant on Sinai which offered eternal life upon condition of 
 a limited obedience, he must have offered to Adam eternal life upon 
 a limited obedience. Does this appear to be conclusive? The law of 
 Moses was given in connection with a covenant which is perfectly 
 definite, and can be easilj'^ studied. It was a special arrangement with 
 Israel as God's national church, and absolute obedience to the moral 
 law was not expected, but a scheme of forgiveness was provided. The 
 reasoning fails to take into account the different conditions of the 
 parties. We need not ask. Why should God have proposed a scheme to 
 Israel which failed in Adam, we are not ready for that yet, but let 
 us ask. Why seek support for a scheme in Eden which if made at 
 all to Israel certainly failed absolutely? Will any one say, But Adam 
 was holy, and able to render obedience? The answer is, But Adam 
 was a creature of finite powers, and stood very little better showing than 
 sinful Israel, and God must have known beforehand that Adam would 
 fail, without taking into consideration the question of a limit placed to 
 his probation. Does it comport very well with our ideas of infinite 
 
COXl'ESSIONAL REVISIOX. 29 
 
 wisdom that God seriously proposed a scheme of salvation to Adam 
 which lie knew was doomed to certain failure? What is gained by such 
 a supposition? Was Adam and the race in any better condition actually, 
 than they would have been in an estate of natural law? It would seem 
 not, in view of the fact that no single soul reaped any benefit from 
 such scheme, if it was proposed. 
 
 But it injures our idea of God's wisdom to hold that he proposed a 
 scheme which was foredoomed to absolute failure. It injures our idea 
 of the glorious plan of redemption to hold that it is simply the patching 
 up of a plan that failed in Adam. It does not add to the dignity and 
 glory of our Lord and Saviour to hold that he simply undertook what 
 was proposed to a mere man. Why then this covenant of works offering 
 eternal life upon a limited obedience? If so important a covenant was 
 made as the original scheme of God's salvation for man. there ought to 
 be some record of it, and we should not be left to argue from a dispen- 
 sation of God's providence after the fall to a dispensation of his 
 providence before the fall. 
 
 The limit to the probation is so im.portant an element that there should 
 be a record of it, but there is absolutely none. It cannot even be 
 shown to have existed in the Mosaic covenant, so there is not the 
 slightest starting point for the flimsy logic by whicii it is projected 
 into the dawn of creation. This is a most important point, by the way, 
 against that theory of Christ's work of atonement which teaches that 
 he purchased eternal life for his people by a limited obedience to law. 
 Paul had the idea of salvation by law before his conversion. But it 
 passed away with the superior knowledge of the divine illumination by 
 which he passed from Judaism into the gospel light. When says, 
 "I was alive apart from the law once," he does not mean that he was 
 better before his enlightened knowledge than he was after. He evidently 
 means that he was righteous in his own apprehension, and must have 
 thought that he was earning salvation by his obedience, but when the 
 commandment came home to him in its spiritual meaning "sin revived" 
 in the sense that it became at once apparent. He then discovered that 
 all his righteousness was filthy rags, and his former hope of saving 
 himself by law a delusion; the law could bring him nothing but death. 
 
 This is a different idea truly from the above conception. That idea 
 of the law was Paul's conception before his mind was enlightened, and 
 it was the teaching of a spurious Judaism, which having rejected the 
 Saviour to whom all their own forms and ceremonies pointed, fastened 
 upon the husks of the moral law as a scheme of righteousness. 
 
 No more serious indictment can be brought against it than to say 
 that it brings about a false interpretation of the Mosaic economy— 
 unless it be the separate imputation of Christ's active obedience which 
 casts a blight upon the atonement itself by introducing a confusing and 
 contradictory element to account for man's "award" of eternal life. 
 
 There are other passages which need to l)e noticed in this connection, 
 
30 IX FA NT SAL]- AT ION AND 
 
 viz. L'!irist's answer to the lawyer, "This do and thou shalt live" ( Lk. lo. 
 25), and the other to the young man, who came inquiring the way of 
 life, to whom the Saviour answered, "If thou wouldst enter into life keep 
 the commandments." Matt. 19, 16, Mk. 10, 17, Lk. 18, iS. 
 
 In the first of these passages Christ draws out from the man himself 
 the summary of the law, and after commending his answer tells him, 
 This do and thou shalt live ; and immediately proceeds to give the par- 
 able of the good Samaritan to answer his question, And who is my neigh- 
 bor? The point for us is. What did Christ mean by saying. This do 
 and thou shalt live? If he meant keep the law perfectly and you will 
 merit eternal life, his illustration of the meaning of the law was 
 such as to show the impossibility of completely fullilling the condition. 
 He must have meant simply to direct his inquirer to the true answer to 
 his own question. What shall I do to inherit eternal life? Eternal life 
 must be taken in its subjecti\'e meaning, of the practical christian life, 
 and then the parable would be illustrative of that life as it expresses 
 itself in the law of !o\e. 
 
 Whether this be the meaning or not, this seems to be his meaning 
 in Matt ig. 17, despite the fact that the question is, "What good thing 
 shall I do that I may have eternal life?" The Saviour's first answer 
 seems to intimate that the young man doesn't ask his question in 
 exactly the right way. Whether he says. Why asketh thou me con- 
 cerning that which is good, or Why callest thou me good, or put in both 
 forms, it matters not, the purpose is the same, and most likely the 
 answers were given together, Matthew giving one form and Mark 
 and Luke the other. "Why callest thou me good; and why askest thou 
 me concerning goodness? Implying that the question is not an intelli- 
 gent one in the form put, because none but God is really good, i. e., 
 perfectly righteous. But he proceeds to answer a question put by an 
 honest and yearning heart by giving directions concerning the practi- 
 cal christian life, at the same time putting his finger upon the weak 
 point in this young man's character ; and despite the weakness the 
 Saviour recognizing his sincerity looked upon him and loved him. It 
 would be a monstrous perversion of the Saviour's first answer to take 
 it as directing him to keep the commandments as a method of salvation. 
 Such an interpretation does not comport with the latter part of the 
 incident in which he gave this young man a lesson similar to that 
 conveyed by the parable of the good Samaritan. 
 
 All such false interpretations should be decidedly rejected, and the 
 whole Scripture brought into harmony with itself by recognizing that 
 the method of salvation was the same in the Old Testament as in the 
 New, viz. "The righteous shall live by his faith." To make the Mosaic 
 code a scheme of pure law is a gross misinterpretation. The moral 
 law did not constitute the whole of that code by any means ; the 
 covenant on Sinai embraced the "Judgments" as well, in other words, the 
 whole of the Symbolic Jewish ritual, which presented Christ's salvation 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 31 
 
 in type. The moral law never could do anything but condemn sinful 
 creatures in its judgments, and was never given for justification. See 
 Gal. 3, 21, 22. 
 
 Seeing that this sweeps away the last vestige of the foundation con- 
 structed for the covenant of works, considered as a promise of eternal 
 life upon a limited obedience, it should be buried beyond the possibility 
 of a resurrection. Let the gospel narrative be taken just as it is with- 
 out imaginary addition. It is a matter for congratulation that the 
 Larger Catechism has seized and chystalized the truth on this subject; 
 but it would have been better to have avoided altogether the word 
 "covenant" as descriptive of a regime of pure law. The statements of 
 the Confession and Shorter Catechism should by all means be so 
 modified as to bring them into harmony with the teaching of the Larger 
 Catechism on this subject. 
 
 The discussion of the subject of the "covenant of works" brings us 
 l)y a natural transition to the discussion of Original Sin, and that 
 view of it which is expressed in the doctrine of Immediate Imputation. 
 
 ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 The doctrine of Original Sin has suffered from the deadly blight pro- 
 duced by the theory of a covenant of works, the effects of which are 
 not peculiar either to Calvinism or to Arminianism. The doctrine of 
 Immediate Imputation which is a necessary corollary of that theory has 
 had its effect upon both types of theology. It is not uncommon to hear 
 Calvinists charge Wesleyans, under the general name Arminians with 
 being unsound on the doctrine of original sin. The charge is not 
 just of the followers of Wesley and Watson. They accept the doc- 
 trine of original sin, but they differ in the device which they intro- 
 duce for neutralizing or remedying the effects of the doctrine of Imme- 
 diate Imputation. They admit just as clearly as the Calvinist that the 
 descendants of Adam and Eve, after their fall, were born without original 
 righteousness, and were not merely corrupt but guilty. Now it is 
 obviously unfair to hold Methodists responsible for the views of Whitby 
 and the lower Arminians, which they repudiate, by simply putting them in 
 the broad class of Arminians. There is no more justice in this than 
 it would be for a Methodist to charge upon all Calvinists indiscrimi- 
 nately, the doctrine of Immediate Imputation, which teaches that all 
 Adam's descendants were held individually guilty of Adam's act in 
 eating the forbidden fruit. All Calvinists do not teach this by any 
 means. Dabney denies that it was the view of Calvin himself or of 
 the body of the Reformed divines. 
 
 Dabney very properly makes a clear distinction between the followers 
 of Whitby and Wesley. The former seem to have held a semi-Pela- 
 gianism which the latter have always rejected. Watson himself pro- 
 tests against being classed with Whitby. Before giving his language 
 it may be well to inquire what Whitby believed. Dabney gives a brief 
 
32 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 statement thus : Whitby and his followers "admit that Adam and his 
 race were both much injured by the fall. He has not indeed lost his 
 equilibrium of will for spiritual good, but he has become greatly alien- 
 ated from God, has fallen under the penal curse of physical death, has 
 become more animal, so that concupiscence is greatly exasperated, 
 and is more prone to break out into actual transgression." Theol. p. 316. 
 If this statement is correct, even Arminians of this type believe in 
 original sin, since the state of fallen man was a sinful one, not one 
 of moral indifference. It should be noticed that lie has according to 
 this "fallen under the penal curse of physical evil and death." The 
 words "physical evil and death" may appear to have a Pelagian ring, 
 but if it were not a state of sin, how could they fall under a penal 
 curse ; and yet the last sentence of the above statement appears to exclude 
 that covenant: "This is the state to which Adam reduced himself; 
 and his posterity share it, not in virtue of any federal relation, or 
 imputation of Adam's guilt, but of that universal physical law tliat like 
 must generate like." Whether the implied contradiction of this state- 
 ment is Whitby's own, or is to be attributed to inadvertence in the 
 statement of his views, cannot here be decided, but this much seems 
 clear, if he rejected the covenant of works, he was right in so doing, and 
 his error consists not in that rejection but in his tendency to Pelagianism, 
 that is. his tendency to modify or deny the real sinfulness of man's estate 
 by reason of the fall. 
 
 "The Wesleyans," says Dabney, "begin by admitting all that a moderate 
 Calvinist would ask. as to Adam's loss of original righteousness in the 
 fall, bondage under evil desires, and total depravity. While they mis- 
 interpret and then reject the question between mediate and immediate 
 imputation." In passing it may be observed that inasmuch as Dabney 
 himself, in his review of Hodge's Theology, interprets and then rejects 
 the distinction between mediate and immediate imputation, it is not 
 easy to understand what this means. However, he tells us that they 
 "retain the orthodox idea of imputation, admitting that the legal conse- 
 quences of Adam's act are visited upon his descendants along with 
 himself." The distinction which he draws between them and Whitby does 
 not seem clear on this point, inasmuch as the "penal curse of physical 
 evil and death" (Whitby) is certanly one of the "legal consequences 
 supposed to have followed from Adam's act" (Wesleyan). The point 
 is that in neither case is there a denial of the sinfulness and guilt of 
 man's situation. 
 
 The next point is entirely a different question : "But then," he say,s, 
 "they say the objections of severity and unrighteousness urged against 
 this plan could not be met, unless it be considered as a whole embracing 
 man's gracious connection with the second Adam. By the covenant of 
 grace in him, the self-determining power of the will, and ability of will 
 are purchased back for every member of the human family and actually 
 communicated by common sufficient grace to all, so far repairing the 
 effects of the fall that man has moral alnlity for spiritual good, if he 
 
CONFESSIONAL REJ'ISION. 33 
 
 chooses to employ it." Dabney's comment is, "Thus while they give 
 us the true doctrine with one hand, they take it back with the other, 
 and teach a semi-Pelagian result." This comment seems to be not just, 
 for it confounds the question of a remedy for man's inherited sinful 
 condition with the condition itself. Surely the disease and the remedy 
 are different things. But before discussing the Wesleyan view let us 
 hear Watson himself. In repelling certain misrepresentations of the 
 Wesleyan position Watson says, "That this is a very defective view of 
 the effects of the original offense upon Adam and his descendants must 
 be acknowledged, . . . that the corruption of our nature, and not merely 
 its greater liability to be corrupted, is the doctrine of Scripture will 
 presently be shown." (45) He defends Arminius himself from, the 
 semi-Pelagian views attributed to him, quoting him directly to show that 
 these were not his views, and says, "such views are not the opinion of the 
 large body of the followers of Wesley, but are traceable to Dr. Whitby, 
 and several divines of the English Church." But the fact that Wesleyan 
 Methodists have so often been held responsible for views which they 
 do not teach shows, he says, "how little pains many divines of the 
 Calvinistic school have taken to understand the opinions which they 
 have hastily condemned in mass." 
 
 He quotes Arminius thus: "The immediate and proper effect of this 
 sin was, God was offended by it . . . from which he conceives a just 
 wrath, which is the second effect of sin. But this wrath is followed 
 by the infliction of punishment, which is here twofold: i. A liability 
 to both deaths. (Rom. 6, 23). 2. Deprivation of that primeval holiness 
 and righteousness which because they were the effects of the Holy Spirit 
 dwelling in man, ought not to remain in man who had fallen from 
 the favor of God, and had incurred his anger. But the whole of this 
 sin is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the whole 
 race, and to all their posterity who at the time when the first sin was 
 committed were in the loins, and who afterwards descended from them 
 in the natural mode of propagation. . . . Whatever punishment there- 
 fore was inflicted on our first parents has also pervaded all their 
 posterity." 
 
 It will be observed that this account of the transmission of sin 
 does not differ from that of the Westminster Confession itself. It 
 may be questioned however whether it is perfectly accurate to say, that 
 "privation of primeval holiness and righteousness" was an element of 
 tlie twofold infliction of punishment." How could it be, when it pre- 
 cedes the punishment, or constitutes its own punishment? God did 
 not take away man's holiness or righteousness, he threw it away him- 
 self. Nor have we reason to believe that God deprived man entirely 
 of his Holy Spirit at this juncture, which seems to be implied in the 
 statement. 
 
 But after all, let us not be too severe on Arminius, especially as this 
 is a doctrine held by Calvinists, and is just the opposite from the semi- 
 Pelagianism which might have been expected. It is true that the 
 
34 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 Confession does not make man's loss of righteousness an element of 
 his punishment (Ch. 6, Par. 2), at least not by direct statement, but this is 
 certainly the idea of the immediate imputation theologians, and it may 
 be considered to be implied in Par. 3, which states that "the guilt 
 of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted 
 nature conveyed to all his posterity, descending from them by ordinary 
 generation." It may be that the framers of this statement did not 
 intend to say that the conveying of the death was the result of the 
 imputation; it may be intended simply to enumerate two separate and 
 distinct effects ; but it must be admitted that the interpretation wliich 
 understands a causal relation between the two clauses is not an un- 
 natural one. If there was an imputation of the individual act of Adam to 
 his children, it seems natural to place this reckoning of guilt first, at 
 least in the order of thought. This is exactly what Hodge contends 
 for. Dabney criticises Hodge's Theology for teaching Immediate Impu- 
 tation, with this very order of thought, on the ground that it does not 
 comport with correct ideas of justice to place guilt before sin. And 
 yet Dabney objects to the Wesleyan views when they contend in view of 
 this immedate imputation that "the objections of severity and unright- 
 eousness urged against this plan could not be met unless it be con- 
 sidered as one whole, embracing man's gracious connection with the 
 second Adam." They simply apply Christ's work of atonement to all 
 mankind, in such a way as to relieve the burden of immediate impu- 
 tation, which holds men personally guilty of Adam's act. Dabney says, 
 "The obvious objection to this scheme is, that if the effects of Adam's 
 fall on his posterity are such that they would have been unjust if not 
 repaired by a redeeming plan which was to follow it as a part of the 
 same system, then God's act in giving a redeemer was not one of pure 
 grace (as Scripture everywhere says) but he was under obligation to 
 do some such thing." This objection carries little force when it is seen 
 that it can be turned against him; for the injustice which Wesleyanism 
 seeks to remedy is just that against which Dabney himself contends in 
 Hodge. It is really an objection to the doctrine of a covenant of 
 works, which by its action produces this anomaly, and yet Dabney 
 contends for the covenant of works. If Wesley or Watson had per- 
 ceived the truth and rejected the covenant of works, they would have 
 had no need to introduce the device to which Dabney objects. If 
 Watson after accepting the common theory afterwards tends to disre- 
 gard it, and lays stress upon the transmission of sin by generation, he 
 is by so much ahead of the Calvinist, who after accepting the theory 
 attempts to carry it out to all its logical consequences. 
 
 Watson adheres to the statement of Isaac Watts, as being the least 
 objectionable form of the doctrine of original sin, but it is a mistake 
 to say that in doing so he teaches simply "that the result of Adam's 
 sin flowed down to posterity because he was the universal father of 
 mankind." Watson accepted the doctrine that Adam was a public per- 
 son and head and representative of the human race," and cites Rom. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REJISION. 35 
 
 3 to show that "Adam and Christ are contrasted in their public or federal 
 character, and the hurt which they have derived from the one, and the 
 healing they have received from the other are also contrasted in various 
 particulars." 
 
 Now he does not explain in what sense he uses the word "federal," 
 but he does explain that it means more than mediate imputation, which 
 he defines as "our mortality of body and the corruption of our moral 
 nature, in virtue of our derivation from him." He concludes that this 
 does not go far enough and quotes Dr. Watts as giving the correct view 
 which teaches that the descendants of Adam incurred both the "guilt 
 or liableness to punishment," and the corruption of nature, this state- 
 ment limiting the guilt strictly to the legal aspect of the matter, and 
 relieving the posterity of the moral ill desert of the act. The act was 
 theirs only in its consequences. Nobody but a realist should feel dis- 
 posed to object to this. It really covers the point for which Dr. Hodge 
 contends, but it is wrong in so doing, and it is a pity that Watson did 
 not out and out reject the covenant of works, and so consistently limit 
 the representation to the law of genetic transmission, or what has 
 been charged upon him as the "parental theory." Dr. Miley is quoted 
 as saying that "the tendency is towards the recognition of this law as 
 the sufficient and whole account of original sin" — who also attributes 
 this view to Whedon. This tendency is unquestionably correct, in view 
 of the fact that the covenant of works, as commonly understood, is a 
 baseless theory. The rejection of it will relieve Wesleyan Arminianism 
 of the necessity of putting out the theory to which Dabney objected, 
 and this unscriptural addendum to the doctrine of universal atonement 
 should be eliminated. When this is done one of the most serious criti- 
 cisms of the system will be obviated. H then the Calvinistic Theology 
 on its part clearly rejects the unscriptural theory of a covenant of 
 works, the two systems will be on this point in perfect harmony. 
 
 There is a great deal of protest already, in Calvinistic circles, against 
 the doctrine of immediate imputation which is simply the covenant of 
 works under another name, and it will be interesting to see how such a 
 theologian as Dabney contends against the one while at the same time 
 holding to the other. Even a partial following up of the discussion 
 among Calvinistic theologians will serve to show that utter confusion 
 has been wrought in theology by this theory. 
 
 IMPUTATION. 
 
 Since there are several conflicting views on the subject of Imputation, 
 we may naturally inquire, What does Imputation mean? It is hardly 
 possible to give a consistent and intelligent definition. As Dabney. 
 explains, the Greek and Hebrew equivalents of the verb "impute" mean 
 to think, then to judge, then to impute or attribute. This however 
 gives a very imperfect conception, and the theologians have to define 
 it by giving the various views as to the guilt and corruption which 
 
2,6 IXFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 Adam's sin I)rought into the world. There are different views of 
 Imputation according as the guilt or the corruption of nature is supposed 
 to precede in the order of thought, or whether they be made to coincide 
 with Adam's original act, on the theory that all the race were really 
 present and actually had a part in the act, and so are justly held respon- 
 sible for that sin. 
 
 Now it is well to note the fact that the word '"imputation" does 
 not occur in our English Bibles. The word "impute" does occur sev- 
 eral times, but in the Revised Version of the New Testament the 
 Greek word is rendered by "reckon" in every case except one. This is 
 an improvement in translation, for it is well to avoid a word which 
 has been so much abused, and at best has become such an indefinite 
 quantity. It is not easy to see why the revisers did not extend their 
 otherwise uniform translation to the single passage, Rom. 5, 13, which 
 stands as an exception ; for there is no reason in the nature of the case 
 why it should not be translated, "but sin is not reckoned." It is true 
 there is a slight difference in the form of the Greek word but "reckon" 
 stands as its first equivalent in the Lexicon. (See L. and S.) 
 
 In connection with the fact that the noun "imputation" is nowhere 
 used, attention is called to the fact that Dabney acknowledges that 
 even the verb is not used to assert that the guilt of Adam's sin was 
 imputed to us. He says, "Now we do not say that the Scriptures any- 
 where use the particular phrase, the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed 
 to us, but we claim that the truth is plainly implied in the transactions as 
 they actually occurred, and is substantially taught in other parts of 
 Scripture." Theol. p. 329. What does this mean? Why of course that 
 he infers it from the covenant of works. The reader who has followed 
 the discussion of the covenant of works will know how much value 
 to assign to such proof. In another place he asserts that the covenant 
 of works is grounded in the principle of imputation. 
 
 The question "whether anything is ever said in Scripture to be 
 imputed to any other than its own agent" he does not discuss. In his 
 view of imputation "it is not Adam's sin which is imputed to us but the 
 guilt (obligation to punishment) of his first sin." But this seems to 
 be a distinction without a difference, unless a man can be held guilty 
 before he is sinful, and this he himself rejects. 
 
 Yet in his Theology, Dabney takes pains to draw this distinction, saying 
 "This much misunderstood doctrine does not teach that Adam's act 
 was actually made ours. This conscience repudiates. We know that we 
 personally did not will it. Nor does it mean that we are to feel per- 
 sonally defiled and blameworthy, with the vileness and demerit of 
 Adam's sin. For us to undertake to repent of it in this sense would 
 be as preposterous as for us to feel self-complacency for the excel- 
 lence of Christ's righteousness imputed to us." p. 329. But is it any more 
 preposterous to say that sin itself is charged to us, than to say that 
 the guilt is charged to us? What is guilt? Why, it is a relation to the 
 law, but how can there be a relation without something to be related? 
 
COXFESSIONAL REVISION. 37 
 
 We read that "where there is no law there is no transgression," there- 
 fore sin (guilt) is not imputed (reckoned) where there is no law. This 
 means no personal sin no guilt. 
 
 The apostle's argument in Rom. 5 is just the opposite from the dis- 
 tinction which is thus drawn between guilt and sin. Instead of teach- 
 ing that man is held guilty of Adam's sin the apostle argues the universal 
 sinfulness of mankind from the universal prevalence of death, even over 
 those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression. 
 This teaches us, not that the babes thus alluded to were held guilty of 
 Adam's act, but that the condition of spiritual death which they inherited 
 was a condition of sin, and as such inimical to God's law and therefore 
 guilty. They were guilty not of Adam's sin but of their own depravity, 
 they were born sinners and therefore guilty. It amounts to little to 
 make a fight on Immediate Imputation if after all we are held guilty of 
 Adam's sin. It is inconsistent to reject immediate imputation while 
 holding to the covenant of works. 
 
 Dabney correctly founded imputation upon that covenant. "We are so 
 associated," he says, "with Adam in the legal consequences of sin which 
 closed his probation and ours in his, that we are treated as he is, on 
 account of his act." He makes the ground of the "legal union" so called 
 two- fold, first, the natural union with him as the root of all mankind, 
 second, the federal relation instituted in him by God's covenant with 
 him." Although imputation is thus grounded upon the covenant of 
 works, yet in his review of Hodge's theology Dabney asks whether 
 the covenant of works and of grace are not both grounded in the 
 principle of imputation, and answers. Yes. Col. Writ., Vol, i, p. 262. But 
 how can the covenant of works and imputation be respectively grounded 
 upon each other? 
 
 There is no teaching of theology which has caused so much anxious 
 thought, and so much metaphysical discussion in the vain attempts that 
 have been made to explain the difficulties which are inseparably attached 
 to the doctrine of a covenant of works. 
 
