the indispensableness of voluntary choice of Christ? The work of Christ is, perhaps, an atonement for all, in that all are implicated in the corporate sinfulness of the race. But is not the special need of the classes referred to that of being lifted out of a condition of moral ruin in which they are involved by no fault of their own, rather than that of an atonement for sins which they have not committed? And is not the work of Christ, with reference to them, less an atonement than the means of obtaining for them and applying to them the transforming power of the Spirit and the power of his resurrection, without any voluntary action on their part?

With reference to the intelligent and free moral agents in the race the three postulates may be admitted. But here arises another question. When you speak of the indispensableness of faith in Christ, what Christ, or rather, what revelation of Christ, do you mean? I think that you must admit that, owing to mental idiosyncrasies, prejudice, educational bias, men often get very incorrect and distorted, and always get very partial and inadequate, views of Christ, even from the Gospels, and that the methods of presentation of Him, at least by " orthodox" preachers, are often such as to convey very erroneous notions of Him; so that we must include among these who never have the gospel fairly offered to them in this life not only the heathen and certain classes that never hear preaching in Christian lands, but also very many, if not most, of those who hear the gospel preached all their lives.

Again, what does our Lord mean, in his description of the final judgment, by representing both the righteous and the wicked as surprised to find that they have been ministering to or rejecting Christ? If they have all of them had Christ offered to them, either before or after death, and have distinctly and consciously accepted or rejected Him, how is such surprise possible? It seems to me that the explanation is, that Christ is presented to men not only in the Gospels, but also in humanity. himself gives the clew: "Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." The man who loves and serves his fellow-men really accepts and embraces that humanity which merely finds its perfection in Jesus Christ, and so really accepts Christ, though he may never have heard of his story in the Gospels, or may even have rejected some false conception of Him. He shows that he certainly would accept Christ at once if he knew Him. He manifests the spirit of Christ, and of the kingdom of heaven. Whereas the man who has no sympathy with or love for men really rejects Christ, though he may fairly worship some imaginary conception of Him which he has created for himself out of the materials supplied by the Gospels. This view admits the indispensableness of faith in Christ, and yet makes this life a sufficient arena for test of character, and renders it unnecessary to resort to the hypothesis of a future probation. It seems to me, also, to reconcile a great many apparently contradictory Scripture statements, and to remove a good many difficulties. And, farther, it seems to me to be of immense practical im

portance; for there is among evangelical Christians much too great a tendency to regard an attitude of mind toward an ideal conception as saving faith instead of a devotion of the life to Him as He stands before us in humanity.

If you do not regard these suggestions as of sufficient importance for public notice, which I do not expect or particularly desire, it would at least be a gratification and help to me personally if you could find time to send me a few lines privately by way of reply.

Very truly yours,

JOHN E. TODD.

We are glad to have these questions proposed, since they present important considerations for any theory of salvation and final judgment by Christ. The courteous manner in which the criticisms are offered makes it an additional pleasure to comment upon them.

The first question pertains to those who die in infancy and to others who cannot, during the earthly life, be considered morally accountable. There is so much obscurity concerning the methods by which such persons are brought to final blessedness that no one can be certain what those methods are. We can be certain and can agree only as to the fact that they all are saved, and saved by the grace of God in Christ. We have not, however, in the series of theological articles, represented the sinfulness even of responsible agents as limited to guilt and need of pardon. Nor have we ever declared or implied that atonement has respect only to the guilt of man, or that it is nothing more than expiation for guilt. By universal sinfulness we mean (and it was so stated) that man's sinful state is such that he has no power of deliverance from it, and this consideration is more important than a determination of the degree of his guilt. In our view, therefore, sinfulness is not merely individualistic but also organic and corporate. Infants as members of a sinful race inherit sinful tendencies, and Christ as the Redeemer of mankind redeems all who are members of the race. It is through his grace alone that human beings are delivered and purified from sin, whether that sin is actual transgression or inherited disposition to evil. We differ from Dr. Todd as to sinfulness and atonement only in employing those terms with a somewhat wider application than he is accustomed to associate with them. He agrees with us that those who die in infancy need salvation and are saved by the grace of Christ. His real objection relative to infants is that we represent faith in Christ as indispensable. He does not believe that voluntary choice of Christ is the condition of their salvation. His own view is that the work of Christ is "the means of obtaining for them and applying to them the transforming power of the Spirit and the power of the resurrection without any voluntary action on their part." He probably thinks that if their voluntary choice is necessary, some might refuse Christ and be lost. We do not think of their action as voluntary in the sense that the result is uncertain. But we do

believe that their salvation or perfecting is ethical and conscious. As an infant who lives may grow up in a Christian home and develop Christian character so gradually that no sharp crisis occurs, so the infant transferred to the heavenly home is under influences perfectly Christian and develops gradually into spiritual and intellectual maturity; and with a certainty as nearly absolute as any moral certainty can be, so nearly absolute that it is unnecessary to take alternatives into consideration. This view perfectly harmonizes with our theory. Those who die in in

fancy know Christ and learn to love him after death. Infants are not lost before they die, for we believe no one is lost or eternally condemned unless he has rejected Christ. But the infant needs to be purified from sinful tendencies and to be brought to his proper estate of holiness. If this is done it must be done ethically and consciously, whether it is done on earth or done in heaven. Does Dr. Todd mean that their salvation is accomplished in the moment of death and by a miracle? Does he mean that the "transforming power of the Spirit and the power of the resurrection" are applied by omnipotence while infants are dying, so that the instant after death they are radically changed in character, and appear in heaven as fully developed saints? We had supposed that belief in the salvation of infants is wholly favorable to our theory, but extremely perplexing to any theory which holds that the salvation of all human beings is limited to the earthly life. This is so notable an exception that we are prepared to find other exceptions. The really significant fact about infant salvation is that the Christian consciousness is certain all infants are saved, and demands that theology shall qualify the opinion that salvation is possible only in the earthly life. We cannot take space to characterize the straits into which inoffensive infants have driven all theological systems which limit the opportunity of salvation to this life.

