CHAPTER I.
THE OLD DOCTRINE.
"A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness."—Joel ii. 2.
The prevailing belief of the Christian Church hitherto, in regard to the state of infants after death, is a legitimate subject of inquiry, and one which we think may be pursued with profit. Not only so, but it is a subject in which all Christians might be expected to feel a common interest. And if the inquiry be prosecuted in a spirit of Christian candor and fairness, some valuable instruction may be gathered from it, and no one will have just cause of offense. Observe that our inquiry relates not to the prevailing belief on this subject among Christians now, but to the belief which had prevailed in the Church prior to Swedenborg's time, or to the revelations made through him. We are happy to believe that the old, and once popular doctrine of infant damnation, is looked upon with little or no favor in any respectable Christian communion of the present day. All who will, may see, and nearly all do see, by the light of the New Age, that this old doctrine could have originated nowhere else than in the darkness of the abyss:—that it never came down from God out of heaven.
In the prosecution of our design, we shall pursue that course which we deem the fairest, and likely at the same time to be most satisfactory to the reader: that is, we shall exhibit the hitherto prevalent belief among Christians on this subject, by copious quotations from authentic documents, citing the ipsissima verba of the writers themselves.
And we begin with the opinion of Augustine—sometimes called in the short style of the Middle Ages, St. Austin—who lived and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century. And of this writer the Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge says: "He was one of the most celebrated Fathers of the church, whose writings for many centuries had almost as potent an influence on the religious opinions of christendom, as those of Aristotle exercised over philosophy." What did this learned and influential Father believe and teach concerning the final state of many who die in infancy? Hear him:
"It may therefore be truly said, that infants, dying without baptism, will be in a state of damnation of all the most mild. But, greatly does he deceive and is he deceived, who affirms that they will not be damned."[1]
Again, this eminent Father says:—
"We affirm that they [infants] will not be saved and have eternal life, except they be baptized in Christ. * * * * This new doctrine, that there is eternal life independent of the kingdom of heaven, that there is eternal salvation independent of the kingdom of God, was never before heard of in the church. First, see, brother, whether perchance you ought not hence to agree with us, that whosoever does not belong to the kingdom of God, must, without doubt, belong to the number of the damned. The Lord will come, and, about to judge the living and the dead, will, according to the gospel, make two divisions, the right and the left. To those on the left, he will say, Depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. To those on the right, he will say, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom which was prepared for you from the foundation of the world. The one he calls a kingdom, the other damnation with the devil. There is no middle place left, where you can put infants."—"Behold, on the right is the kingdom of heaven. Inherit, he says, the kingdom. He who is not there, is on the left. What will happen on the left? Depart into everlasting fire. On the right, an eternal kingdom; on the left, everlasting fire. He that is not on the right, will indisputably be on the left. Therefore he that is not in the kingdom, is doubtless in eternal fire. Certainly he cannot have eternal life, who is not baptized; he will not be on the right, that is, he will not be in the kingdom. * * * In his [the Lord's] last sentence, that he might teach what is the kingdom, and what eternal fire, he says, [Matt XXV. 46,] Then these shall go away into everlasting burning, but the righteous into life eternal.
"Behold, he [the Lord] has explained to you what is the kingdom, and what is everlasting fire; so that when you confess that an infant will not be in the kingdom, you may allow that he will be in eternal fire.
"I feel that this question is a profound one, and I own that my powers are not sufficient to fathom its depths. I must here be content to exclaim with Paul, O the depth of the riches! An unbaptized infant goes to damnation."[2]
Such was the doctrine held and taught by Augustine, whose writings, we are told, exerted such "a potent influence on the religious opinions of christendom" for many centuries. With good reason, therefore, did Benedict Turretin say: "Augustine holds, 'that infants dying without baptism, are punished with the punishment of eternal fire.'"
We will refer to but one other ancient authority, that of Fulgentius, who flourished during the latter part of the fifth century, and was a theologian of the same school as Augustine. This writer often, and with that apparent confidence which an author evinces when he is giving utterance to truths generally believed, speaks of God's condemning little infants to "eternal torments," "eternal burning," " eternal damnation," and the like. In one of his works he gives a catalogue of the orthodox articles of faith, beginning each with the words Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites—"most firmly hold, and by no means doubt." And among these articles, of which there are forty in number, occurs the following:
It would be easy to cite other similar passages showing how prevalent was the belief in infant damnation among the orthodox Christians of that early period. But it will doubtless be more satisfactory to the reader, as indeed it is more important to our present purpose, to exhibit the belief of the church on this subject at a later period. We therefore dismiss the ancient authorities, and cite next the opinion of the celebrated John Calvin, who flourished during the sixteenth century, and of whom an eminent writer on theology has said: "As a theologian he stands in the very foremost rank of those of any age or country." Calvin was one of the "Reformers," and established at Geneva that system of church polity called Presbyterianism, which was originally considered an essential part of Calvinism. And the great number of Protestant Christians who have endorsed the doctrines of Calvin, and who have, therefore, been known as Presbyterians, High Calvinists, Strict Calvinists, Moderate Calvinists, &c., is proof of the high repute in which this man and his doctrines have been held by a large portion of the Christian church. What, now, was the doctrine concerning the state of infants after death, as held and taught by this celebrated "Reformer"? If this can be ascertained with certainty, we may then form a pretty correct conclusion respecting the belief, on this subject, of that great multitude of Christians, who have embraced the doctrines taught by him, and consequently have taken the name of Calvinists. And Calvin's belief on the subject under consideration might easily be inferred from his doctrine concerning election and reprobation, or predestination, which, in his "Christian Institutes," he has thus explained:
"Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death."[4]
Now this, when viewed in connection with what he says in another place, that "election is not made from any foreseen faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition, as a prerequisite cause or condition," were sufficient to convince us that Calvin, if consistent with himself, must have believed in the damnation of some at least, who die in infancy. But fortunately we are not left to infer his belief on this subject, for he has himself stated it in the most clear and unequivocal terms.
