4. The Arminian Views

We now turn to the development of views among the Arminians on the matter of the unevangelized. It was noted above that there was a great deal of similarity between the views of Calvin and Arminius on the matter of the unevangelized. Both believed that faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. And both believed that God could communicate the gospel by extraordinary means. The difference between their views, however, arose from their conception of the nature of God’s grace toward the recipients of salvation. Whereas Calvin believed that salvation (and all that it entailed) was due to God’s “secret and inscrutable counsel” and the “free goodness of God” (i.e. his elective grace), Arminius, on the other hand, believed that it was due to the “profitable use of grace already granted.”¹ That is, he believed that God granted to all people “sufficient grace” to believe, and it was the proper use of this ability which determined one’s salvation. In view of this fact, later Arminians came to believe that God must also grant to all sufficient knowledge to lead them to salvation. William Cunningham (1805–1861), speaking of the Arminians, stated it this way: “(T)hey usually maintain, that it is indispensable, in order to the vindication of the divine character, that all men—however inferior in degree the privileges of some may be to those of others—should have, at least, such means of knowing God, as that, by the right use and improvement of them, they can attain to salvation.”²

The Presbyterian William Annan stated accurately with regard to the hope that some among the unevangelized might be saved: “The Calvinist founds his hope of their salvation on the Divine mercy—the Arminian founds his upon the justice of God.”³ The Calvinist bases his hope that some might be extraordinarily enlightened, on the grace and mercy of God. The Arminian bases his hope that some might improve on grace which God in his justice has already granted to all.

British professor Isabel Rivers provides some background to the discussions of this chapter. She states that there were two changes that took place in British theology from the mid-seventeenth to later eighteenth centuries:

The first is an emphasis in Anglican thought on the capacity of human reason and free will to co-operate with divine grace in order to achieve the holy and happy life. This optimistic portrait of human nature represents a rejection of the orthodox Reformation tradition, which stresses the depravity of human nature and God’s arbitrary exercise of his free grace in electing the few to salvation. The second is the attempt to divorce ethics from religion, and to find the springs of human action not in the co-operation of human nature and divine grace but in the constitution of human nature alone.⁴

She further describes these changes:

(T)he latitude-men . . . opposed the Calvinist doctrines of irresistible grace and imputed righteousness because they thought that these attribute everything to God and nothing to man, and supported the pre-Augustinian, Erasmian, and Arminian view that man’s will is free, that God’s grace is given to all, and that man can work with or against it as he chooses. There were exceptions to this full-scale Arminianism: Culverwell (who died in 1651) remained, however, inconsistently, a Calvinist, rejecting the view that grace is universally offered, though he was obviously unhappy about the implications of the doctrine of the divine decrees. For example, on the vexed question of the salvation of the heathen (who are categorically damned in the Larger Catechism), after sidestepping the issue of whether they could be saved, he continues: ‘though we say not with the Pelagians, that the emprovements (sic) of nature can make men happy, nor yet with the Semi-Pelagians, that natural preparations and predispositions do bespeak & procure Grace; nor yet with the Papists and Arminians, that works flowing from Grace do contribute to more Grace & Glory, yet this we say, that upon the improvement of any present strength, God out of his free goodnesse, may if he please give more.’⁵

The Remonstrants

As noted in a previous chapter, Arminius believed that if one properly responded to the knowledge he had of God through nature, he would be granted sufficient knowledge by which he might be saved (the gospel).⁶ At the Synod of Dort, most of the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius, led by Simon Episcopius, 1583–1643) echoed this same belief; though a few contended that one might be saved apart from the gospel (Venator, Bertius).⁷ The successor to Episcopius was J. A. Corvinus (1582–1650). He argued that though salvation comes through the word of God, nonetheless, the light of nature may be considered in a sense “salvific.” He wrote: “Although the true way of worshipping God is to be learned from the Word of God; yet the knowledge of the invisible God which is discerned by the understanding from created things also implants in minds that God is to be worshipped and creatures are stimulated through it so that they worship God according to that knowledge.”⁸ He continued:

Although the knowledge of God which is drawn from created things is not in itself sufficient for salvation and in that sense it cannot be said to be salvific: yet that same knowledge can be said to be salvific to the extent that it in itself led to salvation and immediately precedes the knowledge conducive to salvation . . . . However, both forms of revelation, whether the more obscure and imperfect or the clearer and more perfect have the end that we seek, (to) worship and glorify God.⁹

Speaking of the Socinian belief that “those who worship God according to the light of nature . . . are pleasing to him and find him their rewarder,” Turretin writes:

The Remonstrants evidently agree with them: some more openly as Curcellaeus and Adolphus Venator (Adolf de Jager) who, in his defense against the ministers of Dort (cf. Een besonder Tractaet . . . der Predicanten der Stadt Dordrecht [1612]), expressly denies the proposition ‘no one can be saved who is not placed in Christ by true faith’; others more cautiously, as Arminius, Corvinus, Episcopius (who, not immediately indeed, but mediately), admit the Gentiles and others to salvation, holding that by a right use of the light of nature, the light of grace can be obtained and by grace admission to glory (Arminius, ‘The Apology or Defence of James Arminius Against Certain Theological Articles,’ 15, 16, 17 . . . ; and Arnoldus [Johannes Arnoldus Corvinus], Defensio sententiae…I. Arminii [1613] against Tilenus).¹⁰

John Platt summarizes the Arminian view in this way:

It is evident that the good pagan does obtain sufficient knowledge of God to enable him to believe in the Deity as Creator of the world and to worship Him accordingly. Furthermore, we may trust that God in His justice and mercy will in some way crown this with greater grace sufficient for salvation. However, to say that such knowledge is purely natural is to leave oneself open to the ever present threat of the charge of Pelagianism. Hence such effective knowledge must itself be the result of grace.¹¹

Rather than seeing the purpose of the things revealed in nature to be to render man “inexcusable” (as most Calvinists did), Corvinus says that “they witness to the goodness of God and indeed . . . so that the gentiles by feeling seek God; it is apparent that the internal aid of grace was present with them, by which, through the contemplation of those benefits their minds were stirred up to seek God and through the contemplation of those benefits they were moved to worship the author of the same.”¹²

Stephen De Courcelles (1586–1659) was to be the next leader among the Remonstrants. De Courcelles wrote extensively on the matter of the relationship between faith in God (which he believed could be acquired through contemplation of nature and providence—God’s moral dealings with men), and faith in Christ (which comes through the word of God). He wrote:

(T)he instructions which God gives to men in His works cannot in truth be called sufficient to lead to salvation in the way which is declared to us in the Gospel by faith in Jesus Christ, but only so far that God has given indications that He is willing extraordinarily to be content with this degree of piety that such instructions can produce in those who were destitute of all other means of knowing Him, of whom His justice does not allow him to demand more than they have received . . . . Faith in God is absolutely necessary for salvation and there is no difficulty in pronouncing that without it no one can have eternal life . . . . But faith in Jesus Christ as mediator between God and men and who by his death has ransomed us from perdition, is not necessary until it is announced and one has the means of knowing him. . . .¹³

Significantly, in his later writings De Courcelles expressed the belief that it was by reason alone (unaided by grace) that man is able to acquire a knowledge of God through natural revelation. Platt states: “What is so significant here is that De Courcelles clearly indentifies (sic) the means by which the natural man is able to make use of the revelation made to him by God in nature as ‘reason with which all are equipped’. Thus, for the first time in the course of this protracted controversy reason is given an essential role in a sphere which the earlier Arminians felt obliged to assign to the operation of grace.”¹⁴

