hundred years. It is seen to be logically and intimately connected with the popular doctrines of fore-ordination, election, reprobation, imputed sin and imputed righteousness—clearly of the same family and household as these. Nor is the doctrine one whit more immoral in its tendency, nor more dishonorable to the character of the Divine Being, than is the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, to which, indeed, in some respects, it seems intimately allied. For, says the learned Theophilus Gale:
"There is no justice properly so termed in respect of the Creatures, whereby God stands obliged to them, antecedent to the constitution of his own Will. Nothing more unjust than to deny unto God an absolute Dominion to dispose of the Creature made by him as it pleaseth him. And that God DID, DE FACTO, inflict the highest torments on an innocent, pure, spotless Creature, even the Human Nature of His own Son, is most evident."[1]
And now the question comes, Why is it that this doctrine of infant damnation, which once stalked abroad so boldly, and was treated everywhere with such cordial respect and affection, has become so disagreeable and unpopular of late? Why is it that in these latter times it so shrinks from exposure, and anxiously seeks to hide its hideous head? Why is it that this doctrine has become so much more odious to Christians now, than it was one or two centuries ago? Why is it that you no longer hear it mentioned from
- ↑ Court of the Gentiles, Part iv. B. ii. chap. vi. § 1.