In his account of the doctrine of Michael Servetus, who was condemned and burned for heresy by the Council of Geneva, at the instigation of Calvin, the following is reckoned by him and the Genevan Pastors among the dreadful heresies of Servetus:
"In the mean time certain salvation is said [by Servetus] to await all at the final judgment, except those who have brought upon themselves the punishment of eternal death, by their personal sins (propriis sceleribus). From which it is also inferred, that all who are taken from life while infants and young children, are exempt from eternal death, although they are elsewhere called accursed."[5]
This, then, was one of Michael Servetus' heresies, to wit, that he held a doctrine from which it might be inferred that "infants and young children are exempt from eternal death"; and this was one of the crimes for which John Calvin thought him justly condemned to the flames. Concerning the above passage it has been justly remarked: "It is the more important, because it stands in a work that was written as an apology for putting his victim to death, and is subscribed, not only by Calvin, but by the Ministers and Pastors of the Genevan church, to the number of fourteen. If it has not, therefore, all the formality, it has all the authority of a confession of faith, with the additional weight derived from the solemnity of the occasion on which it was published."[6]
Again, in his work on the Eternal Predestination of God, written more particularly against Albertus Pighius, a Catholic writer, who opposed the doctrine of unconditional election, Calvin says:
"If Pighius does not think original sin sufficient for the damnation of men, and will make no account of the secret judgment of God, what will he do with infant children, who have been snatched out of this life before they were able, on account of their age, to give any such proof [of wickedness]? Since the same condition of birth and death was common to the little ones who died at Sodom and Jerusalem, and there was no difference in their works—why will Christ, at the last day, separate some of them to his left hand, from others standing at his right? Who does not here adore the admirable judgment of God, in that it has been ordered that some should be born at Jerusalem, whence they presently pass to a better life, and that Sodom, the entrance of hell, should be the birthplace of others?"[7]
According to Calvin as here quoted—and thousands of his followers have held the same—the little ones of Sodom and Gomorrah will stand "on the left hand." And to ascertain what he meant by this, we have only to refer to that chapter in Matthew, to which he alludes. We there read that "the King shall say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.—These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Matt xxv. 41, 46.
Again, in his famous reply to Sebastian Castalio, whose heretical opinions had incurred the displeasure of the stern Genevan, Calvin says:
"As to what you object, that no one is justly damned, unless on account of transgression, and after transgression; on the first point we have no dispute, since I everywhere teach that no one perishes except by the just judgment of God. Yet it cannot be dissembled that a hidden poison lurks in your words; because, if the similitude you propose is admitted, God will be unjust in that he involves the whole race of Abraham in the guilt of original sin. You deny that it is just in God to damn any one, unless on account of transgressions. Persons innumerable are taken out of life while yet infants. Put forth now your virulence against God, who precipitates into eternal death harmless infants (innoxius fœtus) torn from their mothers' breasts. He who will not detest this blasphemy [of yours] when it is openly exposed, may curse me at his will. For it cannot be demanded that I should be safe and free from the abuse of those who do not spare God."[8]
Once more, in his Christian Institutes, he says:
No one, we think, after reading these citations, will doubt that John Calvin believed and taught the monstrous doctrine of infant damnation. Yet he was one of the most distinguished of the "Reformers," and a man to whom multitudes in the Christian Church have long been accustomed to look with reverence, as to a teacher of more than ordinary wisdom.