Philip Limborch (1633–1712) was the next in line as a leading Remonstrant theologian. He stated that God at times withholds the gospel from people, not because of any divine reprobation, but because they have forfeited the right to receive it. He states: “It is possible, that God will not expressly send the Ministers of his Word to some, there being some weighty Reasons on Mens (sic) part which may obstruct this Divine Mission: For ‘tis certain God never denies the Communication of his Grace, but upon the account of the Demerits of Men.”¹⁵ He also acknowledges that the “ordinary method of Conversion is by the Word of the Gospel, whether preached or written.”¹⁶ But he also believed that there are those who are ignorant of the gospel “not through any Fault of their own” who may be saved if they live “agreeably to the Law of Nature.”¹⁷

Likewise, the Remonstrant theologian Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736) in his comments on Acts 4:12 stated:

This is rightly interpreted . . . that Jesus is the only Mediator by whom we can have access or admission to God, and that God has sent no other; from which it is consequent that those must fall short of Salvation, who rejecting him, betake themselves to any other Mediator, as the Jews did who placed their Confidence in Moses. But this is nothing at all to the Heathens, who have neither ever heard any thing of Christ, nor ever cast him off to substitute any Mediator in his room. If God will think fit to pardon some of them who live the most agreeably to right Reason, and confer upon them some measure of Happiness out of mere Grace and Mercy; do we think that Christ will intercede that he may not? Sure he will not; and I do not see why we silly Mortals should set bounds to God’s Mercy.¹⁸

Later Arminians

A significant Arminian work of this era was The Pagans Debt and Dowry, published in 1651 by the British minister John Goodwin (1594?–1665).¹⁹ Ellen More characterizes Goodwin’s theology:

His theology centered on the belief that God intended to save all men; that Scripture and nature both displayed all doctrines necessary for salvation; and that all men possessed the means of acquiring this crucial knowledge. Arminianism and rationalism merged in a coherent system . . . . Even ‘those many millions of all ages who never heard the Gospel,’ could know its message of hope through the operation of their reason and senses. All men and women had this capacity.²⁰

Goodwin wrote: “For God being by the light of nature known, or at least . . . knowable, to be infinitely just, infinitely bent in hatred against sin; when notwithstanding he shall express himself in goodness and patience and bountifulness towards those who know themselves to be sinners, hereby he sufficiently testifieth and declareth unto them that his justice and severity against sin have been . . . satisfied.”²¹ In discussing the statement that God “now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) Goodwin contended that this implied that “the Repentance here mentioned, and commanded by God unto all Men everywhere, includeth, or presupposeth, Faith in Christ, and that no Repentance whatsoever, is, or can be, actually saving, but onely such, which is influenced or raised by Faith in Christ, of one kind or other, either formal and explicite, or else consequential, implicite and interpretative.”²² In other words, Goodwin viewed implicit faith as effective for the unevangelized, as explicit faith is for those who hear the gospel (the view also espoused by Roman Catholic theologians of this era).

Another writer who argued for the possibility of salvation being extended to those who were as yet ignorant of the gospel was the British theologian (and mathematician) Isaac Barrow (1630–1677). He will be quoted at some length here, since his views would prove to be very influential in the development of Arminian theology regarding the unevangelized. He expressed his beliefs in a series of four sermons on “Universal Redemption.”²³ In the third sermon, he argues that the gospel is normally disclosed to those who have shown themselves worthy of it by responding to God’s universal grace.

That God doth commonly observe this method (plainly sutable [sic] to divine justice, wisedom [sic] and goodness) to dispense the revelation of his truth according to mens (sic) disposition to receive it, and aptness to make a fruitful and worthy use of it, to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, as Saint John Baptist spake; and to withhold it from those who are indisposed to admit it, or unfit to profit by it: we may from divers express passages and notable instances (beside many probable intimations) of Scripture learn . . . . (W)e may . . . observe, how in the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit commonly directed the Apostles to such places, where a competent number of people were well disposed to receive the truth . . . . And on the other hand, that God withholds the special discoveries of his truth, upon account of mens indispositions and demerits, may likewise very plainly appear.²⁴

In the previous sermon Barrow expressed his belief that God was graciously at work in people’s lives long before they come to explicit faith in the gospel.

As there was of old an Abimelech among the Philistines, whom God by special warning deterr’d from commission of sin; a divine Melchisedeck among the Canaanites; a discreet and honest Jethro in Madian; a very religious and virtuous Job in Arabia; who by complying with God’s grace did evidence the communication thereof in several Nations; so it is not unreasonable to suppose the like cause now, although we cannot by like attestation certify concerning the particular effects thereof. We may at least discern and shew very conspicuous footsteps of divine grace, working in part, and producing no despicable fruits of moral virtue . . . even among Pagans, which if we do not allow to have been in all respects so complete, as to instate the persons endewed with them, or practicers of them in God’s favour, or to bring them to salvation; yet those qualities and actions (in degree, or in matter at least, so good, and so conformable to God’s law) we can hardly deny to have been the gifts of God, and the effects of divine grace . . . . St. Austin himself . . . acknowledges those virtuous dispositions and deeds to be the gifts of God, to be laudable, to procure some reward, to avail so far, that they, because of them, shall receive a more tolerable and mild treatment from divine justice; which things considered, such persons do at least by virtue of grace imparted to them obtain some part of salvation, or an imperfect kind of salvation, which they owe to our Lord, and in regard whereto he may be called in a sort their Saviour . . . . The Pagans had the means of knowing God, as St. Paul affirmeth, yet generally they grew vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; from which like cases and examples we may infer, that divine grace might be really imparted, although no effect correspondent to its main design were produced. Neither, because we cannot alledge any evident instances of persons converted or saved by virtue of this grace . . . are we forced to grant there were none such: but as in Israel when Elias said the children of Israel have forsaken God’s Covenant . . . ; there were in Israel, living closely, seven thousand knees, who had not bowed to Baal: so among the generations of men, commonly overgrown with ignorance and impiety, there might (for all that we can know) be divers persons, indiscernible to common view, who by complying with the influences of God’s grace have obtained competently to know God, and to reverence him; sincerely to love goodness, and hate wickedness; with an honest heart, to observe the laws of reason and righteousness; in such a manner and degree, which God might accept; so that the grace afforded might not onely (sic) . . . suffice to convince men . . . but . . . to correct and cure some . . . . He that (as St. Paul saith) giveth to all men life, breath and all things, will he withhold from any that best of gifts, and most worthy of him to give, that grace, whereby he may be able to serve him, to praise him, to glorify him; yea to please and gratify him; to save a creature and subject of his; the thing wherein he so much delighteth? From hence also, that God hath vouchsafed general testimonies of his goodness, inducements to seek him, footsteps whereby he may be discovered and known, a light of reason and law of nature written upon mens hearts; attended with satisfactions, and checks of conscience; so many dispositions to knowledge and obedience (as St. Paul teacheth us) we may collect that he is not deficient in communicating interious assistences, promoting the good use and improvement of those talents; for that otherwise the bestowing them is frustraneous (sic) and useless; being able to produce no good effect; yea it rather is an argument of unkindness, being apt onely to produce an ill effect in those, upon whom it is conferr’d; an aggravation of sin, an accumulation of guilt and wrath upon them . . . . If it be said, that having such grace is inconsistent with the want of an explicit knowledge of Christ, and of faith in him; why may not we say, that as probably . . . most good people before our Lord’s coming received grace without any such knowledge or faith; that as to Idiots and Infants our Saviour’s meritorious performances are applied (in a manner unknowable by us) without so much as a capacity to know or believe any thing; that so we (to whom God’s judgments are inscrutable, and his ways uninvestigable) know not how grace may be communicated unto, and Christ’s merits may avail for other ignorant persons? In respect to whom we may apply that of St. John: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. However that such persons may have a grace capacifying (sic) them to arrive to that knowledge and faith, to which fuller communications of grace are promised; so that in reasonable esteem . . . the revelation of Evangelical Truth and the gift of faith may be supposed to be conferred upon all men—so that we may apply to them that in the Revelation: Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man will hear my voice, and open the door, I will come unto him, and sup with him; and he with me (that is; Behold I allure every man to the knowledge and embracing of Christianity: if any man will open his mind and heart; so as to comply with my solicitations, I am ready to bestow upon him the participation of Evangelical mercies and blessings) and to such persons those promises and rules in the Gospel, may appertain: He that asketh receiveth, He that seeketh findeth; to him that knocketh it shall be opened: The heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. He that is . . . (faithful in the use of the least grace) shall be rewarded. And, to him that hath (or that diligently keepeth and husbandeth what he hath) shall more be given . . . . And how God sometimes dealeth with such persons the eminent instances of St. Paul and Cornelius do shew . . . . Since we are plainly taught, that our Lord is the Saviour of all men; and it is consequent thence that he hath procured grace sufficiently capacifying all men to obtain salvation; we need not perplex the business, or obscure so apparent a truth by debating how that grace is imparted; or by laboring overmuch in reconciling the dispensation thereof with other dispensations of providence.²⁵