 Let us now hear Hodge's account of Imputation. It is this: "In 
 virtue of the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity, 
 his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the 
 judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming also upon 
 them." Vol. 2, p. 193. His formal explanation of immediate imputation 
 is this : "Others, while they admit that a corrupt nature is derived from 
 Adam by all his ordinary posterity, yet deny first, that this corruption 
 or spiritual death is a penal infliction for sin; and second, that. there 
 is any imputation to Adam's descendants of the guilt of his first sin. 
 All that is really imputed to them is their own inherent hereditary 
 depravity. This is the doctrine of mediate imputation." "Others discard 
 entirely the idea of imputation so far as Adam's sin is concerned, and 
 refer the hereditary corruption of men to the general law of propagation. 
 Throughout the vegetable and animal kingdoms, like begets like." 
 
 These opinions as explained by Hodge are virtually the same, for those 
 
38 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 who deny that corruption of nature is a penal infliction on account 
 of Adam's first sin can offer no other explanation of it than that 
 given above, namely, the law of heredity. Since Dabney teaches the 
 imputation of the guilt, but not the sin, he will have to be put in a 
 separate class, and since Watson makes this same distinction, with 
 Watts, he and Dabney may be classed together. 
 
 Hodge mentions under his fourth head the realistic theory, which 
 teaches that "as generic humanity existed whole and entire in the per- 
 sons of x\dam and Eve, their sin was the sin of the entire race." "We 
 literally sinned in Adam, and consequently the guilt of that sin is our 
 personal guilt, and the consequent corruption of nature is the effect of 
 our own voluntary act." p. 193. According to Hodge, to impute is "to 
 reckon to, or to lay to one's account," no matter whether it have refer- 
 ence to sin or righteousness, or whether it is our own personally, or 
 the sin or righteousness of another. To impute sin, he says, is to impute 
 the guilt of sin. This appears to bear out our criticism of Dabney, above 
 made, that a distinction between imputation of sin and guilt is a distinc- 
 tion without a difference. But Hodge himself seems to make the same 
 distinction for he says, "By guilt is meant not criminality or moral ill- 
 desert, or demerit, much less moral polution, but the judicial obligation to 
 satisfy justice. Hence the evil consequent on the imputation is not an 
 arbitrary infliction ; not merely a misfortune or calamity, not a chastise- 
 ment in the proper sense of that word, but a punishment, e. i. an evil 
 inflicted in the execution of the penalty of law, and for the satisfaction 
 of justice." p. 194. Thus Hodge defines imputation to be just what he 
 conceives to have taken place under the covenant of works. Imputation 
 brings punishment, for it is a legal sentence, but how a man can be pun- 
 ished for the deed of another in which he had no part whatever he 
 has not explained. 
 
 He next explains that all imputation is the same, as admitted by all 
 theologians. Reformed and Lutheran — Adam's sin to us, our sins to 
 Christ, and Christ's righteousness to believers. As the first is seen to be 
 improperly grounded in a false theory, so the other two are needless 
 and unsupported suppositions. Where is it said that our sins were 
 imputed or reckoned to Christ ? Rather he paid a debt which he did not 
 owe, and one who pays for another cannot be said to owe the debt in 
 his own person, it is confusion. We read that for the transgression of 
 my people was he stricken, but it does not say that he was counted a 
 sinner, despite the fact that he "made his grave with the wicked ;" on the 
 other hand, we are distinctly told that "he had done no violence nor was 
 any deceit in his mouth." It is true that God laid on him the iniquity of 
 us all, but it was as a spotless lamb that he bore it, and this is not the 
 theory of imputation by a great deal. 
 
 And where is it said that his righteousness (holiness, active obedience) 
 was imputed to us? Nowhere. We read that Abraham believed God and 
 it (the faith) was "reckoned to him unto (eis) righteousness"; in other 
 words, he was counted righteous on account of his faith not on account 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 39 
 
 of works, Rom. 4, 3. When it is said "the reward is not reckoned as of 
 grace but of debt," the meaning is that it is in the nature of reward that 
 it is considered a debt. Abraham's righteousness was in no sense a 
 debt, but a free gift. Just below this righteousness is defined to be free- 
 dom from guilt, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon 
 sin." But this is very different from a reckoning or imputation of Chirt's 
 active obedience, which, means that his obedience to law is reckoned to the 
 account of his people. Since nothing is taught in Scripture of the imputa- 
 tion of our sins to Christ, Hodge's explanation that such imputation does 
 not mean that Christ actually committed our sins, or that he was morally 
 criminal on account of them, is entirely superfluous ; but if there were 
 such a thing it would need explanation as much as the imputation of 
 Adam's sin to his children. Hodge argues the imputation of Adam's sin 
 from two assumed imputations which are equallj' groundless. Such is the 
 maze of false paths into which the covenant of works introduces one. 
 
 The Scripture tells us that the righteousness which is reckoned to 
 Abraham's children, both Jews and Gentiles, is the same as that reckoned 
 to Abraham himself, viz., forgiveness of sins. Hodge thinks much of 
 the difficulty on this subject arises from the ambiguity of the word 
 "righteousness," but it needs only an examination of the Scripture passages 
 where the matter of imputing is spoken of to convince one that there 
 need be no difficulty on this score, for nowhere is the righteousness of 
 Christ said to be imputed to us, or our sins said to be imputed to him. 
 The difficulty of this subject is not found in the double meaning of 
 "righteousness" according to which it sometimes means justification and 
 sometimes sanctification, but it is rather to be found in the gratuitous 
 meaning which has been read into the word "impute." 
 
 Let us examine those cases of the usage in the Old Testament, where 
 the word still stands in the Revised Version, and it will be seen that in 
 no case does it convey the idea of being held accountable for some- 
 thing different from what a person either is or does, except as such a 
 thing is deprecated as unjust. For instance, in i Sam. 22: 15, Ahimelech 
 deprecates being held responsible for something which he says he did not 
 do. In 2 Sam. 19: 19, Shimei begs not to be held to account for some- 
 thing which he did do : "Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me," at the 
 same time confessing his sin. Psalm 32, which celebrates the blessedness 
 of forgiveness, furnishes no help to those who are in search for passages 
 to support the justice of holding men responsible for something they 
 did not do. In Lev. 7 : .18, "impute" is interpreted in the same verse. 
 It meant that the offering should not be accepted on the offerer's behalf, 
 that is, he should not get credit for it. In this case the imputation 
 accorded with the facts. So in Lev. 17: 4, "he hath shed blood" — "blood 
 shall be imputed," which means he shall be held guilty of shedding 
 blood, because he had actually shed blood. These are all the cases 
 mentioned by Young in the Old Testament. 
 
 Coming to the New we find the single case where "impute" is allowed 
 to stand, Rom. 5: 13, and this announces a principle of God's judgment 
 
40 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 directly contrary to the doctrine of a covenant of works and the theory 
 of immediate imputation: "Sin is not imputed where there is no law," 
 which means simply what is asserted directly in Rom. 4: 15, that a body 
 cannot be counted to have done that which he did not do (broken a law 
 which did not exist). "Where there is no law, neither is there trans- 
 gression," lit., where law is not neither is there transgression. A body 
 must therefore have transgressed the law before he can possibly be held 
 accountable for transgression, for it would be contrary to truth to hold 
 him to account for something which he did not do. This contradicts 
 the covenant of works and immediate imputation. This principle is laid 
 down, as a settled principle of God's moral government, and man's moral 
 judgments endorse it as just. The theory of a covenant of works and 
 immediate imputation, which is simply the covenant in operation, must be 
 given up, because it contravenes the eternal principles of God's truth and 
 justice. 
 
 The passage in Rom. 4: 15, deals another death blow to the covenant 
 of works, for it shows that what that theory advances is impossible, 
 since it teaches that there could never be a scheme of salvation by law. 
 The teaching that salvation is by law is subversive of the gospel by 
 promise (v. 14), and the reason is, "law worketh wrath." Let it be noted 
 that the idea of law is purely abstract, and that as such the article is 
 omitted in verse 13 : "For not through law was the promise to Abraham 
 or to his seed that he should be the heir of the world." It cannot be that 
 the law of Moses is referred to, for as that was 430 years later it could 
 have no application to the case. This same abstract idea must be kept 
 up in the following verses: For if they that are of law be heirs, faith is 
 made void. If they are heirs by law (without the article) faith is made 
 void. This truth applies just as well before the law of Moses was given 
 as after it. 
 
 The article with law in the following clause is not an indication 
 that the law of Moses is referred to, it is rather the law before mentioned, 
 and is still the same abstract idea. "The law"' just referred to in its 
 abstract conception as a principle of the divine government "worketh 
 wrath." It is impossible that it could work anything else in the case of 
 creatures already fallen. But we may go further and say that it never 
 could have done any better even in Eden, for the event proves it, and 
 reason adds the truth that with man left to the exercise of his own linite 
 powers it must ever have been so. There is no reason therefore why this 
 truth may not have the force of a universal proposition : "law worketh 
 wrath." This being so, salvation could never have been otherwise than by 
 faith in God, as the God of our salvation. The clause which is found in 
 connection with this, viz. : "Where law is not, neither is there trans- 
 gression," goes to show that man is necessarily under law, even as it 
 says in Ch. 5: 13, "up to the time of the law sin was in the world, but 
 sin is not reckoned where there is no law," therefore, man was under 
 law from the beginning, long before the law of Moses was heard of. The 
 apostle alluded to the fact that infants shared in the death, which 
 
CONFESSiOXAL REVISION. 41 
 
 shows them lo have been sinful, and themselves amenable to the curse 
 of the law. This completes the universality of the condition of death 
 which one man brought into the world and upon which (epi ho) all sinned 
 (v. 12). "For that all sinned" is a mistranslation which wantonly 
 perverts two of the commonest Greek words, and the translation is to be 
 traced to the Latin Vulgate rather than to the Greek, and has held its 
 place by the law of prescription in spite of the Greek. See Meyer. 
 
 This is the only passage which gives the shadow of a foundation to 
 immediate imputation, for the rendering "for that all sinned" is taken to 
 mean that they sinned when Adam sinned, and so sinned in him. 
 This is the rotten support which has served the purpose of bolstering up 
 two of the theories connected with the covenant of works. The first 
 is the theory of realism, which asserts that all mankind were personally 
 present in Adam when he sinned, and so they sinned in him and are 
 justly held accountable for an act which was common to him and to 
 them. This is perhaps the vainest dream that the mind of man ever 
 conceived, but it has a close second in the theory of immediate imputa- 
 tion, which teaches that men were not there personally, but all the same 
 were treated as it they were there, since they are punished for Adam's 
 act in eating the forbidden fruit. Alas, alas, what a commentary on 
 the impotence of the human mind that two such awful dreams should 
 have held their place in theology all along through the ages from the 
 time of Augustine, who was the author of the first, and perhaps Ter- 
 tullian, who has been credited with the second. Dabney says Tertullian 
 originated the doctrine of immediate imputation but Augustus H. Strong 
 says it was first broached by Cocceius. Well had it been for theology 
 if these dreamers had not given out their vain imaginations to the world. 
 
 It will be observed that these various accounts of how sin and guilt 
 come upon all mankind were constructed in order to answer the ques- 
 tion of the equity in the case. How can man be justly held accountable 
 for Adam's sin? In their eagerness to shed light on this difficult ques- 
 tion the theologians have evidently forgotten to examine the foundations 
 upon which so remarkable a proposition rests. Starting out with the 
 assumed doctrine that man is in fact held accountable for Adam's act, 
 the theologians have strained their wits to account for the doctrine, not 
 recognizing that the doctrine itself is not founded upon Scripture. The 
 realist is so badly pressed by this question that he takes refuge in 
 an explanation which offends all sound reason and common sense, 
 almost obliterating the distinction of personality in man, and verging 
 dangerously near to pantheism. If the race can have their personality 
 merged into that of Adam, it is an easy step to merging Adam's per- 
 sonality into that of the Creator himself. Some who even reject the 
 covenant of works hold on to this pernicious theory, for instance Shedd 
 and A. H. Strong. 
 
 The theory of immediate imputation which offends against man's 
 moral judgments, and contradicts Scripture, really furnishes no solution 
 to the difficult problem which the theologians have set for thernselves. 
 
42 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 The idea that Adam entered into a bargain or agreement for the life 
 or death of his descendants upon a trial of his own is incredible, 
 because nowhere is such power of life and death given to man. Would 
 it not have been murder in inconceivably great form, for Adam to have 
 risked the lives of his descendants in this kind of a transaction? Did 
 the God who teaches the sin of presumption in risking life put such a 
 problem before Adam? Horrible the thought. If it was wrong for 
 Cain to commit murder, it would have been unspeakably more horrible 
 for Adam to have risked the murder of all his descendants, and the 
 theory that he bargained to do it only adds to the cold bloodedness of 
 the murder. The theory of the realist which makes the man himself 
 responsible for his own death is infinitely preferable, despite the fact 
 that it offends against common sense in thus asserting that men com- 
 mitted suicide thousands of years before they were born. But didn't 
 Adam bring the death after all? Yes, but not by direct intention or 
 bargain. He could not help being the race father, for he was the first 
 man created. His fall was his weakness, but not the case of presumption 
 which the immediate imputationist imagines. 
 
 Strong rejects the covenant of works decidedly. It would be interesting 
 to hear him or Shedd explain why it is they hold on to the hypothesis 
 of realism. Sweeping away the covenant of works does away with 
 the problem which realism was intended to solve. It does away with 
 the necessity for immediate imputation, and leaves us with only a 
 natural problem, which can hardly be called a problem, since the work- 
 ing of the natural law is seen to be a fact "of observation, however 
 inscrutable it may be to us that the moral defect is transmitted as an 
 invariable trait of corrupted human nature. It is better to leave this 
 problem where the Bible leaves it rather than magnify the difficulties by 
 unsupported philosophical theories. 
 
 BEARING OF ABRAHAMTC COVENANT AS IMPROPERLY 
 
 INTERPRETED. 
 
 The foregoing discussion of the covenant of works was written with- 
 out any direct connection of thought with the question of infant salva- 
 tion. Belief in the possibility or probability of infant damnation is 
 readily seen to be one of the corollaries of that doctrine. It is only 
 that doctrine which makes possible that confusion of thought by which 
 corruption of nature and liability to punishment are confounded with 
 God's final judgments. This theory accustoms the mind to the idea 
 of the natural damnability of infants and the absence of a remedy for 
 this condition converts damnability into damnation. The second stage 
 of the process is encouraged by an interpretation of God's covenant 
 with Abraham which makes it a promise to the natural Israel, and 
 exclusive in its nature, so that it becomes an easy inference to the 
 exclusion of the heathen as such from salvation; and this general infer- 
 ence is broad enough to include even the infant children in the absence 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 43 
 
 of any clear provision by which they may be excepted. The process of 
 thought by which they are excluded from salvation is not conjectural, 
 but it comes to the front in the direct discussion of infant salvation, 
 and especially of the "elect infant" clause of the Confession. It came 
 out in the early discussion of this question, and the writer who had long 
 before written upon the Abrahamic covenant was refused the privilege of 
 answering the inconclusive arguments of those who contended that we 
 have a promise of the salvation of the infant children of the church 
 but not of the outside world of unbelievers. 
 
 The discussion of the meaning and scope of God's promise to Abra- 
 ham, his great covenant of salvation with the world in general and the 
 church in particular, was also written before the subjects of the elect 
 infant clause and infant salvation were introduced to the church for 
 general discussion and decision. It will not be the less valuable because 
 it has been discussed purely upon its merits without primary reference 
 to the mistaken inferences which have been drawn from its erroneous 
 interpretation. It so happens that this and the former discussion are 
 taken from extended manuscripts intended for publication. We trust 
 that this preliminary airing will not detract from the value of these 
 discussions in their more formal original connections, and that these 
 more extended discussions may some day see the light. 
 
 It has been claimed for Calvinism that it is the only scheme which 
 consistently provides for infant salvation because it seemingly provides 
 for infant election. But this does not appear to be a just claim, as 
 is seen in the fact that the church has been unwilling to assert that all 
 dying infants are of the elect, and the idea that the dying infants of 
 believers are elect and saved is connected with that false interpretation 
 of the Abrahamic covenant which makes it teach that the church will 
 be saved to the exclusion of the outside world. The dying infants of 
 believers are considered to be saved because they are children of the cove- 
 nant, which is understood to make them heirs of the promise of salva- 
 tion, they being saved on their parent's account. This teaching is 
 erroneous, for the teaching of Scripture concerning the meaning and 
 scope of the Abrahamic covenant does not bear it out. It is a mistake 
 to hold that all the natural children of Abraham are the true people of 
 God, and so how upon this principle can it be made out that all the infants 
 of believers even are of the number of the saved, and are of God's elect? 
 And if the covenant does not furnish proper ground for the assertion 
 that even the infants of believers are elect, what do we know 
 of any limited class of such infants? In this case to talk of "elect 
 infants" can mean no more than that if any such infants are elect they 
 will be saved, which being interpreted means that whomsoever of dying 
 infants God has determined to save he will save; but as to whether 
 this includes the whole of the class of dying infants we are unable 
 to say. To say that God will save whom he has elected to save is a 
 worthless truism, which is deceptive in that it stands for some pro- 
 fessed knowledge which we do not possess. It is merely a jugglery 
 
44 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 with words. The boasted superiority of Calvinists on this subject is 
 therefore without foundation. 
 
 Let us now take up the study of the covenant which constitutes God's 
 covenant of hfe with the world. 
 
 THE COVENANT CHARTER. 
 
 The church of God on earth finds its true origin and its original 
 constitution, in the covenant which God made with Abraham as the 
 father of the faithful. Of course we find traces of the true religion 
 running on back to the very beginning, but we do not find any organiza- 
 tion of the righteous into an association of God's people, which per- 
 petuated itself and carried out the purposes of a church. God called 
 Abraham out of the world of heathenism and set him apart, together 
 with his family unto the worship and service of the true God. He con- 
 stituted him the father of the faithful for all time by an everlasting 
 promise, sealed with a sign or token which was to be applied to all the 
 male members of his race. This covenant is therefore properly con- 
 sidered the charter of the church's existence, a charter which has never 
 been superseded and is never out of date. The church cannot properly 
 be said to have sprung from Moses, and the giving of the law on 
 mount Sinai ; nor is it correct to date the church from the coming 
 of Christ, or the day of Pentecost. A careful study of the Abrahamic 
 covenant in the light of the New Testament Scriptures, goes to show 
 that this is the only true starting point; nothing else can lay claim to 
 the promise upon which the church rests. 
 
 If the Abrahamic covenant is really the charter of the church in all 
 ages of its existence, it can readily be seen that a proper understanding 
 of this promise, together with the significance of the seal which was 
 first attached to it, must be of the highest importance in any inquiry into 
 the nature of the Church and the Sacraments. 
 
 It can be readily understood that this investigation must have an impor- 
 tant bearing upon all those ecclesiological questions which so divide the 
 Christian Church of to-day. In view of this fact it is- surprising that 
 so little attention has been given to this promise by the great majority 
 of ecclesiological writers, of whom only two or three have even attempted 
 a historical and exegetical treatment of the church. Nearly all of the 
 writers have pursued a defective, a priori method in dealing with the 
 subject. 
 
 We shall not begin the discussion with a definition, for we wish 
 to pursue the method of investigation throughout. A thing must be 
 investigated before it can be understood, and it must be understood 
 before it can be defined. A disregard of this plain common sense method 
 which is the only method of scientific investigation, is the explanation of 
 nearly all the differences of opinion on the subject of the Church, which 
 characterizes the churches of to-day. The conceptions of various de- 
 nominations result from prepossessions as to the importance of the essential 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 45 
 
 nature of certain matters of form or of organization. These give rise 
 to various detlnitions of the church, which are of no higher authority 
 than the mere opinions or preferences of men. The Scripture gives no 
 formal definition of the church visible; and in the absence of a scrip- 
 tural definition, we can make one for ourselves only by a comprehensive 
 study of the church in its historical development. Of course we shalf 
 not have to proceed far before we are able to decide that a church is 
 some kind of organization or body composed of God's people, or those 
 who profess to be such; but the details of the definition can only come 
 by a careful examination of the facts relative to the institution, and 
 the constitution of such organization which God established in the 
 earth for the furtherance of his own plans. 
 
 For the purposes of our discussion, we find it convenient to 
 begin with an exegetical study of the Abrahamic covenant, but assume 
 nothing by so doing, as will be observed in the development of the 
 subject. 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant may be said to have had four principaf 
 stages of development. Promises were made to Abraham on four dif- 
 ferent occasions, exclusive of that form of the promise made in Gen. 
 22: 18. They are found in Gen. 12: 1-3, Ch. 13: 14-16, Ch. 15: Ch. 17. 
 Besides this there is an explanatory statement by the Lord himself in 
 Ch. 18: 18, 19. Their substantial unity is manifest in the fact that all 
 alike have both the temporal and spiritual elements. The first promise 
 of chapter 12 contains not merely a grant of material blessings, "I will 
 make of thee a great nation," but also that which is admitted by all to be 
 a promise of spiritual blessings; "in thee shall all the families of the 
 earth be blessed." The same is contained in the phrase, "Be thou a 
 blessing." After Abraham, in obedience to God's command, comes upon 
 the land, he receives this promise : "All the land which thou seest to 
 thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed 
 as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the 
 earth then shall thy seed be numbered." (Gen. 13: 14-16.) The promise 
 of a literally innumerable seed is perfectly explicit, and since it cannot 
 find its fulfilment in a multiplication of the natural seed, it can only 
 refer to Abraham's spiritual seed. The phrase "dust of the earth" 
 might be understood to be an exaggerated expression for a great number, 
 were it not for the following clause, but this clause shuts off a figura- 
 tive interpretation, and it can mean nothing less than the countless number 
 of Abraham's spiritual children, the "multitude which no man could 
 number" pictured in revelation. The promise in chapter 15, "So shall 
 thy seed be," comparing Abraham's seed to the stars for multitude, is 
 simply an alternate form of the same promise; and it is certain that it 
 is not a promise of simply a natural seed, for in Rom. 4: 18, the 
 apostle quotes the very words of this promise, as the equivalent of 
 the promise in chapter 17, that Abraham should be the father of many 
 nations : "He in hope believed against hope to the end that he might 
 become the father of many nations according to that which had been 
 
46 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 spoken. So shall thy seed be." Again, Acts 3 : 25, identifies the promise 
 of chapter 17 with that of chapter 12, for it is a mixture of the two 
 passages : "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'' 
 (cf. ch. 22: 18.) These Scriptures clearly exclude the interpretation 
 which finds in these promises two covenants, separate and distinct in 
 their character, the one confined to temporal blessings, and the other 
 to spiritual. Besides this, the passage in Hebrews ir represents even the 
 ownership of the land as a part of the spiritual promise: "By faith he 
 became a sojourner in the land of promise as in a land not his own, dwell- 
 ing in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise: 
 for he looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and 
 maker is God." Abraham's faith recognized in the promise of the owner- 
 ship of the land the assurance of salvation itself. He must have under- 
 stood that the possession of Canaan was typical of the possession of the 
 heavenly rest. 
 
 There is no seal to the promise of the seed in the fifteenth chapter of 
 Genesis, except as this is involved in the promise of the land of Canaan. 
 Of course the promise that Abraham should possess the land involved sJ 
 seed numerous enough to take possession of it; but the seal had special 
 reference to the possession. It was given in answer to Abraham's ques- 
 tion, "Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" The answer was 
 the smoking furnace, and the torch passing between the parts of the 
 sacrifices. God gives the meaning of the transaction : "Unto thy seed 
 have I given this land." It was the ratifying seal to a deed of gift. 
 This transaction secured to Abraham and his natural descendants tem- 
 poral blessings ; but it furnishes no ground for drawing a hard and fast 
 line between this promise and that of chapter 17, calling one temporal 
 and the other spiritual. This promise is on the other hand, repeated in 
 chapter 17, as an integral part of the spiritual promise in its highest 
 form of development. In fact, in chapter 17 there is a complete blending 
 of the elements. First, the distinctively spiritual element is seen in the 
 promise that Abraham was to be the father of a multitude of nations. 
 This promise is made in the same absolute form as the last. God sairl, 
 "As for me behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the 
 father of a multitude of nations." If this is a promise of a spiritual seed, 
 and it can be nothing else, it is easy to see that it could be definitely 
 secured to Abraham in no other way than by an absolute promise. 
 In token that it is absolute, and the blessing already secured to Abra- 
 ham, he at this time receives the name which was to designate him 
 as the possessor of the promised blessing. His fatherhood of an 
 innumerable spiritual seed, is at once betokened by the change of name 
 from Abram to Abraham, God himself giving the meaning of the change. 
 