But this doctrine was not peculiar to Calvin; nor did it originate with him or the Reformation. Turretin, an eminent Calvinistic writer, assures us that "the Orthodox Church has always held the doctrine of the danmation of infants."[10] For centuries prior to the Reformation it had been deemed a heresy to deny this doctrine. A writer in the Christian Examiner for 1828, treating of this subject, says:
And we might show from the writings of Luther, Melancthon, Zanchius, Beza, Perkins, Whitacre, Piscator, Marlorat, Martyr, Ridgley, Watts, Edwards, Bellamy, and a host of others, who have been long regarded as shining lights in the church, that they believed and taught the same doctrine on this subject as Augustine, Fulgentius, and Calvin. Thus Zanchius—than whom there is scarcely a commentator of the age of Calvin, who is quoted oftener or with more respect—writes in opposition to Pighius as follows:
Therefore Beza was the colleague and successor of Cavin in the church and university at Geneva. And in Beza's exposition of the doctrine of Predestination, the following passage occurs:
It is plain from this, that Beza consigns all heathen infants to the torments of hell. But to make his opinions on this point still plainer, he says in another part of the same treatise:
"The grace of believing is not truly said to be offered to all men, unless perchance we dream that the grace of faith is, in some internal and extraordinary way, infused into the many infants that die in all parts of the earth, as well as into the myriad of adults who leave this life before they have heard anything of Christ—a dotage," he adds, "which needs no refutation."[13]
And Bellamy says:
"It was at God's sovereign election,—to give every child of Adam born in a Christian land, opportunity, by living, to hear the glad tidings, or only to grant this to some, while others die in infancy, and never hear. Those who die in infancy, may as justly be held under law in the next world, as those that live may in this. God is under no more obligations to save those that die, than he is to save those that live; to grant the regenerating influences of his spirit to them, than he is to these."[14]
Dr. John Edwards, who wrote near the close of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, who has been styled the Paul, the Augustine, the Calvin of his age, and of whom it is said "that all unbiassed and impartial men voted him by universal consent to be one of the most valuable writers of his time"—this learned divine, referring to the calamities and sufferings to which infants as well as adults are subject in this life, and which he regards as punishments, argues thus:
The text here referred to is in these words:—"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." From which it is plain that Edwards believed the infants who perished at the destruction of Sodom, are now "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
And even Dr. Watts, whose natural tenderheartedness led him to plead most earnestly and touchingly for the rescue of little infants from everlasting torments, and who would fain, as he says, "find out some milder punishment for their share of the guilt of Adam in the Bible," even he supposes them to be reduced after death to a "state of non-existence," which he designates as "a sort of endless punishment without pain."
"Upon the whole," he says, "the opinion of the salvation of all children, as it has no countenance from the Bible, so it has no foundation in the reason of things."—"The Scripture brings down the infants of wicked parents to the grave, and leaves them there, and so do I. The Scripture has not provided any resurrection for them, neither can I do it."[16]
And the learned Theophilus Gale, the author of a work quite famous at one time, entitled the "Court of the Gentiles," says:
"So great is the Majestie of God, and so Absolute his Dominion, as that He is obnoxious to no Laws, Obligations, or Ties from his Creature: this absolute justice or Dominion regards not any qualities or condition of its object; but God can by virtue hereof inflict the highest torments on this innocent Creature, and exempt from punishment the most nocent. By this Absolute Justice and Dominion God can inflict the greatest torments even of Hell itself, on the most innocent Creature."[17]
TESTMONY OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
Leaving here the opinion of individuals on this subject prior to Swedenborg's time, we will proceed next to consider, what is more important to our present purpose, the opinion of religious bodies or sects. And let us first consult the famous Augsburg or Augustin Confession of Faith, drawn up by Melancthon at the Diet of 1530, and which may be considered as the creed of the German Reformers, especially of the more temperate among them. The ninth article of this Confession says:
"They [the Lutheran churches] teach concerning baptism, that it is necessary to salvation; and that the grace of God is offered through baptism; and that infants ought to be baptised, who, being offered to God through baptism, are received into God's grace.
"They condemn the Anabaptists, who disapprove of infant baptism, and affirm that they are saved without baptism."
And Melancthon in his Apology, which is another of the Lutheran symbolical books, remarks upon this article:
"The ninth article is approved, in which we confess that baptism is necessary to salvation."—"And as we condemn most other errors of the Anabaptists, so this also, that they contend that the baptism of infants is useless. For it is most certain that the promise of salvation pertains even to infants. But it does not pertain to those who are without the church of Christ, where there is neither the Word nor the sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptise infants, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them."
In the Epitome of Articles about which controversies have arisen among the Luthernan Theologians, there are passages still stronger. Among the " Anabaptistical Articles which cannot be tolerated in the Church," we find the following:
"That infants not baptised, are not sinners in the sight of God, but just and innocent; and that in this innocence of theirs, when as yet without the use of reason, they obtain salvation without baptism, (which indeed in their opinion they have no need of.) And in this manner they reject the whole doctrine of origin sin, and all that depends upon it besides."
Thus we see that Melanchthon, and the German Lutheran churches generally, believed and taught that children, dying unbaptized, could not possibly be saved. And a doctrine which taught that they might "obtain salvation without baptism," was "not to be tolerated in the church."
TESTIMONY OF THE ENGLISH CONFESSION.
Passing now from the German Lutheran to the English Confession, we find abundant reasons for believing that the framers of the Articles and Liturgy of the English church held the common doctrine of that period, viz., that baptism was essential to salvation; and that all who died without it, wither heathen, infidel or infants, must certainly be damned. In a work by the Rev. Henry John Todd, Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty, we are presented, from authentic documents, with the "Doctrines of our [the English] Reformers, which are the groundwork of certain of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion." On the sacrament of Baptism, we have the following passage from the "Articles devised by the King's Highness Majesty, to establish Christian quietness and amity among us, and to avoid contentious opinions, &c. 1536:"
"Item, the promise of grace and everlasting life, which promise is adjoined unto this Sacrament of Baptism, pertaineth not only unto such as have the use of reason, but also to infants, innocents, and children; and they ought therefore, and must needs be, baptized: And that by the Sacrament of Baptism they do also obtain remission of their sins, the grace and favor of God, and be made thereby the very sons and children of God; insomuch as infants and children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not."
