The Doctrine of Endless Punishment

Chapter 2 - PART TWO

THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

The Apostles’ creed, in its original form, read as follows: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose again from the dead." The first appearance of the clause, "He descended into Hades," is in the latter half of the 4th century, in the creed of the church of Aquileia. Pearson [Creed, Art. V], by citations, shows that the creeds, both ecclesiastical and individual, prior to this time, do not contain it. Burnet [Thirty Nine Articles, Art. III] asserts the same. Rufinus, the presbyter of Aquileia, says that the intention of the Aquileian alteration of the creed was, not to add a new doctrine, but to explain an old one; and therefore the Aquileian creed omitted the clause, "was crucified, dead, and buried," and substituted for it the new clause, "descendit in inferna." Rufinus also adds, that "although the preceding Roman and Oriental editions of the creed had not the words. ‘He descended into Hades,’ yet they had the sense of them in the words, ‘He was crucified, dead, and buried,’" quoted in Pearson [Creed, Article V]. The early history of the clause, therefore, clearly shows that the "Hades" to which Christ was said to have descended was simply the "grave" in which He was buried.

Subsequently, the clause went into other creeds. The Athanasian (600) follows that of Aquileia, in inserting the "descent" and omitting the "burial." It reads: "Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hades, rose again the third day from the dead." Those of Toledo, in 633 and 693, likewise contain it. It is almost invariably found in the Mediaeval and Modern forms of the Apostles’ creed, but without the omission, as at first, of the clause, "was crucified, dead, and buried." ²⁶[If both clauses are retained, the explanation proposed by Whitby [On Acts, 2:26, 27] is consistent with Scripture. "The Scripture does assure us that the soul of the holy Jesus, being separated from His body, went to Paradise [LUK 23:43], and from thence it must descend into the grave or sepulcher to be united to His body, that this might be revived; and thus it may be truly said: 'He was dead and buried; His soul descended afterwards into Hades (the grave) to be united to His body; and His body being thus revived, He rose again the third day.'"] If, then, the text of the Apostles’ creed shall be subjected, like that of the New Testament, to a revision in accordance with the text of the first four centuries, the Descensus ad inferos must be rejected as an interpolation.

While the tenet of Christ’s local descent into Hades has no support from Scripture, or any of the first ecumenical creeds, it has support, as has already been observed, from patristic authority *[See Hagenbach’s History of Doctrine, §§ 77, 78, 141, 142. Smith’s Ed]. "The ancient fathers," says Pearson [Creed, Article V], "differed much respecting the condition of the dead, and the nature of the place into which the souls, before our Saviors death, were gathered; some looking on that name which we now translate Hell, Hades, or infernus, as the common receptacle of the souls of all men, both the just and unjust, while others thought that Hades, or infernus, was never taken in the Scriptures for any place of happiness; and therefore they did not conceive the souls of the patriarchs or the prophets did pass into any such infernal place." This difference of opinion appears in Augustine, who wavered in his views upon the subject of Hades, as Bellarmine concedes. Pearson [Creed, Art. V] remarks of him, that "he began to doubt concerning the reason ordinarily given for Christ’s descent into Hell, namely, to bring up the patriarchs and prophets thence, upon this ground, that he thought the word infernus [adhV] was never taken in Scripture in a good sense, to denote the abode of the righteous" #[Notwithstanding the currency which the view of Hades as the abode of the good and evil between death and the resurrection has obtained, it would shock the feelings, should a clergyman say to mourning friends: "Dry your tears, the departed saint has gone down to Hades"]. Pearson cites, in proof, the passages already quoted from Augustine’s Epistles, and Commentary on Genesis. On the other hand, in his City of God [XX. 15], Augustine hesitatingly accepts the doctrine that the Old Testament saints were in limbo, and were delivered by Christ’s descent into their abode. "It does not seem absurd to believe, that the ancient saints who believed in Christ, and His future coming, were kept in places far removed, indeed, from the torments of the wicked, but yet in Hades (apud inferos), until Christ’s blood and His descent into these places delivered them." Yet in his exposition of the Apostles’ creed [De Fide et Symbolo], Augustine makes no allusion to the clause, "He descended into Hades." And the same silence appears in the De Symbolo, attributed to him. After expounding the clauses respecting Christ’s passion, crucifixion, and burial, he then explains those concerning His resurrection and ascent into Heaven. This proves that when he wrote this exposition, the dogma was not an acknowledged part of the catholic faith ²⁷[The American Episcopal Church does not regard the "descent into Hell" as a necessary part of the Christian faith. In the order for Evening Prayer, it is said that "any churches may omit the words, 'He descended into Hell,' or may, instead of them, use the words, 'He went into the place of departed spirits,' which are considered as words of the same meaning in the Creed"]. Still later, Peter Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna, and Maximus of Turin, explain the Apostles’ creed, and make no exposition of the "descent to Hades." The difference of opinion among the fathers of the first four centuries, together with the absence of Scriptural support for it, is the reason why the Descensus ad inferos was not earlier inserted into the Apostles’ creed. It required the development of the doctrine of purgatory, and of the mediaeval eschatology generally, in order to get it formally into the doctrinal system of both the Eastern and Western churches. ^%[Baumgarten-Crusius [Dogmengeschichte II. § 109] finds three stadia in the development of the dogma of the "descent to Hades." 1. The Descent was the Burial itself put into an imaginative form. 2. The Descent was a particular condition or status of Christ resulting from his Burial. 3. The Descent was entirely separate from the Burial, being another and wholly distinct thing] ²⁸[Van Oosterzee's [Dogmatics, II., 559, 560] history of the clause, "He descended into Hell," is as follows: "As concerns the history of this article, we find the conviction expressed, even by the earliest of the fathers--Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others--that Jesus, after His burial, actually tarried in the world of spirits, and by some of them, also, that He there preached the gospel; while the romantic manner in which this mysterious subject is presented in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus is well known. Gnosticism, especially, warmly espoused this idea; according to Marcion, this activity of the Lord was directed to delivering the victims of the Demiurge, and leading them upwards with himself. From the symbols of the semi-Arians this much-debated article appears to have passed over to those of the orthodox church, according to some, with a view to controvert Apollinarism. In the Expositio Symboli Aquileiensis of Rufinus, this formula is found, and especially through his influence it appears also to have passed over into other confessions of faith; although it is remarkable that in the Nicene Creed mention is made only of 'was buried;' in the Athanasian Creed, on the other hand, only of 'descended into Hell.' It is manifest from this that both expressions were first employed by many interchangeably, though very soon greater stress was laid upon the latter, and its contents regarded as the indication of a special remedial activity of the Lord. As the doctrine of purgatory became more developed, the conceptions found wider acceptance, that the Lord had descended into the lower world, in order to deliver the souls of the Old Testament believers from their subterranean abode, the limbus patrum. Especially under the influence of Thomas Aquinas, was developed the doctrine of the Romish Church, that the whole Christ--as to His divine and human nature--voluntarily repaired thither, to assure to the above-mentioned saints the fruit of His death on the cross, and to raise them out of this prison-house to the full enjoyment of Heavenly blessedness. According to Luther, on the other hand, who regards the Descensus as the first step on the path of the exaltation, the Lord, after His being made alive according to the spirit, and, immediately upon His return from the grave, descended, body and soul, into Hell, there to celebrate his triumph over the Devil and his powers [COL 2:15], and to proclaim to them condemnation and judgment. The Reformed theologians either understood the expression in the sense of 'buried,' or explained it of the final anguish and dismay of the suffering Christ. This latter is the view of Calvin [Inst., II., xvi], and of the Heidelberg Catechism (Ans. 44). Some divines, the Lutheran Aepinus, e.g., even maintained that the reference is to the sufferings of Hell, which Christ endured in His soul, while His body was lying in the grave. No wonder that the Formula Concordiae declared this article to be one 'qui neque sensibus, neque ratione nostra comprehendi queat, solo autem fide acceptandus sit;' which, however, did not prevent its being possible to say, on the other side, that 'there are almost as many dissertations concerning the Descensus as there are flies in the height of summer' (Witsius). Left by the supra-naturalism of the past century entirely in a misty obscurity, it was wholly rejected by the Rationalists, as the fruit of an exploded popular notion, to which, according to Schleiermacher, nothing but a fact wholly unnoticed by the apostles (unbezeugte Thatsache) served as a basis. Only in our day has the tide turned, and theologians of (different schools have begun to return with increased interest, yea, with manifest preference to this dogma; and to bring it into direct connection not only with soteriology, but also with eschatology." After this historical account, Van Oosterzee proceeds to defend the doctrine of a local descent to Hades, founding upon PSA 16:10; ACT 2:25-31; 13:33-37; EPH 4:8-10; 1PE 3:19-21; 4:6].