 In the next clause there is no doubt a reference to temporal blessings 
 for the nation of Israel : "I will make thee exceeding fruitful." The 
 spiritual seed was at first at least to spring out of the natural seed ; 
 Abraham was to be a great nation. The clause "I will make nations 
 of thee," etc. might be understood of the natural Israel if the plural 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 47 
 
 could apply to the division into two kingdoms. But if this be a refer- 
 ence to the nation of Israel, it must not be allowed to rob the next 
 verse of its proper spiritual signiticance. "I will establish my covenant 
 between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, throughout their genera- 
 tions, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and thy seed 
 after thee." This part of the promise is pointed out by ecclesiological 
 writers as certainly showing that this is an ecclesiological covenant, 
 establishing God's Church. While this is true, it should not be forgotten 
 that the church here designated is the spiritual church rather than the 
 natural Israel as such. The clause "throughout their generations" should 
 not mislead, for this word is frequently used in Scripture in a moral, or 
 spiritual sense. It cannot be maintained with any show of reason that the 
 spiritual blessing of salvation was intended for all the natural Israel. 
 God promised to be "a God" to Abraham and his seed. This included all 
 that was contained in the relation designated by God's peculiar ecclesio- 
 logical name, Jehovah, the God of their salvation. If he had been really 
 the God of their salvation to all the nation, all would have been saved; 
 but they were not. On the other hand, their history shows them to 
 have been a stiff-necked and rebellious people, and they were finally as a 
 nation rejected from being God's people. Paul tells us plainly that "they 
 are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither because they are Abra- 
 ham's seed are they all children." It is not, therefore, "as though the 
 word of God had come to nought" that the natural Israel failed to 
 obtain the promise, for the children of the flesh were not the children 
 of God. Rom. g : 8. On the other hand, only "the children of the 
 promise are reckoned for a seed." See also Gal. 3 : 7-9. In the eleventh 
 chapter of Romans, Paul teaches again that God's people to whom the 
 promise was made were the elect. God did not cast off -his people, he 
 argues, because some were hardened and failed to receive the blessing, 
 for the election obtained it. Then according to Paul's exposition the 
 promise in Abraham was made only to the elect — in the highest sense. 
 The external Israel was only the* shell that contained the kernel, nothing 
 more. In a sense Christ was the seed to whom the promise was made, 
 but it embraces all who are in him by faith. It has been claimed that 
 verse 7 must refer to temporal blessings, because God says, "I will 
 establish my covenant," the word establish showing an allusion to a 
 former transaction, rather than a new grant. But the Hebrew word for 
 "establish" will not be found to bear out this contention, for the same 
 word is used of the covenant with Noah, in Gen. 6: 18 and Gen. 9: 9, where 
 only the original making of a covenant is referred to. This shows con- 
 clusively that nothing can be determined from the language used, as to 
 the nature of the covenant, except as there is in the word a hint of the 
 sovereign and gratuitous character of the promise. 
 
 Another reason for rejecting the interpretation which makes verse 7 
 refer to the covenant of chapter 15, is that this robs chapter 17 of its 
 principal matter, and its most important differentiating feature. Examin- 
 ing the promises from the beginning, it appears that each new^ promise 
 
48 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 contains something additional to that which preceded. In Gen. 12, there 
 is no definite promise of the land, but the command, "Get thee out 
 of thy county * * * unto the land that I will show thee" is accom- 
 panied by the promise that Abraham shall be a great nation. In Gen. 
 13, Abraham having come upon the land, receives the definite promise 
 that the land which he sees shall be a gift to himself and his seed forever, 
 while the promise of the seed itself is enlarged from a nation to an 
 innumerable multitude. According to chapter 15, the promise of an 
 innumerable spiritual seed is to find a partial fulfilment in the line of his 
 real descendants, and God adds his pledge to the promise of the land. 
 In chapter 17 the "multitude" of chapter 13 becomes a multitude of 
 nations, and the promise is not only with Abraham himself, but with his 
 seed, which it is pointed out makes this a promise to the church. The 
 sign of circumcision becomes a constant reminder of the promise in this 
 enlarged form. The promise of the land, though included in the spiritual' 
 promise, is not directly sealed by circumcision, for it had its seal in 
 chapter 15. It is inserted in chapter 17 in order to give completeness 
 to the covenant which establishes the church. The church visible must 
 have a home, and the temporal home secured by the promise typified 
 the eternal home in heaven. 
 
 THE PROMISE ABSOLUTE. 
 
 In accordance with its nature as a promise of salvation to the elect 
 people of God, the righeous, it is absolutely sure, as a gift of sovereign 
 grace. It is not at all conditional in the sense of being a bargain or 
 contract between two parties, in which the result is made to depend upon 
 a condition or stipulation. The clause "walk before me and be thou per- 
 fect" is not rightly so regarded. This is God's command, and the promise 
 assures the existence of a people of the character thus indicated. God 
 speaks in his majesty and sovereignty saying: "As for me, behold, my 
 covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of 
 nations." There is no tarrying for the fulfilment of a condition, but 
 God immediately changes the name Abram to Abraham in token that he 
 already possessed the blessing, in that it was made sure by God's word. 
 The fulfilment of the promise being in God's view involved in no uncer- 
 tainty, God's making his covenant is simply giving his promise, which 
 promise was from the first absolutely certain of fulfilment. The promise 
 is reference to the land of Canaan is itself absolute in form : "In that 
 day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed 
 have I given this land." The same unconditional form of covenant is 
 found in the promise to Noah. Gen. 6: 18. The unconditional feature 
 appears in the first promise made to Abraham in chapter 12. When God 
 first appeared to Abraham, he did not ask him whether he desired a 
 blessing, or whether he was willing to do anything to obtain it, he came 
 with a command, "Get thee out thy country, and from thy kindred, and 
 from thy father's house unto the land that I will show thee." Of course 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 49 
 
 there was a sense in which the blessing was consequent upon obedience. 
 If Abraham had refused obedience, it cannot be supposed that he would 
 have received any blessing, but God knew what Abraham by his grace 
 would do. He saw the end from the beginning, hence the blessing was 
 as absolute in form as the command : "I will make of thee a great nation, 
 and I will bless thee and make thy name great: and be thou a blessing: 
 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will T 
 curse, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This 
 was spoken to Abraham as the divinely appointed head of the church as 
 appears from Paul's exposition of the promise in the fourth chapter of 
 Romans. Since it was according to grace it was sure to all the (spiritual) 
 seed. Rom. 4:16. 
 
 In chapter 15 appears the first intimation of any connection between 
 Abraham's state of mind and the promise: "He believed in the Lord, 
 and he counted it to him for (unto) righteousness." This does not say 
 that his faith was the instrumental cause of his salvation, but it indicates 
 the occasion of the promise to Abraham and his seed, and anticipates 
 that faith would become the channel through which the blessing of salva- 
 tion would be conveyed to the true people of God in all ages. Abra- 
 ham's faith was not the antecedent but the consequent of the promise, 
 therefore it did not condition the promise, (cf. Rom. 4: 20, 21.) It 
 now seems clear that the words "walk before me and be thou perfect" 
 are not to be understood as a stipulation of the promise. It is in fact 
 a part of that salvation which the promise secures. Holiness is not the 
 procuring cause of salvation, but it is salvation itself. 
 
 The absolute character of the promise and its spiritual nature go to- 
 gether. If it is a promise of spiritual good, that is, salvation, it is plain 
 that it can only include those who are the spiritual children of Abraham, 
 the righteous. Only God could know the individuals who were really 
 embraced within its scope ; but it is evident that it included all who 
 would be saved — all the elect people of God who should at last stand 
 before the great white throne, as members of the complete church of the 
 redeemed in glory. But although really made to embrace the church 
 invisible rather than the visible church it constitutes tJie great 
 promise of sali'ation to man. As such it was committed to Abra- 
 ham as the head of the visible church, and l)y the accompanying sign of 
 circumcision his family and race were constituted the Church of God on 
 Earth. A different view of the covenant has been held by some eminent 
 theologians and interpreters, and it is therefore necessary to establish 
 this exposition by a more extended discussion and examination of other 
 views. 
 
 Dr. John M. Mason, whose valuable discussion of the church points 
 out the ecclesiological character of the covenant, understands it to 
 promise certain spiritual blessings to the external church, thus making it 
 apply to all Abraham's natural seed, with certain specially named excep- 
 tions. He makes a broad distinction between the promise of chapter 15 
 and that of chapter 17, making the one a promise of temporal good, 
 
50 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 and the other of spiritual blessings. The promise of chapter i", "I will 
 be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee," establishes a new relation 
 to God, which, however, is not "Abraham's relation to God as the God 
 of his salvation, because in that sense God was his God long before." 
 Besides, it embraced his seed as well as himself, and "God did not now 
 engage to be their God with respect to eternal life, for all that was 
 settled in the covenant of grace, and the privilege could not reach beyond 
 those who were partakers of the same precious faith with Abraham, 
 whereas in the sense of this covenant God was the God of all Abraham's 
 seed without exception, under the limitations which restricted the cove- 
 nant operation first to Isaac and afterwards to Jacob, including such as 
 should choose their God, their faith and their society." (Peck.) The 
 clause, "throughout their generations" is understood to teach that "as 
 soon as a new individual of his seed was generated, he was within the 
 covenant, and so God was his God." Hence it is argued that the covenant 
 with Abraham and his seed contemplated them not primarily or im- 
 mediately as the election of grace, but as an aggregate which is severed 
 from the bulk of mankind, and placed in a social character under pecu- 
 liar relations to the most high God." 
 
 Now it will be observed that this view of the meaning and scope of the 
 covenant finds its only support in that interpretation which makes a 
 wide difference between the several forms of the promise, and con- 
 fines the spiritual element to chapter 17. The mistake probably arises 
 from an effort to interpret the promises as they stand, without bringing 
 to bear the full light of the New Testament Scriptures, for surely Paul's 
 exposition in Romans (Ch. 9: 11), and Galatians (Ch. 3), and others 
 already quoted, place the true meaning of the covenant beyond question. 
 
 It is very true that there is involved a promise of ecclesiastical privi- 
 leges, and of material blessings; these, however, in all forms of the 
 promise are subservient, while the spiritual element is the all important 
 one. It is an eternal promise, certified by God's seal, and secures salvation 
 to all the people of God, and covers the whole sweep of the church's exist- 
 ence. It must always hold its true place of importance as God's Covenant 
 of Salvation with Man. It may be regarded as God's formal announce- 
 ment of his eternal purpose of salvation, and it furnishes a basis for all 
 other gospel promises. One reason why this has not been clearly appre- 
 hended is, that the word "covenant" has been misunderstood. 
 
 MEANING OF THE WORD COVENANT. 
 
 In order to show that the word "covenant' offers no bar to the above 
 interpretation, let us carefully search for the scriptural meaning of the 
 word in the Old Testament. The word does not always imply a reciprocal 
 promise or a conditional promise, but it ordinarily contains a very dif- 
 ferent idea when God's covenant's with man are spoken of. If this is 
 true, the ordinary definitions of the word given by the books will have to 
 be modified. Dr. Hodge, for instance, defines a covenant as a conditional 
 
COXFESSiOXAL REJISIOX. 51 
 
 promise, and says the analysis of a covenant always gives the following 
 elements: (a) Its parties, (b) Its promise, (c) Its conditions, (d) 
 Its penalty. See Hodge on the Coiifessio)i, p. 169. Dabney in his 
 Theology says, It means covenant or agreement, being often used to 
 express theologically God's covenants with man, and naturally com- 
 pacts between individuals. There are also (he says) cases in which 
 it means an arrangement or dispensation of matters determined on. 
 Ex. 34: 28; Jer. s^: 20." The last statement properly applied gives 
 us pretty nearly what we need. A careful examination of all the passages, 
 both in the Old Testament and the New, where the word occurs — 
 eliminating such phrases as "blood of the covenant" and "ark of the 
 covenant," which contain no variant usage of the word, but only indicate 
 that these things are connected with the Sinai covenant — will show that 
 all the instances of the usage where a covenant of God with men is indi- 
 cated are referable to three distinct transactions, the covenant with Noah, 
 the covenant with Abraham, and the covenant with Israel on Sinai. The 
 covenant with David, and the "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31 are not 
 original covenants but only reiterations of the Abrahamic covenant. 
 There appears to be not a single exception to this statement. The 
 cases cited by Dabney are only apparent not real exceptions. When in 
 Ex. 24 : 8 the ten comamndments are called the "words of the cove- 
 nant," this conforms to the usage. They are words of the cove- 
 nant in that they specify particularly the obedience which the covenant 
 required. God's requirement "if ye will obey my voice" really covers 
 the whole of the Mosaic legislation. 
 
 Jeremiah ^s '■ 20 is no doubt an allusion to the covenant with Noah : 
 "If you can break my covenant with the day, and my covenant with the 
 night, so that there shall not be day and night in their season : then 
 may also my covenant be broken with David my servant." We find in 
 Gen. 8: 22, the very promise here referred to. It is God's resolution in 
 reference to the establishment of the covenant with Noah, showing that 
 in it he pledged the perpetuity of the seasons and the orderly working of 
 the laws of nature. 
 
 There is one other passage which would be regarded by some as 
 exceptional, Hosea 6: 7, which has been understood as a possible refer- 
 ence to a covenant with Adam. This impression arises from the indefinite- 
 ness of the Hebrew word for "man" (adam). It is indeclinable, and 
 singular or plural or proper name according to the context. The Revi- 
 sion translates it "Adam," but in this case the old version is to be pre- 
 ferred. It is little in favor of the proper name that it makes a reference 
 to a supposed covenant with Adam which is nowhere else referred to in 
 the Scripture. Gesenius gives the translation "like men," and says it 
 means "common men," or as we should say men of the world, see Ps. 
 17: 14* 
 
 *He mentions three places where the expression is used : in two of these 
 the Revision has adopted the translation "like Adam." In Job 31 : 33, 
 following the A. V., it places "Adam" in the text and "after the manner 
 
52 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 Let us now examine the several covenants, in order to ascertain the 
 meaning of the word, for this is the only correct method of ascertaining 
 the Biblical meaning. It is one of the best established canons of philology, 
 that the ultimate decision as to the meaning of any word in any language 
 is to be determined by a careful inspection of all the cases of its 
 usage. It is not right to judge of God's covenants with men by the 
 meaning of the word as it is used of compacts between man and man, 
 but by inspecting the covenants themselves. Our idea of the word should 
 be derived from the ascertained knowledge of the thing, not the thing 
 judged by a preconceived use of the word. 
 
 The first transaction to which in Scripture the word "covenant" is 
 applied is the covenant with Noah. It stands as an unconditional promise, 
 to which an attesting sign is attached. (Gen. g: ii). "And I will estab- 
 lish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by 
 the waters of the flood: neither shall there any more be a flood to 
 destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which 
 I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you 
 for perpetual generations : I do set my bow in the cloud and it shall be 
 a token of a covenant between me and the earth." The expression "be- 
 tween me and the earth" includes not only man but "every living crea- 
 ture," and so it secures the stability of Nature. God says: "While the 
 earth remaineth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and 
 winter, and day and night shall not cease." Here then is a covenant which 
 is neither an agreement, nor a "conditional promise." 
 
 The next covenant is with Abraham. As already seen the promises to 
 Abraham are really one, whether viewed as one covenant or two. The 
 New Testament writers seem to use both methods of expression indis- 
 criminately. Stephen in his speech in the Acts deals with all these 
 promises as one. After reciting God's dealings with Abraham in chapter 
 7: 2-8, he embraces the whole under the expression, "the promise": 
 "But as the time of the promise drew nigh." (v. 17.) In Eph. 2: 12 Paul 
 speaks of them as "the covenants of the promise." This expresses just 
 what has been above asserted concerning the promises. In one sense 
 there are two covenants, but they are inseparable and practically one. 
 See this conception also in Eph. 3 : 6. "The Gentiles are fellow heirs, 
 and fellow members of the body, fellow partakers of the promise in (or 
 
 of men" in the margin ; l)ut in Ps. 82 : 7, the translation "like Adam" is so 
 clearly out of place that "like men" is retained. We think that "like men" 
 is preferable on grounds of interpretation in all these passages. In 
 Hosea the rendering "like Adam" is rejected by Jamieson, Fausset and 
 Brown on the ground that "the expression covenant is not found else- 
 where applied to Adam's relations to God,' though he says the things 
 seems implied. An additional argument for its rejection is, that it makes 
 an unnatural and forced connection with the preceding verse, which speaks 
 of the emptiness of [srael's obedience to the Mosaic law. They broke 
 that covenant in reality while professing to carry out its provisions in 
 ritual observances, thus acting like common men, that is, men of the 
 world. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 53 
 
 by) Christ Jesus through the gospel." Gentiles were fellow partakers with 
 the Jews in the original promise, of which Christ was the surety. It has 
 already been seen that the promise of chapter 12 is without condition, 
 and this original declaration really covers the whole ground. If now 
 the promise of chapter 13 be examined, it is equally as absolute: "For 
 all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. 
 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth : so that if a man 
 can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." 
 The two specifications of this promise are sealed in chapters 15 and 17 
 respectively. In chapter 15 there is no condition, there is a simple declara- 
 tion : "Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield and exceeding great reward." 
 In harmony with this introduction the promise itself is direct and without 
 stipulation: "Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars if thou be 
 able to tell them, and he said unto him. So shall thy seed be. And he 
 believed in the Lord : and he counted it to him for righteousness. And 
 God said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the 
 Chaldees to give thee this land to inhereit it." The gift of the land is 
 afterwards spoken of as a thing already accomplished : "Unto thy seed 
 have T given this land," and this is the meaning of the seal applied to 
 the gift. The remark immediately following this: "In that day the 
 Lord made a covenant with Abram," seems to be closely connected in 
 thought with the sealing transaction, and suggests that God means by 
 his covenant his promise with his seal attached. 
 
 Coming to chapter 17, we still find no condition. It is too late to intro- 
 duce a stipulation here, for the promise has been already three time made 
 to Abraham without stipulation. The command, "Walk before me and be 
 thou perfect," can only be a requirement which indicates alike the natural 
 obligation to be faithful to God as the God of his salvation, and as indi- 
 cating the general character of God's true people. The spiritual element 
 of the promise becomes more distinct in this chapter, and its form is 
 equally absolute with those which preceded : "As for me, behold, my cove- 
 nant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations." 
 It seems fitting that the promise whicli established a visible church should 
 also give assurance of a local habitation to that church. The idea of 
 eternity connected with this part of the promise can only refer to its 
 typical meaning. God promised to give the land of Canaan for an ever- 
 lasting possession, and to be their God. The close connection of the 
 last clause shows the promise of the land to be a part of the covenant 
 with the church, and there must be a spiritual meaning. It secured the 
 possession of Canaan to the nation of Israel, but since the promise to be 
 their God applied to the spiritual Israel the "everlasting" promise to the 
 same parties can mean nothing less than a home for the redeemed, that 
 is, heaven itself. It is equivalent to saying, "I will give them an everlast- 
 ing home, and will be their God." That the promise of the land was 
 mainly intended as a blessing for the true Israel may be inferred from 
 the fact that so large a number of those who went out of Egypt were 
 slain in the wilderness, being unworthy to inherit even the natural 
 
54 INFANT SAW AT ION AND 
 
 blessing. It seems clear that the sign of circumcision must indirectly 
 have sealed the possession of the land, but without having any special 
 reference to natural blessings, for it was the special seal of the spiritual 
 promise. But the external church was to contain the spiritual, and it 
 must have a sign or "token of the covenant," which must be carefully kept. 
 "This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and 
 thy seed after thee, every male of you shall be circumcised . . . and 
 it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." Circumcision 
 stood as the reminder and pledge of God's absolute spiritual promise, 
 and since the promise was absolute this seal gave assurance to Abraham 
 that he should have a spiritual following of his own real descendants, 
 and it secured the perpetuity of the true church down to the end 
 of time. 
 
 The next covenant to be considered is that which God made wiih 
 Israel at Sinai. This is conditional in form ; it contains a stipulation ; 
 and in this respect it stands out in striking contrast with the covenants 
 which have been already examined. "Now, therefore," saith Jehovah, "if 
 ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant then ye shall be a 
 peculiar treasure unto me from among all peoples." The condition 
 was explicitly accepted. The people responded, "All the words that 
 the Lord hath commanded will we do." (Ex. 9: 8.) This first message 
 was preliminary to the meeting called at Sinai for the third day. At 
 that time, after all the commandments and judgments had been delivered, 
 the people responded, "All that the Lord hath spoken will we do and be 
 obedient. "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and 
 said, Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made 
 with you concerning all these w^ords." (Ex. 24: 7() The sprinkled blood 
 was a seal of the promise, and as such it was denominated "the blood of 
 the covenant." It stood for a pledge on the part of the people as well 
 as of God. 
 
 Let us now examine 2 Sam. 7: 12-16, where the first mention of the 
 covenant with David occurs. There seems to be a parallel to the cove- 
 nant with Abraham in the promise. "I will set up thy seed after thee, 
 which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom 
 forever." There is no conditional promise here. God says expressly of 
 this seed, "If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of 
 men . . . but my mercy shall not depart from him." The promise 
 of the stability of his kingdom is solemnly repeated: "And thy house 
 and thy kingdom shall be made sure forever before thee : thy throne 
 shall be established forever." (cf. i Sam. 2^: 5.) Turning to Isaiah 9: 2j, 
 we find that this promise to David refers to Christ. "Of the increase 
 of his government there shall be no end upon the throne of David, and 
 upon his kingdom, to establish it and uphold it with judgment and with 
 righteousness from henceforth and forever." There is no element of 
 doubt or contingency in such a promise from God's point of view. 
 
 In Jer. 31 : 31 a new covenant with Israel is prophesied. This was a 
 promise of spiritual blessing, specially contrasted with the covenant of 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 55 
 
 Sinai in regard to its absolute nature. (See v. 32: ^;i.) "Thus saith 
 the Lord which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinance of 
 the moon and the stars for a light by night . . . the Lord (Jehovah) 
 of the hosts is his name: if these ordinances depart from before me 
 saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a 
 nation before me forever." Thus it is made parallel with the covenant 
 of Noah in its absolute certainty. The last two covenants have no seal 
 because they are not original covenants, but only reiterations of the 
 Abrahamic covenant, and as such already sealed. 
 
 This completes the list, and it is now possible to construct a definition 
 of the word covenant. We find that out of five cases examined only 
 one contains a stipulation or condition. The others are all absolute 
 promises, not "agreements" in the ordinary sense of that word, and have 
 nothing to do with "conditions" or "penalties." All the original cove- 
 nants, however, do have a sign or seal attached, and this should, no doubt, 
 be regarded as an essential feature of a covenant. It is God's oath added 
 to the promise, and they together constitute the covenant. The latter 
 feature is expressed in the words, "I sware to give" literally, "I lifted up 
 my hand." (Ex. 6: 8.) The passage from which this quotation is taken 
 is an extended and formal renewal of the Abrahamic covenant as a cove- 
 nant with Israel as God's people, and it prepares the way for the Sinai 
 covenant which follows. The covenant with the national church on 
 mount Sinai, while a conditional promise in form, is so connected with 
 the old covenant as to show that it was intended to carry out the provi- 
 sions of that covenant. And this is what Paul teaches in Galatians. The 
 law which came 430 years afterwards could not disannul the promise. 
 On the other hand, the promise is renewed in solemn form in Exodus 
 6: 2-8. "I am Jehovah" occurs four times in the brief recital of that 
 covenant. He says, I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to 
 you a God, and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God who bringeth 
 you out from the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you into 
 the land which I swear to give to Abraham." Here is the promise com- 
 plete, and mentioned as having been attested by an oath. \\'e find the 
 same settled purpose indicated in the covenant itself. The preface 
 reads : Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children 
 of Israel ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear 
 you on eagles' wings and brought you unto myself. Now therefore if 
 ye will obey my voice," etc. From this it appears that from the first, 
 keeping the covenant is presented as an obligation to God, made spe- 
 cially binding by the fact that they were his own people whom he 
 redeemed from Egyptian bondage. There is no voluntary element in 
 the sense that an acceptance of the covenant was purely optional on 
 the part of Israel. The obligation existed anyhow; the voluntary element 
 consisted in their willing acceptance or acknowledgment of the obliga- 
 tion. 
 
 The same ground of obedience is presented in the preface to the 
 decalogue itself: "I am Jehovah thy God which brought thee out of 
 
56 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Jeremiah puts the 
 matter in the same Hght, in chapter 7 : 22, 23, God says : "For I spake not 
 unto your fathers nor commanded them in the day I brought them out of 
 the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices; but this 
 thing I command them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be 
 your God and ye shall be my people." These passages give us God's own 
 interpretation of his covenant, and leave nothing to be desired. 
 