And the same opinion was maintained in the English Church, certainly as late as Swedenborg's time—possibly it may be held by some in that church even at this day. Thus Matthew Scrivener, the learned author of a work on the use of the Fathers, tells us that—
And some eminent divines of the Church of England have even maintained, that baptized infants would be lost if not among the elect. The learned Dr. Edwards, whose opinion on this subject has already been cited, and who wrote in the earlier part of the 18th century, says:
"There are other privileges, fruits and effects of baptism, as the collation of inward grace, effectual regeneration by the Holy Spirit, renewing and sanctifying the corrupt nature, pardon of sin, and salvation; but these are not common to all that are baptized, but are peculiar to some only; namely, the elect. For though baptism is to be administered to all the infants of Christian parents, as we are to preach the gospel to all persons without distinction, yet it is (as preaching) effectual to none but those that are chosen of God, and predetermined to life and salvation. But all are to be admitted to it, because we cannot distinguish between them: we do not know who are elect and who are reprobates."
This passage leaves us in no doubt that Edwards was a believer and defender of the dreadful doctrine of infant damnation. Equally explicit, too, is the language of Archbishop Usher, another eminent divine of the Church of England, who lived and wrote in the earlier part of the 17th century:
"How doth God suffer them to run into condemnation?
"In a divers manner: Some Reprobates, dying Infants, other of riper Years; of which latter sort, some are not called, others called.
"How doth God deed with Reprobates dying Infants?
"Being once conceived they are in a state of Death, (Romans 5. 14,) by reason of the sin of Adam imputed, and of Original Corruption cleaving to their Nature, wherein also dying, they perish: As (for instance) the Children of Heathen Parents. For touching the Children of Christians, we are taught to account them holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14."[19]
And Stackhouse, another distinguished Church of England divine, writing nearly a century later, and contemporaneously with Swedenborg, says:
"The Calvinists carry the matter much farther [than the schoolmen], asserting that original sin (besides an exclusion from Heaven) deserves the punishment of damnation; and therefore they conclude that such infants as die unbaptized, and are not of the number of the elect, (which have always a particular exemption,) are, for the transgression of our first parents, condemned to the eternal torments of hell-fire. It must be confessed that the doctrine of the Church of England makes too near approaches to this opinion, when it tells us that 'in every person born into the world, original sin deserves God's wrath and damnation.'"[20]
Let this suffice by way of evidence going to show what was the belief of the English Church on this subject prior to the time of Swedenborg.
TESTIMONY OF THE SYNOD OF DORT.
We come next to the testimony furnished by the famous Synod of Dort, which was convoked in the year 1618, by the authority of the States General of Holland, in consequence of the dissensions which had arisen from the prevalence of certain new opinions promulgated by James Arminius and his followers. Dr. Lyman Beecher says, that at this Synod there was "a most ample representation of the opinions of the whole Calvinistic world." Besides the deputies from the Belgic churches, there were present representatives from the churches of England, Scotland, Geneva, Switzerland, Embden, Bremen, and the Palatinate of Hesse. The Arminians had published a paper called a Remonstrance, containing ten articles, wherein they had taken the liberty to dissent from the standards of the Belgic church, on several points of doctrine, and at the same time to explain and defend their own opinions. These articles were taken up in order, and the deputies from the several reformed churches of Europe, composing the Synod, were requested to deliver their judgment in writing respecting the alleged heresies of Arminius; which they did. And we are told by the Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, that "these paperes, read before the Synod, furnish a rich body of sound theology, and are all preserved in the journal or minutes of the body, the whole of which have been published." One of the alleged heterodox tenets of the Remonstrants, or Arminians, which the Synod had to consider, was, that "there is no reprobation of infants;" for "no one," say they, "is damned for original sin alone." Upon this heterodox opinion, as it was pronounced, the deputies from the several European churches gave their judgment in writing. The British divines said:
"If this be the meaning of the position, that there is no election of infants, that is, of one infant in preference to another, as if all promiscuously were saved, certainly the hypothesis has no foundation; nor if it were granted, would the [main] position follow. For according to the method of God's election whether to be maintained or disproved [nam ad rationem electionis divinœ sive ponendam sen tollendam], the circumstance of age has nothing to do with it [est quiddam impertinens], and has no influence."[21]
And in support of their opinion, as here expressed, they quoted this sentence from Prosper to Augustin:
"Infants who have as yet no wills, no actions of their own, are not separated one from another without the judgment of God; some are taken as heirs, others pass away as debtors."
The deputies from Switzerland said:
"That there is election and reprobation of infants as well as of adults, we cannot deny against God, who tenderly loves, and inculpably hates them before they are born."
The Genevan Professors expressed their judgment thus:
"Of the infants of believers only, who die of an age before they can be indoctrinated, we determine that they are saved," &c.