A similar, though perhaps more cautious, view was presented by John Sharp (1643–1714), Archbishop of York, in his sermon delivered before Queen Mary, August 30, 1691.²⁶ He concludes from the account of Cornelius (Acts 10):

(T)hat we have therein an illustrious instance of that important truth which it concerns all of us to remember, and often to think of, if we in good earnest design to lead such lives as we ought to do; and this is, that God is not wanting to any man’s sincere endeavors, but is willing and ready to assist every one with his grace, and to add further means and helps as there is need of them. Whoever will faithfully do that which he can towards the serving God, tho’ that which he can do but be little, such a man shall be carried further; and God will take care that at last he shall be put into such a condition, that he may walk acceptably before him. Cornelius was a stranger to the true religion; but so far as he knew his duty, he was honest and sincere in doing it. He knew by the Light of Nature that to pray to God, and to give alms, were probable means of gaining his favour; and therefore he accordingly took these methods. This now God accepted; and because of his sincerity in doing what he could he vouchsafed his special grace and assistance, whereby he was enabled to know, and to do those things which by nature he could not.²⁷

He goes on, however, to state that:

(I)t is not enough to entitle any man to everlasting salvation, that he practiceth the duties of Natural Religion, unless he also believe and embrace that religion which God has revealed by Jesus Christ, supposing he has opportunities of coming to the knowledge of it . . . . (B)are morality or honesty of life, without a right faith, will not save a man’s soul, supposing that the man hath opportunities of coming to the knowledge of that right faith, as Cornelius here had. And this consideration I seriously address to all those among us, who think it so indifferent a matter what religion or what faith they are of, provided they are but honest in their lives. They think nothing offends God but the open violation of those rules of morality which all the world must acknowledge themselves obliged to observe, and which it is scandalous not to observe. So that it is all one to a man’s salvation, whether he be Turk, or Jew, or Heathen, or Christian, supposing he be but devout in his way, and have a regard in his dealings with others to the practice of that which is accounted fair, just and honourable amongst men. But this is a grievous mistake, and of most pernicious consequence. It is certain that where-ever God has revealed his will, and declared upon what terms he will bestow salvation upon mankind, there all men are, under pain of damnation, obliged to embrace his revelation, and to believe, and profess, and practice according to the doctrines of such revelation. And it is certainly likewise, that God hath fully and entirely revealed his will by Jesus Christ and his apostles in the New Testament; and so revealed it, as to exclude all men from the hopes of salvation, who, having opportunity of knowing Jesus Christ, and his doctrines, do not believe in him . . . . If they had been born and bred in an Heathen Country, where they had no opportunity of coming to the knowledge of God’s revealed will, I know not how far their justice and temperance, and other good moral qualities, might avail them towards the procuring God’s acceptance. But to live in a Christian Country, nay, and to be baptized into Christ’s religion, and yet to be pagans as to their notions and opinions; not to believe in Jesus Christ, but to think to please God in the way of the Philosophers; there is nothing in the world to be said in their excuse for this . . . .²⁸

He goes on to say that “God, even in the extraordinary expressions of his kindness to sinners, in such cases where he is pleased to work a man’s conversion in a miraculous way, yet hath such a regard to the standing ordinary means of grace, as even in these cases to make use of them for bringing his work about.”²⁹ He proceeds then, to point out that even in extraordinary cases such as when God sent an angel to Cornelius, or when the Lord Jesus himself appeared to Paul, they did not declare the gospel to them, but directed them to human messengers by which the gospel was made known.³⁰ Bishop Sharp’s comments give us some indication of the influence of deism in the church of his time, and of distancing his own Arminian views from that system of thought.

A somewhat less cautious view is set forth by Timothy Nourse (c. 1636–1699) in A Discourse of Natural and Reveal’d Religion in Several Essays: or, The Light of Nature, a Guide to Divine Truth.³¹ In this work, Nourse proposes that:

(The) (e)fficient or Meritorious Cause of procuring Salvation to Mankind, can be no other but Jesus Christ . . . . (Nonetheless) those who never . . . heard of Christ or his Gospel, and yet retain true Notions of the Nature, Power, and Justice of God, and live justly and conformably to that knowledge, retaining a disposition to receive farther Instruction with all propensity to Vertue; I cannot see but that they may justly be ranked with those great and wise Men amongst the Ancients, whether Philosophers or others, in whose Lives and Writings we find so many remains of the true apprehensions they had of a Deity, together with their great Pregnancy of Vertue . . . (and) are by the most impartial and learned Writers, held to be in a State of Salvation.³²

After arguing at length from many scripture passages, as well as logical inferences which he believes supports his views, he concludes with these words: “The sum of what I have hitherto spoken upon this Argument does amount to this; That an explicite Belief of the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, accompanied with an Oral Confession . . . though they be . . . the only safe way to Man’s Salvation, yet are they not so absolutely and indispensably necessary, but that ‘tis possible, in some extraordinary cases, Salvation may be obtain’d where these are wanting.” ³³

In his sermon “Of the Necessity of Good Works,” John Tillotson (1630–94), Archbishop of Canterbury, states his belief that “virtuous heathen” such as Socrates and Epictetus . . .