The personal and local descent of Christ into Hades--whether to deliver the Old Testament saints from limbo; or to preach judicially, announcing condemnation to the sinners there; or evangelically, offering salvation to them--if a fact, would have been one of the great cardinal facts connected with the Incarnation. It would fall into the same class with the nativity, the baptism, the passion, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension. Much less important facts than these are recorded. Matthew speaks of the descent of Christ into Egypt, but not of his descent into Hades. Such an act of the Redeemer as going down into an infernal world of spirits, would certainly have been mentioned by some one of the inspired biographers of Christ. The total silence of the four Gospels is fatal to the tenet. Paul, in his recapitulation of the principal events of our Lord’s life, evidently knows nothing of the descent into Hades. I delivered unto you that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day [1CO 15:3, 4]. The remark of bishop Burnet [Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. III] is sound. "Many of the fathers thought that Christ’s soul went locally into Hell, and preached to some of the spirits there in prison; that there he triumphed over Satan, and spoiled him, and carried some souls with Him into glory. But the account that the Scripture gives us of the exaltation of Christ begins it always at his resurrection. Nor can it be imagined that so memorable a transaction as this would have been passed over by the first three Evangelists, and least of all by John, who coming after the rest, and designing to supply what was wanting in them, and intending particularly to magnify the glory of Christ, could not have passed over so wonderful an instance of it. The passage in Peter seems to relate to the preaching to the Gentile world, by virtue of that inspiration that was derived from Christ"

*[Augustine, Bede, Aquinas, Erasmus, Beza, Gerhard, Hottinger, Clericus, Leighton, Pearson, Secker, Hammond, Hofmann, and most of the Reformed theologians, explain 1PE 3:18-20 to mean, that Christ preached by Noah to men who were disobedient in the days of Noah, and who for this cause were spirits in prison at the time of Peter’s writing. ²⁹[It is objected that the phrase, He "went and preached" (poreuqeiV ekhruxen), in 1PE 3:19, would not apply to a preaching that was instrumental and spiritual. But the same use is found in EPH 2:17; Christ "came and preached (elqwn euaggelisato) to you who were afar off." The reference is to Christ's preaching to the Gentile world by his apostles. Christ, in his own person, did not preach to them which were afar off; and He forbade His disciples to do so until the time appointed by the Father; [MAT 10:5; ACT 1:4. See, also, EPH 1:20, 21; ACT 26:23; JOH 10:l6], for instances in which Christ's preaching by others is called His preaching]. The particle pote, qualifying apeiqhsasi, shows that the disobedience (or disbelief) occurred when the ark was being prepared. But the preaching must have been contemporaneous with the disobedience, or disbelief. What else was there to disobey, or disbelieve? Says Pearson [Creed, Art. II], "Christ was really before the flood, for He preached to them that lived before it. This is evident from the words of Peter [1PE 3:18-20]. From which words it appears, first, That Christ preached by the same spirit by the virtue of Whom He was raised from the dead: but that Spirit was not His [human] soul, but something of a greater power; second, That those to whom he preached were such as were disobedient; third, That the time when they were disobedient was the time before the flood, when the ark was being prepared. The plain interpretation is to be acknowledged for the true, that Christ did preach unto those men who lived before the flood, even while they lived, and consequently that he was before it. For though this was not done by an immediate act of the Son of God, as if He personally had appeared on Earth and actually preached to that world, but by the ministry of a prophet, by the sending of Noah, the eighth preacher of righteousness: yet to do anything by another not able to perform it without Him, as much demonstrates the existence of the principal cause, as if He did it Himself without any intervening instrument."

[Another proof of the correctness of this interpretation is the fact that Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison was pneumati, alone. The total qeanqrwpoV did not preach. The sarx, or human nature, of Christ had no part in the act. But Christ’s personal and local preaching in Hades would require His whole Divine-human person; as much so as His preaching in Galilee or Jerusalem. The Formula Concordiae [IX. 2] so understands and teaches: "Credimus quod tota persona, deus et homo, post sepulturam, ad inferos descenderit, Satanam devicerit," etc. Christ’s preaching through Noah, a preacher of righteousness [2PE 2:5], and therefore an ambassador of Christ [2CO 5:20], might be done through His divinity alone. Christ preached pneumati through Noah, as David en pneumati called Him Lord [MAT 22:43]. The objection that actually living men upon Earth would not be called spirits is met by ROM 13:1; 1JO 4:1, 3; and by the fact that at the time of Peter’s writing the persons meant are disembodied spirits.

[The passage 1PE 4:6, sometimes cited in proof of the Descensus ad inferos, refers to the preaching of the gospel to the spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. This is Augustine’s interpretation [Ep. ad. Evodium VI. 21]. In EPH 4:9, ta katwtera merh thV ghV to which Christ descended from on high signify this lower world of Earth. Paul is speaking here of the incarnation. The incarnate Logos did not descend from Heaven to Hades, nor ascend from Hades to Heaven. Compare ISA 44:23: Shout you lower parts of the Earth. This is the opposite of the Heavens, which are bidden to sing. In ACT 2:19, this world is called h gh katw. Hades would be ta katwtata merh thV ghV ³⁰["The Hebrew phrase, Jra twytjt, to which the apostles' ta katwtera merh thV ghV answers, is used for the Earth in opposition to Heaven, in ISA 44:23; probably for the grave in PSA 63:9; as a poetical designation for the womb in PSA 139:15; and for Hades, or the invisible world, in EZE 32:24. [The context, however, shows that in this place, also, as in PSA 63:9, it means "the grave." The "multitudes" of Elam, like those of Asshur, are "slain," and go down "to their graves."] Perhaps the majority of commentators take this last to be the meaning of the passage before us. They suppose the reference is to the descensus ad inferos, or to Christ's 'descending into Hell.' But, in the first place, this idea is entirely foreign to the meaning of the passage in the Psalm on which the apostle is commenting. In the second place, there as here, the only descent of which the context speaks is opposed to the ascending to Heaven. He Who ascended to Heaven is He Who first descended to Earth. In the third place, this is the opposition so often expressed in other places and in other forms of expression, as in JOH 3:13, No man has ascended up to Heaven, but He Who came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, Who is in Heaven. [Compare JOH 6:38; 8:14; 16:68]. The expression of the apostle, therefore, means, 'the lower parts, namely, the Earth.' The genitive thV ghV is the genitive of opposition." [Hodge, on EPH 4:9, 10.] Ellicott, in loco, while not adopting it, says that this is the interpretation "of the majority of recent commentators," and of Chrysostom and Theodoret among the patristic]. In ROM 10:7, Christ’s descent into the deep (abusson) is shown by the context to be His descent into the grave.

[Whatever be the interpretation of 1PE 3:18-20, such a remarkable doctrine as the Descent to Hades should have more foundation than a single disputed text. The doctrine itself is so obscure that it has had five different forms of statement. 1. Christ virtually descended into Hades, because His death was efficacious upon the souls there. 2. Christ actually descended into Hades. 3. Christ’s descent into Hades was His suffering the torments of Hell. 4. Christ’s descent into Hades was His burial in the grave. 5. Christ’s descent into Hades was His remaining in the state of the dead, for a season. The Westminster Larger Catechism (50) combines the last two: "Christ’s humiliation after His death consisted in His being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death, till the third day, which has been otherwise expressed in these words, ‘He descended into Hell’"].

Having given the argument from Scripture, in proof that Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna, all denote the place of punishment for the wicked, we proceed to consider the nature and duration of the suffering inflicted in it.

The Old Testament is comparatively silent upon these particulars. Sheol is represented vaguely, as an evil to be dreaded and avoided, and little description of its fearfulness is given by the holy men of old who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament makes a fuller revelation and disclosure; and it is principally the Redeemer of the world who widens the outlook into the tremendous future. The suffering in Hades and Gehenna is described as everlasting (aiwnioV) punishment [MAT 25:46]; everlasting (aiwnioV) fire [MAT 18:8]; the fire that never shall be quenched [MAR 9:45]; the worm that dies not [MAR 9:46]; flaming fire [2TH 1:8]; everlasting (aidioV) chains [JUD 6]; eternal (aiwnioV) fire [JUD 7]; the blackness of darkness forever [JUD 13]; the smoke of torment ascending up forever and ever [REV 14:11; 19:3]; the lake of fire and brimstone, in which the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever [REV 20:10].

Sensible figures are employed to describe the misery of Hell, as they are to describe the blessedness of Heaven. It cannot be inferred from the mere use of metaphors, that the duration of either is temporary. Figures are employed to describe both temporal and eternal realities. The Psalmist describes God as a rock, a fortress, a shield, etc.; and man as a vapor, a flower, etc. A figure by its form, as the rhetoricians call it, indicates the intention of the writer. No one would employ the figure of a rock to denote transiency, or of a cloud to denote permanence. Had Christ intended to teach that future punishment is remedial and temporary, He would have compared it to a dying worm, and not to an undying worm; to a fire that is quenched, and not to an unquenchable fire. The ghost in Hamlet [I. v] describes the "glow-worm’s fire" as "ineffectual," that is, harmless. None of the figures employed in Scripture to describe the misery of the wicked are of the same rhetorical "form" with those of the "morning cloud," the "early dew," etc. They are invariably of the contrary "form," and imply fixedness and immutability. The smoke of torment ascends forever and ever. The worm of conscience does not die. The fire is unquenchable. The chains are eternal. The blackness of darkness overhangs forever. Had the sacred writers wished to teach that future punishment is for a time only, even a very long time, it would have been easy to have chosen a different species and form of metaphor that would have conveyed their meaning. And if the future punishment of the wicked is not endless, they were morally bound to have avoided conveying the impression they actually have conveyed by the kind of figures they have selected. "It is the willful deceit," says Paley, "that makes the lie; and we willfully deceive, when our expressions are not true in the sense in which we believe the hearer to apprehend them."