And when the judgments of all the foreign divines present in the Synod had been rendered, the President, Bogerman, said by way of conclusion, that "they ought to thank God for the entire harmony of the foreigners in the business of doctrine; and God grant," he added, "that the like uniformity may be found among the natives." And the like uniformity was found among the natives. The deputies from Utrecht said: "Election and reprobation take place even among infants." The judgment of those from Overyssel stands recorded in almost the same words: "There is election and reprobation even among infants." And in equally strong terms did the deputies from the province of Drenthe express their judgment: "We determine that the infants of unbelivers, dying in infancy, are reprobated. 1 Cor. vii.; Rom. xi."[22]
Suffice to say, that there were twenty-one different "judgments" read before this famous Synod of Dort, upon that article of the Remonstrants involving the question of the final state of those who die in infancy. And of these, ten were decidedly in favor of the doctrine of infant damnation, while not one of them was opposed to it; and to have been silent on the subject must have been considered as a sign of acquiescence with the opinions of those who gave in their judgment on this point. We may, therefore, safely say, that the doctrine of infant damnation was a cherished doctrine of the Synod of Dort, and of such of the reformed churches of Europe as were represented in that Synod. And we might add to the evidence already adduced, that the same doctrine was very distinctly taught by the theological writers of that day, who were held in highest repute by this Synod for their soundness of doctrine. Among the most eminent of these, may be mentioned the names of Francis Gomarus, Antony Walaeus, Henry Alting, and William Perkins. In his "judgment" concerning the first article of the Remonstrants on Election and Reprobation, Gomarus says:
"For original sin alone there is damnation, which is the wages of all sin, even of that which is not actual, Rom. v. 12, 14, 21. Therefore the infants of unbelieving parents who are aliens from the covenant of God, not born again, are by nature children of wrath, without Christ, without hope, without God, Ephe. ii. 3, 12, even as in the deluge the infants of the world of the ungodly, and in the conflagration the infants of the wicked Sodomites perished and were justly subjected to the wrath of God with their parents, 2 Peter ii. 5, 6."[23]
Walaeus, who was a distinguished member of this famous Synod, professor of theology at Leyden, and one of the authors of the Belgic version of the Bible, says:
"We believe, indeed, with Augustin, in his Enchiridion and elsewhere, that those who shall perish on account of original sin alone, will receive the mildest punishment."—"But it does not follow there will be any punishment of loss without the punishment of sense; for in the first place, to be for ever excluded from the assembly of the blessed and the presence of God, of itself would bring a sense of grief. Even for original sin alone, we are 'children of wrath,' Ephes. ii. 3, and therefore worthy to feel God's wrath; and of all sin the 'wages is death,' Rom. vi. 23. But of the whole nation of the Sodomites and Gomorrites, among whom there were many infants, it is said in Jude, vs. 7, that they are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire; but in what manner or degree, we leave to the judgment of God."[24]
Heniry Alting was also a member of the Synod, a deputy from the Palatinate, and professor of divinity at Heidelberg and Groningen. And among the "calumnies" against the orthodox doctrine on the punishment of sin, he reckons the following, which we give, with his answer:
"The Answer. No truly Orthodox theologian has said that or written it; not Zuingle, not Calvin, nor any other of the same stamp. But we distinguish between the infants of believers and unbelievers. Those indeed who are born in the covenant, if they are cut off by death so that they cannot be baptized, we number among those to be saved, and that because of the covenant promise which was made alike to parents and children. But the others, since not less than their parents they have no lot in the covenant, and are aliens from the promises of grace, we leave to the MERITED judgement of God."[25]
"We do not subject to the punishment of original sin, all infants promiscuously, but those only, who, born of unbelieving parents, are aliens from the grace of the covenant, and do not partake of righteousness of life in Christ"[26]And Perkins, who was a leading writer in the controversy with Arminius, writes as follows "concerning the execution of the decree of reprobation:"
"Reprobates are either infants, or men of riper age. In reprobate infants, the execution of God's decree is this: As soon as they are born, for the guilt of original and natural sin, being left in God's secret judgment unto themselves, they, dying, are rejected of God for ever."[27]
The evidence, then, is conclusive, that the Synod of Dort, which has been pronounced by an eminent authority "a most ample representation of the opinions of the whole Calvinistic world," held the doctrine of infant damnation. The circumstance that not one of the several deputations denies it, while it is distinctly affirmed by a number of them, may be taken as proof positive that it was the common belief of that body.
TESTIMONY OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.
We come next to the famous Westminster Assembly of divines, convoked by authority of Parliament, in the year 1643. And concerning the Confession of Faith drawn up by this Assembly, the Rev. Dr. Beecher says:
"The Synod of Cambridge, 1648, which represented not Massachusetts only, but New England, adopted, unanimously, the 'Confession of Faith published of late by the reverend Assembly in England,' judging it 'to be holy and orthodox, and judicious in all matters of faith.' The same confession was, in 1608, adopted by the churches in Connecticut represented at Saybrook, as the symbol of their faith; and the same is now the confession of faith of the Presbyterian church in the United States."
Now, that this "reverend assembly" believed and taught the doctrine of infant damnation, is a fact not to be disputed. Two of the articles in the chapter of their Confession on Effectual Calling, read as follows:
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
"Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."