were under a special care and providence of God, and not wholly destitute of divine assistance, no more than Job and his friends . . . and Cornelius . . . who surely were very good men, and accepted of God, though they were Gentiles, and ‘aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise’; but yet not excluded from the blessing of the Messias, though they were ignorant of him . . . nor from the benefit of that great propitiation, which ‘in the fullness of time,’ he was to make for the sins of the whole world . . . . And good men in all ages and nations . . . such as ‘feared God and wrought righteousness,’ were accepted of him ‘in that name,’ and by the meritorious sacrifice of ‘that Lamb of God,’ which, in respect of the virtue and efficacy of it, is said to have been ‘slain from the foundation of the world.’³⁴

The Anglican Daniel Whitby (1638–1726) was an outspoken opponent of Calvinism (and of Jonathan Edwards), and expressed views concerning the unevangelized that were very similar to Barrow’s. He acknowledged that the heathen world had often corrupted the light of nature.³⁵ Nonetheless, he argued strongly that this light was sufficient to lead those who were without the gospel to a saving knowledge of God.³⁶ In his comments on Acts 4:12, he states:

(T)he disputes of the schools from this place concerning the salvation of the gentiles, have been impertinent . . . . (It) must . . . be acknowledged, that God is ‘no respecter of persons,’ as to their spiritual and eternal interests, but ‘in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him’ Acts X. 34, 35 (see the note there and that God would have all men diligently to seek, and to come to him with a firm belief that he is ‘a rewarder’ of them that do so Heb. IX. 6), and that he hath not suspended that reward on an impossible condition, though he will only give it with respect to what our Lord Jesus hath done or suffered for them: that he hath not ‘left himself without witness’ of his goodness to the heathen world, not only by doing good to their bodies without regard to their souls . . . .³⁷

From the natural blessings referred to in Acts 14:16–17, Whitby draws the conclusion that they are . . .

a clear testimony of his goodness to them, and therefore an assurance that if they, knowing him by these means to be God, would turn from their dumb idols, and worship him as God, they might find grace and favor in his eyes, who was so good to them even whilst they did continue to provoke him. Now the knowledge of that God who made heaven and earth as the only true God who is to be worshipped, and whose providence affords us all the blessings we enjoy, and the belief that he is well inclined to shew mercy to all that thus turn to him, and to reward all that thus fear him, and are thankful to him, seems to be all that God expected from the Gentiles, as may be gathered from Rom. 1. 20, 21.³⁸

As the Church of England became more inclined toward Arminian theology, the statements in the 39 Articles concerning the unevangelized were reinterpreted by many church leaders.³⁹ This can be seen for example, in the comments of Bishop Gilbert Burnet (1643–1715) on the thirteenth article concerning “Works Before Justification” and on the eighteenth article concerning “Obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.” The thirteenth article states that “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God; forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-Authors say) deserve grace of congruity: Yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath commanded and willed them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin.”⁴⁰ Though Burnet acknowledges that no works of man are free from sin, he nevertheless states:

By all this we do not pretend to say, that a man in that state can do nothing; or that he has no use of his faculties: he can certainly restrain himself on many occasions; he can do many good works, and avoid many bad ones; he can raise his understanding to know and consider things according to the light that he has; he can put himself in good methods and good circumstances; he can pray, and do many acts of devotion, which thought they are all very imperfect, yet none of them will be lost in the sight of God, who certainly will never be wanting to those who are doing what in them lies, to make themselves the proper objects of his mercy, and fit subjects for his grace to work upon. Therefore this Article is not to be made use of to discourage men’s endeavors, but only to increase their humility; to teach them not to think of themselves above measure, but soberly; to depend always on the mercy of God, and ever to fly to it.⁴¹

Here, contrary to the Calvinist understanding, Burnet is making room for a person’s improving on what grace he is afforded, to prepare himself for being granted the greater grace of salvation.

In his discussion of the eighteenth article, he postulates a difference between being saved “by the Law or Sect” which a person professes, and being saved “in the Law or Sect” he professes. He agrees that no one can be saved “by” any other religion, but he contends that one may be saved “in” other religions. “(T)o be saved in a Law or Sect, imports only, that God may extend his compassions to men that are engaged in false religions.”⁴² He continues:

As to such to whom the Christian religion is revealed, there no question can be made, for it is certain they are under an indispensable obligation to obey and follow that which is so graciously revealed to them . . . . The only difficulty remaining, is concerning those who never heard of this religion, whether, or how can they be saved? St. Paul having divided the world into Jews and Gentiles, called by him those who were in the Law, and who were without the Law; he says, those ‘who sinned without Law’, that is, out of the Mosaical dispensation, ‘shall be judged without Law,’ that is, upon another foot. For he adds when ‘the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law,’ (that is, the Moral parts of it) ‘these having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves;’ (that is, their Consciences are to them instead of a Written Law); ‘which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.’ This implies that there are either seeds of knowledge and virtue laid in the nature of man, or that such notions pass among them, as are carried down by tradition. The same St. Paul says, ‘How can they call on him in whom they have not believed; and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard; and how can they hear without a Preacher?’ Which seems plainly to intimate, that men cannot be bound to believe, and by consequence cannot be punished for not believing, unless the Gospel is preached to them. St. Peter said to Cornelius, ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.’ Those places seem to import, that those who make the best use they can of that small measure of light that is given them, shall be judged according to it; and that God will not require more of them than he has given them. This also agrees to well with the ideas which we have both of justice and goodness, that this opinion wants not special colours (sic) to make it look well. But on the other hand, the pardon of sin, and the favour of God, are so positively limited to the believing in Christ Jesus, and it is so expressly said, That ‘there is no salvation in any other;’ and that ‘there is none other name (or authority) under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved;’ that the distinction which can only be made in this matter, is this, that it is only on the account, and in consideration of the death of Christ, that sin is pardoned, and men are saved . . . . This is the only sacrifice in the sight of God; so that whosoever are received into mercy, have it through Christ as the channel and conveyance of it. But it is not so plainly said that no man can be saved, unless he has an explicit knowledge of this, together with a belief in it. Few in the old dispensation could have that: infants, and innocents, or idiots have it not, and yet it were a bold thing to say that they may not be saved by it. So it does not appear to be clearly revealed, that none shall be saved by the death of Christ, unless they do explicitly both know it, and believe in it.⁴³

Similar interpretations of the Eighteenth Article may be found in other Anglican expositors, including for example R. W. Jelf (1798–1871), Principal of Kings College London, who wrote concerning this article: “This is so worded, that it is quite consistent with the assertion of this proposition to hope that a virtuous heathen, who never had an opportunity of embracing the Gospel, is capable of salvation . . . . There is a distinction to be drawn between a man being saved in a law or sect, and by a law or sect . . . . The meaning is obviously admissible, that a man may be saved in an imperfect religion by God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, though not in virtue of his being a faithful member of that sect.”⁴⁴

The same sentiment is also voiced by the Anglican W. H. Griffith Thomas (1861–1924), who wrote:

The title of the Article both in Latin and in English shows that there is no reference whatever to the heathen, but only to those who are acquainted with the Christian religion. Luther is known to have held charitable views on the subject of the heathen, and our Reformers never seem to have stated positively their position . . . . (I)t is evident that the reference can only be to those who have heard of Him . . . . Nothing is said about being saved ‘in the Law or Sect,’ and therefore the view condemned and the opposite view inculcated cannot refer to any but those who deliberately and willfully set aside the manifest Christian teaching concerning our Lord Jesus Christ . . . . Men may be saved in their own religion, though not by it, and it is the latter opinion alone which the Article condemns, because it would destroy vital Christianity.⁴⁵