The epithet aiwnioV (everlasting) is of prime importance. In order to determine its meaning when applied to the punishment of the wicked, it is necessary, first, to determine that of the substantive from which the adjective is derived. Aiwn signifies an age. It is a time word. It denotes "duration," more or less. Of itself, the word "duration," or "age," does not determine the length of the duration, or age. God has duration, and angels have duration. The Creator has an aiwn, and the creature has an aiwn; but that of the latter is as nothing compared with that of the former. Behold You have made my days as an handbreadth; and my age is as nothing before You [PSA 39:5].

In reference to man and his existence, the Scriptures speak of two, and only two aiwne", or ages; one finite, and one infinite; one limited, and one endless; the latter succeeding the former ³¹[The common phrase, "Here, and Hereafter," denotes that human existence divides into only two sections. When Faust sells his soul to Mephistopheles, both parties understand that there are only two worlds--the temporal and the eternal. The former covenants with the latter as follows:

I to thy service here agree to bind me,
To run and never rest at call of thee;
When over yonder thou shalt find me,
Then thou shalt do as much for me.

The same tremendous truth, that after the temporal the endless follows, is taught in the "mighty line" of Marlowe, in which he describes the emotions of Faustus as "the clock strikes eleven."

Ah, Faustus,
Now hast thou but one bare hour to live,
And then thou must be damned perpetually!
Stand still, you ever-moving spheres of Heaven,
That time may cease, and midnight never come:
Fair Nature's eye, rise, rise again, and make
Perpetual day; or let this hour be but
A year, a month, a week, a natural day,
That Faustus may repent and save his soul!
O lente, lente currite, noctis equi!
The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike,
The Devil will come, and Faustus must be damned].

An indefinite series of limited aeons with no final endless aeon is a Pagan, and Gnostic, not a Biblical conception. The importation of the notion of an endless series of finite cycles, each of which is without finality and immutability, into the Christian system, has introduced error, similarly as the importation of the Pagan conception of Hades has. The misconceiving of a rhetorical figure, in the Scripture use of the plural for the singular, namely, touV aiwnaV twn aiwnwn for ton aiwna, has also contributed to this error.

The two aeons, or ages, known in Scripture, are mentioned together in MAT 12:32, It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (aiwn), nor in the world (aiwn) to come; in MAR 10:30, He shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time (cairoV), and in the world (aiwn) to come, eternal life; in LUK 18:30, He shall receive manifold more in this present time (cairoV), and in the world (aiwn) to come, life, everlasting; in EPH 1:21, Above every name that is named, not only in this world (aiwn), but also in that which is to come. The things present and the things to come, mentioned in ROM 8:38; 1CO 3:22, refer to the same two ages. These two aeons, or ages, correspond to the two durations of "time" and "eternity," in the common use of these terms. The present age, or aeon, is "time;" the future age, or aeon, is "eternity." *[It is relative, not absolute eternity; eternity a parte post, not a parte ante. The future aeon, or age, has a beginning, but no ending. This is the meaning, when in common phrase it is said that "a man has gone into eternity"; and that his happiness, or misery, is "eternal." The absolutely eternal has no beginning, as well as no ending; it is the eternity of God. The relatively eternal has a beginning but no end; it is the immortality of man and angel. The schoolman called the former, eternitas; the latter, sempiternitas. Scripture designates the absolute eternity of God, by the phrase, from everlasting to everlasting [PSA 90:2]. The punishment of the wicked is more properly endless, than eternal].

1. The present finite and limited age, or aeon, is denominated in Scripture, this world (o aiwn outoV), hzh mlwu: [MAT 12:32; 13:22; LUK 16:8; 20:34; ROM 12:2; 1CO 1:20; 2:6], et alia. Another designation is, this present world (o nun aiwn, or o enestwV aiwn): [1TI 6:17; 2TI. 4:10; TIT 2:12; GAL 1:4]. Sometimes the present limited age, or aeon, is denoted by aiwn without the article: [LUK 1:70], Which He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since the world began (ap aiwnoV); [JOH 9:39], It was not heard since the world began (ap aiwnoV).

For rhetorical effect, the present limited age, or aeon, is sometimes represented as composed of a number of lesser ages or cycles, as in modern phrase the sum total of finite Earthly time is denominated "the centuries," or "the ages." The following are examples: [1CO 2:7], The hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages (pro twn aiwnwn). Compare EPH 3:9; COL 1:26. In 1TI 1:17, God is denominated basileuV twn aiwnwn, king of the ages of time, and therefore the king eternal [AV]. In ROM 16:25, a mystery is said to have been kept secret cronoiV aiwnioiV, "during aeonian times" [AV, since the world began]. The ages of the limited aeon are meant. The secret was withheld from all the past cycles of time. In TIT 1:2, eternal life is said to have been promised pro cronwn aiwniwn, "before aeonian times" [AV, before the world began]. The ages of the limited aeon are meant. God promised eternal life, prior to all the periods of time; i.e., eternally promised. In these passages, "aeonian times" is equivalent to "the centuries," or the "long ages." The Revisers make the reference to be to the unlimited aeon--to eternity, not to time. Their rendering of TIT 1:2 by, Before times eternal, involves the absurdity that a Divine promise is made prior to eternity; and of ROM 16:25 by, Through times eternal, represents the mystery as concealed during eternity: that is to say, as forever concealed. This rhetorical plural does not destroy the unity of the limited age, or aeon. To conceal a mystery from the past "aeonian ages," or the past centuries and cycles of finite time, is the same as to conceal it from past finite time as a whole ³²[The phrases, end of the ages (telh twn aiwnwn), [1CO 10:11]; fullness of the time, [GAL 4:4]; fullness of times, [EPH 1:10]; these last days escatoV twn hmeron toutwn, [HEB 1:1], denote the time of the Messiah's first advent--that epoch in the temporal aiwn when the incarnation occurred (Hodge on EPH 1:10)].

2. The future infinite and endless age, or aeon, is denominated, in Scripture, the future world; AV and RV the world to come (aiwn o mellwn), abj mlwu [MAT 12:32; HEB 2:5; 6:5]. Another designation is, the world to come (aiwn o ercomenoV) [MAR 10:30; LUK 18:30]. Still another designation is, that world (aiwn ekeinoV) [LUK 20:35]. Frequently, the infinite and endless age is denoted by aiwn simply, but with the article for emphasis (o aiwn) [MAR 3:29], Has never forgiveness (eiV ton aiwna) [MAT 51:29; JOH 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51, 52; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; 2CO 9:9; HEB 5:6; 6:20; 7:17; 2PE 2:17; 1JO 2:17; JUD 13].

The same use of the plural for rhetorical effect, employed in the case of the limited aeon, is also employed in that of the unlimited. The future infinite aiwn is represented as made up of lesser aiwneV or cycles, as, in English, "infinity" is sometimes denominated "the infinities," "eternity," "the eternities," and "immensity," "the immensities." The rhetorical plural, in this instance as in the other, does not conflict with the unity of the infinite age, or aeon. The following are examples of this use [ROM 1:25], The Creator is blessed forever (eiV touV aiwnaV) [ROM 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2CO 11:31; PHI 4:20; GAL 1:5 (eiV touV aiwnaV twn aiwnwn) 1TI 1:17; REV 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12], et alia. The phrases, eiV touV aiwnaV, and eiV touV aiwnaV twn aiwnwn, are equivalent to eiV ton aiwna. All alike denote the one infinite and endless aeon, or age.

Since the word aeon (aiwn), or age, in Scripture, may denote either the present finite age, or the future endless age, in order to determine the meaning of "aeonian" (aiwnioV), it is necessary first to determine in which of the two aeons, the limited or the endless, the thing exists to which the epithet is applied; because anything in either aeon may be denominated "aeonian." The adjective follows its substantive, in meaning. Onesimus, as a slave, existed in this world (aiwn) of "time," and when he is called an aeonian, or "everlasting" (aiwnioV) servant [PHM 15], it is meant that his servitude continues as long as the finite aeon in which he is a servant; and this is practically at an end for him, when he dies and leaves it. The mountains are denominated aeonian, or "everlasting" (aiwnia), in the sense that they endure as long as the finite world (aiwn) of which they are a part endures. God, on the other hand, is a being that exists in the infinite aiwn, and is therefore aiwnioV in the endless signification of the word. The same is true of the spirits of angels and men, because they exist in the future aeon, as well as in the present one. If anything belongs solely to the present age, or aeon, it is aeonian in the limited signification; if it belongs to the future age, or aeon, it is aeonian in the unlimited signification. If, therefore, the punishment of the wicked occurs in the present aeon, it is aeonian in the sense of temporal; but if it occurs in the future aeon, it is aeonian in the sense of endless. The adjective takes its meaning from its noun *["Aiwn de quocunque temporis spatio ita dicitur, ut, quale sit, judicari debeat in singulis locis ex orationis serie et mente scriptoris, rebus adeo et personis, de quibus sermo est." Schleusner, in voce].