The meaning of this language is sufficiently obvious. But to remove all possible grounds of doubt on this score, we have but to consult the theological writings of some of the most distinguished members of that body. The Rev. Wm. Twiss, D.D., whom the Assembly, by a unanimous vote, honored with the office of Prolocutor, or Chairman, and who, from this circumstance, may be taken as a fair exponent of the opinions of the body, expresses himself in the manner following, concerning the final condition of many who die in infancy:
Sir Edward Leigh, another distinguished member of the Assembly, and the learned author of Critica Sacra, writes thus:
"Jacob was in a state of election in his mother's womb, Romans ix. 11. All men in the council of God are either elect or reprobate. But Infants are men, or part of mankind therefore they are either elect or reprobate,
"1. Infants are saved, therefore there is some election of infants, for salvation is a fruit of election, and proper to the elect, Romans xi. 7. There is a manifest difference among Infants, between those that are born in and out[29] of the Church. Children of unbelievers are unclean, and aliens from Christ and the Covenant of promise, Ephesians ii. 11, 12.
"2. That opinion, that no Infants are condemned for original sin, seems to be contrary to that place, Ephesians ii. 3.[30] If this were true, the condition of a Turk's child dying in his infancy, is far better than the condition of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob living, for they might fall from grace (say they) and be damned, but a Turk's child dying, according to their opinion, shall certainly be saved."[31]Anthony Burgess was a member of this famous Assembly, and may be cited as another good authority. And in his work on Original Sin, he not only maintains the doctrine of infant damnation, but gives a history of it; and furnishes us at the same time with an authority in addition to his own, and an admirable illustration of Edwards' doctrine, that the happiness of heaven receives a zest from contemplating the miseries of hell.
nature we deserve otherwise. 'Ah quot sunt, erunt in inferno miselli infantuli,' &c. Ah! how many little infants are, and shall be in hell, who never had the knowledge of good and evil! And might not God have left thee in the same misery? This (I say) is a pious meditation. [!!] Though that scoffing Remonstrant prefix this expression amongst others in the front of his Book, as if it were no less than blasphemy."[32]
Dr. Manton, who wrote a hundred and thirty-nine sermons on the hundred and nineteenth psalm, and whose orthodoxy we believe was never called in question, though not a wember of the Assembly, was a popular preacher at Parliament, and in favor with so many parties, that he may be taken as the fit exponent of religious opinions generally prevalent in his day. And he compares infants to "serpents before they be grown," and shows us that the doctrine of infant damnation was not only taught in the systematic divinity of that day, but actually preached from the pulpit, as may be seen from the following extract:
Few works, perhaps, have been held in higher repute by the orthodox schools of divinity, or are to be found more frequently referred to in the outlines of the Course of Theology taught in these schools, than Ridgley's Body of Divinity, and Stapfer's Polemical Theology. It is therefore important to our purpose to ascertain the opinion of these writers upon the doctrine in question.
Now, as to Ridgley, there can be no doubt that he believed in infant damnation; though, much to the annoyance of some of his brethren—President Edwards in particular—he thought with some others, that it would be of a mitigated kind. He was evidently anxious to rid himself of the doctrine, as thousands of others have been; but he had such a deep sense of its adhesiveness to certain other doctrines which he had never thought of questioning—he saw that it was so closely interwoven with his entire system of theology—that he could not give it up altogether. As an authority, therefore, he is the more important for being a reluctant one. His "Body of Divinity" is the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism. The following quotations from it, therefore, go to show not only his own opinions on the subject immediately before him, but also what he thought was the belief of the Assembly:
"The punishment due to Original Sin, as such, namely, in those who are charged with no other guilt, but that of Adam's first sin. This more especially respects those that die in their infancy, before they are capable of making any addition to it. Concerning these, I cannot but conclude with Augustin, in his defence of Original Sin against the Pelagians, that the punishment thereof is the most mild of any, and cannot be reckoned so great, as that it might be said of them, that it had been better for them not to have been born.
"Those, who die in infancy, will appear, at the last day, to have been a very considerable part of mankind. And some tender parents who have had a due concern of spirit about their future state, would be very glad, were it possible for them, to have some hopes concerning the happiness thereof.
"Various have been the conjectures of divines about it. The Pelagians, and those who verge towards their scheme, have concluded, that they are all saved, as supposing that they are innocent, and not, in the least, concerned in Adam's sin: but this is to set aside the doctrine we are maintaining; and therefore I cannot think their reasoning in this respect, very conclusive.