These views were at odds with those of Thomas Cranmer, who directed the writing of the Forty-Two Articles, upon which the Thirty-Nine Articles were based.⁴⁶ Cranmer had written: “To that eternal salvation cometh no man but he that hath the Head Christ. Yea, and no man can have the Head Christ which is not in His Body the Church.”⁴⁷

There were, as well, other Anglican bishops of Calvinist persuasion, who did not embrace Burnet’s views, such as Bishop William Beveridge (1637–1708), who in commenting on the eighteenth article wrote:

Now seeing it is only by Christ our transgressions can be pardoned, and only by Christ our corruptions can be conquered, it must needs be only by Christ our souls can be saved; and if it be only by Christ we can be saved, without him we cannot but be damned. And therefore, let a man be of what religion he please, and as strict in that religion as he can, unless Christ be his, and he be Christ’s, his religion is in vain; he may be strict in his profession of it, but it will never bring any happiness to him. No, it is Christ, and Christ alone we are to expect salvation from.⁴⁸

The Anglican minister William Sherlock (1641–1707), who was a theological opponent of John Owen, advocated views on the unevangelized similar to Burnet’s:

For I cannot think, that God in judging the world, will deal more rigorously and severely with heathens, than he will with Christians; that he will demand most where he has given least, which is contrary to our savior’s rule of judgment: and therefore I cannot but hope, that Christ in judging of their works, will make the same favourable allowances to them, which the gospel makes to those who do believe in Christ: that is to say, that he will allow of the repentance of the heathen, if it were sincere and hearty, and did reform his life, as well as of the repentance of a Christian; that he will overlook the same defects and imperfections in the good actions of the heathens, who lived virtuous lives, who worshipped the one true God, and observed the natural rules of sobriety, justice and righteousness, that he will in the actions of Christians. That if any heathen should be found equally virtuous with the meanest Christian, who shall be finally saved, that heathen at least will not be damned; and indeed would seem to have reason to complain of unequal usage, if he should . . . . (I)t is to be hoped, that many thousands will be saved by Christ at the day of judgment, who never had any explicite (sic) knowledge or faith in him.⁴⁹

John Wesley And The Wesleyans

From the mid-seventeenth century on, those of Arminian persuasion generally held views similar to those voiced by Barrow, Burnet and Sherlock. This can be particularly seen in the views of John Wesley (1703–1791).

As is well known, John Wesley believed in a universal prevenient grace granted to all men. In his sermon on “The Scripture Way of Salvation” he says:

The salvation which is here spoken of [Eph. 2:8—‘Ye are saved through faith’] might be extended to the entire work of God, from the first dawning of grace in the soul, till it is consummated in glory. If we take this in its utmost extent, it will include all that is wrought in the soul by what is frequently termed natural conscience, but more properly, preventing grace: all the drawings of the Father—the desires after God, which, if we yield to them, increase more and more: all that light wherewith the Son of God enlighteneth everyone that cometh into the world—showing every man to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God: all the convictions which His Spirit, from time to time, works in every child of man. Although it is true, the generality of men stifle them as soon as possible, and after a while forget, or at least deny, that they ever had them at all.⁵⁰

In his sermon “On Working Out Our Own Salvation” he says: “Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God.”⁵¹ It is clear that Wesley believed that this grace is operative in all men (not only in those who hear the gospel), and that salvation is a process that potentially begins and progresses by “degrees” long before one might hear the gospel.

Wesley’s attitude toward the possibility of salvation for the unevangelized may be gleaned from the following statements. In his sermon “On Charity” he commented:

But it may be asked: ‘If there be no true love of our neighbor but that which springs from the love of God; and if the love of God flows from no other fountain than faith in the Son of God; does it not follow that the whole heathen world is excluded from all possibility of salvation? Seeing they are cut off from faith; for faith cometh by hearing. And how shall they hear without a preacher?’ I answer, St. Paul’s words, spoken on another occasion, are applicable to this: ‘What the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are under the law.’ Accordingly that sentence, ‘He that believeth not shall be damned,’ is spoken of them to whom the gospel is preached. Others it does not concern; and we are not required to determine anything touching their final state. How it will please God, the Judge of all, to deal with them, we may leave to God himself. But this we know, that he is not the God of the Christians only, but the God of the heathens also; that he is ‘rich in mercy to all that call upon him’, ‘according to the light they have’; and that ‘in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.’⁵²

In his comments on Acts 10:35, Wesley states:

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness. He that first reverences God, as great, wise, good; the Cause, End, and Governor of all things; and secondly, from this awful regard to him, not only avoids all known evil, but endeavors, according to the best light he has, to do all things well. Is accepted of him. Through Christ, though he knows him not. The assertion is express, and admits of no exception. He is in the favour of God, whether enjoying his written word and ordinances or not. Nevertheless, the addition of these is an unspeakable blessing to those who were before, in some measure, accepted. Otherwise God would never have sent an angel from heaven to direct Cornelius to Peter.⁵³

In his sermon “On Faith” Wesley comments:

The next sort of faith is the faith of heathens, with which I join that of Mahometans (sic). I cannot but prefer this before the faith of the deists; because, though it embraces nearly the same objects, yet they are rather to be pitied than blamed for the narrowness of their faith. And their not believing the whole truth is not owning to want of sincerity, but merely to want of light. When one asked Chicali, an old Indian chief, ‘Why do not you red men know as much as us white men?’ he readily answered, ‘Because you have the Great Word, and we have not

. . . .’ It cannot be doubted but this plea will avail for millions of modern ‘heathens’. Inasmuch as to them little is given, of them little will be required. As to the ancient heathens, millions of them likewise were savages. No more, therefore, will be expected of them than the living up to the light they had. But many of them, especially in the civilized nations, we have great reason to hope, although they lived among heathens, yet were quite of another spirit; being taught of God, by his inward voice, all the essentials of true religion.⁵⁴

Concerning saving faith, Wesley states:

But what is faith which is properly saving; which brings eternal salvation to all those who keep it to the end? It is such a divine conviction of God, and the things of God, as, even in its infant state enables everyone who possesses it to ‘fear God and work righteousness.’ And whosoever, in every nation, believes thus far, the Apostle declares, is ‘accepted of him.’ He actually is, at that very moment, in a state of acceptance. But he is at present only a servant of God, not properly a son. Meantime, let it well be observed, that the wrath of God no longer ‘abideth on him.’ . . . . And indeed, unless the servants of God halt by the way, they will receive the adoption of sons. They will receive the faith of the children of God, by his revealing his only begotten Son in their hearts. Thus, the faith of a child is, properly and directly, a divine conviction, whereby every child of God is able to testify, ‘The life that I now live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.’ And whosoever hath this, the Spirit of God witnesseth with his spirit, that he is a child of God . . . . This the servant hath not. Yet let no man discourage him; rather, lovingly exhort him to expect it every moment!⁵⁵

Wesley thus saw a difference between the faith of the as yet unevangelized, which he characterized as the faith of a “servant,” and the faith of a Christian believer, which he characterized as the faith of a “son.” Though the “servant” is accepted by God, and no longer under his wrath, only the “son” has the inner assurance of his salvation.