The English word "forever" has the same twofold meaning, both in Scripture and in common use. Sometimes it means as long as a man lives upon Earth. The Hebrew servant that had his ear bored with an awl to the door of his master, was to be his servant forever [EXO 21:6]. Sometimes it means as long as the Jewish state should last. The ceremonial laws were to be statutes forever [LEV 16:34]. Sometimes it means, as long as the world stands. One generation passes away, and another generation comes; but the Earth abides forever [ECC 1:4]. In all such instances, forever refers to the temporal aeon, and denotes finite duration. But in other instances, and they are the great majority in Scripture, forever refers to the endless aeon; as when it is said that God is over all blessed forever. The limited signification of forever in the former cases, does not disprove its unlimited signification in the latter. That Onesimus was an everlasting (aiwnioV) servant, and that the hills are everlasting (aiwnia), no more disproves the everlastingness of God, and the soul; of Heaven, and of Hell; than the term "forever" in a title deed disproves it. To hold land "forever," is to hold it "as long as grass grows and water runs"--that is, as long as this world, or, aeon, endures.

The objection that because aiwnioV, or "aeonian," denotes "that which belongs to an age," it cannot mean endless, rests upon the assumption that there is no endless aiwn, or age. It postulates an indefinite series of limited aeons, or ages, no one of which is final and everlasting. But the texts that have been cited disprove this. Scripture speaks of but two aeons, which cover and include the whole existence of man, and his whole duration. If, therefore, he is an immortal being, one of these must be endless. The phrase "ages of ages," applied to the future endless age, does not prove that there is more than one future age, any more than the phrase "the eternities" proves that there is more than one eternity; or the phrase "the infinities" proves that there is more than one infinity. The plural in these cases is rhetorical and intensive, not arithmetical, in its force.

This examination of the Scripture use of the word aiwnioV refutes the assertion, that "aeonian" means "spiritual" in distinction from "material" or "sensuous," and has no reference at all to time or duration; that when applied to "death," it merely denotes that the death is mental and spiritual in its nature, without saying whether it is long or short, temporary or endless. Beyond dispute, some objects are denominated "aeonian," in Scripture, which have nothing mental or spiritual in them. The mountains are "aeonian." The truth is, that aiwn is a term that denotes time only, and never denotes the nature and quality of an object. All the passages that have been quoted show that duration, either limited or endless, is intended by the word. Whenever this visible world in the sense of the matter constituting it is meant, the word employed is kosmoV, and not aiwn. It is only when this world in the sense of the time of its continuance is intended, that aiwn is employed. Paul, in EPH 2:2, combines both meanings. The heathen, he says, walk kata ton aiwna tou cosmou toutou--according to the course [duration] of this world [of matter]. In HEB 1:2; 11:3, where aiwneV denotes the worlds created by God, it is, as Lewis [Lange’s Ecclesiastes, p. 47] remarks, in opposition to Winer and Robinson, "the time sense, of worlds after worlds," not "the space sense, of worlds beyond or above worlds," that is intended.

In by far the greater number of instances, aiwn and aiwnio" refer to the future infinite age, and not to the present finite age; to eternity, and not to time. Says Stuart [Exegetical Essays, §§ 13, 16], "aiwnioV is employed 66 times in the New Testament. Of these, 51 relate to the future happiness of the righteous; 7 relate to future punishment: namely, MAT 18:8; 25:41, 46; MAR 3:29; 1TH 1:9; HEB 6:2; JUD 6; 2 relate to God; 6 are of a miscellaneous nature (5 relating to confessedly endless things, as covenant, invisibilities; and one, in PHM 15, to a perpetual service). In all the instances in which aiwnioV refers to future duration, it denotes endless duration; saying nothing of the instances in which it refers to future punishment. The Hebrew mlwu is translated in the Septuagint by aiwn, 308 times. In almost the whole of these instances, the meaning is, time unlimited; a period without end. In the other instances, it means aiwn in the secondary, limited sense; it is applied to the mountains, the Levitical statutes, priesthood, etc." The younger Edwards [Reply to Chauncy Ch. XIV] says that "aiwn, reckoning the reduplications of it, as aiwneV twn aiwnwn, to be single instances of its use, occurs in the New Testament in 104 instances; in 32 of which it means a limited duration. In 7 instances, it may be taken in either the limited or the endless sense. In 65 instances, including 6 instances in which it is applied to future punishment, it plainly signifies an endless duration."

An incidental proof that the adjective aiwnioV has the unlimited signification when applied to future punishment, is the fact that the destiny of lost men is bound up with that of Satan and his angels. Then shall He say unto those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels [MAT 25:41]. These are represented in Scripture as hopelessly lost. The Devil who deceived them shall be tormented day and night forever and ever [REV 20:10]. The Jews, to whom Christ spoke, understood the perdition of the lost angels to be absolute. If the positions of the Restorationist are true in reference to man, they are also in reference to demons. But Scripture teaches that there is no redemption for the lost angels. Christ took not on Him the nature of angels [HEB 2:16].

Respecting the nature of the everlasting punishment, it is clear from the Biblical representations that it is accompanied with consciousness. Dives is in torments [LUK 16:23]. The smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever [REV 14:11]. Fear has torment [1JO 4:18], and the lost fear the wrath of the Lamb [REV 6:16]. The figures of the fire, and the worm are intended to denote conscious pain. An attempt has been made to prove that the punishment of the wicked is the extinction of consciousness. This doctrine is sometimes denominated Annihilation. Few of its advocates, however, have contended for the strict annihilation of the substance of the soul and body. The more recent defenders maintain the doctrine of Conditional Immortality. According to this view, the soul is not naturally immortal. Some of this class contend that it is material. It gains immortality only through its redemption by Christ. All who are not redeemed, lose all consciousness at the death of the body, and this is the spiritual death threatened in Scripture. As the death of the body is the extinction of sensation, so the death of the soul is the extinction of consciousness. The falsity of the theory of Annihilation, in both of its forms, is proved by the following considerations:

1. First, death is the opposite of birth, and birth does not mean the creation of substance. The conception and birth of an individual man, is the production of a soul and a body, not the creation ex nihilo of either; and the physical death of an individual man, is the separation of a soul and body, not the annihilation of either. Death is a change of the mode in which a substance exists, and supposes that the substance itself continues in being.

Now, when the life decays and form does fade,
Does it consume and into nothing go,
But changed is and often altered to and fro.
The substance is not changed nor altered,
But only the form and outward fashion. -- Faerie Queene, III. vi.

The death of an animal substance makes an alteration in the relations of certain material atoms, but does not put them out of existence. Dead matter is as far from nonentity as living matter. That physical death is not the annihilation of substance, is proved by 1CO 15:36: That which you sow is not made alive except it die. Compare JOH 12:24. In like manner, the death of the soul, or spiritual death, is only a change in the relations of the soul, and its mode of existence, and not the annihilation of its substance. In spiritual death, the soul is separated from God; as in physical death, the soul is separated from the body. The union of the soul with God is spiritual life; its separation from God is spiritual death. He who has the Son has [spiritual] life, and he who has not the Son has not [spiritual] life [1JO 5:12].

2. Second, the spiritually dead are described in Scripture as conscious. GEN 2:7 compared with GEN 3:8: In the day you eat thereof, you shall surely die. Adam and Eve hid themselves. After their fall they were spiritually dead, and filled with shame and terror before God. The dead in trespasses and sins walk according to the course of this world [EPH 2:1, 2]. She who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives [1TI 5:6]. You being dead in your sins has He forgiven [COL 2:13]. You live, and are dead [REV 3:1]. Spiritual death is the same as the second death and the second death hurts [REV 2:11]; and its smoke of torment ascends forever and ever [REV 19:3].

3. Third, the extinction of consciousness is not of the nature of punishment. The essence of punishment is suffering, and suffering is consciousness. In order to be punished, the person must be conscious of a certain pain, must feel that he deserves it, and know that it is inflicted because he does. All three of these elements are required in a case of punishment. To reduce a man to unconsciousness would make his punishment an impossibility. If God by a positive act extinguishes, at death, the remorse of a hardened villain, by extinguishing his self-consciousness, it is a strange use of language to denominate this a punishment.

Still another proof that the extinction of consciousness is not of the nature of punishment is the fact, that a holy and innocent being might be deprived of consciousness by his Creator, but could not be punished by him. God is not obliged, by His justice, to perpetuate a conscious existence which He originated ex nihilo. For wise ends, He might suffer an unfallen angel not only to lose consciousness, but to lapse into his original nonentity. But He could not, in justice, inflict retributive suffering upon him.