"Others, who do not deny original sin, suppose, notwithstanding, that the guilt thereof is atoned for by the blood of Christ. This would be a very agreeable notion could it be proved; and all that I shall say, in answer to it, is, that it wants confirmation. As for those who suppose, with the Papists, that the guilt of original sin is washed away by baptism, as some of the Fathers have also asserted, this has so many absurd consequences attending it, that I need not spend time in opposing it.—
"Others have concluded, that all the infants of believing parents, dying in infancy, are saved, as supposing that they are interested in the covenant of grace, in which God promises, that he will be a God to believers, and their seed. This would be a very comfortable thought, to those who have hope concerning their own state. But I cannot find that this argument is sufficiently maintained, since it seems very evident, that all such-like promises rather respect the external, than the saving blessings of the covenant of grace.—
"All that I shall attempt, at present, is, to prove, that if all, who die in their infancy, are not saved, yet their condemnation is not like that which is due to actual sin, or those habits thereof, which are contracted by men. And here it must be allowed, pursuant to our former method of reasoning, that, if they are not saved, they have the punishment of loss inflicted on them; for the right to the heavenly blessedness, which Adam forfeited and lost, respected not only himself, but all his posterity. Whether they have any further degree of punishment inflicted on them, or how far they are liable to the punishment of sense, I dare not pretend to determine,"[34]And Stapfer, in his Polemical Theology, holds the same doctrine, but in a severer form. In the chapter on Pelagianism, he gives us, among other things, a "Solution of the Principal Objections" to his own doctrine concerning original sin. And the "principal objections" which he undertakes to solve, are drawn from a treatise "On the Imputation of Adam's Sin," by Daniel Whitby, published in London in 1711, and which he says contains "whatever sophistry can be urged against original sin." The ninth of these "objections" is this: "To subject infants to eternal punishment for Adam's sin, is to treat them worse than the devil himself, or than Adam, who himself committed the sin." To this Stapfer replies:
"That infants, being corrupt by nature, and therefore obnoxious to condemnation, contain within themselves the root of all sins and so of all the evils which flow from it, so that guilt and punishment cannot but be naturally and necessarily connected with that sin. And then that the infants of believers are punished with eternal punishment we by no means hold, since they are considered as standing in the faith of their parents. As to the infants of unbelievers, we believe that they are separated from the communion of God, and thus that they, as being children of wrath and condemnation, will be damned by the very act by which they are excluded from the blessed communion of God. But there are various degrees of that punishment and damnation, so that the punishment of infants and their sense of it will be least of any, and will therefore differ much from that of the devil, or of adults who voluntarily persevere in sin. So here too the ways of God are justified."[35]
We have already quoted from Dr. Manton's sermons to show that the doctrine of infant damnation not only entered into and made a part of the systematic divinity of two centuries ago, but that it was proclaimed from the pulpit in the ears of Christian congregations, and printed in sermons designed for spiritual edification. And we here add a quotation from Arthur Hildersham's Lectures on the Fifty-first Psalm, in further corroboration of our statement on this point:
"It is evident that God hath witnessed his wrath against the sin of infants, not only by hating their sins, but even their persons also. Rom. 9. 11, 13. And not only by inflicting temporal punishments upon them, but even by casting them into hell. For of those that perished in Sodom and Gomorrah, it is expressly said, Jude 7, that they were not only consumed with fire and brimstone, but that they suffered the vengeance of eternal fire. And the Apostle proving infants to be sinners by this argument, because death reigneth over them, Rom. 5. 14, showeth plainly, he meaneth not a temporal death only, but such as he calleth condemnation, ver. 16."—"There is in them a natural proneness, disposition, and inclination unto everything that is evil; as there is in the youngest whelp of a Lion, or of a Bear, or of a Wolf, unto cruelty, or in the very egg of a cockatrice, before it be hatched."—"Against these damnable errors, [one of which is, that all who die in their infancy shall certainly go to heaven,] you have heard it evidently proved, 1. That all infants are sinners, and deserve damnation. 2. That many infants have been vessels of wrath, and FIREBRANDS OF HELL."[36]
One more extract, and we close our citation of authorities—presuming that the reader, if his patience be not exhausted, is by this time thoroughly convinced that the doctrine of infant damnation was a generally received doctrine among Christians prior to the time of Swedenborg. This extract is an important one, being from Wigglesworth's "Day of Doom," "a work," says a writer in the Christian Examiner, "repeatedly published in this country, and, according to Cotton Mather, in England; a work which was taught our fathers with their catechisms, and which many an aged person with whom we are acquainted can still repeat, though they may not have met with a copy since they were in leading strings; a work which was hawked about the country printed on sheets, like common ballads; and, in fine, a work which fairly represents the prevailing theology of New England at the time it was written, and which Mather thought might 'perhaps find our children till the day [of doom] itself arrives.'"—Vol. V., p. 537.
Wigglesworth was the minister of Malden, and a "fellow and tutor," as Cotton Mather calls him, in Harvard College. The "reprobate infants" are introduced by him at the Day of Doom, in the manner following:"
"Then to the bar all they drew near,
Who di'd in infancy ,
And never had or good or ba
Effected personally."
And the little "reprobates" are represented as closing their plea for mercy at the bar of God in these words:
"'Behold we see Adam set free,
And sav'd from his trespass,
Whose sinful fall hath split us all,
And brought us to this pass.
Canst thou deny us once to try,
Or grace to us to tender,
When he finds grace before thy face
That was the chief offender?"
And then the stern and inexorable judge is represented as closing his answer to the little petitioners' prayer with these lines:
"'You sinners are, and such a share
As sinners may expect,
Such you shall have; for I do save
None but my own elect.
Yet to compare your sin with their
Who liv'd a longer time,
I do confess yours is much less.