In his sermon “On Living Without God,” Wesley states:

(N)or do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation. It is far better to leave them to him that made them, and who is ‘the Father of the spirits of all flesh’; who is the God of the heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he hath made . . . . Perhaps there may be some well-meaning persons who . . . aver that whatever change is wrought in men, whether in their hearts or lives, yet if they have not clear views of those capital doctrines, the fall of man, justification by faith, and of the atonement made by the death of Christ, and of his righteousness transferred to them, they can have no benefit from his death. I dare in no wise affirm this. Indeed I do not believe it. I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. Without holiness, I own, no man shall see the Lord; but I dare not add, or clear ideas.⁵⁶

In the minutes of a conversation on August 2, 1745, Wesley records the following question and answer: “Q. 2. What will become of a Heathen, a Papist, a Church-of-England man, if he dies without being thus sanctified? A. He cannot see the Lord. But none who seeks it sincerely shall or can die without it: though possibly he may not attain it till the very article of death.”⁵⁷

Wesley’s convictions on this matter were reflected in the fact that when he sent Articles of Religion to the American Methodists, he removed Article XVIII, “Of Obtaining Eternal Salvation Only by the Name of Christ” (along with other Calvinistic articles) from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.⁵⁸

In February 1779, an article by the eighteenth century Remonstrant John Plaifere was published in The Arminian Magazine, entitled “Concerning the Salvability of the Heathen.”⁵⁹ In the article, Plaifere argues “(t)hat God, for the merit of Christ will accept of the sincere endeavours of all men who live according to their best abilities, though he was not pleased to bless all with the light of Revelation . . . .”⁶⁰ The publication of this article reflects the prevailing convictions of Arminians of this era.

John Fletcher (1729–1785) emerged as the systematizer of Wesley’s theology. In his works, he vigorously defends Wesley’s teachings regarding the salvation of the “heathen.” In his essay “The Doctrines of Grace and Justice” he states: “‘Preach the Gospel. He that believeth [in the light of his dispensation, supposing he does it ‘with the heart unto righteousness’] shall be saved’ according to the privileges of his dispensation.”⁶¹ Fletcher proposes that there are four dispensations under which men may live. The first he defines as: “Gentilism, which is frequently called natural religion, and might with propriety be called, the Gospel of Gentiles: Gentilism, I say, is a dispensation of grace and justice, which St. Peter preaches and describes in these words:—‘In every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness [according to his light] is accepted of him.’”⁶² The second dispensation is . . .

Judaism, which is frequently called the Mosaic dispensation, or the law, (that is, according to the first meaning of the Hebrew word torah, the doctrine, or the instruction,) and which might with propriety be called the Jewish Gospel: Judaism, I say, is that particular display of the doctrines of grace and justice, which was chiefly calculated for the meridian of Canaan, and is contained in the Old Testament; but especially in the five books of Moses. The Prophet Samuel sums it all up in these words:—‘Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart, [according to the law, i.e. doctrine of Moses,] for consider how great things he hath done for you, [his peculiar people:] but if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed,’ 1 Sam. xii, 24.⁶³

The third dispensation is . . .

The Gospel, of John the Baptist, which is commonly called the baptism of John, in connection with the Gospel, or baptism, which the apostles preached, before Christ opened the glorious baptism of his own Spirit on the day of Pentecost; this Gospel dispensation, I saw is the Jewish Gospel improved into infant Christianity . . . . It clearly points out the person of Christ, and . . . . Displays, with increasing light, (1).) The doctrines of grace, which kindly call the chief of sinners to eternal salvation through the practicable means of repentance, faith, and obedience. And, (2.) The doctrines of justice, which awfully threatens sinners with destruction, if they finally neglect to repent, believe, and obey.⁶⁴

The fourth dispensation is, “The perfect Gospel of Christ [which] is frequently called the Gospel only, on account of its fullness, and because it contains whatever is excellent in the above-described Gospel dispensations.”⁶⁵

In his “First Check to Antinomianism” Fletcher responds to a number of objections to the idea that the person who has never heard of Christ may be accepted by God if he “feareth God and worketh righteousness, according to the light he has.”⁶⁶ In his defense, he states:

Whenever a heathen is accepted, it is merely through the merits of Christ; although it is in consequence of his fearing God and working righteousness . . . . All is therefore of grace; the light, the works of righteousness done by that light, and acceptance in consequence of them . . . . Is it not possible that heathens should by grace, reap some blessings through the second Adam, though they know nothing of his name and obedience unto death; when they, by nature, reap so many curses through Adam the first; to whose name and disobedience they are equally strangers? . . . . For Christ, the Light of men, visits all, though in a variety of degrees and dispensations . . . . All the heathens that are saved are then saved by a lively faith in Jesus ‘the Light of the world;’ or to use our Lord’s own words, by ‘believing in the light’ of their dispensation . . . .⁶⁷

In response to the question why there is any need, then, of the Christian dispensation, Fletcher says:

(T)hough a heathen may be saved in his low dispensation, and attain unto a low degree of glory . . . it is an unspeakable advantage to be saved from the darkness attending his uncomfortable dispensation, into the full enjoyment of the ‘life and immortality brought to light by the explicit Gospel.’ Well might then the angel say to Cornelius, who was already accepted according to his dispensation, that Peter should ‘tell him words whereby he should be saved;’ saved from the weakness, darkness, bondage, and tormenting fears attending his present state, into that blessed state of light, comfort, liberty, power, and glorious joy . . . .⁶⁸

He goes on to say: “Only ‘faith in Christ’ for Christians, and ‘faith in the light of their dispensation’ for heathens, is necessary in order to acceptance.”⁶⁹

In his “Essay on Truth” he says: “No adult heathen was ever saved without the repentance of the contrite publican. ‘I am a guilty, helpless sinner, totally undone, if the mercy of Him that made me do not extend itself to me. Great Author of my existence, pity, pardon, and save me for they mercy’s sake’ . . . . The heathens, who were saved without the explicit knowledge of Christ, far from despising it . . . implicitly desired it; and those that were blessed with a ray of it, rejoiced in it like Abraham.”⁷⁰

The doctrines put forth by Wesley and Fletcher concerning the salvation of the unevangelized have been generally embraced by most of those who claim the name “Arminian” down to the present day.

Isaac Watts (1674–1748), for example, stated:

It is true, their light is but dim, and their means of grace very low; yet if there shall be found among these persons or nations, any, who fear God and work righteousness, who repent of sin, and hope in a merciful God, we believe they shall be accepted of him, through an unknown Mediator . . . . As for those persons, those nations or ages, that have so far lost all the revelations and dispensations of grace, that they know nothing of their own duty, or of the grace of God, but what the light of nature teaches them, they shall be judged according to those teachings of the light of nature, or that knowledge of God, of his law and his government, of his grace and their duty, which they might have arrived at by the right exercise of their conscience and reasoning powers . . . . But how far divine compassion shall exercise itself further in unpromised ways towards any of those persons or nations, who by the negligence and iniquity of their parents, had lost all the revelations of grace, is to be left to the wise, the righteous and the merciful Judge of all men.⁷¹

Anglican Bishop Joseph Butler (1692–1752) wrote: “All shadow of injustice, and indeed all harsh appearances, in this various economy of Providence, would be lost, if we would keep in mind, that every merciful allowance should be made, and no more required of anyone, than what might have been equitably expected of him, from the circumstances in which he was placed; . . . that every man shall be ‘accepted according to what he had, not according to what he had not.’”⁷²

Anglican George Pretyman (1750–1827) wrote: “The merits of his death are not limited to those who call upon his name . . . . (However, it does not follow) that the benefits, which the virtuous heathen will derive from the incarnation of Christ, will be equal to those of the sincere Christian.”⁷³ His comments reflect the idea commonly held by Arminians that salvation may be experienced “by degrees.”