4. Fourth, the extinction either of being, or of consciousness, admits of no degrees of punishment. All transgressors are punished exactly alike. This contradicts LUK 12:47, 48; ROM 2:12.

5. Fifth, according to this theory, brutes are punished. In losing consciousness at death, the animal like the man incurs an everlasting loss. The Annihilationist contends that the substance of punishment is in the result, and not in its being felt or experienced. If a transgressor is put out of conscious existence, the result is an everlasting loss to him, though he does not know it. But the same thing is true of a brute. And if the former is punished, the latter is also.

6. Sixth, the advocate of Conditional Immortality, in teaching that the extinction of consciousness is the eternal death of Scripture, implies that the continuance of consciousness is the eternal life. But mere consciousness is not happiness. Judas was conscious, certainly, when he hung himself, even if he is not now. But he was not happy.

7. Seventh, the extinction of consciousness is not regarded by sinful men as an evil, but a good. They substitute the doctrine of the eternal sleep of the soul, for that of its eternal punishment. This shows that the two things are not equivalents. When Mirabeau lay dying, he cried passionately for opium, that he might never awake. The guilty and remorseful have, in all ages, deemed the extinction of consciousness after death to be a blessing; but the advocate of Conditional Immortality explains it to be a curse. "Sight and hearing, and all Earthly good, without justice and virtue," says Plato [Laws II. 661], "are the greatest of evils, if life be immortal; but not so great, if the bad man lives a very short time."

8. Eighth, the fact that the soul depends for its immortality and consciousness upon the upholding power of its Maker does not prove either that it is to be annihilated, or to lose consciousness. Matter also depends for its existence and operations upon the Creator. Both matter and mind can be annihilated by the same Being who created them from nothing. Whether He will cease to uphold any particular work of His hand, can be known only by revelation. In the material world, we see no evidence of such an intention. We are told that the elements shall melt with fervent heat, but not that they shall be annihilated. And, certainly, all that God has said in Revelation in regard to creation, redemption, and perdition, implies and teaches that he intends to uphold, and not to annihilate the human spirit; to perpetuate, and not extinguish its self-consciousness.

The form of Universalism which is the most respectable, and therefore the most dangerous, is that which concedes the force of the Biblical and rational arguments respecting the guilt of sin, and its intrinsic desert of everlasting punishment, but contends that redemption from it through the vicarious atonement of Christ is extended into the next world. The advocates of this view assert, that between death and the final judgment the application of Christ’s work is going on; that the Holy Spirit is regenerating sinners in the intermediate state, and they are believing and repenting as in this life. This makes the day of judgment, instead of the day of death, the dividing line between "time" and "eternity"; between o aiwn outoV, and aiwn o mellwn. And this makes the intermediate state a third aeon by itself, lying between "time" and "eternity"; between this world, and the world to come.

That the "intermediate state" is not a third aeon, but a part of the second endless aeon, is proved by the following considerations:

1. First, by the fact that in Scripture the disembodied state is not called "intermediate." This is an ecclesiastical term which came in with the doctrine of purgatory, and along with the exaggeration of the difference between Paradise and Heaven, and between Hades and Gehenna.

2. Second, by the fact that in Scripture death is represented as the deciding epoch in a man’s existence It is the boundary between the two Biblical aeons, or worlds. Until a man dies, he is in "this world" (o nun aiwn); after death, he is in "the future world" (aiwn o mellwn). The common understanding of the teaching of Scripture is, that men are in "time," so long as they live, but when they die, they enter "eternity." It is appointed unto men once to die, but after that the judgment [HEB 9:27]. ³³[In HEB 9:27, krisiV is anarthrous: after death comes judgment. The writer does not say that the judgment immediately succeeds the death of the body, but that a judgment does]. This teaches that prior to death, man’s destiny is not decided, he being not yet sentenced; but after death, his destiny is settled. When he dies, the "private judgment," that is, the immediate personal consciousness either of penitence or impenitence, occurs. Every human spirit, in that supreme moment when it returns to God who gave it, knows by direct self-consciousness whether it is a child or an enemy of God, in temper and disposition; whether it is humble and contrite, or proud, hard, and impenitent; whether it welcomes or rejects the Divine mercy in Christ. The article of death is an event in human existence which strips off all disguises, and shows the person what he really is, in moral character. He knows as he is known, and in this flashing light passes a sentence upon himself that is accurate. This "private judgment" at death, is reaffirmed in the "general judgment" of the last day.

Accordingly, our Lord teaches distinctly that death is a finality for the impenitent sinner. Twice in succession, he says with awful emphasis to the Pharisees: If you believe not that I Am He, you shall die in your sins [JOH 8:21, 24]. This implies, that to "die in sin," is to be hopelessly lost. Again, he says: Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he who walks in darkness knows not where he goes. While you have light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light [JOH 12:35, 36]. According to these words of the Redeemer, the light of the gospel is not accessible in the darkness of death. The night comes, when no man can work [JOH 9:4]. The night of death puts a stop to the work of salvation that is appointed to be done in the daytime of this life. Paul teaches the same truth, in 1TH 5:5-7: You are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and he sober. For those who sleep, sleep in the night; and those who are drunk, are drunk in the night. God said unto him, You fool, this night your soul shall be required of you: then whose shall those things be which you have provided? So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God [LUK 12:20, 21].

With these New Testament teachings, agrees the frequent affirmation of the Old Testament, that after death nothing can be done in the way of securing salvation. In death there is no remembrance of you: in the grave who shall give you thanks? [PSA 6:5]. Will you show wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise you? Shall your loving kindness be declared in the grave? [PSA 88:10, 11]. The dead praise not the Lord, nor any that go down into silence [PSA 115:17]. To him who is joined to all the living, there is hope: for the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward [ECC 9:4-6]. These passages do not teach the utter unconsciousness of the soul after death. In flat contradiction to that long list already cited which asserts the contrary, but that there is no alteration of character in the next life. "In death, there is no [happy] remembrance of God" [if there has been none in life]. "The dead shall not arise, and praise God" [in the next world, if they have not done so in this world]. "Shall God declare his loving kindness [to one] in the grave" [if he has not declared it to him when upon earth]?

The parable of Dives proves that death is the turning point in human existence, and fixes the everlasting state of the person. Dives asks that his brethren may be warned before they die and enter Hades; because after death and the entrance into Hades, there is an impassable gulf between misery and happiness, sin and holiness. This shows that the so-called "intermediate" state is not intermediate in respect to the essential elements of Heaven and Hell, but is a part of the final and endless state of the soul. It is "intermediate," only in reference to the secondary matter of the presence or absence of the body.

The asserted extension of redemption into the endless aeon, or age, is contradicted by Scripture. Salvation from sin is represented as confined to the limited aeon. One of the most important passages bearing upon this point is 1CO 15:24-28. Then comes the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, when He shall have put down all [opposing] rule, and all [opposing] authority and power. For He must reign, till He has put all enemies under His feet. Paul here states the fact, disclosed to him by revelation from God, that the redemption of sinners will not go on forever, but will cease at a certain point of time. The Mediator will carry on his work of saving sinful men, until He has gathered in His church, and completed the work according to the original plan and covenant between Himself and His Father, and then will surrender His mediatorial commission and office (basileian). There will then no longer be any mediation going on between sinners and God. The church will be forever united to their Divine Head in Heaven, and the wicked will be shut up in the outer darkness. That Christ’s mediatorial work does not secure the salvation of all men during the appointed period in which it is carried on, is proved by the fact that when the end comes some men are described as the enemies of Christ, and as being put under his feet [1CO 15:21, 25]. All of Christ’s redeemed stand before His throne [REV 14:3; 19:4-7; 21:3]. They are in the mansions which He has prepared for them [JOH 14:2, 3].

The reason assigned for Christ’s surrender of His mediatorial commission is, that God may be all in all [1CO 15:28] not, that God even the Father may be all in all [1CO 15:24]. It is the Trinity that is to be supreme. To Christ, as an incarnate Trinitarian person, and an anointed mediator, all power is [temporarily] given in Heaven and upon Earth [MAT 28:29], for the purpose of saving sinners. As such, He accepts and holds a secondary position of condescension and humiliation, when compared with His original unincarnate position. In this reference, He receives a commandment [JOH 10:18], and a Kingdom [1CO. 15:24]. In this reference, as believers are Christ’s, so Christ is God’s [1CO 3:23]; and as the head of the woman is the man, so the head of Christ is God [1CO 11:3]. But when Christ has finished His work of mediating between the triune God and sinful men, and of saving sinners, this condition of subjection to an office and a commission ceases. The dominion (basileian) over Heaven and Earth, temporarily delegated to a single Trinitarian person incarnate, for purposes of redemption and salvation, now returns to the Eternal Three whence it came, and to Whom it originally belongs. The Son of God, His humanity exalted and glorified, and His Divine-human person united forever to His church as their Head, no longer prosecutes that work of redemption which He carried forward through certain ages of time, but, with the Father and Spirit, Three in One, reigns over the entire universe--over the holy who stand before the throne, and over the wicked who are under his feet, and in the bottomless pit.