We should argue in substantially the same way concerning idiocy, congenital insanity, and other conditions of irresponsibility.

The other question is of more importance. "When you speak of faith in Christ, what Christ, or rather what revelation of Christ, do you mean?" Some know Christ inadequately, to some He is presented erroneously, none know Him perfectly. How, then, can faith in Christ be indispensable to salvation? Are not all men, then, finally judged by relation to their fellow-men whom they do know rather than by relation to Christ whom they may not have known aright or may not have known at all? The assumption here is that faith in Christ to be saving must be free from all imperfection and error, that only through comprehensive, intelligent, unprejudiced knowledge of Christ can saving faith arise. But it has always been a cause of wonder and praise to believers that although they are painfully aware how imperfect their knowledge of Christ is, yet their lives are transformed by his grace and the peace of God fills their hearts. Paul knew only in part, yet was saved by faith in Christ, not by benevolence to his fellow-men. And so it is with the humblest believer. It is not for us to judge with how little knowledge of Christ salvation may be

possible. But we instantly answer that if during one's earthly life knowledge of Christ is so inadequate, if presentations of Him are so perverted and erroneous that humble saving faith in Him is practically precluded, then in our belief, and in entire agreement with our theory, that knowledge will some time be given. Concerning those who do not have the gospel at all, such as many heathen, the case seems so clear that we think it most probable that the requisite knowledge will be given after death. In the case of those who have some knowledge of Christ we do not think that any man has the power or the right to judge either of the adequacy of the knowledge or of the corresponding responsibility of those who have it.

The remainder of Dr. Todd's letter is taken up with a criticism of our theory and the suggestion of a preferable theory in view of the account of final judgment as given in Matt. xxv. 31-46. He assumes that the "brethren" to whom love had been shown are men in general, and that "surprise" because service to the brethren proves to have been service to Christ is impossible to those who have rejected or accepted Christ. Therefore he implies that the passage in Matthew describes the judgment only of those who have never known Christ as He is known to the Christian nations. It is the judgment of those who have never had the gospel. The Christian nations have already been judged. The best reply we can make is to indicate the correct interpretation of the passage.

In the first place, we agree with nearly all reputable scholars in rejecting the view that only the non-christian or heathen nations are intended. It would be improper to say that the Messianic kingdom has been prepared for the virtuous heathen from the foundation of the world. It is an expression applicable to the great body of the redeemed. It was prepared for those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Moral heathen may have a place in the kingdom, but it could not be said with such emphasis that the kingdom was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. Again, those who are accepted are addressed as the "rightous" (oi dikawi), a term applied in the New Testament to Christian believers, and as the "blessed of my Father," a term especially appropriate to those who were avowed servants of Christ. Again, both sides use language such as compels us to acknowledge their belief in the Judge before whom they stand. Their language is the expression of a consciousness of their faith in the Messiah, towards whom, however, not having seen Him, they had had no opportunity of directly showing their love. Every humble believer, although familiar with this description, will doubtless be surprised to find that many acts which he had forgotten were acceptable and precious to the Master, and that through them his faith was proved. And many who had taken pride in the correctness of their belief will be surprised to find that their life was inconsistent with their profession. Nothing but the light of the judgment day will expose to the self-deceived that glaring contradiction which is obvious to all except to themselves. Again, the word "brethren" is usually employed by Christ to designate

those who are his faithful servants, and cannot be assumed as of course to apply to all men, saints and sinners alike. Deeds of kindness to Christ's faithful but obscure servants could not be exercised outside the Christian community, and therefore not by heathen. The designation "all the nations" is not limited to the Gentiles so as to exclude the Jews or the kingdom of Christian believers, since the word is applied (John xi. 50) to the Jews, and the command of Christ (Matt. xxviii. 19) is to make disciples of all the nations, showing that his expectation was that the kingdom of believers would be gathered in from all the nations. The term then cannot be limited to those who have not had the gospel.

It would, indeed, be easier to maintain with Meyer and others that only professed Christians are meant than to maintain that only the heathen nations are meant. The explanation then would be that a judgment is instituted by which the spurious are separated from the genuine followers of Christ, that faith or the pretension of faith is taken for granted, and that the actual life shows whether the faith is real or only pretended, practical or only theoretical. Jesus frequently declares that the life is the test of faith. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Those who are described in Matt. vii. 22 are professed believers in Christ, and their spirit and lan guage is almost identical with the spirit and reply of those who are re jected at the final judgment. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out devils, and by thy name do many mighty works?" So much may be urged in favor of this view that some think the account has reference only to those nations who are living on earth at the time of the judgment when all will be nominally Christian, former generations having already been judged, and for the reason that the replies made to Christ clearly assume a real or pretended faith in Him, surprise being felt only at the tests by which faith is approved or condemned. No theory could be more untenable than the theory that those only are described who never before had heard of Christ.

The correct interpretation finds in the passage a description, partly in figurative terms, of the judgment of all nations at the end of the present order of things. At that time the gospel will have been preached to all nations, and, as we believe, to all generations. All men will have known of Christ, and will have had opportunity to believe on Him. Possibly all will profess to have faith in Him. At least they all will know the Judge before whom they stand. The searching question concerning faith will be directed not to the side of opinion or profession, but to the side of renewal of life and transformation of character. Unless faith works by love it is spurious. It will ultimately be true that all men are judged by those works of which faith alone is the producing principle. If it is objected that the works mentioned must, in the nature of the case,