 If the Sinai covenant imposed an obligation which did not depend 
 upon Israel's will or even await their consent, it is plain that the same 
 covenant with the same condition might have been made without their 
 consent. This, however, was not God's plan : it would not have been in 
 accordance with God's main purpose in giving the law. The law was 
 intended to be a discipline and an education to Israel, and it was aimed 
 at securing a willing obedience : hence God purposely made their consent 
 to the transaction a prominent feature of this covenant, and it became 
 a reciprocal promise in form. In this respect it is a unique transaction ; 
 but it comes under the definition, being a promise of God accompanied by 
 his attesting seal. Compare this with Heb. 6: 13-18. The attesting seal 
 was equivalent to God's oath given in connection with the promise, and 
 such attestation naturally becomes an important part of the covenant. 
 A covenant of God with men may therefore be defined as, A solemn 
 promise on God's part, con-:litional or unconditional, which is sealed by a 
 visible sign. The sign or token of a covenant is necessarily its sea!, and 
 the words are used interchangeably in Scripture. 
 
 It will be observed that the voluntary element, which is so important 
 a feature of a covenant as commonly defined, has no place in this defini- 
 tion. It is, of course, an important feature in covenants between man 
 and man, but plays no important part in God's covenants with men. 
 Only one of the covenants, that of Sinai has this feature at all ; but the 
 voluntary element in that is not an essential feature as is seen in such 
 passages as Josh. 7: 11; 23: 16, where God speaks of his covenant 
 as commanded. Josh. 2^,: 16 also threatens the anger of the Lord and 
 death for disobedience. Consult Judges 2: 20; I Kings 11 : 11, where the 
 same significant expressions occur. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS. 
 
 Having once established the fact that the covenant with Abraham is 
 an absolute or unconditional spiritual promise, its true significance as 
 a promise of salvation to the elect is readily accepted. The fact that 
 that covenant v.'as in some sense a promise of spiritual blessings has 
 been pretty generally recognized, but the failure to apprehend its 
 absolute character has no doubt caused ecclesiological writers to 
 overlook the fact that it is a promise of salvation to the true children 
 of Abraham, the spiritual Israel. Some writers understand it as simply 
 marking one of several stages of the covenant of grace. Some regarrf 
 it as spoken to the visible church, and, therefore, as embracing nominal 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 57 
 
 professors, in a promise of certain natural advantages, which should 
 have a tendency to lead to salvation. In order, therefore, to estabUsh 
 more fully the true scope of this covenant, let us bring to bear addi- 
 tional New Testament light. 
 
 It was made with Abraham and his seed. What seed? Paul says 
 (Rom. 4:11) that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision as a seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircum- 
 cision : that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they 
 be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; 
 and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circum- 
 cision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abra- 
 ham which he had in uncircumcision." This teaches as plain as language 
 can do that the seed of Abraham referred to in the promise are his 
 spiritual seed. It matters not whether they be Jews or Gentiles (if 
 responsible persons), they are such as are of the faith. He was to be 
 the heir of the world through the righteousness of faith, and as such he 
 is the father of us all— "not of those who are of the law, but of those 
 who are of the faith of Abraham." (v. 16.) 
 
 Turning to Galatians the same result is obtained in a different way. 
 "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith 
 not And to seeds, as of many, but of one. And to thy seed, which is 
 Christ." (Gal. 3: 16.) It is evident that Paul means to quote the exact 
 language, and the last clause of Gen. 17: 7 corresponds to the question. 
 To hold that Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit presses the singular 
 here with reference to Christ, when the word as it stood in the original 
 form was intended to designate the natural children, is not allowable ; 
 it would seem clear, therefore, that the word must have a double refer- 
 ence, embracing Christ and all the people of God. whether the reference 
 be to Christ considered as one in the line of the spiritual children, or 
 whether "thy seed" designate the elect as one body in Christ. This 
 reconciles Paul in Galatians with Paul in Romans, without the necessity 
 of holding with Meyer that "Paul adopts an interpretation which is a 
 feat of rabbinical subtlety." The interpretive clause, "which is Christ," 
 may be understood to mean, "which in the highest sense refers to Christ." 
 Thus the covenant embraces all the elect and no others. As a promise of 
 salvation it embraces all the saved, it could hardly be otherwise. It 
 named no individuals, but God of course knew what individuals were 
 embraced within its scope. Such a promise which was "made sure to all 
 the seed is necessarily a counterpart of the eternal decree of salvation 
 which embraced all the saved. With the exception of the first promise of 
 Eden, it was the first expression of the "eternal purpose which God pur- 
 posed in Christ Jesus." It embraced the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, 
 as fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the body, although this was not at 
 first so clearly manifest as afterwards. 
 
 Although a promise of salvation it did not at first appear so clearly that 
 it was a promise to or through a personal Savior. There is no reason to 
 believe that Abraham was able to grasp in its fullness this hidden mean- 
 
58 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 ing of the promise, it was enough for him that he could see in it the 
 comprehensive hlessing of God's reconciled countenance and favorable 
 consideration. It is not likely that he understood the full extent of the 
 blessing which was promised to him, or the full significance of the promise 
 in reference to the church. To affirm this would be to hold that the dawn 
 of salvation in the protevangelium was speedily followed by a noonday 
 splendor. But as our first parents must have understood that the victory 
 over the tempter which was promised to the seed of the woman was a 
 victory over sin, and a remedy of their fallen condition, so Abraham 
 must have understood that the promise of God to be his God, and the 
 assurance given in the words "Fear not" meant his salvation. This 
 is plainly asserted in Hebrews ii: 9. Whether he understood just what 
 the promise to his seed meant, may well be doubted. He must have known 
 that the promised blessing necessarily involved an upright walk, for God 
 had prefaced the promise with the command, "Walk before me and be thou 
 perfect," but whether he understood that the promise was in the most 
 important sense to his spiritual children only, we have no means of 
 knowing. But after all it matters not how much of the truth Abraham 
 understood, the question for us is not what was Abraham's conception of 
 the blessing, but what was God's conception of his own promise, and the 
 only way to get this is to bring to bear the light of the New Testament 
 Scriptures, which must be allowed to settle this question. 
 
 Paul in the third and fourth chapters of Galatians draws such a 
 broad contrast between the covenant of the law and the covenant of 
 promise as should place the significance and scope of the latter beyond 
 dispute. He asserts the perpetual binding force of the promise which 
 had been "confirmed by God" as contrasted with the temporary and 
 evanescent character of the law covenant; and afterwards under the 
 figure of the bond woman and the free contrasts the temporal with the 
 spiritual character of the same covenants. He argues the perpetuity of 
 the promise from its very nature as a simple promise, as contrasted 
 with the reciprocal character of the law-covenant on Sinai. "The cove- 
 nant (of promise) confirmed beforehand by God, the law which came 
 430 years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise (to Abra- 
 ham) of none effect." (Gal. 3: 17.) He then insists upon the essential 
 difference between the two transactions, the giving of the law and the 
 promise, the difference being just that which has been noted in the study 
 of the covenants themselves, that the one is an absolute promise of 
 spiritual good, while the other is a reciprocal promise hinging upon the 
 stipulation of obedience. The latter was a covenant in the ordinary 
 sense of an agreement between two parties brought about by the employ- 
 ment of a mediator, l)ut in the other case there was no mediator, indeed 
 he could have no place, since there was only one party to be considered : 
 that is to say, the Abrahamic covenant was a free and sovereign grant, 
 which had no conditions attached. This is expressed in such succinct 
 language that it has greatly mystified interpreters and led to a great 
 number of attempted solutions of the elliptical passage. Instead of the 
 
CONFESSIOXAL REVISION. 59 
 
 ordinary rendering, "A mediator is not a mediator of one." (v. 20.) Let 
 us read more literally, "Now there is no mediator of one"; that is to 
 say, there can be no mediator where there is only one party. In the 
 nature of the case no mediator could be employed in a transaction such 
 as that with Abraham, in which God gave a simple promise, absolute and 
 final in its nature, a sovereign grant of spiritual good. 
 
 In the fourth chapter the apostle goes on to speak of the natural 
 transition which took place between the law and the gospel. The law 
 was intended to lead to Christ. Its office as a covenant, or as a means 
 of salvation, was necessarily temporary. The law as a moral code, 
 could only serve to show the impossibility of being saved by law ; "it 
 was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the 
 promise was made." Christ was the end of the law unto righteousness to 
 every one that believed ; all the types pointed to him and in him had 
 their fulfilment. While thus the covenant or dispensation of the law 
 expired by limitation, the coming of Christ was only the most important 
 stage in the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise. He was the "seed to 
 whom the promise was made" (v. 19), and he was "made a curse for us" 
 that even "upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in 
 Christ Jesus." (Ch. 3: 14.) Paul thus tells in so many words that 
 Christ died in order to carry out the provisions of the covenant with 
 Abraham. 
 
 Again, he teaches the spirituality and perpetuity of the Abrahamic 
 promise by the contrast between the two covenants as represented by 
 Sarah and Hagar, or by their sons, Isaac and Ishmael. One represents 
 the Jerusalem that now is, while the other stands for the Jerusalem that 
 is above. One beareth children unto bondage, while the children of the 
 other are children of the promise. The one is a worldly church which 
 by a spurious legalism seeks salvation ; the other is the true spiritual 
 church, which by accepting Christ as Saviour, and giving up the beggarly 
 elements that served once to dimly foreshadow him, has attained the true 
 freedom, and the inheritance of the promise. Says Paul, "the son of the 
 handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." He thus 
 teaches that the church of Christ, which proclaims salvation by faith, is 
 the only true representative of Abraham. Those who depended upon a 
 natural connection merely, and expected to be saved by an adherence to 
 the Mosaic law would fail. The Mosaic law could not give salvation on 
 the principle of "Do and live" (Ch. 3: 12) for the simple reason that 
 it had never been kept and never could be. (Ch. 5: 3.) It could only 
 lead to bondage. Paul teaches then in the whole discussion that the 
 promise to Abraham is perpetual, and applies in its highest sense to the 
 true people of God only. Nor can it be justly claimed that this exposi- 
 tion of the apostle is forced or unnatural, for it agrees perfectly with 
 what God stated in the very beginning to be his purpose in his dispensa- 
 tion to Abraham. That purpose was ethical and spiritual, having for its 
 object the training of a godly seed. (Gen. 18: 19). 
 
 In view of this exposition, the true meaning of the additional clause 
 
6o INFAXT SALTATION AXD 
 
 of the promise in Gen. 22: 17 appears, in which God says: "And thy 
 seed shall possess the gates of his enemies." Placed as it is between two 
 clauses which import spiritual blessing, it can mean nothing less than a 
 pledge of the final triumph of the spiritual kingdom. A parallel is seen 
 in Moses' last prophecy (Deut. 33), in which he says to Joseph: "His 
 horns are the horns of the wild ox: with them he shall push the peoples 
 all of them, even the ends of the earth." (cf. Isa. 26: 5-9. 
 
 So also the promise of the land which was given to Abraham and 
 his seed for an "everlasting possession" must have had a higher mean- 
 ing than the possession of Canaan. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE WRITERS. 
 
 Before dismissing the covenant, it may be well to note the views of 
 several standard writers on this subject. 
 
 Kurtz considered it an indefinite promise of salvation covering the 
 Old Testament period which culminated in the incarnation. It was a 
 conditional promise in which Abraham must fulfill his part of the bargain. 
 
 Oehler says the expression, "They shall bless themselves in Abraham's 
 seed" can only mean. They shall wish for themselves the blessing of 
 revelation which Abraham has, and reach it through the medium of 
 Abraham's race." Not all the natural descendants are true sons of Abra- 
 ham and heirs of the promise. 
 
 Mason and Calvin both held that the promise applied to the natural 
 seed. Calvin says that in one sense the covenant includes the elect. 
 In his commentary he explains "father of many nations" as referring to 
 a spiritual progeny; but under verse 7, discussing the phrase "and thy 
 seed after thee," he says, They are deceived who think that his elect alone 
 are here pointed out; and that all the faithful are indiscriminately com- 
 prehended, from whatever people according to the flesh they are 
 descended." Since this is at variance with the conclusions above reached, 
 let us follow Calvin in his reasoning. He goes on to say, "For on the 
 contrary, the Scripture declares that the race of Abraham by lineal 
 descent had been peculiarly accepted by God. And it is the evident 
 doctrine of Paul concerning the natural descendants of Abraham that 
 they are holy branches which have proceeded from a holy root." (Rom. 
 11: 16.) And lest any one should restrict this assertion to the shadows 
 of the law, or should evade it by allegory he elsewhere expressly declares 
 that Christ came to be a minister of the circumcision. (Rom. 15: 8.) 
 Wherefore nothing is more certain (he says than that God made his cove- 
 nant with those sons of Abraham w'ho were naturally to be born of him." 
 Calvin realizes the apparent inconsistentency of the two statements, so 
 he tries to find a way out of the difficulty. He says, "If any one object 
 that this opinion by no means agrees with the former, in which we said 
 that they are reckoned the children of Abraham who being by faith 
 ingrafted into his body form one family; the difference is easily reconciled 
 by laying down certain distinct degrees of adoption, which may be col- 
 
CONFESSIOXAL REVISION. 6i 
 
 lected from various passages of Scripture. In the beginning, antece- 
 dently to this covenant, the whole world was one and the same. But 
 as soon as it was said, "I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee," 
 the church was separated from the other nations; just as in the creation 
 of the world the light emerged out of the darkness. Then the people 
 of Israel was received as the flock of God into their own fold; the other 
 nations wandered like wild beasts through mountains, woods and deserts. 
 Since this dignity in which the sons of Abraham excelled other nations, 
 depended on the word of God alone, the gratuitous adoption of God 
 belongs to them all in common. For if Paul deprives the Gentiles of 
 God and eternal life, on the ground of their being aliens from the cove- 
 nant (Eph. 2: 12), it follows that all Israelites were of the household 
 of the church, and sons of God and heirs of eternal life." 
 
 There are a number of points in this extract which call for particular 
 attention. Let us first note that Calvin takes the promise as if made 
 with individuals. H-e tells us that nothing is more certain than that God 
 made his covenant with those sons of Abraham who were naturally 10 
 be born of him," so that "the gratuitous adoption of God belongs to 
 them all in common." If it refers to the natural seed as such it is a promise 
 to them all individually; therefore, one of two things must be true; either 
 it is a promise of salvation to them all, or it is a promise simply of the 
 external privileges of the church with its conditional offer of salvation. 
 If the latter, it is deprived of its definite character, as a promise of salva- 
 tion; how then can it be said by its terms to embrace the elect? If 
 this is a promise to Christ of a seed, it must be sure. The difficulty 
 appears to arise from giving a perfectly general promise a particular 
 application which is not warranted. God does not pledge himself that the 
 promised seed shall include all the individuals of the Jewish nation. But 
 does not Calvin mean to say that all the Jews would be saved? Otherwise 
 what can he mean by saying that as members of the church they are 
 all "sons of God and heirs of eternal life"? They could hardly be said 
 to be heirs of something they were never to receive; besides, this 
 meaning is forced upon us by the antithesis, according to which exclu- 
 sion from the church means exclusion from salvation. "If Paul (he says) 
 deprives the Gentiles of God and eternal life on the ground of their 
 being aliens from the covenant, it follows that all Israelites were of 
 the household of the church, and sons of God and heirs of eternal life." 
 It seems strange that so remarkable a conclusion did not serve to betray 
 the faultiness of the logic. If we should grant that membership in the 
 the visible church were essential to salvation, it still would not follow 
 that all members of the church would be saved, unless church mem- 
 bership be a sure title to salvation, in some such way as Rome contends 
 for, which certainly is not Paul's teaching. According to Paul we 
 become "sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ," and they only 
 are sons of God who are led by the Spirit of God. "If any man ha\ c 
 not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Again, what right have 
 we to conclude from Eph. 2: 12 that lack of external connection with 
 
62 I. \ FA. XT SAU'ATION AND 
 
 the covenant deprives one of salvation? The very first specirtcation 
 of the condition of the Ephesians is sufficient to bear out Paul's con- 
 clusion, namely. "Ye were at that time separate from Christ." This 
 fully accounts for their "having no hope," and their "being without 
 God." Does any one suppose that Paul intends to say that they were 
 without Christ because they did not belong to the nation of Israel?, 
 or to imply that they would have to pass through Judaism in order 
 to reach Christ? This is contrary to Paul's most positive teaching. 
 "In Christ Jesus he says neither circumcision availeth anything nor un- 
 circumcision, but faith working through love." He contends most 
 earnestly against the Judaizers. We must conclude that Paul never in- 
 tended to deprive the Gentiles of God and eternal life because they 
 had no connection with the Jewish church ; on the other hand, he teaches 
 distinctly: "If ye are Christs, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs accord- 
 ing to the promise." 
 
 The next text upon which Calvin bases his idea that the promise 
 to Abraham applies to Israel as such is Romans ii: i6. From this he 
 thinks that "it is the evident doctrine of Paul concerning the natural 
 descendants of Abraham that they are holy branches which have pro- 
 ceded from a holy root." This is certainly an unfortunate citation from 
 which to argue a reference of the covenant to the natural Israel as 
 such. It is true that Paul says, "If the first fruit is holy so is the 
 lump; and if the root is holy so are the branches," but he immediately 
 goes on to say that some of the branches were broken off. They were 
 broken off by their unbelief, that is to say, they broke themselves off 
 by their own refusal to believe, by which they put themselves out of har- 
 mony with the root. On the other hand, the branches that were grafted 
 in stood by faith ; it is therefore certain that the word holy is not used 
 in a ceremonial sense, and does not apply to all Israel as a race. The 
 natural branches were not all holy, therefore the "lump" which like the 
 first fruits is holy does not represent Israel as such; but an aggregate 
 of God's true people. Paul goes on to teach that it was possible for 
 the natural branches to be grafted in again, if they continued not in 
 their unbelief; for God is able to graft them in again. Nay more, this 
 will actually take place — they shall be grafted into their own olive 
 tree (Rom. ii : 24), the result being that finally all Israel shall be saved. 
 This result is pledged in the covenant itself, for the apostle goes on to 
 say, "Even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the deliverer; 
 He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob : And this is my covenant 
 unto them. When I shall take away their sins." In regard to this 
 event the apostle adds, "As touching the election they are beloved for 
 the fathers' sake." What fathers? Why those to whom the promise 
 was made; and the unavoidable inference from this is, that the covenant 
 was intended for the elect. Does he not say that the election obtain 
 the blessing of salvation by reason of this covenant with the fathers? 
 The passage then tells strongly against those interpreters who taking the 
 holy root to be the patriarchs, make the holy branches (in the language 
 
COXFESSIOXAL RlillSlON. 63 
 
 of Meyer) to be "the whole body of the people, to whom the character 
 of holiness — consecration in property to God — passed over." 
 
 The citation of Rom. 15: 8 to sustain the position that the covenant 
 embraces the natural Israel, is scarcely more fortunate. Christ was 
 made a minister oi the circumcision," but for what purpose? "That 
 he might confirm the promises unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles 
 might glorify God for his mercy." Perhaps the most natural interpreta- 
 tion of these words is to take the latter clause as a specially mentioned 
 result of the confirmation of the promises. All the succeeding quotations 
 refer to the salvation of the Gentiles, and the glory of God in the 
 salvation of the Gentiles is certainly one of the purposes for which 
 Christ came. But his mission was first of all to the Jews, as he himself 
 explains, and for the carrying out of the provisions of the covenant 
 to them. It was "for the truth of God" in the sense of demonstrating the 
 truth of the covenant promise to both Jews and Gentiles; and since the 
 result of this "confirming of the promises" was salvation to the Gen- 
 tiles, the result as regards the Jews must have been the same, rather 
 than the carrying out of any lower and merely subordinate purpose. 
 But we could no more conclude from this that all the "circumcision" 
 would be saved than that all the Gentiles should be saved. He is 
 not speaking of individuals but of classes. The passage goes to show 
 clearly that the Gentiles were included in the true purport of the covenant. 
 
 Again, Matt. 8: 12 is cited as showing that "they who were unbelievers 
 among the Jews are yet called the children of the celestial kingdom." 
 Nay, not the children of the celestial kingdom, but of the earthly king- 
 dom, the church. How could they be of the celestial kingdom, and 
 at the same time "cast out?" "He came unto his own (says John) and 
 they that were his own received him not. But as many as received 
 him to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to 
 them that believe on his name." According to John therefore only 
 those who believe have a right to claim a heritage in the celestial kingdom. 
 There can be no degrees of adoption or sonship, nor of any reconcilia- 
 tion on such a theory of the two entirely distinct and irreconcilable 
 views of the covenant. It is true that God does in Ex. 4: 22 speak of 
 Israel as "my son my first born;" but this is applicable only to the 
 people as a whole, and because Israel at that time represented the true 
 church ; it gives no warrant for the indiscriminate application of the 
 term to Jews. David seems to have understood this. His last words 
 contain a prophecy of the Righteous One, together with what is no 
 doubt a description of his kingdom, "which he ruleth in righteousness." 
 The description applies only to the righteous. It is "as the light of the 
 morning when the sun riseth, a morning without clouds." As "the ten- 
 der grass springing out of the earth.* Just after this description he says, 
 "Verily my house is not so with God." Nevertheless the covenant itself 
 is "an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure." It is a 
 
 *See the first figure in Prov. 4: 18; on the second, consult; Ps. 37: 2, 
 Ps. 102: 4; Isa. -|0: 24; Jer. 12: 4. 
 
64 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 covenant of salvation, for he says, "It is all my salvation and all my 
 desire." It is easy to see then how David himself understood that it 
 did not apply to his house in the natural sense. It referred to a kingdom 
 from which the ungodly are necessarily excluded. (2 Sam., Ch. 7.) The 
 covenant with David was only a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 just as the covenant was repeated to Isaac and Jacob. The covenant 
 with David therefore required no seal because of this identity. The 
 identity becomes apparent when we see that they were both spiritual, 
 eternal, and having reference alike to the great plan oi salvation. The 
 covenant with David regards the matter from the standpoint of the 
 kingdom, which should be a final, glorious, eternal success. That spiritual 
 kingdom is the church, which must therefore be traced back to Abra- 
 ham — to the original spiritual, eternal covenant. 
 
 The patriarchal age should receive a better recognition by ecclesiolog- 
 ists than it has at the hands of those who place the origin of the church 
 in the Mosaic economy, as is done by such eminent writers as Kurtz and 
 Oehler, who recognize in the patriarchal age a sort of indefinable germ 
 of the church; and by S. J. Baird, who poetically refers to the patriarchal 
 age as a "betrothal," while the marriage, the constitution of the church, 
 took place at the giving of the Sinai covenant. The generally accepted 
 view in our church is that of Dr. J. M. Mason, and Dr. Stuart Robinson 
 which gives the church its true starting point in the covenant with 
 Abraham, but interprets that covenant as having reference to Israel as a 
 people. This view appears to be an acceptance of fhe second of 
 Calvin's inconsistent interpretations, while eliminating the first. The 
 foregoing discussion, which grows out of an interpretation original with 
 the author, and entirely independent of Calvin, goes to show that Cal- 
 vin was correct in his first statement of the covenants scope; and we 
 must eliminate the second of the inconsistent views, and seek a different 
 answer to the question, How did God's covenant with Abraham consti- 
 tute the church? How is it that the great promise of salvation which 
 embraces the invisible church comes to be the charter of the church 
 visible? 
 
 FALSE ISSUES AND INCONSISTENT REASONING. 
 
 The reason why so little progress has been made in the discussion of 
 infant salvation seems to be on account of the false issues raised and 
 the inconsistent reasoning put forth. The attempt has been made to dis- 
 cuss infant election as if this were an identical question with that of 
 infant salvation instead of a mere inference from the established fact 
 of infant salvation. Of course there is no light to be shed directly upon 
 infant election. The most pretentious work which has appeared in our 
 church on this subject, entitled the Theology of Infant Salvation (R. A. 
 Webb, D. D.) begins the discussion with a definition of infants which 
 is inconsistent with his statement and discussion of the Calvinistic 
 position. The author quotes with approval a definition of Dr. S. S. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 65 
 
 Laws which defines infants as irresponsible persons. "Who are infants? 
 (tie asks.) Legally they are minors or those who cannot speak in court 
 for themselves. Morally and religiously infants must include all chil- 
 dren prior to the age of responsibility for wrong doing." But why 
 discuss infant salvation at all if it be decided beforehand that infant! 
 are irresponsihk, and so not amenable to punishment for sin? This 
 idea of irrespon.-ibility does not comport at all with the explained Cal- 
 vinistic position which first holds infants guilty on account of Adam's sin 
 iin.i then depraved or subjectively sinful. 
 
