Hence the fair interpretation of the words is, that there are reprobate infants who die in infancy. Calvin stated the case clearly when, on the general question of election and reprobation, he said:

Many indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because election itself could not exist without being opposed to reprobation. Whom God passes by he therefore reprobates; and from no other reason than his determination to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his children.

This is the inevitable result of applying "the turning-point" of Dr. Hodge. The reasoning of Calvin is as forcible when applied to "elect infants" as it is when the word "infants" is omitted. This was undoubtedly the teaching of the school for years. It is by no means an easy matter to see how they could have avoided holding that idea with their conception of original sin. They regarded that as involving guilt, "personal blame, and, of course, as exposing its possessor to punishment, even eternal punishment, so that the mere infant, hurried out of life the moment after it had entered upon life, before it had done good or evil, or even possessed the power of distinguishing the one from the other, might be justly consigned over to everlasting torment as the punishment of such sinful bias." +

Augustine and the Lutherans teach that all infants dying in infancy who are baptized, are saved. In this they agree with the Romish Church, which teaches, "Nothing can seem more necessary than that the faithful be taught that this law of baptism is prescribed by our Lord to all men, insomuch that they, unless they be regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, are begotten by their parents to everlasting misery and destruction, whether their parents be believers or unbelievers." *Institutes, book iii, chap. xxiii.

"The Doctrine of Original Sin," by George Payne, LL.D. Second edition. London: Jackson & Walford, 1854. The Lecturer adds: "I join my friend, and a former Congregational Lecturer, the Rev. Joseph Gilbert, in thinking that the man who can really believe this must be wholly perverted in judgment, and can have no symmetrical connection of moral ideas.' There is nothing, as it appears to me, in divine revelation-nothing in the scriptural doctrine of original sin--to sanction such monstrous statements. And I am anxious that evangelical truth should be divested of accompaniments which mar its beauty and obstruct its progress."-Page 152.

The evangelical Arminian occupies a totally different ground. He believes in the universal effect of Adam's sin as firmly as any Augustinian can do. But he also believes the Bible statement that "Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man." Hence as the influence of the second Adam is more mighty than that of the first, he looks on every infant as redeemed, as one to whom the Saviour, who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever," feels just as he did when on earth. He believes that it is not his will that one of these little ones should perish. Naturally he holds tenaciously, because consistently, to the doctrine that all dying in infancy are saved, and regards it as a valuable argument in support of his system of theology, that this follows logically from the essential principles of his creed; while just in proportion as the advocates of the opposing system adopt this view, they are compelled to ignore the foundation principles of their creed, and violently strain the language of their most cherished formularies. The Rev. Richard Watson thus states the case:

The great consideration which leads to a solution of the case of persons dying in infancy is found in Rom. v, 18: "Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." In these words, the sin of Adam and the merits of Christ are pronounced to be co-extensive; the words applied to both are precisely the same, judgment came upon all men, the free gift came upon all men. If the whole human race be meant in the former clause, the whole human race is meant in the latter also; and it follows that as all are injured by the offense of Adam, so all are benefited by the obedience of Christ. Whatever, therefore, that benefit may be, all children dying in infancy must partake of it, or there would be a large portion of the human race upon whom the "free gift," the effects of "the righteousness of one," did not come, which is contrary to the apostle's words.

Calvin himself clearly taught that baptism was not essential to salvation. Departing from Augustine he connects the salvation of infants with the covenant, and seems to intimate that all the infants of Christian parents shall be saved. Modern Augustinians have departed still more widely from their founder. Dr. Hodge teaches, "All who die in infancy are saved." "It is, therefore, the general belief of Protestants, contrary to the doctrine of Romanists and Romanizers, that all who die in

*

infancy are saved." The whole paragraph is worth reading. It seems inexplicable how any man could write it and still hold the doctrine of a limited atonement. On this remark of Dr. Hodge, Professor Schaff observes: "This may be true of the present generation, and we hope it is, though it is evidently inapplicable to the period of scholastic orthodoxy, both Lutheran and Calvinistic."

Dr. Hodge further says:

We are sorry to see that Dr. Krauth labors to prove that the Westminster Confession teaches that only a part, or some of those who die in infancy, are saved; this he does by putting his own construction on the language of that Confession. We can only say that we never saw a Calvinist theologian who held that doctrine.t

Most readers will think that the Confession, not Dr. Krauth, is at fault.