Though every sin's a crime.
"'A crime it is, therefore in bliss
You may not hope to dwell;
But unto you I shall allow
The easiest room in hell."
Such are the views entertained by the Christian church prior to Swedenborg's time, respecting the final state of multitudes who die in infancy. Such is a brief exhibition of the evidence on which we base the assertion that the belief in the doctrine of infant damnation was then the prevalent belief among Christians,—so prevalent, indeed, that those who denied it were among the exceptions and the heretics. The reason why we have cited so many and such eminent authorities, even at the risk of exhausting our readers' patience, is, because we wished the evidence to be ample and satisfactory; and because, moreover, it is no uncommon thing, at the present day, to meet with even professed Calvinists, especially among the laity, who deny that they believe, or that their church ever believed, a doctrine so revolting as that of the damnation of infants. But the evidence is irresistible, that this was once the prevailing belief among the various branches of the Christian church.
- ↑ De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. Lib. i. c. 16.
- ↑ De Baptismo Parvulorum contra Pelagianos. Sermo D. August. xiv. capp. 2, 3, 4, and 7
- ↑ Fulgentius de Fide ad Pet. Diac. cap. xxvii.
- ↑ Institutes, Book III. Ch. xxi. § 5.—Allen's Trans. Vol. II. pp. 404—5
- ↑ Tractt. Theo.—Refut. Error. Mich. Serveti.
- ↑ Reply to three Letters of Rev. Lyman Beecher, D.D., p. 28.
- ↑ Tractt. Theol.—De Æter. Dei Prædest.
- ↑ Tractt Theol.—Calumniæ Nebulonis cujusdam adv. Doctrin. Joan. Calvini de Occulta Dei Provid. et ad eas ejusdem Calvini Responsio. — Art. xiv.
- ↑ Inst. Lib. iii. c. xxiii. § 7.
- ↑ Instit. Theol. P. I. p. 695.
- ↑ Op. Theol. D. Heiron. Zanchii. Tom. IV. Lib. I. De Peccat. Orig. cap. iv. thes. v.
- ↑ De Prædestinationis Doct. et very Usn. Tract. absolutissima, ex Th. Bezæ Prælectt. in nonum Epist. ad Rom. Cap. pp. 58, 59, Ed. Gen. 1582.
- ↑ Id. p. 18.
- ↑ Bellamy's Works, ii. pp. 369, 370.
- ↑ Works, vol. vi. pp. 252, 3.
- ↑ Ruin and Recovery. Quest. xvi.
- ↑ Christian Examiner, vol. iv. p. 441.—Court of the Gentiles, Part iv. Book ii. Chap. vi. § 1.
- ↑ Scrivener's Course of Divinity; or an Introduction to the Knowledge of the True Catholic Religion, especially as professed by the Church of England. Fol. p. 196. Lon. 1674.
- ↑ Usher's Body of Divinity, p. 165.
- ↑ Stackhouse's Body of Divinity, pp. 292, 293—Fourth ed. 1760.
- ↑ Acta Dordr. Judicia Theologorum Exterorum, p. 10.
- ↑ Acta Dord. Jud. Theol. Prov. pp. 49, 69, 83.
- ↑ Gomarus, Disputt. Theolog. p. 279. Acta Dordrechtana, Judicia Theologorum Provincialium, p. 24.
- ↑ Walaeus, Op. tom. I. pp. 534, 535.
- ↑ Alting, Theolog. Elench. Loc. ix. p. 385, Ed. 1654.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 392.
- ↑ Works of that Famous and Worthie Minister of Christ, in the Universitie of Cambridge, M. W. Perkins, vol. i. p. 107. English copy, Fol., 1603.
- ↑ The Riches of God's Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath, &c., fol. Ed. 1658, pp. 39, 135, 136. Book II. pp. 149, 186.
- ↑ "The Apostle, 1 Cor. v. 12, forbids us to judge of them who are without. Wherefore we leave these infants to the free judgment of God; we dare not promise salvation to any one remaining without the covenant of Christ.—Molinaeus."—Leigh's marginal note.
- ↑ "The Arminians say that no one is damned for original sin: that is, the children of Turks, Saracens, Gentiles, who have died in infancy, enter the kingdom of heaven, and consequently are in a better condition than Abraham, Moses, and the Virgin Mary while upon earth. For they may perish, according to your doctrine, but not the children of Turks who have died in infancy. Yet the Apostle declares that all and every one of them are born children of wrath, and what imaginable reason can there be why they may not also die children of wrath? Twiss. Contra Corvinum, c. 9. § 3.—Leigh's marginal note.
- ↑ Leigh's Body of Divinity, pp. 416, 417. Fol. Ed. 1662.
- ↑ Anthony Burgess on Original Sin, pp. 550, 551. Ed. 1659.
- ↑ Manton's Sermons, Vol. III. Serm. xxv. on Heb. xi. 6.
- ↑ Ridgley's Body of Divinity, vol. i. pp. 345—7.
- ↑ Stapfer, Theol. Polem. vol. iv. p. 518, Ed. 1756.
- ↑ Hildersham's Lectures on the LI. Ps. pp. 280, 281, Ed. 1685.