But, beside these public general Confessions of faith, it has been the custom of each particular church, from the beginning to this day, to frame and adopt a Confession of faith and Covenant of her own, as the ground of her existence, and of her recognition by sister churches. These Confessions of the first, and of succeeding generations of churches, are extant. Probably there is not a Calvinistic church in New England without an orthodox Confession and Covenant of her own. I apprize the reviewer of this fact, that he may "ransack" the creeds of the first generations of churches, and take "whatever means" to explore those which have been formed successively, and which now exist; and I challenge him to produce a sentence from one which asserts or implies that infants are damned. And could one be found, it would be an anomaly, an utter exception to the general fact. It is needless to quote from these Confessions; for, with a most wonderful diversity of language, they all teach the great doctrines of the Bible, which were taught at the Reformation. Framed with great variety of expression, and a liberty of conscience, unshackled by standards, there is not on earth a body of churches more intelligent and harmonious in doctrine than the churches of New England. With the Confession of faith subscribed by the Professors at Andover, Unitarians, I believe, are acquainted, it having afforded them no small occasion of disquiet. But, after all that they have seen, or thought they saw, of evil in it, they have never been able to find in it the doctrine that infants are damned; though there is reason to apprehend that some Unitarians have not been sparing in their efforts to create the belief that the Professors do hold to that doctrine. Thus it appears that a reviewer in a distinguished Unitarian periodical, has publicly charged Calvinists with holding a sentiment which their system does not contain, and which has never been avowed in a Calvinistic Confession of faith, or implied in anything taught in one, from the Reformation to this day. The next source of evidence concerning the faith of Calvinistic churches, is to be found in the most approved Calvinistic authors. But here we shall show, that the authors chiefly relied on by the reviewer, viz. Calvin, and Turrettin, and Edwards, and Bellamy, teach no such thing in the passages quoted; and that the two who seem to teach it, are not, in any such sense, standard authors, or "most approved writers," as justifies the application of their peculiar sentiments to Calvinists as a denomination, and much less to the Calvinists of New England. CALVIN. His testimony, as quoted by the reviewer, concerning infants, is, that "they are born infected with the contagion of sin,"" are, in the sight of God, polluted and defiled,"-" are all by nature children of wrath,"-that "infants themselves bring their damnation (condemnation) with them from their mother's womb,"that "their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, so that it can not but be odious and abominable to God." But, does the reviewer need to be told, that, while all this is testimony absolute that Calvin believed in the depravity of infants, and their just exposure to damnation, it contains not a syllable which teaches or implies the fact that they are actually damned, which does not prove, just as conclusively, the eternal damnation of all mankind. The next paragraph might startle us as translated by Professor Norton, in his Views of Calvinism, and also as translated by the reviewer, provided it were correctly translated. I shall give the original; the translation of Professor Norton; and that of the reviewer; and of Allen, the late English translator; with my reasons for supposing that by Allen to be correct, and that Professor Norton and the reviewer have both mistranslated Calvin. "Iterum quæro, unde factum est ut tot gentes, una cum liberis eorum infantibus, æternæ morti involueret lapsus Adæ, absque remedio, nisi quia Deo visum est. Decretum quidem horribile, fateor."* This passage the Professor translates as follows: "I ask again, how it has come to pass that the fall of Adam has involved so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, and this without remedy, but because such was the will of God. It is a horrible decree, I confess."+ The translation of the reviewer is as follows: "How has it happened, that the fall of Adam has involved so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, but because it so seemed good in the sight of God. It is a dreadful decree, I confess." Allen's translation: "I inquire again, how it came to pass that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, but because such was the will of God. It is an awful decree, I confess." The meaning of this passage, as a proof of infant damnation, depends on the collocation or omission of "absque remedio" (without remedy) in the translation. As Professor Norton has placed it, following strictly the collocation of the words in the original, the passage teaches that "many nations, with their infant children, are involved in eternal death, and that without remedy;"—and the reviewer, omitting "absque remedio" (without remedy,) though it belongs to the sentence, and controls its meaning so entirely, makes Calvin teach that "the fall of Adam has involved so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death;"—while Allen, by placing absque remedio" (without remedy) in the translation before "tot gentes" (so many nations,) makes Calvin say, simply what himself and all the Reformers had said, viz. that, inde 66 * Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 23. sec. 7. Norton's Views of Calvinism, p. 14. Christ. Examiner, vol. iv. No. 5. p. 432, pendent of any remedy, the fall involved all mankind in eternal death. That this is the true construction, the context does not permit us to doubt; for the subject of discussion was, whether it is any where "declared in express terms, that Adam should perish by his defection." Not whether he should actually be damned, but whether he should, by that act, be condemned and exposed justly to eternal death. And, among other reasons to prove that the defection of Adam did expose him to eternal death, by a divine constitution or decree, he alleges the fact, that the loss of salvation by the whole race, in consequence of the fall, was by a divine constitution, and not by any natural connexion of cause and effect; and demands, if the effect of Adam's fall upon his posterity was to subject them to eternal death, how it can be supposed that the effect upon himself, should not have been, at least, as fatal to him as to his offspring. "What prevents their acknowledging concerning one man, what they reluctantly grant concerning the whole species. The Scripture proclaims that all men were, in the person of their father, sentenced to eternal death." Then follows, after a few lines, the sentence in question, which is a pressing home of his conclusion, from the foregoing premises: "I ask again, how it came to pass that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, but because such was the will of God."