neither hope nor doubt to express. But not only has he given us no intimation of the one or the other, but on the contrary has dropped expressions which no man could have used, unless he believed in the very extremes' from which the writer he was opposing was endeavouring to escape by every means that his ingenuity, prompted by the deepest and tenderest interest in the subject upon which it was employed, could suggest. Nay, there is even an appearance of sarcasm in the mode in which he opens his attack upon Watts's gentler theory. For Watts had said that he had endeavoured to relieve and soften all the harsher and more obnoxious parts of his doctrine,' and Edwards in reply tells him, that he relieves nothing but one's imagination,' 'and does not relieve one's reason at all;' that to conceive of the temporal' torments of poor little infants as ending in death and annihilation, may sit easier on the imagination, than to conceive of their suffering eternal misery for it, but it does not at all relieve one's reason;' and all this he says, without so much as a hint that the latter conception is not as truly descriptive of his views of their actual future condition, as he knew the former was of those entertained by Watts. Watts thought it unwarrantable, unjust, and cruel, to punish infants, for mere imputed guilt, as severely as if their sin was of their own committing, though he believed they deserved to be punished, and that all the punishment they deserved would be actually inflicted. Edwards defends his system on the ground of its going to the very extreme against which Watts was so earnestly contending, and that too, both as regards the imputation and the punishment. There is no rule of reason,' he says, that can be supposed to lie against imputing a sin in the whole of it,-but what will also lie against its being so imputed and punished in part.' And again; There is no reason to be brought, why one man's sin cannot be justly reckoned to another's account, who was not then in being, in the whole of it; but what will as properly lie against its being reckoned to him in any part, so as that he should be subject to any condemnation or punishment on that account.'' All the difference there can be,' he contends, 'is this; that to bring a great punishment on infants for Adam's sin, is a great act of injustice, and to bring a comparatively small punishment, is a smaller act of injustice, but not, that this is not as truly and demonstrably an act of injustice, as the other.' Not a saving clause for 'poor little infants,' as he contemptuously calls them, does he give us, from the beginning of the discussion to the end, and his not giving one, in such circumstances, is proof that he could not.

So too with respect to Edwards's opposition to the other di

vine,' whom we suppose to be Ridgley. The mode in which he conducts it, and the fact that it is an opposition to the principles of a kind of mitigated infant damnation, on the ground that they do not go far enough, prove that he believed infants are damned according to the common acceptation of the term, by which is meant that they are punished in hell fire forever. Ridgley introduces his theory by remarking, that the punishment due to original sin, as such, is not distinguished from the greater degree of punishment which is due to its increasing guilt, by many who treat on this subject; which gives occasion to some, who deny original sin, to represent it in the most terrible view, as though there was no difference between the wrath of God, that infants are exposed to, and that which is inflicted on the most obdurate sinner.'* He then, in order to remove prejudices against this doctrine' of original sin, gives those views of the actual future punishment of infants, of which Dr Beecher presented us with so excellent a summary, while pretending to give the doctrine of Augustin. But in the mind of Edwards, he neither produced conviction, nor excited compassion. For,

"The other divine,' says Edwards, 'thinks there is truly an imputation of Adam's sin, so that INFANTS cannot be looked upon as innocent creatures; yet seems to think it not agreeable to the perfections of God, to make the state of infants in another world, worse than nonexistence. But this to me,' he adds, and they are the words we quoted in our review, and which stand in the last extract from Dr Beecher, 'this to me appears plainly a giving up that grand point of the imputation of Adam's sin, both in whole and in part. For it supposes it to be not right, for God to bring any evil on a child of Adam, which is innocent as to personal sin, without paying for it, or balancing it with good; so that still the state of the child shall be as good, as could be demanded in justice, in case of mere innocence. Which plainly supposes that the child is not exposed to any proper punishment at all, or is not at all in debt to divine justice, on the account of Adam's sin. For if the child were truly in debt, then surely justice might take something from him without paying for it, or without giving that which makes its state as good, as mere innocence could in justice require. If he owes the suffering of some punishment, then there is no need that justice should requite the infant for suffering that punishment; or make up for it, by conferring some good, that shall countervall it, and in effect remove and disannul it; so that, on the whole, good and evil shall be at an even balance, yea, so that the scale of good shall preponderate. If it is unjust in a judge to order any quantity of money to be taken from another without paying him again, and fully making it up to him, it must be because he had justly forfeited none at all.'†

