writers assert, in the strongest and most dogmatic terms, the universal salvation of children dying in a state of non-age, and maintain, in the boldest and most unhesitating manner, that all infants, whether born of Christian or heathen parents, in Christian or heathen lands-that infants universally, who die before they arrive at the years of understanding— are alike saved, and are taken to heaven, our readers will at once perceive the point of dispute between them and us. That such is the doctrine propounded by these writers, no one who reads the book can for a moment doubt; and as particular prominence is given to this doctrine, especially at the commencement of the work, there is ground to believe that one design of its publication was the establishment, or at all events the propagation, of this doctrine. It may be proper to notice, that it is here shown that the advocates of the universal salvation of children dying in infancy are by no means numerous; that after all the research which the editor has been enabled to make in the wide field of theological literature, and after all the correspondence he has carried on with his numerous clerical friends, both in England and Scotland, he has not been able to produce-bating, it may be, the nondescript authorship of several of the poetical effusions he has quotedabove a dozen of writers who have plainly spoken out upon the subject. The fact is, the doctrine of the salvation of all infants dying in a state of non-age is a novelty-a modern theological invention, and that of very recent date, not fifty years old, according to the testimony of some of its supporters here, and is, consequently, totally lacking in point of weight and authority, so far as the past history of the Church is concerned. But what its advocates lack both in point of numbers and weight, they seem determined to make up by their courage and bold speaking. Whether this is wise or not on their part, we must leave themselves to judge; at the same time, we are well assured that it will have little influence in promoting their cause.

As the subject is acknowledgedly not only important but difficult, it may be necessary, at this stage, to state distinctly the question at issue. The question, then, is not, Have any children who have died in infancy been saved? or, Have all infants who have been cut off in their infantile state been lost? Neither is the question, Have Christian or believing parents good grounds to cherish an assured hope that it is well with their infant offspring when they are taken away in early days? or, Have Christian or believing parents assured grounds of comfort when they are thus bereaved, from the fact that their children are saved with an everlasting salvation? In regard to these questions, there is not, or ought not to be, any dispute. The Word of God, we apprehend, and as we may afterwards show, sheds a precious and hallowed light upon them, and speaks indeed "words of comfort" to bereaved parents

in the circumstances supposed. But the question is, Have all children who have died in a state of non-age, from the earliest ages of the world to the present time, in every country and under every clime, heathen as well as Christian, who have been descended from whatever parentage, the wickedest as well as the holiest, been saved? And may all bereaved parents, whatever their character or conduct, rejoice in the assurance that their deceased infant offspring are perfectly happy and blessed? This is the question, and this alone; and in reference to it we have no hesitation in averring, that, in our apprehension, the Word of God affords no evidence whatever to reply to it, as the writers we are here opposing have done, in the affirmative; that whatever evidence there may be in the Word of God leading to the very opposite conclusion (and to this we may also refer before we close), there is not, in our opinion, a single passage in all the Bible which either directly or by implication goes to establish the affirmative answer to this question, or, in other words, goes to establish the novel theological dogma—that all children who have died in infancy, not merely from Adam to Moses, but from Moses to the present day, have been eternally saved; or gives any countenance to bereaved parents building their hopes and consolations for the happiness of their deceased children upon this foundation. And although, in making this averment, we know that we are exposing ourselves to the fearful denunciations of the writers in this book who support the dogma, we nevertheless calmly reiterate it, and affirm, moreover, that all that they have said in defence of it has utterly failed to substantiate its truth; while, besides, much that they have brought forward in its support is positively unscriptural and utterly fallacious. Let us examine a few of the sentiments they have produced.