-Now, "so many nations," means, undoubtedly, not a few nations, a part of mankind, but is synonymous with what the same premises included above, as no one who examines the passage can fail to see. It is the "whole race," "the whole species," "all men, in the person of their father, sentenced to eternal death," of whom he speaks in the phrase, "so many nations." This being the fact, if you place" absque remedio" in the translation where Professor Norton places it, it represents Calvin as teaching the damnation of "the whole race," "the whole species," "all mankind, and this without remedy," as the consequence of Adam's sin. Will the Professor maintain that Calvin taught the doctrine of the universal actual damnation of all mankind? And yet his collocation of "absque remedio" in the translation, compels him to do so, for the very introduction of the sentence, 66 Iterum quæro, "shows that Calvin urges the same argument now which he had just urged above. The omission of the reviewer to translate the words "absque remedio" at all, so indispensable to the lucid interpretation of the sentence, and affording such decisive evidence to his purpose, if translated correctly by Professor Norton, seems to imply that he saw the mistake, and did not dare to repeat it, lest it should be detected; and did not dare to translate it correctly, lest the discrepancy between the reviewer and the the Professor should attract notice, and thus expose the mistake. If the reviewer and the Professor were fellow-laborers in collecting evidence, and writing the Review, it is not impossible that we have, in the omission by the reviewer of "absque remedio," the joint wisdom of them both. It should not be forgotten, that the Institutes were published by Calvin both in Latin and in French, and that Allen had the benefit of both, and that the translation was made while a keen controversy about Calvinism was going on, when any prominent mistake would be sure to be detected. Far be it from me to insinuate a suspicion of the Professor's integrity. Much less of his ability to translate an easy passage in John Calvin. I have only to regret the fact, without being required to account for it, that there should be but one light in the text to redeem it from perversion, and that the Professor and the reviewer should both, though in a different manner, put it out; the one by a wrong collocation of the words in his translation, and the other by omitting them altogether. The reviewer is so hot upon the track of Calvin, in quest of the doctrine of infant damnation, that he ever overruns his game, and would fain prove that Calvin held that some infants of believing parents, dying in infancy, are damned. Grotius, it seems, had slandered Calvin, as Unitarians now do, representing it as his doctrine, "that, from the breast of the same Christian mother, one child was conveyed to heaven, and another to hell." And Rivet, as we now do, vindicated Calvin, maintaining that "Calvin, and Calvinists in general, taught that the infants of believers, dying before they were capable of any moral act, were saved." And, really, we should have supposed Rivet's express testimony, and Calvin's express words, to be as good evidence as the reasoning of the reviewer to the contrary. Not so the reviewer. Rivet, he seems to admit, did hold to the salvation of the infants of believers. But Calvin, he thinks, cannot have believed as Rivet does, because "it implies a hereditary succession to the aristocracy of the saints; of the continual transmission of the privilege of election by birthright; of the being born an heir of salvation, in virtue of natural descent. When thus stated, the doctrine cannot be believed by any one. It is too gross, and too inconsistent with obvious facts." But Rivet, it seems, believed it, although "it cannot be believed by any one.' And why might not Calvin? Did Calvin believe nothing which the reviewer is pleased to call absurd? But Calvin, he insists, puts the children of believers "on no better ground than the infants of Jews, or rather than all Jews during the whole period of their history." And, as many of the Jews perished in every period of their history, if Calvin places infants on no better ground, it would seem, that he must have taught the damnation of all the infants of believers, dying in infancy. What then did Calvin hold, on this subject? 1. That the children of believers are " so exempted from the fate of the human race, as to be separated to the Lord;" by which he meant, not that all others were damned, or that all the children of believers would, of course, be saved; but that they became, in such a sense members of the visible church as to be entitled to baptism. 2. That such children as are engrafted by baptism, and fail in adult age to obey the Gospel, are cut off; and 3. That all the children of believers, dedicated to God, and dying in infancy, are saved. The reviewer says, that he (Calvin) speaks of predestination as applying equally to infants and adults. He does; but he does not say that any are actually reprobated. The discrimination between Jacob and Esau, has no relevancy to the future state of infants. Had Esau died in infancy, it would have been to the purpose; but then, it would not be Calvin, but the Bible, with whom the reviewer would be at war. I have followed the reviewer through his windings, and mistranslations of Calvin, not because I could not wipe off, by a shorter course, the aspersion cast on him; but that the public may have an opportunity to decide what degree of credit is due to this anonymous Unitarian partizan writer; with what limited knowledge of his subject, and with what unauthorised confidence, he has spoken of the sentiments of Calvin concerning the future state of infants. I subjoin the following letter from Calvin to Knox, the Scotch reformer.* 66 But, because, in a proper use of baptism, the authority of God and his institution ought to be a sufficient reason for us, it is proper for us to inquire whom God, by his own voice, invites to baptism. Now, the promise comprehends, not only the offspring of each of the faithful in the first degree, but is extended to a thousand generations. Whence it happens that the interruption of piety which takes place under popery, will not have taken away the vigor and efficacy of baptism; for the origin and reason of baptism, and its nature, are to be estimated from the promise. I do not, therefore, at all doubt, but that the offspring of holy and pious ancestors, although their parents and grandparents were apostate, do still pertain to the body of the church." Cal. Letters, p. 322. Now, 1. Calvin did believe in the salvation of all infants, dying in infancy, who are within the compass of the promise which is made to believers and their children. And, 2. He did believe that the promise extended to children of the thousandth generation, though some of the intervening links of pious descent had been broken. He, of course, believed in the salvation of all infants, dying in infancy, who are within a thousand generations of a pious ancestor. This is Calvin's belief in the damnation of infants. It is in answer to the question, whether the children of Roman Catholics may be baptised. |