This is all that Edwards says with particular reference to the theory of Ridgley. The main point of his attention, indeed, is the justice or injustice of making the state of infants worse than a state of nonexistence. But he maintains that it is just to make it worse than nonexistence, and that in opposition to a Works, vol. vi. p. 462.

Body of Divinity, p. 345.

writer who believed that their state would be a state of actual punishment. Take this circumstance in connexion with the facts, that Ridgley wrote expressly to guard against the very extreme of doctrine, which, as we contend, Edwards adopts, and that Edwards gives not even a hint that infants, consistently with his own principles, will not after all actually suffer the perfect and eternal misery' they deserve, and the conclusion is inevitable that he consigned them to the torments of hell; and, that they will be the full torments of hell,' is put beyond a doubt by the following extract, in which he carries out his system with so thorough and revolting a consistency. The passage immediately follows the one last quoted, and is the summing up of his doctrine of imputation as opposed to that of Watts and Ridgley.

'It seems to me pretty manifest that none can, in good consistence with themselves, own a real imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity, without owning that they are justly viewed and TREATED as sinners, truly guilty and children of wrath on that account; nor unless they allow a just imputation of the whole of the evil of that transgression; at least all that pertains to the essence of that act, as a full and complete violation of the covenant which God had established; even as much as if each one of mankind had the like covenant established with him singly, and had by the like direct and full act of rebellion, violated it for himself.”

The doctrine of Edwards, then, is, that INFANTS are just as guilty as Adam himself was; that they consequently deserve the full punishment threatened him for his disobedience; that this punishment is death-death temporal and eternal, perfect, helpless, never ending misery; that upon that portion of them which God, in the exercise of his absolute but inscrutable sovereignty, will pass by and leave in their lost estate by nature, this terrible punishment will be inflicted; that the sight of their

Works, vol. vi. pp. 462-3. We are not alone in supposing Edwards's language and reasoning here show that he believed in infant damnation. Indeed, who, but a writer driven to extremity, could think of disputing it? The following extract is from a work on the Calvinistic and Arminian Controversy,' by Bishop White, of Pennsylvania. The writer notices President Edwards's 'consistency in his pursuing of his principles into all their consequences. From these,' he adds, a very great proportion of the advocates of the system will always turn aside with horror; however consenting to the principles from which they are fairly drawn. An instance of this his consistency, shall be given from the section of his book the last under discussion. He finds fault with the writings of two dissenting divines, whose names are not mentioned; and who, although they acknowledged the imputation of Adam's sin, could not reconcile themselves to the hard case of the damnation of infants. To get rid of this, they supposed, that the first sin was not imputed to infants in the same degree, as to Adam himself. One of the divines was in hopes of providing, in this way, a retreat for the little wretches, in annihilation. The other thought himself entitled to affirm, that their condition would not be worse than nonexistence. All this is much to the dissatisfaction of President Edwards; who, arguing more logically from the data held in common, rejects such softening expedients, invented for the easing of the feelings of humanity.'-vol. i. pp. 395, 6.

'hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever,' who will thus be enabled to partake of it with a more lively relish,' and God's 'vindictive justice, appear strict, exact, awful, terrible, and therefore GLORIOUS ! ' *

6

So much for Edwards as quoted by the reviewer.' We will now give two other passages from the same writer, which, whatever may be thought of those already cited, will, we trust, satisfy Dr Beecher himself that he was a believer in infant damnation. We produce them, however, not because we think them necessary, but because Dr Beecher' especially' calls for the proof of Edwards's being an authority on this question, and because he is unquestionably one of the most important authorities of modern times. The first passage occurs in the course of his illustrations of another monstrous doctrine' of Calvinism; viz. that the calamities and sufferings of this life, to which infants, as well as adults, are not only exposed, but which they actually suffer, are, properly speaking, punishments. It is as follows;

'We may well argue from these things, that INFANTS are not looked upon by God as sinless, but that they are by nature children of wrath, seeing this terrible evil comes so heavily on mankind in infancy. But besides these things, which are observable concerning the mortality of infants in general, there are some particular cases of the death of infants, which the scripture sets before us, that are attended with circumstances, in a peculiar manner giving evidences of the sinfulness of such, and their just exposedness to divine wrath. As particularly,

The destroying of the INFANTs in Sodom, and the neighboring cities; which cities, destroyed in so extraordinary, miraculous, and awful a manner, are set forth as a signal example, of God's dreadful vengeance for sin, to the world in all generations; agreeable to that of the apostle, Jude, verse 7.'t

The text here referred to is in these words;- Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.' By the vengeance of eternal fire,' there can be little doubt that Edwards meant what Dr Beecher calls 'the gloom and torments of a "Calvinistic hell." To cut off all hope whatever as to the future condition of these little vipers,' he states and meets the objection, that in regard to their misery in this life, God might make it up to them in another world.

To say here, that God could make it up to those infants in another world, must be an insufficient reply. For so he could as easily have made it up to Lot, or to ten or fifty righteous, if they had been destroyed

* See Edwards's celebrated Sermon on the Eternity of Hell Torments, in portraying which his imagination seems to run riot.

t Works, vol. vi. pp. 252-3.

Works, vol. vi. p. 475.

in the same fire: Nevertheless it is plainly signified, that this would not have been agreeable to the wise and holy proceedings of the judge of all the earth.'*

The other passage to which we refer, is as follows;

'Merely persons' being born in covenant, is no more evidence of their having moral sincerity, than saving grace. Yea, there is more reason to suppose the latter, than the former without it, in the infant children of believing parents. For the scripture gives us ground to think, that SOME INFANTS have the habit of saving grace, and that they have a new nature given them; but no reason at all to think, that ever God works any mere moral change in them, or infuses any habits of moral virtue without saving grace: And we know, they cannot come by moral habits in infancy, any other way than by immediate infusion: They cannot obtain them by human instruction, nor contract them by use and custom. And especially there is no reason to think, that the children of such as are visible saints, according to Mr Williams's scheme, have any goodness infused into them by God, of any kind. For in his scheme, all that are morally sincere may lawfully receive the privileges of visible saints. But we have no scripture grounds to suppose, that God will bless the children of such parents as have nothing more than moral sincerity, with either common or SAVING grace. There are no promises of the covenant of grace made to such parents, either concerning themselves or their children.' †

Now then for the syllogism,' to borrow from Dr Beecher at once a favorite expression, and a favorite mode of presenting an argument. 1. Without God's saving grace' no one can be saved-all will certainly be damned. 2. Edwards here says that the infants of mere morally sincere men,' or ' half Christians,' as he calls them below, cannot have God's saving grace. 3. Therefore Edwards believed that no such infants can be saved-that they will all be inevitably damned. There is no escaping the force of this reasoning, except by denying the first proposition, which asserts the necessity of saving grace. But this would be to deny a fundamental principle of Calvinism, which, with all the mutations of Orthodoxy, we have never yet seen denied by any one who claims to be called by the Calvinistic name.‡ (To be continued.)

Since our last sheet was struck off, we observe that we have spoken as if the extract on p. 331, contained absolutely all Dr Beecher has said in relation to Edwards, as he was cited in our review. We had forgotten the following sentence in his first Letter, which however adds nothing to the extract we have given, and is virtually contained in it.-Edwards, also, as quoted, reprobates a sentiment which would deny that infants are not exposed to any proper punishment at all on account of Adam's sin.' p. 47.