And first in order, we must notice the "Historical Sketch of the question of the Salvation of Deceased Infants," by Dr. William Anderson, of Glasgow, to whom the book is dedicated. But how to describe the said historical sketch baffles our comprehension. Were we to characterise it as one of the most rhapsodical effusions in the shape of history that has ever come under our observation, we would only express the impression made upon our mind after perusing it. That it is, in fact, from beginning to end, a complete tirade, a fierce onslaught upon all theological writers of every name and grade, ancient and modern, from the commencement of the Christian era down to the beginning of the present century, because they have not advocated his favourite doctrine of the salvation of all who die in infancy, we presume, even Dr. Anderson himself would admit. He tells us that not a vestige of this doctrine is to be found in all the writings of the Fathers; "that of course little was to be expected from the divines of the dark ages, nor from those of the scholastic either;" that his Holiness the Pope, with

all the priesthood, could find favour only for those infants who had been "baptized by the hands of an ordained official, consigning to eternal misery all dying in infancy among the heathen, and Mohammedans, and heretics; and that, worst of all, he could find no trace of his doctrine among Protestants after the Reformation; that, at that otherwise great era, there was small reformation for the children;" and that even in Scotland, in whose honour and welfare he is chiefly concerned, so lately as sixty years ago, such was the mind and heart of the country upon this subject, "that the Popish limbo was not so woeful as the Protestant hell." Let our readers look at the following sentences, and say what they think of them :—

"Our Calvinism," says Dr. Anderson, "commencing with the sovereign decree of election, equitably assigned to those who died in infancy their proportional share of the mercy (the italics are the author's), but not less equitably their proportional share of the judgment-the judgment of reprobation or preterition; so that calculating the infant's share by that of the adults, as manifested in faith and a holy life, there was left a vast multitude who perished eternally. Parental affection early demanded, and easily obtained the modification, that the whole of such children of pious parents as died in infancy should be included in the decree of salvation. With this the heart of Scottish Protestantism for a long time remained satisfied. With the exception of those born of pious parents, and the proportion saved by the general decree, all the rest, in millions upon millions, were doomed to everlasting woe. For two centuries and a-half after the Reformation this was the prevailing dogma; and when, fifty years ago, common sense, warming into life its dreadful torpidity, began to vindicate the character of God, the rights of Christ, and the feelings of humanity, it was with hesitancy and bated breath, and amid suspicions of their soundness in the faith, that a few voices were heard suggesting the possibility that all who die in infancy are saved.”

Among the many notable things in this notable passage (to call it by no other name), our readers will specially mark what it is that Dr. Anderson sets up as the vindicator of the "character of God, the rights of Christ, and the feelings of humanity" in this matter. It is none other than common sense;" and we may now inform them, that from the beginning to the end of his brief essay, this is the only and the grand principle which he selects, and speaks of, as performing this important function; that common sense has all along been "protesting against God being blasphemed by pourtraying Him an object of horror, for injustice and cruelty ;" protesting "against the best affections of the human heart being insulted and outraged;" protesting, in short, against the "Molock-atrocity" of declaring that all who die in infancy are not saved. Yes; common sense," ," "exacting common sense imperious common sense "-" sovereign common sense "" the common sense of piety and humanity," as he calls it, without any even the slightest reference to the Word of God, the alone standard of faith and practice, has been doing all this, and is still doing it. But we shall only say, that if all this is not down-right Socinianism, we know not by what name it should be called; and if it be not, moreover, an open

affront to the God of the Bible, we know not how else it should be characterised.

Nevertheless, it appears, common sense has gained ground, and is gaining ground. Hence we are told, that "about forty years ago, when he who sketches this review (Dr. Anderson) entered on the public ministration of the gospel, there were found a few lifting up their voices in protest and advocacy, that it was not only possible but probable, that all who died in infancy, having been guilty of no actual sin, were saved." And here Dr. Anderson finds it necessary to get upon the stool of repentance, and make the following confession :-"Here," says he, "I must make confession, with shame and regret, that at the commencement of my ministry, I preached the salvation of the deceased infants of the righteous, almost exclusively. But I soon left that ground. I was done for ever with the wicked absurdity." And now, under the influence of the sovereign power of common sense, having attained, along with others, the utmost certainty in regard to the matter, he addresses his clerical brethren in the following terms :