 But we have shown the covenant of works with its immediate impu- 
 tation to be a theological blunder, which leaves only the corruption of 
 nature to be accounted for; and if they are not responsible for this, 
 in the sense of being guilty, then they are not punishable at all. But 
 this raises the question, How can depravity fail to render a person 
 guilty? Too much time has been spent in trying to establish the fact 
 that infants are guilty, as if the remedy for their condition could be 
 determined by the natural condition itself. Paul tells us that that con- 
 dition is one of death. Is it logical to argue that a very large portion 
 of those called to account as infants are condemned finally and eternally 
 because they share the common condition of death which came upon the 
 race? Then w^hy discuss extraneous issues? 
 
 Dr. Webb starts out by giving up his case ; for in connection with 
 the summing up of the available scriptural data on the subject he makes 
 the damaging admission that "not a single text explicitly and dogmatically 
 tells us what is the fate of infants dying in infancy." (P. 11.) The 
 Scripture he thinks gives us at best only "suggestion, hint, hope" ; but 
 we are at last thrown back upon theology, and compelled to settle the 
 matter by inference." It may be asked, Why should theology claim 
 any superior wisdom in the matter? Do the theologians claim a monop- 
 oly upon reason and inference? Is not theology itself, if it is worth 
 anything, dependent upon the Scriptures? The fact is that theology 
 thus makes an impertinent claim ; and by such attitude becomes a dis- 
 turbing element in the discussion. If Dr. Webb be a specimen of theol- 
 ogy, and its part, we may say that it has drawn false deductions from 
 incorrect interpretations of Scripture; and it winds the matter up by 
 handing out to us a worthless piece of philosophy as the solution of 
 the question. I<"or instance, in the latter part of the chapter on Scrip- 
 ture data the author reasons that "infants dying in infancy are saved 
 by grace because they are incompetent to stand the only sort of judg- 
 ment which is revealed in Scripture — a judgment according to works. 
 Just below after quoting 2 Cor. 5: 10, he says: "But the infant dies 
 before it can be a doer of either good or bad, and so cannot be arraigned 
 upon the ground of its personal deeds. This is a remarkable piece of 
 logic for any one to use who holds to the doctrine that these same 
 infants, who are not responsible for their own acts, are held responsi- 
 ble for something which was not their personal act at all. Is it any 
 wonder that the anti-revisionist balks at such reasoning? Perceiving 
 
66 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 the worthlessness of the gratuitous philosophy which is offered him as 
 the ground of his faith he recurs to the hrst admission that the Scrip- 
 ture is silent upon the subject, and parades it as an unanswerable argu- 
 ment. But is it a fact that the Scripture has nothing to say upon the 
 salvation of infants in general? We do not admit it, and do not believe 
 it. The statement that the infant cannot be arraigned on the ground 
 of its personal deeds is a false inference based upon a mistaken inter- 
 pretation of Scripture. It misinterprets the passage in Corinthians and 
 its allied passages by making them teach a scheme of justification by 
 works which is entirely foreign to their meaning and contradictory of 
 the gospel plan of salvation. It is false logic because the converse of a 
 proposition does not necessarily hold good. This is the reasoning: 
 Men are judged according to their works, infants have no works, there- 
 fore infants are not judged. The proposition that men are judged 
 according to works was never intended to apply literally to those who 
 have no works, for it has reference to the measure of reward and not 
 to the ground of judgment. All the passages concerning judgment 
 according to works simply teach that men are to be counted either right- 
 eous or wicked in accordance with the actual fact of their characters 
 as evinced by their works. If infants then have characters or in other 
 words, moral status, how can such passages exempt them from all 
 judgment. The passages are simply misinterpreted, that is all. 
 
 But you do not have to show that infants are guiltless in order to 
 prove that they are saved, any more than in the case of adults, for 
 they are both alike saved by God's grace in Christ. The real question 
 to be discussed is a question of fact, or the Scripture testimony to the 
 fact — Are dying infants all saved — justified in Christ and saved by the 
 Spirit in regeneration? Upon this question of fact the Theology of 
 Infant Salvation offers us only a worthless piece of philosophy: "An 
 infant being a sentient creature is capable of suffering; but being an 
 unconscious creature, with faculties too immature to understand and 
 appreciate the reason for suffering it is incapable of being punished 
 strictly . . . speaking." (P. 288.) This failure on the part of the 
 infant to appreciate his sin and the reason for its punishment "would leave 
 (God's) justice unsatisfied, and defeat the very purpose of the divine 
 being in sending any person to hell." (P. 296.) And so we are left 
 to draw our own conclusion that God will not do so unreasonable a thing 
 as to punish infants in these circumstances, this inference being literally 
 stated at the bottom of P. 290 as follows: Hence ^the child which on 
 account of its guilt is punishable de jure, is not as such punishable de 
 facto." The latter must mean simply that guilt will not eventuate in 
 execution. Is this salvation? It is reasoning intended to satisfy a 
 mind bound up in legalism. Is it not as easy to argue the salvation of 
 infants from what we know of God's love as shown in his glorious plan 
 of salvation, as to argue it simply from his justice or his purpose con- 
 cerning justice? 
 
 It seems to be but a poor philosophy which bases a belief in the sal- 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 67 
 
 vation of infants in the fact that they would not be able to appreciate 
 the meaning of the punishment which is really their due. This is a 
 kind of inability that not many have thought of. This unusual con- 
 sideration is based upon the philosophical dictum that "Penal suffering, 
 to be strictly penalty, must be recognized as such in the consciousness of 
 the sufferer, else it would be to him unmeaning and causeless pain." 
 (P. 288.) This proposition is one which needs to be proved before being 
 made the basis of such important theological consequences. Who can 
 prove that "the element of awareness is an essential ingredient in 
 rational punishment?" Is it not true that nature's laws are self executing 
 and inexorable, depending not upon the victim's knowledge of those laws? 
 The most ignorant are in fact most liable to incur the consequences of 
 their breach. Fire will burn if a man does not understand its nature 
 just as surely as if he knew but defied the law of combustion. 
 
 We think the whole trouble comes from regarding sin simply in a legal 
 aspect as a breach of law, and its consequence as penalty for such 
 breach. Only in such view of the matter is a prenatal guilt thinkable. 
 This is Dr. Webb's conception of the child's condition. See Page 2J2. 
 He understands Calvinism to assert "an antenatal forfeiture of innocence 
 and righteousness." "Because of this prenatal connection, whether 
 federal or real, every child is born at once guilty and depraved; and 
 therefore condemned; and therefore by nature destined to eternal death. 
 The moral status of every child of Adam is that of a guilty, depraved, 
 condemed thing, amenable to an eternal doom." These expressions betray 
 a one-sided view of sin and death. Paul does not talk in this way. 
 Death was bad enough for him. It was death that "passed through vmto 
 all men" and not directly condemnation, although this came from the 
 one trespass, (v. 16.) It was death that reigned over those that had not 
 sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, and not "condemna- 
 tion" or "eternal doom." How could these be said to reign in view 
 of a provided salvation? A way of life being provided it is no longer 
 legitimate to identify condemnation and eternal doom with guilt. Guilt 
 is a term which describes a moral status, but condemnation and eternal 
 doom are terms of forensic import and imply final judgment; but some 
 Calvinists insist on judging the world before God himself is ready for 
 it. We need not be alarmed by this hasty judging and confusion of 
 things that differ. Paul reassures us when he asks. Who is he that con- 
 demneth? It is God that justifieth. God finds a way of taking care of 
 the little ones, and man's condemnation cannot hurt them. We dislike the 
 phrase "decree of nature" and "damnable and damnability" used in this 
 same connection because they are the expression of this confusion. 
 
 It is unjust to call this Calvinism. Dabney repudiated the applica- 
 tion of the word to such views, denying that the Reformed divines held 
 the extreme views thus advocated. 
 
 Calvin himself has been unjustly charged in our church with teaching 
 infant damnation, with only the result of making Calvin contradict him- 
 self, because he is made to teach also universal infant salvation. Both 
 
68 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 statements are unjustifiable, for Calvin did neither. The first probably 
 grows out of the use of the word "condemnation" in connection with the 
 subject of original sin, the Latin word being improperly translated 
 "damnation." Calvin does not discuss the status of infants outside of 
 the church, and it is not right to stretch his expressions in one or two 
 places beyond the limits of the subject he has in hand. The reference 
 to "some of them whom death removes," etc., in section 19, Ch. 16, must 
 be understood as thus limited. Calvin is less objectionable in his state- 
 ,ments than some of his modern interpreters. He is right when he 
 remarks by way of concession that "all the descendants of Adam, being 
 carnal, bring their condemnation into the world with them;" and still he 
 denies that this is any impediment to the communication of a remedy, 
 as soon as ever God is pleased to impart it. If they brought their 
 condemnation into the world with them it certainly could not have been 
 "prenatal." Nor does Calvin adopt the Arminian device of freeing 
 infants as such from the condemnation of original sin, nor free them from 
 personal sin on the score of "irresponsibility." The age of responsibility 
 properly means something very different. It means that God will make 
 allowance for immature faculties and will not hold infants to the respon- 
 sibilities of grown people. They are saved like every other sinner from 
 the death of sin by the application of the blood of Jesus, and the regenera- 
 tion of the Spirit which is the newly implanted life, which makes them 
 sons of God. 
 
 Calvin denied in express terms that he taught that God "condemned 
 and reprobated impious men before they exist, even before they are 
 impious and have sinned." That was what Castalio charged. But per- 
 ceiving that Castalio disbelieved in responsibility for original sin Calvin 
 makes the same argument that Paul employs in Rom. 5. In Castalio's 
 view it was unjust to involve the whole race of Adam in the "guilt of 
 original sin." You deny, he says, that it is right for God to condemn 
 any mortal except on account of actual sin," "Countless mortals are taken 
 from life while yet infants. Now put forth your virulence against God 
 who hurls innocent new-born babes, torn from their mother's breast into 
 eternal death." It seems evident that Calvin turns against Castalio some 
 of his own language employed against the true doctrine of original sin, 
 and that this is only an argument ad hominem, and is not intended to 
 assert the eternal death in reality of any infants. The subject in dispute 
 was original sin. This Calvin taught and Castalio denied. Since Castalio 
 with the Pelagians must have denied that death is a penal infliction, this 
 part of his charge against Calvin was an argument ad hominem. But 
 Calvin after showing that his views are not merely personal opinion, 
 but Scripture teaching, sends back the same language, charging that it i.s 
 spoken against God, and not man at all. Calvin has been misunderstood 
 by Dr. Stagg ("Universal Salvation of Infants,' p. 100), and made to 
 teach infant damnation as follows: "We interpret this passage as follows: 
 If one denies that God condemns any mortal except for actual sin, he 
 involves himself in the dilemma of either charging God 'with hurling 
 
COXFESSIOXAL REVISION. 69 
 
 innocent new born babes . . . into eternal death since countless mortals 
 are taken from this life while yet infants.' Or else he must deny con- 
 demnation for original sin, since infants have no actual sin, and declare 
 all infants born in a state of innocency." Let it be noticed that Calvin 
 is here made to reason from the eternal death of infants as a fact, and 
 the only point which he is supposed to cover is the justice of it. The 
 latter part of the so-called dilemma is equally remarkable. To say that 
 Castalio "must deny condemnation for original sin" assumes that Calvin 
 holds the opposite that "infants have no actual sin," when he is trying to 
 show just the reverse that as guilty they have "actual sin" in a true sense. 
 But he does not say that they are really "hurled into eternal death." The 
 turn which Calvin gives to the phrase "actual sin" is entirely missed, 
 and his use of the words of his opponent. The whole is, we take it, an 
 unfortunate misunderstanding which adds to the difficulty of this discus- 
 sion instead of contributing anything to its solution. 
 
 DR. S. S. LAWS ON INFANT SALVATION. 
 
 Dr. Laws' booklet of seventy-seven pages makes the latest argument 
 in our church on this subject, although, as we have seen, one quotation 
 from him is made in Dr. Webb's book. Dr. Laws depends mainly upon 
 the classic passages in Matt. 18, and 19, claiming that he makes a some- 
 what different use of them from Calvin. But after quoting Calvin at 
 length and commending his exposition, he says that as regards his own 
 argument : "Any special virtue" in it "rises from a recognition and 
 due appreciation of the relation of the fourteenth verse of Matthew 
 18 to the previous discoursing about infants." This is hardly worth 
 the claim since it needs no explanation to point out the connection. 
 He adopts Calvin's error in making a close connection between the two 
 passages, and fails to see Calvin's mistaken interpretation of the phrase 
 "kingdom of heaven." Only when the phrase is understood of heaven 
 itself, the kingdom of glory, does the force of the passage in connection 
 with infant salvation appear, and yet none of the writers has explained 
 this matter properly, although Rev. H. B. Pratt does say that the passage 
 has no bearing on infant baptism. But if the phrase be interpreted lo 
 mean heaven itself instead of a present salvation in the visible church, 
 this seems to exclude the reference to the grown people of childlike 
 spirit. This is without warrant read into the passage from Matt. 18, 
 for "Of such" must mean children as children without any direct mention 
 of their spirit as the reason for the saying. Dr. Laws is right in stating 
 that "Calvin nowhere explicitly recognizes the universal salvation of 
 those dying in infancy." Having applied the passage to infant baptism, 
 it is clear that he had in mind only the children of the church who had 
 the right by covenant standing to baptism. Only to this extent can 
 there be an argument made from infant salvation to infant baptism. If 
 we could grant that Calvin's interpretation of the phrase "kingdom ,of 
 heaven" was correct, and his understanding of the meaning of the cove- 
 
70 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 nant relation sound, then we should have to grant his argument to infant 
 baptism valid ; but since neither can be granted, this particular passage 
 must be given up as a support to infant baptism. But it is of far 
 more importance to understand it as bearing directly upon infant sal- 
 vation ; and because we are not warranted from the circumstances to 
 limit the passage to the children of the church, it must necessarily 
 embrace all who are taken away from this world as infants. Dr. Laws 
 seems to be wrong therefore in saying that Calvin "builded better than 
 he knew," and "should have the benefit of his inconsistency." An incon- 
 sistent exposition is not sufficient for our purpose, and until this is 
 recognized and Calvin ceases to be quoted on this subject we shall not 
 get any very clear ideas on infant salvation; from this passage at least. 
 
 Dr. Laws draws an argument from the case of David's child without 
 touching upon the fact that it must have been in a sense at least a child 
 of the covenant. The anti-revisionists have already tried to offset the 
 value of this passage by pointing out this fact. This by the way spoils 
 also the application of the "Jevons canon." P. 45. 
 
 He makes the same mistake made by the last writer on the matter of 
 judgment according to works; but seeks to offset the effects of this rule 
 by saying: "There emerges a distinction between the primal judgment 
 on our race for disobedience and the final judgment." And the require- 
 ment, "This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath 
 sent," is one which is not applicable to infants. P. -l6. 
 
 And yet the exemption of infants from condemnation is rightly 
 explained to be "not due to the absence of sinful works or practices sucli 
 as lie to the charge of adults." If this is true, they are under what 
 he calls "primal condemnation," that is, are guilty by reason of their own 
 condition; and it is not necessary to seek to strengthen this condemna- 
 tion by asserting that "they are to blame for the individual act of trans- 
 gression done by Adam himself in the garden of Eden." If relieved of 
 this part of the indictment, still they need to be saved by the application 
 of the atonement and the regeneration of the Spirit. 
 
 But although Dr. Laws' treatment of the subject may not seem to be 
 unexceptionable, still it is directed to the real issue, and in support of 
 the truth, and is perhaps the best that has yet appeared. We can agree 
 to the opinion that "the Bible facts and teaching . . . warrant us in 
 entertaining a comfortable faith in the universal salvation of infants 
 dying in infancy," by which he doubtless means all such. If it is 
 true as estimated that by far the larger part of the human race die 
 in infancy, it is plain that "the citizenship of heaven will consist chiefly 
 of those redeemed from the ranks of infancy and not of believing 
 adults." 
 
 This last fact is employed by a recent writer as the basis of a ne^v 
 scheme of prophetic interpretation. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 71 
 
 REV. H. B. PRATT ON INFANT SALVATION. 
 
 Seeing a few days ago the notice of a new book entitled "The Buried 
 Nations of the Infant Dead" the writer at once ordered it in the hope 
 of finding something new upon the discussion of infant salvation. We 
 were disappointed to find that with such an universal call for the proof 
 of the infant proposition he adduces only the passage in Matt. 19: 14 
 and Calvin's interpretation. The only difference seems to be the expres- 
 sion of opinion, with which we heartily agree, that "the words have 
 nothing to do with the ordinance of baptism." P. 13. But this must 
 rest upon the proper interpretation of the passage, and not upon the 
 reasons given in this connection, both of which are unsound. To say that 
 "Christian baptism was not then instituted," by which he means that it 
 was not yet in existence, is not true except in a very modified sense, since 
 infant baptism was a Levitical institution, the law for it being contained 
 in Lev. 12. 
 
 The second point, which is, that we confine the ordinance to the 
 children of the church, is beside the mark as proving that the passage 
 in Matt. 19 has nothing to do with the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 When by way of comment on the passage he says, "It is more cus- 
 tomary to understand the words as teaching that a childlike character 
 and disposition are necessary to enter heaven" we are prepared for a 
 rejection of that interpretation. But no, he simply asks: Btit is that all, 
 or the half of what our Master intended to teach by these precious 
 words? The implication in this sentence (P. 14) shows that the first 
 sentence is not accurate, for what interpreter ever contended that adults 
 were exclusively referred to? Since Dr. Pratt does not hold that infants 
 are exclusively referred to, we cannot see that he differs from Calvin 
 and other interpreters. 
 
 Under the heading "Calvin and Dying Infants" his attempted defence 
 of Calvin and Calvinism against the charge of teaching infant damnation 
 is hardly more successful than his interpretation of Matt. 19. Although 
 he has already called attention to the fact, and drawn an argument 
 from it against Calvin, that we do not give baptism to any but the 
 children of believing parents, he tries to relieve Calvin of teaching infant 
 damnation by pointing to the fact that he taught that dying infants may 
 be saved without baptism. But Calvin was talking of those who had a 
 right to baptism but failed to receive the ordinance. He did not anywhere 
 assert that all dying infants had a right to baptism or that all such are 
 saved. Now then, according to Calvin's interpretation and limited appli- 
 cation of the passage it cannot be made to teach without exception the 
 salvation of all dying infants. And yet he charges to the "art and sub- 
 tlety of Satan and the perversity of human nature" the criticism that the 
 Calvinistic confessional statement involves infant damnation. A good 
 interpretation and solid argument would be far more effective than such 
 method of dealing with this question. He must needs charge a vast 
 multitude with being affected by the subtlety of Satan, for clear thinkers 
 
•72 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 in all ages have recognized the fact that to assert the salvation of a 
 limited or elect class of dying infants necessarily puts the balance of the 
 dying infant class outside the pale of salvation. It is no answer at 
 all to point out that such criticism has been directed at Calvinists rather 
 than at the Romish church which teaches that baptism is necessary to 
 salvation and that all dying infants unbaptized are lost. P. i6. 
 
 On page 17 he makes an admission which is exceedingly damaging to all 
 his own strictures. "We freely confess (he says) that the phraseology, 
 which 300 3'ears ago had probably a reference now lost, is unfortunate 
 and needlessly perplexing, if not misleading." Then what right has he 
 to impugn the honesty of those who interpret the clause differently from 
 what he does? His next sentence simply betrays his own utter inability 
 to understand the problem which the use of "elect" to set off a limited 
 class of dying infants has produced. He says to substitute "elect per- 
 sons dying in infancy" would be free from all possible misunderstanding." 
 We think that it would make not one iota of difference, for everybody 
 knows without being told that infants are persons. "Non-elect persons 
 dying in infancy" just as certainly carries the implication of non elect 
 infants, unless it be explained that "elect" is used as an attributive of 
 dying infants instead of to limit the class. But it would not be a very 
 natural way to speak of dying infants as a division of the elect to intro- 
 duce by the phrase "elect persons," so that the old implication stands 
 as the more probable one with this wording. 
 
 On page 19 our author tells us that the uassage in Matt. 19 has 
 "application not only to the case of the infants of Christian parents, 
 but to all deceased infants of all ages." But the trouble is he fails to tell' 
 us how. Although sympathizing with his position, we cannot but recog- 
 nize the weakness of the showing he makes for it. He gives us nothing 
 but his own opinions and assertions which are worthless for purposes of 
 argument. 
 
 But worse than this, instead of giving us the correct interpretation of 
 the passage he misinterprets both members of the phrase "kingdom of 
 heaven" so as to destroy its effective use as a proof of infant salvation. 
 He is not consistent however for he "does not hesitate to affirm" that 
 when Christ came down from heaven he "left behind him in heaven in- 
 numerable millions of the infant dead, who since the advent of sin and 
 death in the world had been gathering there, waiting for the purposed 
 and promised redemption of the people of God in the day of Christ 
 which is emphatically called "the day of redemption, whereunto by his 
 Spirit we are sealed." Eph. 4: 30. See page 23. One would suppose that 
 this implies the true meaning had he not previously told us that the 
 phrase "kingdom of heaven" "perhaps never does mean heaven in the 
 ordinary use of the word as locally distinct from the earth." And he 
 asserts that "the kingdom is locally on earth, and is coming, but not yet 
 come." This is a strange position to take. 
 
 If one will turn to the word "kingdom" in the concordance he will 
 see how wide of the truth is such an assertion. The very first use of 
 
CONFESSIOXAL REVISION. 73 
 
 the phrase in Matthew refers to the incoming of the gospel dispensation. 
 It was already "at hand" because Christ was immediately to appear. 
 Christ said also "The kingdom of God is within you." In the parables 
 the phrase is constantly used to describe the visible church. It is 
 perfectly natural that it should also be used to express the consummation 
 of the great plan of redemption, the triumph of the kingdom. This is 
 what is meant by the prayer, "Thy kingdom come." And this very pas- 
 sage quoted to prove his contention in reference to heaven proves just 
 the reverse, for the comparison between the conditions on earth and in 
 heaven shows conclusively that our author is wrong in his idea that 
 "heaven" is never used in Scripture in the usual sense. It is thus used 
 in Matt. 18: "In heaven their angels do always behold the face of your 
 father who is in heaven." This use cannot be avoided, and he himself 
 so uses it when he represents the millions of infants in heaven as wait- 
 ing for the future glory. He identifies the kingdom with the "day ot 
 redemption," and in so doing misinterprets this phrase ; but it hardly 
 comes in the scope of the present purpose to discuss this matter. He 
 gives a hint of the truth when in a rather disconnected sentence he says, 
 "So that when Jesus said. 'Of such is the kingdom of God,' it is not 
 possible that he lost sight of the countless millions of the infant dead he 
 left in glory when he came down from heaven." They are not "lost sight 
 of" for the reason that they are exclusively referred to, and reference 
 to a particular kind of righteous people simply ruins the passage. 
 
 Another bad argument needs to be set aside. He seeks to make the 
 promise to Abraham quoted in Hebrews 11 bear upon infant salvation. 
 On page 29 he asks "When then, and in what point of Jewish history, do 
 we find any trace of that already deceased and departed spiritual seed of 
 Abraham, numerous as the sand and as the stars of the sky, except among 
 the infant dead?" The answer to this is: Any one who has a proper 
 conception of the spiritual meaning of the promise W'ill not look for its 
 fulfilment in any point of Jewish history. The promise that the seed 
 should be as the stars, and as the dust of the earth must not be under- 
 stood simply of the nation of Israel. If this be confined to Israel where 
 is the promise applying to the balance of the spiritual seed? The form in 
 Gen. 17, "a multitude of nations" is simply a form of the same promise. 
 He seems to think that this promise will be satisfied by the infant dead 
 of the nations? This does not seem to be a natural way to interpret 
 prophecy. Referring again to this promise on page 31 he says: "If these 
 were then "more in number than the stars of the sky and the sand by the 
 seaside" — out of one small nation only, what shall we say of the incom- 
 parably greater multitudes of the infant dead of all nations?" "The 
 infant dead (he says) of all ages and all nations and peoples will form 
 so immeasurably the greater part ... of the redeemed and finally 
 saved that it may without exaggeration be said of them : "Of such is the 
 kingdom of God' — chiefly composed of them." There is certainly no 
 reference in this text to any division of the infant dead into nations. 
 It is enough to say that heaven is largely peopled with them. 
 