The confinement of the work of redemption to the limited aeon, which terminates practically for each individual at the death of the body, is taught in many other passages of Scripture. My spirit shall not always [R.V. for ever] strive with man, for that he also is [sinful] flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years [GEN. 6:3]. This teaches that the converting operation of the Divine Spirit in the sinner’s heart, is limited to the 120 years which was then the average length of human life. O that they were wise, that they would consider their latter end [DEU 32:29]. Teach us so to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom [PSA 90:12]. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave where you are going [ECC 9:10]. Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near [ISA 55:6]. Take heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with overindulgence, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares: for as a snare shall it come on all those who dwell on the face of the Earth [LUK 21:34, 35]. Watch, therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord comes. The Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looks not for Him, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with unbelievers: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" [MAT 24:42, 50]. If you had known, even you, at least in this your day, the things which belong unto your peace! but now they are hid from your eyes [LUK 19:42]. Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and has shut the door, and you begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying Lord, Lord, open unto us, He shall answer, and say unto you, I know you not from where you come [LUK 13:24, 25]. We beseech you that you receive not the grace of God in vain. For He says, I have heard you in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I helped you: behold now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation [2CO 6:2]. Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts [HEB 3:7]. The argument in HEB 3:7-19 is to the effect, that as God swore that those Israelites who did not believe and obey His servant Moses during the forty years of wandering in the desert should not enter the Earthly Canaan, so those who do not while it is called, Today–that is, while they are here in time--believe and obey His Son Jesus Christ, shall not enter the Heavenly Canaan. Take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief. But exhort one another daily, while it is called, Today [HEB 3:12, 13]. God limited a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time [of impenitence], Today, if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts [HEB. 4:7]. HEB 10:26 speaks of a time when there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries of God. Behold I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give to every man according as his work shall be. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he who is holy, let him be holy still [REV 22:11, 12].

If sinners are redeemed beyond the grave, man must be informed of the fact by God Himself. There is no other way of finding it out. He has not been so informed, but, if language has any meaning, has been informed of the contrary. Bishop Butler [Analogy, Pt. I. Ch. ii] states the case with his usual conciseness and clearness. "Reason did, as it well might, conclude that it should finally be well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked; but it could not he determined upon any principles of reason whether human creatures might not have been appointed to pass through other states of life and being, before that distributive justice should finally and effectually take place. Revelation teaches us that the next state of things after the present is appointed for the execution of this justice; that it shall no longer be delayed, but the mystery of God, the great mystery of His suffering vice and confusion to prevail, shall then be finished; and He will take to Him His great power, and will reign, by rendering to every one according to his works."

The asserted extension of redemption into the period between death and the resurrection cannot be placed upon the ground of right and justice; and the only other ground possible, that of the Divine promise so to extend it, is wanting. Our Lord teaches that men prior to His coming into the world are condemned already [JOH 3:16]. His advent to save them supposes that they are already lost; and they are lost by sin; and sin is man’s free self determination. ³⁴[The strange position has recently been taken, that the rejection of Christ is the only sin that brings eternal death. "No one," says Dorner [Christian Doctrine, IV., 167], "will be damned merely on account of the common sin and guilt. But every one is definitely brought to [guilty] personal decision only through the gospel." Says a writer in the Andover Review [Dec., 1885, p. 574]: "No one can be lost without the knowledge of Christ."

[This implies that man's sin against the moral law is not sufficient to condemn him to eternal death. He must sin against the gospel before he can be so condemned. Neither original sin nor actual transgression, neither evil inclination nor outward crime, both of which are sins against the law, expose a man to Hell.

[This is an entirely new position, not to be found in the past history of eschatology, and invented, apparently, to furnish a basis for the doctrine of a future offer of redemption. The objections to it are the following:

[1. It contradicts the whole tenor of scripture. Christ teaches that He came to call actual and guilty sinners to repentance [LUK 5:32]; that He came to seek and save that which was really and truly lost [LUK 19:10]; that He did not come into the world to condemn the world (because it was already condemned), but to save the world [JOH 3:17, 18]. Paul affirms that the whole world, prior to redemption, and irrespective of it, are guilty before God [ROM 3:19]. John asserts that the whole world, Gentile and Jewish, unevangelized and evangelized, lies in wickedness [1JO 5:19]. To quote all the passages in which the Bible teaches that men are exposed to eternal death on account of their transgression of the law of God, would be to quote a large part of the Bible. The rejection of the gospel adds a new sin, and a very aggravating one, to the already existing sin against the divine law [JOH 15:22], but it is not the primary and original ground of condemnation. Men are punished, first of all, because they have sinned and come short of the glory of God [ROM 3:23].

[2. Second, unless man has already sinned against the law, he cannot sin against the gospel. If he has not previously committed a damning sin, for which Christ has atoned, he cannot reject Christ's atonement any more than an innocent angel can. The rejection of salvation is meaningless, if no damnation has been incurred. If there is no disease, there can be no cure, nor rejection of a cure.

[3. Third, if no human soul is in danger of perdition until it has rejected Christ, then, if Christ had never been offered to man, no man would be lost. For if He were not offered He could not be rejected. In this case, it would have been infinitely better for mankind had Christ never come into the world on an errand of salvation. Had He remained unincarnate, as He had been from eternity, no one could have refused belief in Him, and, as unbelief is the only damning sin, no one could have been damned.

[4. Fourth, if "no man can be lost without the knowledge of Christ," then none of the past heathen world who died without this knowledge incurred perdition for the "deed done in the body," and none of the existing heathen world who are destitute of this knowledge are liable to perdition from this cause. In this case, it is a matter of rejoicing that the past generations of pagans never heard of the Redeemer, and it should be an earnest endeavor of the Church to prevent all of the present generation of pagans from hearing of Him.

[Dorner's theory, that "no one will be damned merely on account of the common sin and guilt," is full of inconsistency and self-contradiction. First, he holds that man is in a state of "sin and guilt," but it is a species of sin and guilt that does not deserve endless punishment, and is not in danger of it. Second, he holds that man needs "salvation" from such an unendangered state. Third, he holds that God is bound in justice to provide "salvation" from such an unendangered state. "The gospel," he says [IV., 167], "repentance and forgiveness of sins, is to be preached to all nations. This cannot refer merely to nations as unities, but must refer also to every individual; for otherwise the universality of the gracious purpose would not be sincerely meant; and if God refused what is indispensable to salvation to the individual, condemnation would be impossible. "Fourth, he holds that God exhibits mercy, when he does what he is obligated to do.

[To all this self-stultifying soteriology, the principle enunciated by Paul [ROM 11:6] is a conclusive reply: If by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. If man's "common sin and guilt" is not damning, then it is no longer sin and guilt: otherwise sin and guilt are no more sin and guilt. If Christ's salvation is not from eternal death and Hell, then it is no longer salvation: otherwise salvation is no longer salvation. And if God's mercy is justly due to man, then it is no longer mercy: otherwise mercy is no longer mercy.

[Julius Muller, though holding (upon the ground of MAT 12:32) "the glorious hope that in the world to come, in far distant aeons, some who here harden their hearts against God's revelation, and can expect only a verdict of condemnation in the day of judgment, shall find forgiveness and salvation" [Sin, II., 429], denies and combats Dorner's position that sin against the gospel is the only damning sin [Sin, II., 400]. For a very able argument in proof that both evil inclination and outward transgression are damning, see [Sin, I., 198-214]. Consequently, man the sinner has no claim upon God for redemption. Forgiveness is undeserved, whether offered here or hereafter. The exercise of mercy is optional with God. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy [ROM 9:15]. It follows from this, that the length of time during which the offer of mercy is made to transgressors is likewise optional with God. It may he long or short, according to the Divine will. Should God say to a sinner: "I will pardon your sin today, if you will penitently confess it, but not tomorrow," this sinner could not complain of injustice, but would owe gratitude for the mercy thus extended for a limited time. It cannot be said, that unless God offers to pardon man forever and ever, He is not a merciful Being. Neither can this be said, if He confines redemption to this life, and does not redeem sinners in the intermediate state *[Compare the Author’s Sermons to the Natural man. Sermon XVIII].

It is here that the logical inconsistency of such theologians as Müller and Dorner appears. Lessing the first of German critics, makes the following remark respecting the German mind: "We Germans suffer from no lack of systematic books. No nation in the world surpasses us in the faculty of deducing from a couple of definitions whatever conclusions we please, in most fair and logical order." [Preface to the Laocoon]. The truth of this remark is illustrated by some of the systems of theology and philosophy constructed in Germany. The reasoning is close, consecutive, and true, in some sections, but loose, inconsequent, and false, as a whole. The mind of the thinker when moving in the limited sphere, moves logically; but moving in the universe, and attempting to construct a philosophy or theology of the Infinite, fails utterly. Many of the trains of reasoning in Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre are profound, closely reasoned, and correct, but the system as a whole has fatal defects. No one will deny the rigor of Hegel’s logical processes, in segments, but the total circle of his thinking is pantheistic, and full of inconsistency.