"You must progress, Reverend Sirs. So we of the anti-slavery school ascended the platform to proclaim the certainty of the salvation of all dying in infancy, when the pro-slavery conservatism of dogma was now in its turn reduced in most quarters to the feeble protestation that we were wise above what is written, as if it were not written that God is just, which He would not be were He to consign to hell-fire any infant spirit: "Are not my ways equal?" saith the Lord (Ezek. xviii. 29). All common sense says, amen. You need not try by sophistications to reduce the judgment. Common sense will not tolerate you in preaching, as was preached by not a few, even so late as fifty years ago, that there are possibly, if not probably, a multitude of infants (not a span long), dreeing the penalty of Adam's sin in the abyss of hell. Such was their phraseology, quoting the Scriptures without any lamentations about it. (Lamentations, ii. 20.) Simply, it is most dreadful to think with what thoughts of God the mind of Scotland was infected, and that not long since. Not long since!-there remains, at this moment, not a few of the old conservative party who hold by the antique doctrine of the possible damnation, at least, of an incalculable multitude of infant spirits. I know some of them, and some of them are as kind-hearted as myself."

66

We give the above as a specimen of Dr. Anderson's sketch. Reserving what of argument it contains for after-consideration, we only state now regarding it, that it appears to us, both in expression and sentiment, to resemble more what we expect to find, and actually do find, in the writings of such infidels as Paine or Holyoake, than in the production of a Doctor of the United Presbyterian Church. If the sovereign power" of Dr. Anderson's new regulative standard-his "imperious common sense "-necessitates him to associate with such company, or to imitate their language, the sooner he renounces both it and them, we think, the better. That he should be tolerated in publishing such scurrilous language, and addressing his brethren in such opprobious terms, is truly a sign of the times. At all events, it may be apparent to all, what comes of giving up with the supreme standard

of faith in doctrinal matters, and substituting in its stead the blinded and erring imagination of the human heart. Verily vain man will be wise, though he be born like a wild ass's colt. At the same time, it may be some comfort to know, that the progress to which Dr. Anderson so vehemently exhorts has been but very slow. Even he can speak of only "three or four Divines of eminence," who have adopted his theory; and no marvel, seeing that, according to his own admission, the entire theological world of letters, from the first to the nineteenth century, including as we are prepared to show, after inquiring into the subject, the most illustrious productions of the most illustrious writers that have ever lived, are diametrically opposed to it. Such a fact might have made Dr. Anderson himself pause and ponder. The arguments which he and his co-adjutors adduce in support of their modern theological invention, must be left for consideration in a subsequent notice.

The Apocalyptic Roll, the Title Deed of the Church. The Seals, the Mystery of Good and Evil contending for the Mastery. With a new Apocalyptic Chart. By C. E. Fraser-Tytler, author of The Structure of Prophecy, &c. Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, & Co.

1867.

THIS is a very remarkable book. The author is distinguished by great zeal for the integrity and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and its true interpretation, especially in relation to prophecy. His attainments in learning are of no mean order; he has read much on the subject of which he treats, and his style is perspicuous. The spirit in which the work is written will be admired by all the friends of Bible truth, though they may not be able to adopt all his views or see the conclusiveness of all his reasoning. The volume is full of interest at the present time, is highly suggestive and calculated to turn the attention of readers to the study of prophecy. The author thinks he has found a key to the interpretation of the prophecies of Scripture in the "Seals" of the Apocalypse, which it is his opinion reach down to the end of time, and that the subsequent parts of this prophetic book are only the filling up and expanding of the grand outline furnished in the seven seals and the description given of them. We shall be glad if he is successful in giving such an interpretation of the "Trumpets" and the "Vials,” as will confirm and throw additional light on his interpretation of the "Seals." The sentiments of Mr. Tytler will be seen with considerable clearness in the following concise statement of them in his own words :— "The first Seal, then, symbolises the mystery of Christ; wherein, of His two Churches and two Witnesses, or Prophets, He purposes to make "ONE NEW MAN."

"Tho second, third, and fourth Seals symbolise, or represent, the counterfeit mystery of the Dragon; wherein, of his two Churches, and his two horned False Prophets, He purposes to make 'ONE MAN OF SIN,'

"These two opposing mysteries are marshalled, on their four war horses, on the battlefield pourtrayed in the first four Seals.