74 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 It is unfortunate that the doctrine of infant salvation must needs be 
 burdened by so many indefensible arguments. Dr. Pratt has an original 
 interpretation of the parables of the Great Supper and The Marriage of 
 the King's Son. The command, "Go ye out into the highways and 
 hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" he 
 regards as having been fulfilled by the bringing in of the infant dead. 
 But this is an impossible interpretation. The phrase "compel them to 
 come in" has been a favorite says Lightfoot with the persecutor and the 
 inquisitor, 'but it seems strange that there should have been drawn 
 from them arguments for any compulsion but a moral one." But if the 
 appeal was made to those capable of being reached by moral suasion, of 
 course it could not apply to infants. In fact such an interpretation 
 would be out of harmony with the balance of the parable. The rational 
 interpretation is borne out by the parallel parable of the marriage of 
 the king's son. The servants who were sent into the highways were to 
 bid people to the marriage feast. So also the motley crowd which they 
 thus brought in consisting of both bad and good indicates the same 
 thing. So also does the judgment concerning the wedding garment rule 
 out those who are incapable of free moral choice. 
 
 It would be a very poor victory for the church to have the wedding 
 filled with guests of a sort that had been brought in by physical causes 
 over which none but God himself has the least control. Such interpre- 
 tation brings the whole of prophecy into disrepute. And yet just this 
 is the inspiring thought which evidently led our author to write his so- 
 called study in eschatology. We find the heading of the book on 
 page 34. Here Psalm 87 is referred to as one of those prophecies which 
 the conception of universal infant salvation helps to unravel. Zion is 
 represented as the birthplace of the nations, at least such representative 
 nations as Philistia, Tyre and Ethiopia, and especially Egypt and 
 Babylon. Besides this Ps. 86: 9 is cited, with Ps. 22: 2y : "All the ends 
 of the earth shall remember and turn unto Jehovah, all the kindreds of 
 the nations shall worship before thee." Our author likes to dwell upon 
 the first because it seems to him to furnish a ground for the division 
 of the infant dead into nations, and this gives him his title "The Buried 
 Nations of the Infant Dead." But why insist upon a literal interpreta- 
 tion? "All nations" evidently means the whole world, just what is 
 plainly expressed in Ps. 22 : "All the ends of the earth." And why 
 should not Egypt and Babylon, and the other nations, familiar to the 
 Jews at the time the Psalm was written, stand as representative of 
 the heathen world? It seems exceedingly unnatural to make these 
 nations to be represented simply by the resurrected infants who died. 
 But this is what our author does. Under the title "The Millennium" 
 (p. 36), he thus presents the matter: It is the purpose of this discussion 
 to show, and I think that before I am done I shall conclusively prove 
 that these predictions in reference to Egypt and Babylon and Philistia, 
 and in a word the other dead and buried nations of the past, both 
 known and vmknown, whose infant dead await in their graves the resur- 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 75 
 
 rection of life . . . and whose spirits in heaven are "waiting for the 
 adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body" will be fulfdled literally 
 at the resurrection of the just; "and can only be fulfilled by the resur- 
 rection of these dead nations, in the persons of their dead babes." 
 
 But would the resurrected infants be the nations resurrected? We (Id 
 not think so. On the other hand, such a method of satisfying the demands 
 of these prophecies eviscerates them completely. It destroys completely 
 the prophecies which teach a millennial triumph for the church when 
 "the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover 
 the sea." Dr. Pratt seems to think this a good thing, since there are 
 various irreconcilable ideas as to what this millennial period is, and as to 
 how it stands related to our Lord's coming. But we fancy that the 
 church will not be pleased to be thus lightly robbed of her most 
 glorious hope. It believes in infant salvation but not in such a way as 
 to supersede the church's triumph. It does not come within the present 
 purpose to discuss the millennium, but such association of thought by 
 w^hich the doctrine of universal infant salvation is made to supersede 
 the millennium does not add anything to the discussion of infant salvation. 
 
 SCRIPTURES EXAMINED. 
 
 Let us now take up the various passages which appear to shed light 
 upon the matter of infant salvation. The classic passage in Mark 10: 14 
 and Matt. 19 : 14 has already received considerable attention in connection 
 with the arguments of others, but it seems to call for a more extended 
 exposition in order to establish what seems to the writer to be the only 
 correct interpretation, and the only one which makes it bear upon univer- 
 sal infant salvation. This exposition was written several years ago and 
 together with several others on the same subject was printed in one of 
 the church papers. 
 
 We choose Mark's account of this incident because it is more particu- 
 lar in that it mentions the indignation which the Lord Jesus felt at 
 the efifort to prevent the access of the children to him, and also because 
 it brings the teaching concerning the child-like spirit into close connec- 
 tion with the incident. A comparison of the accounts seems to show 
 that this teaching was not confined to any one occasion, but that it was 
 repeated on several occasions. And certainly it was needed, for the 
 disciples were not immune to the temptations of ambition. In spite of the 
 lesson first given in Matt. 18: 3 it had to be repeated in connection with 
 the request of James and John in chapter twenty, and no doubt 
 Mark has correctly introduced the same in connection with the 
 incident of the bringing of the children to Jesus. These children must 
 have included some very small ones, for Luke calls them babes 
 (brephe). The purpose of the parents must have been to seek a spiritual 
 blessing for the children, and doubtless they believed it would mean their 
 salvation. Matthew tells us that the purpose was "that he should lay 
 his hands upon them and pray." It is natural to suppose that they 
 
76 INFAXT SALFATIOX AND 
 
 believed such prayers on behalf of the children would be efifective. The 
 disciples seem to have thought that they were too young to be considered 
 in connection with the matter of salvation, and this it was no doubt 
 which roused the indignation of the Lord Jesus. Perhaps they had 
 forgotten the significance of circumcision, and the ritual baptism pre- 
 scribed for them in Leviticus 12, and it is possible that there may have 
 been some in the crowd that were children of Gentiles, who did not 
 seem to the apostles to have any claim upon the Savior's attention. If so, 
 their minds were speedily disabused of the error, for he gives them to 
 understand that not merely was there a peculiar fitness in his receiving 
 them, but there would be a marked incongruity in debarring them from 
 his presence, for of such is the kingdom of God, or heaven. 
 
 What now does "Of such is the kingdom of God" mean? We believe 
 that it does not mean what the Revisers have interpreted it to mean by 
 the new translation "to such belongeth the kingdom of God." We do 
 not see how the genitive "of such" can be converted into "to such," 
 especially when the dative in such a situation would more naturally 
 express possession. It is true that the genitive of the personal pronoun 
 is used in Matt. 5:3 and Matt. 5: 10, and is translated "theirs," but the 
 personal pronoun lends itself to that translation in a way that "of such" 
 in our passage does not. We think the old translation is superior to the 
 new, and that the substantive verb which has to be supplied carries with 
 it the idea of "composed or constituted." "Of such is the kingdom of 
 God composed or constituted." The phrase kingdom of God or heaven 
 should be taken to mean heaven itself, the kingdom of glory, as in 
 Matt. 18:3, and not of the kingdom of the redeemed on earth, as it is 
 generally understood. We see no reason why this sense of the word 
 with the translation "of them" should not be understood in Matt. 5:3, 
 Blessed is the poor in spirit, for of them (or the same) is the kingdom 
 of heaven. "Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteous- 
 ness sake, for of them (or the same) is the kingdom of heaven." It 
 would then mean, this is the sort of people who go to compose heaven. 
 
 This matter is of importance because upon the meaning of the phrase 
 "kingdom of heaven" depends what we get out of the verse. If the 
 Saviour means to say to the disciples "Of just such children as these is 
 the kingdom of heaven constituted," he means to imply not the present 
 salvation of all those children, but that these are as nearest the kingdom 
 precisely the most hopeful material for the kingdom on earth, whereas 
 the disciples adjudged them to be beneath his notice. If this interpreta- 
 tion is correct, we have here an important proof that all who are taken 
 away from this world in the infant state are saved, and no other inter- 
 pretation yields this important result. 
 
 Calvin seems to have been misled in his interpretation by his desire to 
 construct from the passage an argument for infant baptism. Our modern 
 theologians have reproduced his argument without perceiving its weak- 
 ness in that it rests upon a misunderstanding of the phrase "kingdom of 
 God." Calvin and all our modern writers, as far as we know, have 
 
COXFESSIONAL REl'lSIOX. 
 
 // 
 
 taken the phrase as descriptive of those who are members of the spiritual 
 kingdom in this world, that is to say, subjects of God's grace. 
 
 A quotation from chapter i6. Sec. 7 of the Institutes will serve to make 
 Calvin's view clear : "Wherefore the Lord Jesus, to exhibit a specimen 
 from which the world might understand that he was come to extend rather 
 than to limit the mercy of the father, kindly received the infants that 
 were presented to him, and embraced them in his arms chiding his dis- 
 ciples who endeavored to forbid their approach to him, because they 
 would keep those of whom was the kingdom of heaven at a distance 
 from him who is the only way of entrance to it." His idea seems to be 
 that the children were either already in the kingdom by reason of a 
 covenant standing, or that Christ's blessing would have the effect of giv- 
 ing them entrance to the spiritual kingdom. Or perhaps it is more cor- 
 rect to say that he makes both pleas for them, however mutually exclusive 
 they may appear to be. There can be no doubt that he has in mind the 
 children of the church and no others. This is clear from what he says 
 about their covenant standing. Christ came to extend the mercy of the 
 Father in the sense that the covenant with its seal of baptism was 
 broadened out to cover the children of all believers. The covenant stand- 
 ing "belongs to the children of Christians now, as much as it did to the 
 infants of the Jews under the Old Testament." (Sec. 5.) 
 
 We do not need Calvin's argument to infant baptism, for there are 
 more solid arguments to be advanced on this subject, but we do need 10 
 recognize and accept the true understanding of the phrase "kingdom 
 of heaven" because this together with its complement in Matt. 18:14 
 clearly asserts the salvation of all who are called to their account as 
 infants. The two passages are not to be taken as directly connected 
 with each other, and there is no reference in "of such" to older people 
 of child-like spirit. Calvin ought never to have admitted this interpreta- 
 tion. It damaged even his argument to infant baptism, but we should 
 reject it because it is inconsistent with the true conception of the saying 
 of Jesus. The saying evidently has reference to children as children, and 
 not to any particular character which they were supposed to possess. 
 Nor is there a reference to a limited class of children as church mem- 
 bers. We have no means of knowing whether all the children who came 
 to Jesus were from believing families or not, but it is evidently improper 
 to go upon the supposition that they were, and upon the strength of this 
 to rule out the children of the heathen. Why should not all infant 
 children, called to account as infants, stand upon the same footing? Jesus 
 evidently indicates heaven as the destination of all who are called away 
 from earth at this stage of life. Since they are called away by death, 
 they are designated in the confession as infants who die in infancy. If 
 "elect" had been omitted the expression would of course have included the 
 whole of the class. But in view of the controversy upon this question a 
 clear-cut statement would naturally add "all" by way of emphasis. 
 
78 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 INFANT SALVATION ASSERTED IN MATT. i8: 14. 
 
 We believe that in Matt. 18: 14 the Lord Jesus clearly asserts that it 
 is the divine will that all who are called to their account as infants shall 
 be saved, for this is the counterpart affirmative of saying that it is not his 
 will that "one of these little ones should perish." The only question is 
 as to who are "these little ones?" It is a strange fact that Meyer so inter- 
 prets "little ones" as to rule out the little children altogether, making 
 it refer exclusively to older people of a childlike spirit. We think 
 this interpretation is hardly defensible, but the interpretation thus given 
 comes from taking the same phrase in verse 6 in this sense. Let us 
 then first take up this and other verses in the light of the context. In 
 order to teach the disciples a lesson of humility and self-abnegation the 
 Lord Jesus had set before them a little child. Saying in effect "Do you 
 see this little child, unless ye turn about and become as little children, ye 
 shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." As if this were 
 too general he repeats the simile : Whosoever therefore shall humble him- 
 self as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 
 This is a direct answer to the disciples' question "Who then is greatest 
 in the kingdom of heaven?" This is to say, Unless you so modify your 
 views and ambitions concerning life and service as to exhibit the spirit 
 of humility and self-abnegation which you see in this child you shall 
 not see heaven at all. The point where Meyer switches off is at verse 
 5, and he does not state the case correctly, for he says, "The question of 
 the disciples has been answered. But his eye having lighted upon this 
 child who happened to be present, Jesus now seizes the opportunity of 
 inculcating upon them the duty of taking an affectionate interest in such 
 little ones." To say that the child happened to be present and the Savior's 
 eye "lighted upon it" does not represent the fact of the narrative that he 
 expressly put it up for purpose of illustration. The exhortation to take 
 a friendly interest in "such little ones" was secondary to the main pur- 
 pose. Since the language is "as this little child" (v. 4), it seems quite evi- 
 dent that Meyer uses the term "little ones" here as equivalent to such 
 little children. But in the next sentence he flies the track and leaves the 
 little children entirely out of sight. Commenting upon "such little child" 
 he says : "According to the context not a literal child which would give 
 a turn to the discourse utterly foreign to the connection, but a man of such 
 a disposition as this little child represents- — one whp with childlike sim- 
 plicity is humble and unassuming." When he says, "And whosoever shall 
 receive one such little child in my name receiveth me," how can the 
 children themselves be excluded, even granting that the inculcated spirit 
 is the prominent idea? How can an adult of such desirable spirit be 
 styled "a little child" without being classed with the children themselves? 
 It would be contradictory then to exclude them altogether. Now we have 
 in verse 6 the phrase "little ones," and Meyer thinks this is not to be 
 understood of "literal children." He says it is "not to be understood 
 any more than "such child" (v. 5) of literal children, and consequently 
 
CONFESSIOXAL REVISION. 79 
 
 not to be used as proof of the faith of little children, but as meaning: 
 "one of those little ones, — a way of designating modest, simple-minded, 
 unassuming believers, that had just been suggested by seeing in the 
 child then present a model of simplicity." It does not seem natural to 
 pronounced so severe a sentence against misleading "one of these little 
 ones that believe on me," if the term little ones does not include those 
 of tender years who would be specially liable to be deceived, for the 
 modesty and humility of believers should not make them liable to decep- 
 tion, or make them easy subjects of temptation. 
 
 If we examine the parallel passage in Mark lo, 15, "Whosoever shall 
 not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter 
 therein" ; this seems to indicate that the spirit sought to be inculcated is 
 that of meekness and faith — the faith of the little child trusting a superior 
 wisdom to its own. It is this spirit which the Savior inculcated when he 
 said: "Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and 
 lowly in heart and ye shall hnd rest unto your souls." And this maj' 
 help us understand what the injunction against "despising one of these 
 little ones" means. (Matt. 18: 10.) And also Luke's turn to the passage 
 concerning "receiving the kingdom of God as a little child." (Luke 
 18: 17.) Receiving the kingdom of God means to accept the truth, and this 
 enables us to understand what Matthew's account means concerning 
 "receiving one such little child" in my name, for receiving the kingdom 
 and receiving members of the kingdom must be close of kin. The latter 
 must mean the recognition of their christian standing, and the witness 
 which they bear by the very fact of their faith. This would apply equally 
 well to humble adult christians and to children as "little ones that 
 believe me." If the believing trustful spirit of such little ones as are 
 capable of an intelligent faith renders them the objects of God's special 
 care, how can these same little ones and all of their class be excluded, 
 when of such tender years as to be incapable of faith? The condition 
 of dependence and helplessness is there all the more, and it is the essence 
 of faith to recognize ones self as in this condition? A natural inability 
 to understand and recognize ones helplessness certainly cannot be in 
 God's sight a reason for excluding such persons from the salvation 
 brought by him who came to seek and save the lost. Would it not be 
 just as unreasonable as to sa)^ that the lost wanderer in the snow drifts 
 who has become benumbed and unconscious should not be rescued when 
 found because he is not able to appreciate his condition? Will Christ 
 pass by those sheep which not only do not know the way home but 
 have not yet discovered that they are lost? This surely is not con- 
 sistent with the prophecy that he will "gather the lambs in his arm and 
 carry them in his bosom." (Isa. 40: 11.) 
 
 Now if those who are literally "little ones" cannot be ruled out of 
 the preceding context in Matthew 18, they must be included in v. 14, 
 which positively asserts God's will concerning the little ones. God's 
 special care for them is indicated in verse 10, where it is said that "in 
 heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in 
 
8o INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 heaven." It would be strange if the little ones most helpless should 
 be ruled out from this guardian care. 
 
 Such a text as that of John 3: 18, 19, which teaches that condemna- 
 tion will come from the rejection of God's plan of salvation appears to 
 exempt infants from condemnation, for this occasion or cause of con- 
 demnation does not apply to them. The passage attributes condemna- 
 to the wilful' rejection of the truth. Because men loved darkness rather 
 than light they rejected God's salvation and refused to believe. This 
 positive refusal brings condemnation to the world. Now if "God sent 
 not his Son into the world to condemn the world, his purpose 
 being on the other hand, to save the world, he places the responsibility 
 for being lost upon man himself, and surely this implies a probation to 
 all who receive the message and are intelligent enough to apprehend it. 
 It would seem to let out and place in entirely a different class all the 
 human race who have not been guilty of a positive rejection of God's 
 messenger of peace and life. Should not God's purpose to save the 
 world apply to the advantage of all who have not rejected his plan; and 
 amongst these the most unquestionable are those who were called away 
 from this world before they had any opportunity to accept or reject 
 God's plan. As for the adult heathen who do not have God's word, Paul 
 teaches that they will be judged according to the light they have, that is, 
 the light of conscience, so that they do not constitute an exception to 
 the rule of being judged for rejection of the light; the only difference 
 is in the amount of the light. Does not this bring under God's definite 
 purpose of salvation all who walk in darkness and have no light? 
 (Isa. 50: 10.) We think there are passages which proclaim this purpose 
 directly. Is it not better to hold this than to teach as some ultra 
 Calvinists do that the children are condemned by reason of a prenatal 
 connection with Adam? See Theol. Infant Salvation, p. 272. 
 
 THE LITTLE ONES. NUM. 14: 31- 
 
 We think a strong positive argument in favor of the conclusion that 
 judgment is to be according to the light possessed and the ability of the 
 parties in question may be deduced from what God says concerning 
 the little ones in Num. 14: 31. It is true that the passage does not refer 
 to the final judgment, but it is not necessary that it should. The point 
 is that it relieves the little ones of the responsibility for the disobedience 
 and moral guilt of the older people. Since God exempts them from 
 the punishment which he meted out to all the grown up people he makes 
 a clear difference as to their responsibility for the national sin. And 
 the case is made stronger in favor of real infants by the fact that 
 the line was in this case drawn at twenty years. Why should not this 
 obviously righteous principle of judgment be extended to the final 
 judgment, and apply to the status before God as regards sin and salva- 
 tion? The final judgment really comes to them when they die, and 
 so is simply the application of the same principle in time to the final 
 destiny. It is quite likely that these young people and children agreed 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 8i 
 
 with their parents regarding the report of the spies, and the determina- 
 tion not to go up and take the land. Their unbeHef was no doubt the 
 same, and they must have many of them joined in the murmering objec- 
 tion to doing what God told them to do. But the older ones of the 
 people were punished and the younger exempted. Not because the older 
 children at least were not blamable for their sin, but because God regarded 
 the difference in the maturity of the faculties as making a great differ- 
 ence in the degree of guilt. God was very angry and seemed about 
 to destroy the whole people, but Moses interceded, and the people were 
 simply deprived of the privilege of going into the promised land. He 
 declared that only the little ones for whom they professed such solicitude 
 should go in. If God had really destroyed the whole people as he at 
 first threatened to do, the children would of course have suffered natural 
 death along with the grown people; but the same difference of responsi- 
 bility must have obtained as was afterwards made, and there seems no 
 reason to doubt that this would have secured salvation to the little ones. 
 The promise of the land was typical of the promise of salvation in 
 heaven, and if any were saved as the true seed of Abraham it must have 
 lieen the infant children of Abraham who had not sinned after the like- 
 ness of Adam's transgression? Here we have the difference in the 
 responsibility established by God's own act and judgment, and this is a 
 very different thing from simply assuming such irresponsibility. An 
 interpretation of the second commandment has come down from the past 
 which makes the children to be held accountable for their faither's 
 sins; "but the interpretation is incorrect and contradicts the plain and 
 positive teaching of Ez. i8, which deals with the matter of the final 
 judgment. The meaning of the second commandment may be illustrated 
 by the supposed case above. If God had carried out his threat and 
 destroyed the people for their sin he would have in a true sense "visited 
 the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, but this would be by 
 the operation of natural laws, and would have no reference to final 
 accountability for sin. Another case of the application of the rule would 
 be where the parent entailed upon his children the physical disability 
 which he had induced in himself by his own imprudence and sin. This 
 furnishes no basis whatever for the assertion of infant damnation. 
 
 That the principle of exemption of the little children does apply to 
 the final judgment is corroborated by our Lord's teaching in Luke 12: 
 48 that "to whosoever much is given of him shall much be required." 
 The servant who knows his Lord's will and did it not shall be beaten 
 with many stripes, but he who knows it not and does things worth}' of 
 stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. His lack of knowledge was of 
 course not entirely innocent, but in the case of the infant the same 
 rule will apply by an a fortiori argument to exempt them from all punish- 
 ment. It is a great mistake therefore to say that the Scripture is silent on 
 so important a matter. Paul instanced an application of this truth to the 
 heathen world when he said to the Athenians upon the Areopagus, '"The 
 times of ignorance therefore God overlooked, but now he commandeth 
 
82 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 men that they should all (everyone) everywhere repent." As regards the 
 heathen who had never had the advantage of instruction in the things 
 of God Paul teaches still more definitely in Romans 2 : 12 that "as many 
 as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many 
 as have sinned under law shall be judged by law." Is it not easy to 
 draw an a fortiori argument from this to the infant? And yet they 
 tell us that the Bible is silent on the matter of infant salvation. 
 
 In Isaiah 5:3, 4 God appeals to men's natural sense of right to 
 support the principle that responsibility and opportunity must be com- 
 mensurate. "What could I have done more to my vineyard that I have 
 not done in it?" This- shows us that where there has been no seed-sowing 
 and preparation for a harvest the harvest is not to be expected. Any 
 other principle would necessitate a change in the parables of the pounds 
 and the talents, so that even if nothing was given in the way of capital 
 with which to trade, the Lord would yet come back and demand bricks 
 without straw all the same. God professes to be not unreasonable in his 
 judgments, he does not require the impossible. 
 
 GENESIS 4: 6, 7. 
 
 As illustrative of the same principle of judgment as regards the young 
 we have the incident recorded in Genesis 4: 6, 7. It is exceedingly 
 instructive as showing God's tender consideration for the first erring 
 child, or young man, under the dominance of a hot head. Cain was 
 already jealous of his brother because Abel's sacrifice and worship 
 had been accepted while his own will worship with an unbloody sacri- 
 fice had been rejected. This made him very angry. Our passage gives 
 us God's warning and remonstrance concerning the indulgence of such 
 a state of mind. "Why art thou wroth?" he says, "and why is thy 
 countenance fallen? If thou doest well, will it not be lifted up," or 
 more literally, "If thou doest well, is it not (natural or characteristic) 
 to lift it up?" His countenance was an infallible evidence of a bad 
 state of mind and heart. This was due to sin. "And if thou doest 
 not well sin croucheth at the door." Its evil desire is upon thee, but 
 do thou control it." Notice that here is a kindly warning concerning 
 evil passions experienced for the first time by any member of the human 
 race, for Cain was the first child to be born a sinner. God deals with 
 the erring boy as an earthly parent, if wise, would do. He appeals to 
 his consciousness and his conscience to show him that the source 
 of his unhappiness lies in his own sinful heart; and then he makes 
 his appeal to tHb better nature to induce him to control himself on 
 principles of righteousness. Self-control is the great lesson of life 
 which all need to learn, and here in the very beginning we have the 
 true psychology taught that sin in its beginning lies in the evil desire 
 of the heart. Here is the secret of that moral perversion, that death 
 which Paul tells us "passed unto all men." The word "desire" here 
 used is the same sense as that in Gen. 3 : 16: "Thy desire is (not shall be) 
 
CONFESSiOXAL REJ'ISION. 83 
 
 to thy husl)and," that is, he possesses your sinful desire which you 
 induced in him by your temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, and "he 
 will rule over thee" in a way which will be anything but pleasant and 
 desirable. 
 