Lessing’s remark applies to that type of Universalism of which Müller and Dorner are the best representatives, and the ablest advocates. In the first place, upon "a couple" of obscure and dubious scripture texts, they rear the whole great fabric of a future redemption, in direct contradiction to some scores of perfectly plain texts that teach the confinement of redemption to this life. And, second, after laying down a theory of sin which represents it as pure self-determination and guilt, sin is then discussed as an evil that is entitled to the offer of a pardon, and a remedy. Müller and Dorner, both alike, explain sin as originating in the free and guilty agency of the finite will, and as requiring an atonement in order to its remission *[The merit of Müller, in particular, in respect to a profound and true view of sin is very great. No theological treatise of this century has more value than his work on Sin]. And yet both alike, when they come to eschatology, assume tacitly, but do not formally assert, that the Divine Perfection requires that the offer of forgiveness he made, sooner or later, to every sinner; that there will be a defect in the benevolence, and a blemish in the character, of the Supreme Being, if He does not tender a pardon to every transgressor of His law. Their eschatology thus contradicts their hamartiology [doctrine of sin].

The extension of the work of redemption into the future world is made to rest very much, for its support, upon the cases of the heathen and of infants [emphasis added - aal]. Respecting the former, it is certain that the heathen are voluntary transgressors of the moral law, and therefore have no claim upon the Divine mercy. Scripture teaches that they perish because of their sin, and impenitence in sin. It is wicked to sin, and still more wicked not to repent of it. The heathen are chargeable with both. Paul describes them as those who knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them [ROM 1:32]. The Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, who being past feeling have given themselves over to inciting lustful desires to work all uncleanness with greediness [EPH 4:17]. There is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without [written] law shall also perish without [written] law [ROM 2:11]. The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ [ROM 2:14, 15]. Remember that you being in time past Gentiles, were at that time without hope, and without God in the world [EPH 2:11, 12]. Murderers, whoremongers, and idolaters, shall have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone: which is the second death [REV 21:8] ³⁵[For a powerful description of heathen depravity, see that of Thucydides, written with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond. "The plague introduced other and worse forms of lawlessness at Athens. Men who had hitherto concealed their indulgence in pleasure now grew bolder. For seeing the sudden change--how the rich died in a moment, and those who had nothing immediately inherited their property--they reflected that life and riches were alike transitory, and resolved to enjoy themselves while they could, and think only of pleasure. Who would be willing to sacrifice himself to the law of honor, when he knew not whether he should ever live to be held in honor? The pleasure of the moment, and any sort of thing which conduced to it, took the place of honor and expediency. No fear of God or law of man delivered a criminal. Those who saw all perishing alike thought that the worship or neglect of the gods made no difference. For offenses against human law no punishment was to be feared; no one would live long enough to be called to account. Already a far heavier sentence had been passed and was hanging over a man's head; before that fell why should he not take a little pleasure?" [Jowett's Thucydides, B. II., 53]. "When troubles had once begun in the cities men carried the revolutionary spirit further and further, and determined to outdo the record of all who had preceded them, by the ingenuity of their enterprises and the atrocity of their revenges. The meaning of words had no longer the same relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of a coward; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing. Frantic energy was the true quality of a man. He who succeeded in a plot was deemed knowing, but a still greater master in craft was he who detected one. In a word, he who could outstrip another in a bad action was applauded, and so was he who encouraged to evil one who had no idea of it" [Jowett's Thucydides, B. III., 82]. For a similar description of man acting from selfishness, see the "Plebeian's speech" in Machiavelli's History of Florence, B. III., ch. iii]. Jesus Christ said from Heaven to Saul of Tarsus, that He had appointed him to be a minister and witness to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith [ACT 26:16-18]. There is, consequently, no ground for asserting that justice and equity require that the pardon of sins be tendered to the heathen in the next life.

[The rest of the paragraphs of this chapter are totally unbiblical–aal]

It does not follow, however, that because God is not obliged to offer pardon to the unevangelized heathen, either here or hereafter, therefore no unevangelized heathen are pardoned. The electing mercy of God reaches to the heathen. It is not the doctrine of the Church, that the entire mass of pagans, without exception, have gone down to endless impenitence and death. That some unevangelized men are saved, in the present life, by an extraordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ, has been the hope and belief of Christendom. It was the hope and belief of the elder Calvinists, as it is of the later ³⁶[The following extract from Witsius [Apostles' Creed, Dissertation II] exhibits the hopeful view which the elder Calvinism took of the possible extent to which God's decree of election reaches: "Doctrines may be said to be necessary, either to salvation, or to religion, or to the church. A doctrine, without the knowledge and belief of which God does not save persons who have come to years of moral consciousness, is necessary to salvation; a doctrine, without the profession and practice of which no one can be considered religious, is necessary to religion; and a doctrine, without which no one is admitted to the communion of the visible church, is necessary to the church. There may be articles without which persons ought not to be admitted to the fellowship of the church, that should not, for that reason, be regarded as absolutely essential either to religion or to salvation. Although we might not dare to pronounce a sentence of condemnation against a particular man, we ought not, in defiance of order and discretion, to receive him forthwith into the bosom of our church, whatever sentiments he might hold, and to whatever sect he might belong. And with respect to religion, what falls within the sphere of duty is manifest. But how far it may please a gracious God, or how far it may be possible for him in consistency with His perfections and character, to extend His forbearance to anyone, and save his soul, notwithstanding his errors and sins; or, in short, what are the lowest attainments without which no man is saved--who can tell? For this distinction in doctrines, I am indebted to the celebrated Hornbeck [Socinianismi Confutatio, Tom. I., p. 209].

[Again, the knowledge of those doctrines which are necessary to salvation admits of various degrees. It is in different measures of clearness, abundance, and efficacy, that divine revelation, the means of grace, and the communications of the Spirit are enjoyed; and a corresponding diversity takes place in the degrees of knowledge which the saints attain. In some it is clear, distinct, steady, and accompanied with a very firm and decided assent; in others it is more confused, more implicit and latent, subject to occasional wavering, and attended with an assent that is yielded with difficulty. The command of God, indeed, lays an indispensable obligation upon all men to make every possible effort to attain a most clear, distinct, and assured knowledge of divine truth. It cannot, however, be questioned, that the Deity, in his unbounded goodness, receives many to the abodes of bliss whose knowledge even of the principal articles is very indistinct, and such as they are hardly capable of expressing in their own words. The smallest measure of the requisite knowledge appears to be this, namely, that when an article of faith is explained, the mind so far at least apprehends it, as to recognize and embrace it as true.

[Furthermore, times must be distinguished. It admits of no doubt that under the bright dispensation of the Gospel, a more extensive and explicit knowledge is necessary to salvation than was required under the Old Testament economy; for it is reasonable that both knowledge, and the necessity of knowledge, should increase in proportion to the measure of revelation afforded. Under the Old dispensation, nay, during the time of our Savior's abode on the Earth, it was possible for a man to be a true believer, and in a state of grace, who was ignorant of the sufferings, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, and who even presumed to object to the testimony of Christ Himself respecting these momentous topics, as is clear from the instance of Peter [MAT 16:21-23]; or, who, though he believed in general in the Messiah, yet knew not that Jesus is the Christ, as appears from the history of Cornelius the centurion [ACT 10:2-4]. No one, however, I suppose, would now acknowledge any person [in Christendom] as a true believer, who should discover ignorance of these truths respecting the Lord Jesus; and still less a person who should contradict them when represented to him. On this subject the remark of Thomas Aquinas [Secunda Secundae, i. 7] deserves to be quoted: 'The articles of faith,' says he, 'have increased with the lapse of time, not indeed with respect to the faith itself, but with respect to explicit and express profession. The same things which are believed explicitly, and under a greater number of articles by the saints in latter days, were all believed implicitly, and under a smaller number by the fathers in ancient times]. The Second Helvetic Confession [I. 7], after the remark that the ordinary mode of salvation is by the instrumentality of the written word, adds: "Agnoscimus, interim, deum illuminare posse homines etiam sine externo ministerio, quo et quando velit: id quod ejus potentiae est." The Westminster Confession [X. 3], after saying that "elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases," adds, "so also are all other elect persons [regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit] who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." This is commonly understood to refer not merely, or mainly, to idiots and insane persons, but to such of the pagan world as God pleases to regenerate without the use of the written revelation. One of the sternest Calvinists of the 16th century, Zanchius, whose treatise on predestination was translated by Toplady, after remarking that many nations have never had the privilege of hearing the word, says [Ch. IV] that "it is not indeed improbable that some individuals in these unenlightened countries may belong to the secret election of grace, and the habit of faith may be wrought in them." By the term "habit" (habitus), the elder theologians meant an inward disposition of the heart. The "habit of faith" involves penitence for sin, and the longing for its forgiveness and removal. The "habit of faith" is the broken and contrite heart, which expresses itself in the prayer, "God be merciful to me a sinner." It is certain that the Holy Spirit can produce, if He please, such a disposition and frame of mind in a pagan, without employing, as He commonly does, the written word [This sentence blatantly denies ROM 10:13-17--aal]. The case of the blind man, in John 9:36-38, is an example of the "habit of faith," though produced in this instance through the instrumentality of the written law. Jesus said unto him, Do you believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? And Jesus said unto him, You have both seen Him, and it is He Who talks with you. And he said, Lord I believe. And he worshipped Him." Here was sorrow for sin, and a desire for redemption from it, wrought in the heart by the Divine Spirit, prior to the actual knowledge of Christ as the Savior of sinners. The cases of the centurion Cornelius, and the Ethiopian eunuch, are also examples of the "habit of faith." These men, under the teaching of the Spirit, were conscious of sin, and were anxiously inquiring if, and how, it could be forgiven. That there is a class of persons in unevangelized heathendom who are the subjects of gracious influences of this kind, is implied in Paul’s affirmation, that they are not all Israel, who are of Israel [ROM 9:6]; and that those who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham [GAL 3:7]. It is taught also in MAT 8:11; LUK 13:30: Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of Heaven, but the children of the Kingdom [those who have had the written word] shall be cast out. And, behold, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last. This affirmation of Christ was called out by the "habit of faith," or disposition to believe, in that Gentile centurion, respecting whom He said, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel [MAT 8:5-10] ³⁷["It is a very significant fact that the subject of the book of Ruth is a heathen woman; she is, indeed, the third heathen woman in the genealogy of David and Christ, being preceded by the Canaanitess Tamar [GEN 38] and the Canannitess Rahab. Ruth is the most noble of all--a consecrated blossom of paganism, turning with a longing desire to the light and salvation of Israel. The fact that these three females are brought forward and engrafted on the chosen line or family, conveys a very expressive lesson to the Israelites, abases their national pride, and bears testimony (by being both a fulfillment and a type) to all that had been promised to Abraham respecting his seed, namely, that in him should all families of the Earth be blessed [GEN 12:3]. Of those who are blessed in the seed of Abraham, Naomi represents the people of God who are to proceed from the ancient people of the covenant, and Ruth represents those proceeding from the heathen world" (Kurtz's Sacred History, § 66)].