This statement of Dr. Hodge is worthy of notice. His eminent position brought him into contact with the leading minds of the Calvinist party for many years. Such a testimony is an impressive illustration of what we have written above as to the great boon conferred by Methodism on the Church catholic, in restoring the theology of the New Testament.

On the question of man's ability to do the will of God the systems are equally widely separated. Augustinianism teaches that "as the result of original sin all are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. This is the condition of all by nature. The benefits of redemption, including the saving influences of the Spirit, as distinguished from "common grace" which cannot lead to salvation, are confined to the "elect." "The rest of mankind are passed by." For not one of these was atonement made; as that atonement was absolutely necessary to their salvation, not one of them, at any moment in his life, was placed in a position in which his salvation was possible. To not one of them was there the outgoing of God's love in giving his Son to die for them. All these, "although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operation of the Spirit," are utterly unable to come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved. Evangelical Ibid., vol. iii, p. 605.

"Systematic Theology," vol. i, p. 26.

That

Arminianism teaches that the atonement places salvation within the reach of every man, while it forces it upon none. it secures for every soul, and especially for every one to whom the Gospel is preached, the accompanying influence of the Holy Spirit, by virtue of which he receives the power to repent and believe the Gospel to the saving of his soul, so that none shall ever perish because preordained thereto by God, or for lack of power to comply with the conditions of salvation, but solely on account of his own willful resistance to and refusal of the grace of God.

Augustinianism teaches that "This corruption of nature during this life doth remain in those that are regenerated," and is "properly sin;" and again, every sin, original and actual, brings guilt upon the sinner and exposes him to the wrath of God and the fearful punishment of sin.

Evangelical Arminianism maintains that Jesus "saves his people from their sins;" that if "we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;" that it is the privilege of those who accept the Gospel to appropriate by faith the exceeding great and precious promises contained in that Gospel, and "having these promises, to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." These doctrines, scriptural in their substance and heart-renewing in their power, constitute the peculiar strength and beauty of that glorious deposit of truth which the Methodism of the present day has received from the Fathers. Their responsibility is great. It becomes them to "hold fast the form of sound words" which they have received. There are many temptations to substitute for these doctrines more palatable to the unregenerate; to suppress some of them, and dilute others to suit the worldly spirit of the age. It is a dangerous experiment. Tempting as some new doctrines may seem, they are a poor substitute for these well-tested truths of the inspired word. We need them not. The old wine is better. These truths, when preached in the demonstration of the Spirit, commend themselves to the conscience and win the soul to Christ. When embraced with the faith of the heart they thoroughly transform the believer, so that he becomes "a new creature in Christ Jesus." Methodism needs no revision of her creed.

ART. II.-TIIE GREAT PHYSICIAN'S ANODYNE.

AN EXEGESIS OF JOHN XIV, 1-10.

2

* In my

'Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am there ye may be also. And whither I go, ye know the way. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. 'If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works.-(Revised Version.)

8

OUR dying Saviour's valedictory to his apostles at the final supper unfolded both the darkness and glory of their destiny in most impressive terms. Compare it with a similar discourse of Socrates with his pupils, as given by Plato, and we see the immense inferiority of a philosopher's wisest utterances attained by the human intellect to the supreme mastery of "the Son over the mysteries of the unseen. He had foretold the apparent ruin of all the hopes of the apostles; disinay was deep in their hearts and dark on their faces; and then he unfolds the rich consolations which their trust in his divinity affords them. It beautifully commences with a soothing sentence of assurance to their ears: Let not your heart be troubled." He points to the demonstration of the certainty of his assurances from his being trustworthy, not on account of his profound wisdom as a philosopher, but from his authentication by the Father, as divine. Let us trace this view in the present passage.

Verse 1. Why is "heart" in the singular, and not plural? We may imagine three solutions: 1. It may be a mere verbal accident without significance. And this seems to be the view of the great body of commentators, inasmuch as none of them seem to have noticed the fact. 2. It may have designated the collective hearts of the apostles as one; and so it would symbolize their profound Christian unity. Or, 3. It may be an individualizing word, symbolizing that each apostle-nay, each dis