 If Cain had been grown at the time of this incident, having a con- 
 science properly instructed as regards good and evil, we should expect 
 sharp rebuke instead of kindly warning; so that God's treatment in this 
 case is instructive as showing his sympathy with poor fallen human 
 nature in its weakness, especially when the faculties are still immature. 
 He gives Cain instruction in time to have prevented his great sin had 
 he only given due heed to it. This treatment of the first erring child 
 furnishes another argument a fortiori to show that God does not hold 
 little children to the responsibility of grown people. Cain was not 
 free from sin and responsibility for his improper worship of God. Adam 
 and Eve must have instructed Cain and Abel alike, and Cain must have 
 known as well as Abel that bloody offering was required "from the 
 firstlings of the flock with the fat thereof" at the end of the days that 
 is, in the appointed time, so there was no excuse for his arbitrary will 
 worship ; nor was he reasonable in being angry against God for not 
 accepting his offerings, much less justified in his mean jealousy and 
 hatred of Abel because he was more righteous tlian himself. But God 
 deals with the erring child very tenderly, and this shows that he recognizes 
 different degrees of guilt and makes due allowance for immature faculties. 
 If judgment is according to light, where there is no light there can be 
 no judgment, but mercy will rejoice against judgment. 
 
 Since the force of our argument depends upon the recognition of the 
 fact of Cain's youth, let it be noted that in addition to the mild treat- 
 ment he received his youth seems to be indicated by the fact that 
 the warning was entirely disregarded. He evidently decoyed his brother 
 out into the field apart from the house and killed him before his heat 
 of passion had had time to cool. That he was a hot-headed youth 
 seems to be indicated also by his impertinent reply to God's question. 
 "Where is Abel thy brother?" His reply, "Am I my brother's keeper." 
 seems to indicate thoughtlessness and impetuosity instead of the heaven 
 daring wickedness of the hardened sinner. His brooding over the non- 
 acceptance of his sacrifice seems to indicate that he was not at the time 
 so hardened as not to be disturbed by the lack of God's favor. We may 
 find a hint of his youth also in the fact that his marriage, recorded after 
 this, in the land of Nod, must have taken place long after the murder 
 and the flight from home. We think, therefore, that God's fatherly treat- 
 ment of him is clearly to be accounted for on the score of his inex- 
 perience, and, therefore, it bears upon our subject. The natural father- 
 hood which is here so impressively exercised to give warning of impend- 
 ing sin and danger will no doubt be exercised by God in "turning his 
 hand to the protection of the little ones," who on account of their 
 freedom from actual transgression will have the benefit of his fatherly 
 care unembarrassed by his judgeship. 
 
84 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 NUMBERS 31 : 18. 
 
 This passage appears to be in some sense a parallel to Num. 14: 31. 
 for this exempts children of a certain class from the sins and disabili- 
 ties of heathendom and actually incorporates them in a block into the 
 church. It is true that the male children are excluded from this favor, 
 and this no doubt because the integrity of the Jewish church demanded 
 it. The men when they developed from boyhood would become heads 
 of families, and if they retained their heathen ideas they would prove to 
 be a serious disturbance and menace to the purity of Israel, but the 
 girls could be incorporated without this danger to the church, and so 
 God directs that this class of the Midianite children be saved alive while 
 the balance of the people are exterminated. Those who were incorpo- 
 rated had to undergo ceremonial purification, and thus they were intro- 
 duced to the church by a sort of infant baptism. Of course, this indicated 
 that they had access to all the rights and privileges of the church, and 
 God's purpose must have embraced them equally with the Jews themselves 
 in his plan of salvation. This shows that salvation was not intended 
 from the first to be confined to the Jews, and that God was ready to 
 save at this time as many of the heathen as could be reached without 
 the overthrow of his plans for building up a church which should in time 
 be commissioned to proclaim his salvation to the world. His extension 
 of such privileges to the heathen children does not lose its moral signifi- 
 cance by the fact that only females were included. It goes to show 
 that God did not discriminate against the heathen children simply because 
 they were heathen children, and this is what the advocate of "elect 
 infants" insists upon doing. There is no reason then, in the nature of 
 the case, why God should confine his salvation to the infants of the 
 church to the exclusion of the heathen. These heathen children, although 
 not born with any right to baptism, were purified along with the men 
 of war who took them to adopt them into their families. Since the 
 church stands for salvation, may not the incident be considered typical of 
 God's granting salvation to the heathen cliildren? 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 31 : i^. U- 
 
 This conclusion is rendered more probable by Deut. 31 : 12, 13, 
 bv which those who were old enough to learn might receive instruction 
 in the truth of God. Once every seven years, in the year of release in 
 the feast of tabernacles, all the people were to be assembled to hear the 
 law read, and all the sojourners, were to be thus assembled "that they may 
 hear, and that they may learn and fear Jehovah your God. and observe to 
 do all the words of this law. and their children who have not known, 
 may hear and learn to fear Jehovah your God." Here is the separate 
 mention of the children, announcing a special reference in this meeting 
 to them. He designed that they should learn the truth to their salvation. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 85 
 
 We cannot say that God had a care for only those who were old enough 
 to be instructed, and why should not we learn from this passage his gen- 
 eral care for heathen children? Must he not take care of the dying 
 infants of the heathen just as he takes care of the same class connected 
 with the church ? 
 
 God's care for the heathen children is again taught by a passage in 
 Jonah. God reasons against the prophet Jonah, who was grievously dis- 
 appointed that his prophesied destruction of the city had not taken place. 
 He had evidently taken God's message too literally, and was more con- 
 cerned for his own reputation as a prophet than he was in the conversion 
 of Nineveh. Jonah's "gourd" having perished, he was made to feel and 
 manifest a very great regard for his own comfort, so much so that God 
 uses this as a means of bringing home to him his own selfishness and 
 inconsistency. "And should not I have regard for Nineveh, that great 
 city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot dis- 
 cern between their right hand and their left hand?" By "persons that 
 cannot discern between their right hand and their left" is indicated infants 
 of tender years who had no knowledge of good and evil. This saying 
 clearly implies that they were not accountable for the general wicked 
 condition of the city, and if they were not accountable, how can it be 
 conceived that had the destruction of the city actually taken place and 
 they had been involved in the general destruction, they would have been 
 held to a final account as sinners. If not accountable before the destruc- 
 tion, how could they be accountable after it? Of course, their exemption 
 from condemnation would not be a complete account of their salvation, 
 for sin is not merely a liability to punishment, but a condition of death, 
 but God intervenes in behalf of the little ones to give them life. If this 
 lesson of the exemption of the infants, so strikingly impressed upon 
 Jonah, had been properly appreciated by the world, we should have an 
 end to those false interpretations of the second commandment which 
 makes them to be held accountable for the fathers' sins. But God's 
 promise to take care of the little ones is definitely made in our next 
 passage. 
 
 ZECHERIAH 13: /. 
 
 "Awake. O my sword, against my shepherd, and (rather even) against 
 the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of Hosts: smite the shepherd 
 and the sheep will be scattered, but I will turn my hand to (or towards) 
 the little ones." Here we have a prophecy of Christ's atoning sacrifice 
 introduced in advance of the prophecy of judgment upon the wicked 
 and going to account for the fact that judgment would not fall upon the 
 whole people. We read, "but the third shall be left therein." Before 
 pronouncing this judgment it is specially declared that the little ones are 
 not included. Therefore, the third which escapes the threatened judgment 
 cannot include the little ones. Since, however, this prophecy is of judg- 
 ment upon the wicked as such, the exemption of the little ones places them 
 amongst the saved. Will it be said that the prophecy has reference to an 
 
86 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 earthly judgment because it says, "In all the land two parts shall be cut off 
 and die." The answer is, this is not sufficient to show that any literal, 
 natural destruction is meant, the reference to refining the third part in the 
 fire as silver shows that it is to be taken as strictly figurative and as hav- 
 ing reference to salvation. This being the case, the exemption of the little 
 ones is a direct prophecy of their salvation, and it is not to be denied 
 that it is the little ones out of the wicked that are expressly excepted. 
 If this is not a declaration that the dying infants of the heathen will be 
 saved, it will be impossible to furnish anything to satsify the advocates 
 of the infant damnation of the heathen children. This passage should be 
 brought to bear upon those in Matt. 18 and 19, for it shows that the 
 doctrine of infant salvation contained in those declarations of the Saviour 
 was an ancient doctrine instead of being new or strange. 
 
 ISAIAH 40: ir. 
 
 In connection with the passage in Zecheriah should be studied the 
 prophecy of Isaiah 40: 11, which seems to be a definite declaration of 
 Christ's attitude as Saviour towards the little ones. 
 
 It is true that Dr. Alexander sees in it a broader scope embracing 
 God's care over his people in Old Testament times, but the context is 
 strongly in favor of its definite reference to Christ in his character of 
 Saviour. This seems to be beyond doubt when it is reflected that the 
 message put into the mouth of the messenger is the advent of God him- 
 self. The advent of Christ the God-man was the only fulfilment of such 
 prophecy. According to John the evangelist, there could be no other : 
 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten God (critical 
 text) who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared (manifested) 
 him." (See Westcott and Hort.) He was announced by John's peculiar 
 message, "Behold Johovah cometh," and "Behold your God." This cor- 
 responds with the apostle's statement in the very beginning that the Word 
 was God, and with John the Baptist's testimony, "This is the Son of God."' 
 
 The fact that our passage is John's message is obscured by the neglect 
 of the Hebrew genitive (construct state). The speaker in v: 9 is "the 
 evangelist of Zion," not "the teller of good tidings to Zion." "Evangelist"' 
 corresponds exactly with the meaning of the Hebrew word, and it is the 
 only single English word that does. The evangelist of Zion was directed 
 to "get up into a high mountain" that from this exalted pulpit he might 
 proclaim the world-wide message announcing the Saviour of the world. It 
 is true it was to be announced first to the "cities of Judah," but it is also 
 true that it was the same message spoken of in verse third in its world- 
 wide aspect. "The voice of one that crieth. Prepare ye in the wilderness 
 the way of Jehovah, make level (or straight) in the desert a highway 
 for our God." It was intended that "all flesh" should behold the revealed 
 glory of Jehovah. Of this Jehovah, who can be none other than the 
 Christ, it is said : "He will feed his flock like a shepherd (or shepherd 
 his flock), he will gather the lambs in his arms and carry them in his 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 87 
 
 bosom." His gathering the lambs in his arms and carrying them in his 
 bosom expresses the tenderest personal care for the little ones. It clearly 
 implies infant salvation, and yet they tell us the Bible is silent on this 
 subject. 
 
 THE WORDING OF THE CLAUSE. 
 
 The elect infant clause should be changed in its wording so as to 
 express clearly a belief in general infant salvation. The word "elect" 
 will have to be dropped, for it is in its nature a limiting word when 
 used, as generally understood, to draw a line in the class of dying infants. 
 It seems more natural to take "elect" as a characterization of the whole 
 of the two exceptional classes of dying infants and idiots, but this has 
 not been the accepted view, and any other use of elect necessarily implies 
 the counterpart of the non-elect element of these same classes. It is 
 impossible to use a limiting word without drawing limits, that is, making 
 a division in these classes. The only remedy, therefore, is to omit the 
 word. But in some other way it must be indicated that these classes are 
 treated of in this chapter as divisions of the elect, for it takes these to 
 make the number of the elect complete. Moreover, they are exceptional 
 classes because not included in the first statement concerning all the elect 
 effectually called "by his word and Spirit." Section 3, as it stands, is a sav- 
 ing clause which is necessary to make the first statement accurate, because 
 it is not true that God effectually calls by his word and Spirit "all those 
 whom he predestinated unto life'.' The two classes in question are saved 
 without the word, and without the outward call. This should be stated 
 in immediate connection with the first statement, if that is allowed to 
 stand unmodified, instead of being placed in the third section where its 
 relation to section one is lost sight of. It might be stated thus : "The 
 whole number of the elect embraces two classes who are incapable of 
 being called by the word, namely, infants dying in infancy, and older per- 
 sons born with impaired intellects. These are saved by the Spirit alone 
 in regeneration, who is just as able to work this change without means 
 as with the aid of outward instrumentalities." This gives a more definite 
 description than to say that they are incapable of the outward call. To 
 say that they are "born with impaired intellects" shuts out the criminally 
 insane. If idiots are not to be directly named, the designation should 
 be sufficiently specific to be easily understood. Besides this, the method 
 of their salvation by a direct application of the Spirit's saving work 
 should be stated, for this is the principal part of the statement. To say 
 that they are "saved by the Spirit" is not sufficiently definite. Since 
 the Spirit must give the life to infants just as to adults, in advance of 
 faith and repentance of which these are the expression, there is no 
 excuse for the indefinite phrase, "worketh when and where and how he 
 pleaseth." 
 
 If it is thought best to treat these exceptional classes in a separate sec- 
 tion, it should be brought into immediate connection by the omission 
 of section two which contains no new matter except the easily misunder- 
 
88 INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 stood statement that men are "passive" under the call. It rests upon a 
 false analogy comparing the spiritual life to a new creation in a literal 
 sense. But the spiritual life is not a literal creation but the renovation 
 of the moral dispositions, and to speak of being thus renovated while 
 passive is to talk in contradictory language. How can a body be rightly 
 disposed without being disposed at all? This is to talk nonsense. This 
 language should be eliminated because it is generally misunderstood as 
 excluding any acting of the human spirit; and this is false. 
 
 DR. WEBB'S INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS. 
 
 By way of giving emphasis to the necessity for eliminating "elect" 
 as a characterization of dying infants, let us examine Dr. Webb's treat- 
 ment of this question. On page 284 of his Theology of Infant Salva- 
 tion, he makes a classification of (a) elect infants, and (b) non-elect 
 infants. Since this covers the whole of humanity, the term elect infants 
 is made equivalent to the elect in general, and, therefore, the word 
 "infants" has no significance. It might just as well be left out, because 
 infants are persons, and "elect persons," or simply "the elect," would be 
 a more natural expression of this thought. If "elect infants" in the 
 Confession stood by itself, this would be perhaps a possible interpreta- 
 tion, but such is not the case. "Dying in infancy" is the description of 
 a particular class of infants, all others being left out of the thought; 
 and elect as a further modification of the idea makes a division of this 
 class into elect and non-elect. The terms by this restriction take on an 
 entirely different meaning from the purely abstract and broad division 
 which Dr. Webb attributes to Calvinism. It is useless to introduce the 
 term Calvinism here as a term to juggle with, for Theology in general 
 makes no such division. There is no call for such division of mankind 
 at the time of infancy. 
 
 To say that "elect infants," whatever comprehension the term may 
 have, share the atonement, and regeneration goes without saying. Since 
 the election spoken of is an election to salvation, it goes without saying 
 that they are saved in the only way that men can be saved. These add 
 nothing to the analysis or interpretation. Now our author goes on to 
 say: "The critic of the Calvinist insistently and naggingly asks the 
 question. What would be the final fate of an infant in class (b), if he 
 should die in infancy? Not waiting for the Calvinist to reply, that the 
 question is purely hypothetical and impossible, the critic answers his own 
 question by announcing to the world, (a) that Calvinism admits that 
 some non-elect, non-redeemed, non-regenerated infants die in their 
 infancy, and (b) that Calvinists teach that there are 'infants in hell a 
 span long.' This puts into the critic's mouth something which he never 
 thought of, much less asked, for he goes on no such analysis and under- 
 standing of 'elect dying infants.' If elect' infants die infants, how can 
 the conclusion be reached that the non-elect class necessarily lives on? 
 This is a now sequitur. Therefore, this dodge is unavailing, and the 
 
CONFESSIOXAL REV IS 10 X. 89 
 
 question is not one of analysis but of interpretation as to what is meant 
 by "elect infants dying in infancy?'" 
 
 This attempted dodge of the Calvinist is in conflict with the preceding 
 context in section one, which speaks of the whole of the elect as persons 
 called by the word. What would be the propriety of making a second 
 reference to the same division of humanity under the designation of 
 elect infants? Again, if dying infants are all elect, where is the utility 
 of such a classification? Then, why not acknowledge that only those 
 who die in infancy are styled "elect infants"? Nobody knows that any 
 others are such when infants, why talk about something we know nothing 
 about? If Calvinists teach that "as a matter of fact no reprobate infant 
 does or can die in its infancy," then clearly only those who do die at this 
 stage of life should be termed "elect infants." Otherwise the word 
 "infants" has no significance. 
 
 Dr. Webb says: "Of elect infants, some die in infancy and some grow 
 to maturity." Then says that the former are saved "because they were 
 elected by the Father" and "that they would have believed . . . had 
 they lived to moral maturity." All this is beside the mark, and is simply 
 truism if known to be elect. He says, p. 285 : "Of reprobate infants it is 
 held (a), that none of this class die in infancy, but (b) that they all come 
 to maturity and express the evil that is in them by sundry voluntary and 
 conscious acts of transgression." 
 
 But the trouble is, this is the author's own gratuitous supposition which 
 he gives nothing to sustain. The only hint that he here gives of the 
 mental process by which he arrives at his conclusion is found on the fol- 
 lowing page (286), where he tells us there "must be a difference between 
 the death of a conscious and an unconscious being." This means that 
 he simply assumes the point which he wishes to prove; this, after boldly 
 acknowledging that the burden of proof rested upon him. What follows 
 shows that by "unconscious" he means an inability to apprehend the 
 meaning of penal suffering. Since we have before spoken of this attempted 
 explanation, we need not repeat it here. The hypothesis that there can 
 be no penalty inflicted upon those who are unable to understand its nature, 
 is itself a gratuitous supposition offered to support another supposition. 
 This is the flimsy logic by which the doctrine of infant salvation is sus- 
 tained in this pretentious work. It reminds one of the saying of the Latin 
 poet, "The mountains laboured and a ridiculous mouse was brought 
 forth." 
 
 But the negative argument by which the author of the Theology of 
 Infant Salvation tries to avoid the implication of non-elect dying infants 
 is equally unsatisfactory. On page 309 he tells us that "All anti-Calvinists 
 assail it (the elect infant clause) as grossly incorrect in fact, and fiercely 
 arraign it as implicating that some non-elect infants die in infancy and 
 finally perish." He contends that they reach this result "by playing upon 
 the phraseology of this great document." 
 
 His answer is contained in three so-called "installments," but instead 
 of being separate points they are all virtually one and the same, which con- 
 
90 INFANT, SALVATION AND 
 
 sists of a denial of the correctness of the inference. If it is a neces- 
 sary inference it is both correct and "legitimate." Here again we have 
 merely a repetition of unsupported assertions. His first assertion 
 is that the inference charged against the confessional clause is "their 
 own inference." This means, of course, that it is incorrect and not such 
 as a sound reasoner would draw. This is a pretty bold statement since 
 he himself says above that "all anti-Calvinists" draw this conclusion. 
 His claim, therefore, is that only Calvinists have discernment enough to 
 understand the language, and logical power enough to draw a correct con- 
 clusion from it. It would hardly be possible to make a more conceited 
 claim, or a more self-destructive contention. Not any more powerful 
 argument for revision of the clause can be constructed than his asser- 
 tion that nobody but Calvinists can understand the language. What is a 
 creed for but to make other people understand what we believe. If they 
 can't understand our language, common sense dictates that the very pur- 
 pose of a creed cries out against the retention of such language. It makes 
 comparatively little difference whether the claim that it is incorrectly 
 understood be true or not, the stubborn fact which is acknowledged by 
 Dr. Webb himself is, that it is not understood as conveying the meaning 
 desired. His claim in this connection that "The text of the document 
 nowhere from beginning to end asserts that any non-elect infants die in 
 infancy," is just another way of asserting that nobody but Calvinists 
 can understand the language. The repetition which is contained in the 
 assertion that the "confession is absolutely silent everywhere about non- 
 elect infants" is nothing more than the impertinent assertion that nobody 
 but Calvinists can draw an inference. This ignores the fact that many 
 Calvinists themselves see and acknowledge the justice of the inference. 
 We answer the assertion by the counter-assertion that if "elect" limit the 
 class spoken of, it is not merely a correct but a necessary inference from 
 the singling out of an elect class of dying infants. It of necessity creates 
 in the mind the conception of the remainder of the broad class of dying 
 infants which by antithesis must be the non-elect just as certainly as they 
 failed to participate in the election. This places the emphasis upon "elect" 
 while "dying in infancy" is taken in the attributive or explanatory sense, 
 making the phrase equivalent to "elect dying infants." Of course, if a 
 certain number of dying infants are exclusively chosen to salvation, the 
 balance are not so chosen and are non-elect and not saved. The only 
 question then concerns the use of the word "elect," whether it is employed 
 to limit the subject, namely, dying infants, or whether it be intended 
 as an attributive of the whole class of dying infants. The other inter- 
 pretation which is so common and which is adopted by Dr. Webb we can- 
 not regard as at all tenable. It takes "dying in infancy" as a limiting 
 phrase which marks out a smaller number from the larger class of "elect 
 infants," the latter being taken as equivalent to "the elect." This appears 
 to the writer to be exceedingly unnatural and untenable, because the 
 designation of the whole of the elect as "infants" is little short of absurd. 
 Why use the word at all when "the elect" would express it both more 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 91 
 
 clearly and more elegantly. We see no escape from the conclusion that 
 the phrase dying in infancy is used in an explanatory sense to indicate 
 what is meant by "elect infants." There is no propriety in speaking of 
 grown people as "elect infants," but it is very natural that having used the 
 term "elect infants" it should be immediately guarded from misunder- 
 standing by definition. 
 
 Dr. Webb's third so-called "installment," in which he seeks to show 
 that the inference of non-elect infants is illegitimate because the section 
 designs to explain the method of infant salvation, is beside the mark. It 
 has no pertinency to the case. The question of who are spoken of as being 
 saved, and the question of how these are saved, are entirely separate 
 questions. 
 
 Such a perspicacious thinker as R. L. Dabney perceived clearly that 
 no attempted explanation can give relief from the charge of teaching 
 possible infant damnation; and so, in his review of Bledsoe, he devotes 
 considerable space to defending the justice of infant damnation, — how 
 successfully need not here be pronounced upon. But while Dabney thought 
 the Bible silent on universal infant salvation, and while he, therefore, 
 sought to justify infant damnation, he winds up his discussion of this 
 question by the statement that "No man can prove from the Scriptures 
 that any infant, even dying a pagan, is lost." We say, then, by parity of 
 reasoning nobody can prove that there is an elect class of dying infants. 
 And if so, when we talk about a special limited class of dying infants, 
 we talk about something we know nothing about. 
 
 Dabney tried very hard to avoid the charge of Bledsoe against the 
 supralapsarian divines of the Calvinistic school, of teaching infant damna- 
 tion, but his defense by which he seeks to make the whole brunt of this 
 charge fall upon Gomarus and Twisse to the relief of the Confession, is 
 not successful. It matters little that Turretin has opposed such "ultraisms," 
 the Confession is unhappily inconsistent with itself, for some .of its most 
 objectionable statements have a suparlapsarian ring, and undoubtedly had 
 their origin in the supralapsarian Lambeth confession. But without press- 
 ing this matter, it may be said that the implication of possible infant 
 damnation itself involves the supralapsarian theory, for if God consigns 
 to perdition a great part of the human race before they become of intelli- 
 gence to understand the invitations of the gospel, are they not in effect 
 created to be damned? The short way and best way to put an end to all 
 such charges and implications is to change the wording of the clause. 
 
 REVISION OF CHAPTER SEVEN. 
 
 In connection with our study of the covenant of works, attention W9S 
 called to the very general sense in which the word covenant is used in 
 chapter 7 of the Confession. And besides this, the apparent dis- 
 crepancy between the correct statement of the Larger Catechism and that 
 of the Confession itself was pointed out. This want of harmony, and the 
 
Cj2 INFANT SAU'ATION AND 
 
 ambiguity which gives rise to the theological conception of the covenant 
 of works, should be remedied. It is of little worth to remedy the elect 
 infant clause while leaving other and more far-reaching errors or 
 ambiguities in the Confession. Let us see how the confessional state- 
 ment of chapter seven might be harmonized with the superior statement 
 of the Larger Catechism. It was said in the early part of this discussion 
 that tlie Larger Catechism used the word "covenant" in the, sense of a 
 dispensation of God's providence. We might say that it is identified with 
 the law itself as a dispensation of Providence. Question 97 speaks of the 
 regenerate as "delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works so 
 as they are thereby neither justified or condemned." It must be admitted, 
 therefore, that the covenant here is the law considered as a rule of life. 
 The language is somewhat misleading, implying as it seems to do, that for 
 the world it was ofifered as a means of justification or of condemnation, 
 which is not true, because, as we have insisted, it never was offered as 
 a means of (final) justification. But the point is now that law in this 
 aspect is termed indescriminately a "covenant of works" and a "cove- 
 nant of life." The section then goes on to explain other purposes in the 
 giving of the law, which go to emphasize its providential character. It 
 is this providential aspect which justified, if anything can, the use of the 
 word "covenant." If now it is clearly recognized that this is the perfectly 
 general use of the word which does not conflict with its special use of a 
 promise to which God attaches his oath, no harm can be done by its 
 use. That the Confession itself uses "covenant of works" in the sense 
 of "dispensation of law," like the Larger Catechism is clear from Sec. 
 6, Ch. 19, which employs the same language as that of Qu. 97, except that 
 the phrase, "to be thereby justified or condemned," carries still more 
 clearly the objectionable inference, that it is offered to the world in 
 general as a means of final justification. (To avoid this, "continually" 
 should be added before "justified.") The impression is strengthened by 
 the statement in Sec. 2, Ch. 7, that "therein life was promised to Adam, 
 and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedi- 
 ence." It doubtless only means that life was assured to Adam and 
 similarly to every member of the race, so long as perfect obedience was 
 rendered. But the word "promised" gives rise to the idea of future 
 instead of present reward, and creates the impression that "eternal life 
 or a condition of indefectibility is meant. The inference is unwarranted 
 and erroneous and should be avoided. This can be easily done by sub- 
 stituting "assured" for "promised," at the same time striking out "in him." 
 "Through him" would be correct perhaps, but both are superfluous and had 
 better be left out. Only one other change, and that is the insertion of 
 "perpetual." This makes the harmony perfect and puts the section 
 beyond criticism. 
 