The true reason for hoping that an unevangelized heathen is saved is not that he was virtuous, but that he was penitent. A penitent man is necessarily virtuous; but a virtuous man is not necessarily penitent. Sorrow for sin produces morality; but morality does not produce sorrow for sin. A great error is committed at this point. The Senecas, the Antonines, the Plutarchs, and such like, have been singled out as the hopeful examples in paganism. It is not for man to decide what was the real state of the heart; but the writings of these men do not reveal the sense of sin; do not express penitence; do not show a craving for redemption. There is too much egotism, self-consciousness, and self-righteousness in them. The man, judged by his books, is moral, but proud. He is virtuous, but plumes himself upon it. This is not a hopeful characteristic, when we are asking what are the prospects of a human soul, before the bar of God. To this man will I look, says the Lord, even to him who is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at My word [ISA 66:2]. Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven [MAT 5:3].

This line of remark holds good in Christendom, as well as in Heathendom. There is a class of men in modern society marked by morality, and lofty self-respect, but by no consciousness of sin, and no confession of it. And judged by New Testament principles, no class of mankind is farther off from the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no class that scorns the publican’s cry, and spurns the atoning blood, with such decision and energy as they. To them, the words of Christ, in a similar case, apply: The publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of Heaven before you [MAR 21:31]. The Magdalen is nearer the Divine Pity than the Pharisee. And upon the same principle, those benighted children of ignorance and barbarism who feel their sin and degradation, and are ready to listen with docility to the missionary when he comes with the tidings of the Infinite Compassion, are nearer to Heaven, than the children of a gilded and heartless civilization, who have no moral unrest, and turn a deaf ear to all the overtures of mercy *[The passage, In every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him [ACT 10:35], is often explained as teaching that there are in every nation some who live virtuous and exemplary lives, and upon this ground obtain the rewards and blessedness of the future. This would be salvation by works, which is impossible, according to Paul. It is with reference to such an interpretation of this text, that the Westminster Confession [X.4] asserts, that "men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any way whatever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion which they do profess" ³⁸[The Thirty-nine Articles agree with the Westminster Confession in asserting that no man, either in Christendom or heathendom, can be saved by his morality and virtue. "They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professes, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to the law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture does set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved" (Article XVIII)]. In the passage above cited, the phrase "fearer of God," and "worker of righteousness," is employed technically, by Peter, to denote a man inquiring after the way of salvation--somewhat as it was among the Jews, to signify a proselyte of the gate [Guericke’s Church History, p. 29]. This is evident from the fact, that to this devout Cornelius who feared God with all his house [ACT 10:2], the Apostle preached Christ as the Savior of sinners, through whose name, whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins," and that Cornelius believed, and was baptized [ACT 10:36-38]. He would not have done this, if he had expected that his "fearing God" and "working righteousness"--in other words, his morality and virtue--would save him].

This extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit is mentioned by the Redeemer, to illustrate the sovereignty of God in the exercise of mercy, not to guide his church in their evangelistic labor. His command is, to preach the gospel to every creature. The extraordinary and "strange" work of God is not a thing for man to expect, and rely upon, either in the kingdom of nature, or of grace. It is His ordinary and established method which is to direct him. The law of missionary effort is, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God [ROM 11:17].

Two errors, therefore, are to be avoided: First, that all men are saved; secondly that only a few men are saved. Some fifty years ago, Schleiermacher surprised all Lutheran Germany with a defense of the Calvinistic doctrine of election; but the surprise was diminished, when it appeared that he held that God has elected, and will save, every human creature without exception. This cannot be squared with Scripture. On the other hand, some Calvinists have represented the number of the reprobated as greater than that of the elect, or equal to it. They found this upon the words of Christ, Many are called, but few are chosen. But this describes the situation at the time when our Lord spoke, and not the final result of His redemptive work. Christ Himself, in the days of His flesh, called many, but few responded to the call from His gracious lips. Our Lord’s own preaching was not as successful as that of His apostles, and of many of His ministers. This was a part of His humiliation, and sorrow. But when Christ shall have seen of the travail of His soul, and been satisfied with what He has seen; when the whole course of the gospel shall be complete, and shall be surveyed from beginning to end; it will be found that God’s elect, or church, is a great multitude which no man can number, out of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues, and that their voice is as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Hallelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigns [REV 7:9; 19:6]. The circle of God’s election is a great circle of the Heavens, and not that of a treadmill.

Respecting the more difficult case of infants–the Scriptures do not discriminate and except them as a class from the mass of mankind, but involve them in the common sin and condemnation. Suffer little children to come unto Me [their Redeemer] [LUK 18:16]. The promise [of salvation] is unto you, and to your children [ACT 2:39]. The fall in Adam explains their case. Adopting the Augustino-Calvinistic statement of this fall, it can then be said that infants, like all others of the human family, freely and responsibly "sinned in Adam, and fell with him, in his first transgression" [Westminster Shorter Catechism, 16]. This is no more impossible, and no more of a mystery, in the case of infants, than of adults. If it be conceded that the whole race apostatized in Adam, infants are righteously exposed to the punishment of sin, and have no claim upon the Divine mercy. The sin which brings condemnation upon them is original sin, and not actual transgressions. But original sin is the sinful inclination of the will. An infant has a rational soul; this soul has a will; this will is wrongly inclined; and wrong inclination is self-determined and punishable. If sinful inclination in an adult needs to be expiated by the atoning blood of Christ, so does sinful inclination in an infant. Infants, consequently, sustain the very same relation to the mercy of God in Christ that the remainder of the human race do. They need the Divine clemency, like the rest of mankind. The "salvation" of infants supposes their prior damnation. Whoever asserts that an infant is "saved" by implication concedes that it is "lost." The salvation of an infant, like that of an adult, involves the remission and removal of sin, and depends upon the unmerited and optional grace of God. This being so, it cannot be said, that God would treat an infant unjustly, if He did not offer him salvation in the intermediate state. And upon the supposition, now common in the evangelical churches, that all infants dying in infancy, being elect, are "regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, and where, and how He pleases" [Westminster Confession, X. 3], there is no need of any such offer. ³⁹[Toplady, one of the highest Calvinists of the Church of England, remarks as follows, respecting the salvation of all infants dying in infancy: "The rubric of the Church of England (declares that 'it is certain by God's word that children which are baptized, dying, before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.' I believe firmly the same. Nay, I believe more. I am convinced that the souls of all departed infants whatever, whether baptized or unbaptized, are with God in glory. And I think my belief warranted by an authority which cannot err--MAT 18:14" [A blatant perversion of MAT 18:14 - aal] (Church of England Vindicated)].

Next Chapter

Return To Main Index

Page last updated: 12/17/98 A. Allison Lewis aalewis@christianbeliefs.org