 Section three should be corrected also. The expression, "made himself 
 incapable of life," is not happy as expressing the condition subsequent to 
 the fall. It is not accurate any more than to say that the suicide has 
 made himself incapable of life. "Incapable" is not the word to describe 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 93 
 
 a condition of deatli. it is nonsense. It should read '"Man having by his 
 fall brought himself into a condition of spiritual death, etc." 
 
 But more serious still is the criticism to be made of the last statement 
 of Sec. 3. which apparently confines the promise of the Holy Spirit to 
 "those that are ordained unto life." This is not the language of Scripture, 
 which specially promises the Holy Spirit "to them that ask him." Luke 
 11: 13. Even though it should turn out that those who ask are precisely 
 such as were ordained unto life, this does not justify the substitution 
 of a theological for a scriptural statement, for the fact that they come 
 to be in practice the same is not by any means apparent to all those to 
 whom the promise is made, for it is intended for the world and not for 
 an unknown limited number. But perhaps some will be inclined to ask 
 whether the confessional statement is not justified by Ezek. 26: 26, 27, 
 which is given as a proof-text to sustain it. We do not think so, for 
 while it is true that regeneration is referred to in the promise of Ezekiel 
 36, it is also true that it was spoken to the natural Israel in their state 
 of apostasy, therefore, the promise was intended for the wicked as well 
 as the righteous, in other words, for the natural Israel as a people instead 
 of the spiritual Israel as such. Therefore, it does not justify the confes- 
 sional viewpoint, but just the reverse. This is one of the most objection- 
 able statements in the whole range of the Confession. By all means let 
 it be corrected. 
 
 While this is being done the first section should be revised, because its 
 statement is misleading if not positively untrue. 
 
 How can the distance between the creature and God be a barrier to 
 man's enjoyment of God unless that distance be conceived as a moral 
 one caused by man's fall? If this is what is meant by the distance 
 being so great, we must say that the language is so indefinite as to be 
 misleading, for this must apply first to the state before the fall, and, 
 therefore, to the natural relation. In this view of the matter the state- 
 ment seems to be a gratuitous piece of philosophy, which is positively 
 false. On the other hand, must it not be necessarily true that so long 
 as man maintained his holiness he must have enjoyed his correct relation 
 to his Creator and Lord. But sin came in as the separating force which 
 robbed man of his happiness by disturbing his relation ot God and his 
 holy law. Holiness would itself have constituted man's "blessedness and 
 reward," just as sin constituted its own misery and punishment. Further- 
 more, the word "condescension" is too indefinite to describe the attitude 
 of forbearance and grace which led God to withhold his wrath and 
 devise a remedy for man by which he might be brought back to his estate 
 of happiness and holiness by being restored to harmonious relations to 
 God. Then to say that God was "pleased to express his condescension 
 by way of covenant" is too indefinite, for the word "covenant" is not 
 easily understood without definition, as we know by experience in our 
 church in which, as we have seen, the theologians define it in a very 
 different way from the sense intended here. \\'e have pointed out the two 
 separate and distinct meanings, and yet here they are embraced under 
 
94 IXFAXT SALVATION AXD 
 
 the single word "covenant" in the abstract. It would seem that the first 
 statement should confine itself to the administration of grace after the 
 fall, since the subject is not creation but redemption. Therefore, no need 
 to apply the word "covenant" to the relation of man to God in the 
 Gardon of Eden prior to the fall. This would avoid the confusion of two 
 separate meanings of the same word in close connection without definition. 
 
 DOES GENERAL INFANT SALVATION CONFLICT WITH THE 
 DOCTRINE OF ELECTION? 
 
 The impression exists in the minds of some who have undertaken to 
 write on the subject of infant salvation, that the doctrine of universal 
 infant salvation conflicts with the doctrine of an unconditional election. 
 This is a mistake, the error being in the wrong understanding of the 
 word "conditional." This leads to an examination of the clause of chapter 
 three, which teaches unconditional election. And let us inquire whether 
 this misunderstanding as to the relation of election to conditions does 
 not grow out of the ambiguity of the clause in question. The clause reads: 
 "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all sup- 
 posed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw 
 it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." 
 This was formulated to oppose the opposite, or supposedly opposite, 
 doctrine of conditional election. But we think that the two are not really 
 opposite, but different views of truth which are not really in conflict. 
 What is meant when it is said that God "hath not decreed anything be- 
 cause he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon 
 such conditions." The conditions are such as have relation to the subject, 
 and the meaning is that God's decree of election does not wait upon, so 
 as to be shaped by, previously conceived conditions. The matter is at 
 bottom only a question of our analysis of God's thought. Now, while it is 
 true that God's purpose to effectuate anything must come first in thought, 
 it is also true that that purpose is embodied in a plan which is compre- 
 hensive and takes into consideration the operation of all the second causes 
 which come into the working of the plan. This is really all that the 
 Arminian contends for — an election which is not divorced from God's 
 knowledge of second causes. To speak of these second causes as "con- 
 tingent," as is done in Sec. i, is hardly in place in a statement which 
 speaks of the decree from God's point of view. Contingency respects 
 only man's viewpoint and imperfect knowledge, and does not apply to 
 God's knowledge at all. It would be better probably to say "nor is the 
 place and influence of second causes taken away but rather established." 
 
 It would be well to exscind Sec. 2 altogether, for it is really in con- 
 flict with Sec. 7, which tells us that the "rest of mankind," the non- 
 elect wicked, were "ordained to dishonor and wrath for their sin." If we 
 have a relative or conditional reprobation, why should election take no 
 account of character? And yet this is the impression that is made upon 
 the uninitiated by Sec. 5 also, which speaks of the "predestinated" as 
 
CONFESSIONAL REJISION. 95 
 
 "chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of God's mere free grace and 
 love, without any foresight of faith or good works," "as conditions or 
 causes moving him from thereunto." This is the practical application 
 of the statement of Sec. 2, and it shows how misleading is the purely 
 abstract view of the decree. The phrase, "chosen in Christ unto ever- 
 lasting glory," appears to stand for salvation, while the succeeding 
 clauses announce that it proceeds from God's love without any foresight 
 of faith or good works." This is seemingly a perverted view of salva- 
 tion which asserts a salvation "without faith or good works." This is 
 an abstract and supposedly philosophical statement of election, which is 
 misleading because it is so different from the scriptural view which asserts 
 that God hath "chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the 
 Spirit and belief of the truth." This is the practical view as opposed to 
 the abstract and philosophical view. 
 
 Since section i treated upon the subject of the Decrees, section 3 
 ought properly to treat that special form of decree termed "election," 
 but it is introduced with the rather inappropriate word "predestina- 
 tion." "Some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life." 
 The word "foreordained" is used in connection with that portion of the 
 world which have their portion in "everlasting death." These words 
 might well exchange places, for "foreordain" is the word which corre- 
 sponds to the meaning of the Greek word used in connection with the sal- 
 vation of the righteous. It is so translated in the Revised Version, and so 
 it may well now displace the less appropriate word "predestinate." The 
 word "foreordain" calls to mind something more than the bare fact of 
 the purposed end, the salvation of the righteous. It reminds us that the 
 work is of God, who by his arrangement of second causes and the super- 
 intendence of his Holy Spirit, brings about the desired result. But "pre- 
 destinate" is better used in connection with the destiny of the wicked, 
 because God does not actively decree or accomplish their adverse attitude 
 and fate, and it would simply express the fact of the fate which they 
 are allowed to work out for themselves. The persistent cavil against 
 the creed on this matter is to be accounted for by the extremely brief 
 statement of election which does not make such necessary distinction, 
 and the failure makes a false impression which misrepresents God, for 
 he expressly says : "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." 
 Therefore, the criticism is that here again we have the bare bones of 
 theology, instead of the statement of practical religion. A clear distinc- 
 tion should be made between God's active decree to give a blessing and his 
 permissive decree to permit an evil. 
 
 The following is suggested as a scriptural statement : "Before the 
 foundation of the world,^ God purposed" for the praise of the glory of 
 his grace,'' to elect* and call" certain members of the fallen race of man° 
 to eternal life, by the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,^ 
 while at the same time purposing to suffer the wicked,* by their own 
 self-will and rebellion," to fit themselves" for the destruction of ungodly 
 
gt. IXFAXT SAW ATI ON AND 
 
 men/' in tlie da\' of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment 
 of God."^^' 
 
 Under reference i quote or cite Eph. 1:5:2 Thess. 2: 13; Matt. 25: 34; 
 John 17: 22, 24; I Pet. i: 20; Rev. 13; 8; Rev. 17: 8; Cf. 20: 15; 2 
 Tim. I : 9. 
 
 Ref. 2 — Eph. 3: 10, II ; Eph. I : 9, 11 ; Rom. 8: 28; 2 Tim. i : 9. 
 
 Ref. 3 — Eph. i: 6, 12, 14; Rom. 3: 24-26; Rom. 4: 10; Rom. 5: 2, 
 15, 17; Luke 2: 30, 32; cf. Luke 2: 14: Luke 19: 38; Rom. 9: 23; 2 Cor. 
 I : 20 ; 2 Cor. 3 : 8, 9 ; 2 Cor. 4:15; Phil, i : 11 ; Col. i : 26. 27 ; Rev. 19 : 7. 
 
 Ref. 4 — Eph. i: 4; 2 Thess. 2: 13; Rom. 9: 11; Rom. 11: 5, 7; Matt. 
 24; 22. 31; Col. 3: 12; Rom. 8: 33: i Pet. 1:2; Gen. 17: 7; Jer. 30: 22; 
 Jer. 31 : 3- 
 
 Ref. 5 — Rom. 8: 30; 2 Thess. 2: 14; i Cor. i : 24 ; Rev. 17: 14; i Cor. 
 1:9; Heh. 9: 15. 
 
 Ref. 6 — Rom. 9: 11, 16: Rom. 8: 2/, 28; cf. v. 2^; Isa. 48: 8-12; Eph. 
 I : 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2 : 13, 14. 
 
 Ref. 7 — 2 Thess. 2: 13; Rom. i : 6, 7 ; i Cor. 1:2; Jude. i; Rev. 17: 14; 
 I Pet. i: I, 2, 5; John 17: 2, 3. 12; John 6: 39. 40; i Pet. 2: 9; Jer. 
 30: 9- 
 
 Ref. 8 — Acts 14: 16; 2 Pet. 2: 1-9; Rom. 9 : 22 ; Jude 4: Jer. 30: it; 
 Isa. 14: 24-26; Isa. 13: 11; Isa. 51: 5, 6; Jer. 50: 45; Jer. 51: 7-9. 
 
 Ref. 9 — Psalm 2; Matt. 22: 5. 6. 
 
 Ref. 10 — Rom. 9: 22; Rom. 2: 8, 9; 2 Pet. 2:9, 10; Rom. 2:5; Rom. 
 I : 18-21. 
 
 Ref. II — 2 Pet. 3: 7. 9; Rom. 2: 8. 
 
 Ref. 12 — Rom. 2: 3. 
 
 The above seems to be a fair statement, together witii abundant cita- 
 tions, of the doctrine of election, together with God's purpose regarding 
 the persistently disobedient and unbelieving and rebellious subjects of his 
 kingdom who despise his goodness and reject his offer of mercy. The 
 words, "Before the foundation of the world," quoted from Eph. i : 4, 
 may be understood of an absolute past eternity, of election considered 
 as an integral part of the Decrees ; but the expression, "purpose to elect 
 and call," preserves the proper place of election as simply a part of the 
 decree to be placed in its proper relation to other parts. The "call" 
 naturally goes along with it, for this is the method of carrying out the 
 decree of election, which is God's purpose to save. That the choice is 
 said to be from the "fallen race of man," preserves the proper view-point 
 as sublapsarian instead of supralapsarian, and this the Scriptures 
 abundantly support. Or perhaps it is better to say that the two apparently 
 conflicting views are harmonized in the only true way of making them 
 .conform to the facts of God's thought. It avoids the error of making 
 God's ultimate design obliterate the details of the plan. No fault can 
 be found with the phraseology, "purpose to elect and call," for what is 
 God's purpose to elect l)ut his decree to make an actual choice out of a 
 race of real men. just as he calls his elect out of an existing humanity. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 97 
 
 Even God cannot make an actual choice of a non-entity, and nobody with 
 common sense is misled by the apostle's language when he says : "He 
 chose us in him before the foundation of the world," or when he speaks 
 of grace as having been "given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal," 
 any more than he has a right to be deceived when it is said that the 
 "Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world." Peter makes the 
 necessary distinction when he speaks of Christ as "foreknown, indeed, 
 before the foundation of the world, but manifested at the end of the times 
 for your sake." Paul makes the above distinction when he speaks of 
 Christians having been "called according to his purpose" ; and this expres- 
 sion justifies the language, "purpose to call"; and "purpose to elect" 
 simply makes a similar distinction between God's purpose in his unit plan 
 and election which must logically come after the decree or purpose to 
 create man and to permit his fall, not to speak of any further matters 
 of arrangement. 
 
 The phrase "by (instrumental en) or in sanctification of the Spirit and 
 belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 2: 13), concerns the choice of election 
 just as much if it be connected grammatically with "salvation," as if it 
 be made to modify "chose" directly, for it explains that the salvation 
 is that which constitutes the matter of the choice. It is, therefore, mani- 
 festly incorrect to consider election purely in the abstract, as section 5 does. 
 The statement of the subject above made so agrees with the facts and the 
 teaching of Scripture that even the Arminian will hardly be able to say 
 aught against it. Moreover, it covers the whole ground, so that there is 
 no place for either sections 4 or 5. 
 
 Sections 4 and 5 should be omitted altogether, for both are ex- 
 ceedingly misleading and objectionable. Section 4 should be elimi- 
 nated because it mixes the human with the divine viewpoint, and this 
 works confusion. To say that the number of the elect is "so cetrain and 
 definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished," if not an inane 
 truism, is postively false. God's purpose, it is true, lies back of and 
 secures his foreknowledge of men's salvation. It would be just as sensi- 
 ble to speak of God's foreknowledge as being neither increased or dimin- 
 ished, as to make his assertion regarding his purpose; and it has been 
 already sufficiently explained that election is a choice of individuals or 
 persons, if that needs explanation. 
 
 The difficulty is that the statement starts out with the divine view- 
 point and winds up with the human viewpoint. If God's purpose concern- 
 ing the number of the elect could be changed it would be either no 
 purpose at all or he would be defeated in effectuating his purpose. Since 
 God's foreknowledge goes along with his purpose, it is needless to make 
 the assertion that his foreknowledge is correct, for if it is not correct, it 
 isn't foreknowledge at all. If it is foreknowledge, of course it cannot 
 be changed. But the question arises. What is the use of making so sense- 
 less a statement? And so, a fatalistic result is reached as the most 
 plausible solution, that it is intended to assert that it matters not what 
 second causes may operate or what men may do or not do, they cannot 
 
gS INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 change the decree, which is either for or against them ; or to quote the 
 words of a caviler : "You'll be damned if you do, and you'll be damned 
 if you don't." This is positively false, and a caricature of the gospel. 
 This misleading statement comes to us from the Lambeth articles, and 
 from a supralapsarian source. It should by all means be eliminated. 
 There is no good in it, but much of harm, which experience shows to be 
 very real. 
 
 The fatalistic impression is deepened when the next section appears 
 to express the fatalism in other language and to assert that men will 
 be saved without reference to their characters, "without any foresight of 
 faith or good works, or perseverence in either of them, or any other 
 thing in the creature as conditions or causes moving him thereunto." 
 This is from the same mint as the last, and is the product of a false 
 viewpoint and logic, for there is nothing in Scripture which justifies such 
 assertions. It is a perversion of the Scriptures resting upon an evidently 
 false interpretation of Rom. 9: 11, 13. 16, which is quoted to sustain 
 it. Paul clearly has a totally different object in view when he makes 
 his observations upon the case of Esau and Jacob. He does attribute 
 Jacob's salvation to God's foreknowledge and purpose, such being pro- 
 phetically declared to the mother, but he does not by any means say that 
 the fate of either was outside the operation of second causes, much less 
 that it was irrespective of their foreseen characters. The very opposite 
 is clear from the Old Testament context of the passage quoted from 
 Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He does not at all assert 
 that he hated Esau irrespectively of his character. Such statements need 
 to be cleared out of the Confession at the earliest possible date. 
 
 DOES THE DOCTRINE OF GENERAL INFANT SALVATION 
 CONFLICT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT? 
 
 By the doctrine of the atonement is meant the true Scriptural doc- 
 trine of the atonement as it regards the extent of the atonement or the 
 intent of Christ's propitiation. It seems evident that the limited view 
 of infant salvation is encouraged, and perhaps fostered, by a limited 
 atonement, although it may not be easy to show that the two things are 
 really logically connected. It does not logically follow from a limite',1 
 atonement which confines the benefit of Christ's death to the elect strictly, 
 for possibly it may turn out that all dying infants are of the elect, as 
 believers in infant salvation are convinced is the fact. In this case the 
 limited atonement would not affect them. But if it be doubted that they 
 are all elect, and this is the position of the doubters concerning universal 
 infant salvation, then the idea that the infants of the heathen may be lost 
 is encouraged by the opinion that Christ's atonement is strictly limited to 
 the elect. If because non-elect the class in question has no interest in 
 the atonement, of course it is the more certain that such infants are lost. 
 The conclusion thus rests upon a supposition which is doubtful. But 
 this indirect aid or encouragement which the doctrine of infant damnation 
 receives must be regarded as in practice not inconsiderable. 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. 99 
 
 It is not the purpose of this treatise to review the Confession and point 
 out all the matters which call for revision, but to call attention only to 
 those which are connected with the particular question of revision which 
 is already before the church. The limits of this treatise have about been 
 reached, and the treatment of this last question must be brief. Fortunatelj', 
 the matter of atonement is raised in the third chapter of the Confession, 
 and in the section next following the one last examined, namely, Sec. 6. 
 
 There can be no objection to the first sentence of section 6. Indeed, 
 here is the word "foreordained" used in the very sense contended for 
 in section 3, covering all the means of salvation. This is the scrip- 
 tural view which follows up the decree of election with the purpose to use 
 the necessary means to accomplish the desired end. The criticism con- 
 cerns mainly, if not exclusively, the last sentence which clearly uses' 
 "redeemed" in the sense of the atonement or propitiation, and expressly 
 limits the efifects of this to the elect. It is not denied for one moment 
 that there was a special reference in the atonement to the elect, for the 
 Saviour was to see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, and this was 
 implied in the very purpose of redemption. But the point is that the 
 wording of the last sentence makes the impression that the reference is 
 to "the elect only." This is not true, for otherwise the invitations of the 
 gospel could not be made in good faith the individual sinners of the 
 world. If Christ did not in a true sense die for the world, the world 
 could not be told to come to the gospel feast prepared for them. But 
 this is the principal part of the gospel which the church is commis- 
 sioned to proclaim. How, then, dare the church obscure this message 
 by statements or speculations regarding God's secret purposes to the 
 exclusion of the main commission? The word put into the mouth of 
 the church, "whosoever will let him come," certainly implies that a propitia- 
 tion has been provided for every soul to whom the message is conveyed. 
 But the provision is not all, it must be accepted, even as the invitation 
 to the feast and the partaking of the feast are entirely different things. 
 
 To say then, "Neither are any others redeemed by Christ" is false, 
 because "redeemed by Christ" is spoken of in the sense of a propitiation 
 provided, as distinguished from all the other parts of the process which 
 result in actual salvation. It is true that redemption while mentioned 
 as a part of a process, which applies as a whole to the elect only, may not 
 be intended to deny in express terms that redemption had not some 
 reference to the non-elect, but the sentence makes this impression and is 
 certainly defective and misleading. A statement concerning redemption 
 as it contemplates the world at large, should certainly be added to this 
 account of the matter. The same defective view is found in chapter 
 8, sections i. 5, and 8. Taken by itself, the account of Christ 
 as "the Mediator between God and man" might seem to be broader, but 
 immediately he is called "Saviour of his church" instead of Saviour of the 
 world, and it is the people given to him in God's eternal purpose to whom 
 redemption is again confined. The same view is found in section 5. 
 
loo INFANT SALVATION AND 
 
 Christ renders liis perfect obedience and sacrifice "for all those whom 
 the Father hath given unto him" ; and in section 8 we are told that 
 "To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, he doth cer- 
 tainly and effectually apply and communicate the same," making the im- 
 pression that his redeeming work had sole reference to the elect. So 
 all the effects of his redeeming work which are summarized in what 
 follows are similarly confined. Nowhere are we told that Christ did any- 
 thing for the world. This is a great defect which should by all means 
 be remedied. Nowhere is revision more needed than in these clauses. 
 
 The defect of section 6, chapter 3, might be remedied as follows : 
 "While it is true that God provided a propitiation for the whole world, 
 and freely offers salvation to the world upon condition of acceptance by 
 faith of the salvation thus provided, it is also true that as a matter of fact, 
 only Christ's sheep hear his voice, so that none are effectually called, 
 justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. 
 
 Ref. I — I Tim. 2: 4-6; i Tim. 3: 10; Rom. 5: 25; i John 2:2; John 
 4: 14. Ref. 2 — To the old texts add John 6: 44; John 10: 14, 15, 26-29. 
 
 Before passing from this subject let it be noticed that while God's atti- 
 tude and decree concerning the wicked has a proper statement in section 
 7, chapter 3, the corresponding statement of the Larger Catechism, Qu. 13 
 appears to be needlessly harsh by reason of the mixing of tenses and 
 viewpoints in the clause, "hath passed by and foreordained the rest to 
 dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted to the praise of the glory 
 of his justice." The perfect tense, "hath passed by," etc., corresponds 
 with "hath elected" and "hath chosen" just preceding, but this in itself 
 gives an unnecessarily harsh effect, which is deepened by the introduction 
 of the future, "to be for their sins inflicted." This makes the fore- 
 ordination to wrath "stand out more prominently since the infliction is 
 separated in time, so that the space of the ages is included between the 
 two. Why mix up the viewpoint of a past eternity with the end, and 
 further complicate it with man's viewpoint which appears in the perfect 
 tenses above mentioned? It would be better to adapt the language to 
 that of the Confession by obliterating "hath," "to be" and "inflicted." 
 While the clause "whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy (favor) 
 as he pleaseth" is correct when properly understood, if nothing is said 
 about anything done for the world at large it tends to make the impression 
 that all mercy and favor are withheld from the wicked, therefore, it is 
 all the more necessary that that phase of divine grace be presented. 
 
 The revisions which the writer has suggested, although so important 
 from considerations of accuracy and the general acceptability of our 
 creed, are unimportant from the point of view of orthodoxy, for they do 
 not affect the integrity of our system of doctrine. The aim is to prevent 
 well known misunderstandings which arise out of ambiguities of lan- 
 guage. If these discussions and criticisms receive such attention as to pro- 
 voke our people to thought, and to a careful consideration of these mat- 
 ters, the writer will feel repaid for the effort put forth to get these 
 
CONFESSIONAL REVISION. loi 
 
 subjects l)efore the churcli. God grant that it may lead to a real revision 
 of our creed while the church is still orthodox and capable of making a 
 sound revision, and that we who are capable of such revision may not 
 much longer delay to do service to God and humanity by making such 
 revision as shall encourage true orthodoxy throughout the world.