Anglican Philip Doddridge (1702–1751) wrote: “The truth seems to be this, that none of the Heathens will be condemned for not believing the gospel, but they are liable to God’s condemnation for the breach of God’s natural law: nevertheless, if there be any of them in whom there is a prevailing love to the divine being, and care in the practice of virtue, there seems reason to believe, that for the sake of Christ, though to them unknown, they may be accepted by God.”⁷⁴

Anglican Thomas William Stackhouse (1677–1752) wrote:

In General . . . we may observe, that in most of the Countries, hitherto discovered, the belief of a God, and obligation to worship him; the Belief of a future State, and Necessity of Virtue to Prepare men for it; Sorrow for Sin, and the Invention of many Rites to expiate it, have been the known Principles of the Heathen Religion: But whether these Principles, loaded as they are with all the Superstitions abovementioned, the Worship of Idols, the Sacrifice of humane Blood, the Adoration of Devils, and other such Impieties, as the divine Nature cannot but detest, will be available to their Salvation, is a Question neither so easy, nor so safe to be resolv’d. This only we may say (without intruding into the Counsels, which God has hid in his own Breast), that, as Ignorance of Duty, the Prevalence of Custom, and the Power of Prepossession plead strongly in the Mitigation of any Fault; so has the Heathen World, not only these Apologies to produce, but some Declarations likewise in Holy Writ, which seem to have their particular Case under Consideration. For if (h) as St. Paul tells the Athenians, a people wholy given to Idolatry, God winked at their former Times of Ignorance; if, (i) as our Saviour tells the Pharisees, such as are blind, i.e. with a competent Knowledge of their Duty, have no Sin, at least, not in so great a Measure; (k) and if, as he tells his Disciples, Moses, the Lawgiver of God, suffer’d the Israelites to do Things, which were not directly right, for the Hardness of their Hearts, (l) i.e. because of the Imperfections of his Revelation wanted proper Efficacy to work their Hearts to a greater Softness; then have we sufficient Reason to suppose that the same Connivance and kind Construction of Faults will be granted to the present, that was to the Generations of old: Tho’, when we consider farther, that there is (m) no Communion between Light and Darkness no Concord Between Christ and Belial, no agreement between the Temple of God and Idols, in what Method this Grace will be extended, and the divine Attributes remain unblemished, is a Mystery past our Comprehension. This only we know farther, that, as the Merits of Christ, whereby alone we obtain Salvation, are imputable to the Gentile, as well as the Christian world . . . (n) in his interceding to God, and offering Sacrifice for Sin, he can (as the Apostle assures us) have Compassion on the Ignorant, and such as are out of the way, since their Error is involuntary, and their Ignorance no Part of their Crime; for how can they call on him (as (o) he argues in another Place) in whom they have not believed? How can they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? and how can they hear without a Preacher?⁷⁵

The Methodist Richard Watson (1732–1816) wrote: “The actual state of pagan nations is affectingly bad; but nothing can be deduced from what they are in fact against their salvability; for although there is no ground to hope for the salvation of great numbers of them, actual salvation is one thing, and possible salvation is another . . . . The dispensation of religion under which all those nations are to whom the Gospel has never been sent, continues to be the patriarchal dispensation.” ⁷⁶

The Anglican Charles Henry Hall (1763–1827) wrote: “(W)e have been taught that every allowance will be made for involuntary ignorance; that a ‘man is accepted according to that he hath, not according to that he hath not . . . .”⁷⁷

The Episcopalian Bishop William White (1748–1836) wrote: “It is not rare to find respectable and learned ministers of the Gospel expressing the hope, that God extends his mercy to the virtuous heathen . . . . The Object of this appendix is to prove, that it is a conspicuous truth of Holy Scripture.”⁷⁸

Edward William Grinfield (1785–1864) published an exhaustive (461 pages), and spirited defense of the notion that the “heathen” may be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ in The Nature and Extent of the Christian Dispensation, with reference to the Salvability of the Heathen.⁷⁹

Methodist theologian John Miley (1813–1895) wrote: “It is also a significant fact . . . that faith in Christ, and as the redeeming Christ, is the true and necessary condition of forgiveness and salvation. The application is to those who have the Gospel. This condition cannot be required of those who have not the Gospel. We doubt not the possibility of their salvation; but their only salvation is in Christ; and for them God has his own method in his own wisdom and grace.”⁸⁰

Anglican Edward H. Plumptre (1821–1891), commenting on Acts 10:35 (“but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him”) stated:

It applies, not to those only who know the name of Christ and believe on Him when He is preached to them, but to all who in all ages and countries ‘fear God’ according to the measure of their knowledge, and ‘work righteousness’ according to their belief and opportunities . . . . What such men gain by conversion is a fuller knowledge of the Truth, and therefore a clearer faith, a fuller justification, and a higher blessedness, but as this history distinctly teaches, they are already accepted by God.⁸¹

Methodist Thomas N. Ralston (1806–91) wrote: “God will require of men according to what they have, and not according to what they have not.”⁸²

Anglican E. B. Pusey (1800–82) wrote: “God the Holy Ghost (it is matter of faith) visits and has visited every soul of man whom God has made, and those who heard His voice and obeyed it, as far as they knew, belonged to Christ, and were saved for His merits, Whom, had they known, they would have obeyed and loved.”⁸³

Methodist Daniel D. Whedon (1808–1885), stated: “He is a saved heathen who lives as nearly up to the light he has, as does the Christian who is finally saved to the light he has.”⁸⁴ Methodist Thomas O. Summers (1812–1882) stated:

If, under the rubbish which has accumulated on the minds of these poor creatures, God sees the germ of goodness, a concurrence with preventing grace which is given to every child of man, through the merciful economy of redemption, what hinders that they should be placed in some low condition in heaven, corresponding to their moral and intellectual status? And what hinders that they should begin instantly to develop in that land where ‘everlasting spring abides,’ a genial clime, where the merest germ will soon expand, and the smallest bud will soon burst into beauty and send forth its fragrance on the paradisaic air!⁸⁵

Anglican Richard Chenevix Trench (1807–1886) wrote: “(T)here will mingle in these studies thoughts and feelings of a liveliest thankfulness to God, as amid the great shipwreck of the Gentile world, we recognize the planks by which one and another attained, as we trust safely, and through the mercy of a Saviour whom as yet he did not know, to the shore of everlasting life . . . .”⁸⁶

The Swiss evangelical Frederic L. Godet (1812–1900) wrote in his comments on Romans 2:7–8: “The desire of goodness is the acceptance of the gospel by anticipation. The natural corollary of these premises is the thought expressed by Peter: the preaching of the gospel before the judgment to every human soul, either in this life or in the next (I Pet. iii. 19, 20, iv. 6).”⁸⁷

The Methodist Episcopal Bishop Randolph S. Foster (1820–1903), objecting to the notion that the unevangelized are inevitably lost, wrote:

It is contrary to the principle laid down in the parable of the talents, ‘where no law is, there is no transgression.’ (Rom. iv. 15.) ‘Sin is not imputed where there is no law.’ (Rom. v. 13.) . . . . Are they to be damned because they were never favored with the light of revelation? . . . . Are they to be damned because they did not exercise faith in the Son of God? Could they exercise faith in a being of whom they had never heard? . . . . If for none of these, for what are the heathen necessarily damned? Because they did not live up to the light they had? But can this be shown, that no heathen ever acted according to his best light?⁸⁸

Methodist theologian William Burt Pope (1822–1903), objecting to the idea that the Holy Spirit is limited to the written or spoken word in his saving work, wrote:

(W)e are bound to believe that the whole world, directly or indirectly, sooner or later, must receive the glad tidings of the Gospel . . . . The direct Call through the Word . . . . The indirect call . . . . The Universal Call . . . is that by which the Holy Spirit has moved upon the . . . nations through a secret influence . . . . (T)he world has been under the secret and mysterious attraction of grace from the beginning, over and above the interior Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world . . . . Now the call through the Gospel is not limited either to the oral or to the written announcement. It is a silent effectual voice accompanying the truth, wherever the truth is . . . . It is the truth which He uses as his instrument . . . . Not indeed that the Holy Spirit is, or has ever been, absolutely bound to human instrumentality.⁸⁹

Anglican Edward Arthur Litton (1813–1897) wrote: “(B)ut if the death of Christ placed the race in a new relation towards God, it may, in some manner unknown to us, benefit those who never heard of Him. And it were unduly to limit the most High to suppose that He has no other means of bringing men to Himself than by explicit faith in a preached Gospel.”⁹⁰ American Methodist theologian Olin Alfred Curtis (1850–1918) wrote:

(A) man is not saved by opinion, not lost by opinion; the ultimate test is in the person’s moral meaning. Surely the historical Christ may, as a rule, be the immediate test, but this is so for a moral reason, namely, because the man has in conscience come to feel a moral obligation toward Jesus Christ . . . . The true Christian view, as I apprehend it, is essentially this: First, the entire possibility of personal salvation is based upon the atonement of Jesus Christ. Second, the actual Christian experience, in its definiteness and fullness, does involve the necessity of belief, a mental attitude toward both the work of our Lord and his person. Third, but final salvation is a matter of personal moral bearing, a bearing which is manifest in repentance and faith under a supreme moral ideal. Fourth, thus every person with a conscience has in this life a fair, full probation; for he has a fair, full test of moral intention.⁹¹

Methodist theologian Wilbur F. Tillett (1854–1936) wrote: “All will be held responsible for their opportunities and judged in the light of those opportunities. Even the heathen are on probation, and will be saved or lost according as they shall be found at the last day, in the just judgment of Christ, to have lived up to the light which they had.” Quoting Rom. 2:12–15 and Luke 12:47–48, he states: “These passages teach plainly the possibility of heathen salvation, and reveal something of the law of probation by which they will be tried. God has never created a human being that could not be saved. But let no one conclude from the possibility of heathen salvation that there is a probability of their being saved, and think it a matter of indifference whether the gospel is speedily sent to them or not. The gospel not only brings more light, but more help to live up to that light.”⁹²

Episcopalian theologian Francis J. Hall (1857–1933) discussed at some length the condition and fate of the unevangelized. He basically concludes that people who have responded to the light they have in this life will be given opportunity after death for further moral and spiritual advancement along the same trajectory that their life was moving in during this life: “The inference is reasonable that, since the heathen and invincibly ignorant do not receive the knowledge of salvation in this world, God will somehow afford to them a way of escape from doom, if the fundamental disposition which they develop in their earthly probation has not nullified the moral possibility of their benefiting by it. Their salvation, like our own, will be based upon Christ’s death, of course, for, according to Scripture, no other basis is available.”⁹³

One would be remiss if mention was not made of a series of sermons preached by the Anglican Frederic Farrar (1831–1903) in 1877 and published in his book Eternal Hope.⁹⁴ While denying that he espoused universalism, Farrar argued that the opportunity for repentance and salvation is not limited to this lifetime. His influence should not be underestimated.

The degree to which the views expressed above were widely held in the Church of England is illustrated by the fact that in 1866 the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his “Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of London,” repudiated the idea set forth by a Christian missionary, that missionary activity should be motivated by the belief that “at every ticking of the clock, in every four-and-twenty hours, from month to month and year to year, God sends a heathen straight to never ending misery.”⁹⁵

Probation After Death

There were some among the Arminians who favored the idea of a probation after death for those who had not been granted a sufficient opportunity in this life to make a decision for or against the gospel. One of the foremost advocates of this view was the Anglican Canon, Herbert M. Luckock (1833–1909). Luckock did not believe that the unevangelized could attain salvation on the basis of their good works.⁹⁶ But he did believe that those who had not been afforded a fair probation in this life would be granted one in the next: “We cannot doubt that the offer of salvation in and through the Name of Jesus Christ will be made to them in the Intermediate State.”⁹⁷ Furthermore, he believed that not only the “heathen” in foreign lands, but also “the vast multitudes of men and women who have lived Pagan lives in Christian lands, not from willful resistance to proffered grace, but from simple ignorance of a better way” would also be granted a probation after death.⁹⁸ He wrote:

(A)sk any priest in charge of a town parish, say of 20,000 souls, whether, even in this age of unequalled parochial activity and organization, he can conscientiously say, that the choice between God and Satan has been put before them in anything like an adequate manner; ask him whether the powers that have been brought to bear upon the masses to persuade them to all that is pure and holy, that is just and true, can be compared for one instant to the forces which are constantly driving them with an overpowering influence to the opposite? If not, then justice demands that they should be placed in the same category with the heathen; and if not in this life, yet in the next they should have a proper trial, and at least a free choice for the acceptance or rejection of what is the highest good.⁹⁹

The twentieth century Wesleyan theologian John Lawson (1909–2003) also held a similar view. In his book Introduction to Christian Doctrine, he states:

We suggest that the Christian teacher who follows the doctrine and spirit of Christ will warn men that there is a most dreadful judgment awaiting the morally and spiritually careless, but he will also allow himself to hope that the very rude awakening of the unseen world may quite possibly be the occasion of an awakening of many to penitence, faith, and righteousness. This is not the doctrine of ‘a second chance.’ There appears to be no basis for this hope either in Scripture or in logic. There is no ground for supposing that those who have deliberately turned away from Christ in this life will be able to turn to him in the next . . . . Yet this is not really the problem . . . . The number of those is small who, like Judas, have clearly faced Christ, and then unaccountably turned from Him in deliberate apostasy. The burden upon Christian thought is the vast company of those who have apparently passed through life without ever making a clear decision, for Christ or against. Many of these are perhaps Church members and Church attenders of a sort, through social habit or a vague instinct that this is ‘right.’ They are the multitudes of kindly, decent folk, who have sincerely intended to stand for the right, yet who by preoccupation, confusion, or apathy have failed effectually so to do. Here is the real moral and spiritual problem of the world, for most of the human race is in this condition . . . . When these souls pass into the clearer vision of the life beyond, there will be stripped from them all those preoccupations which have enabled them so easily to shuffle through their days on earth without ever making a decision. Then there will surely be a rude awakening indeed, and pangs of remorse! And it is by no means inconceivable that many of these will then discover, in that remorse, that passing gleams of Christian truth which they had before accepted, and faint kindlings of Christian resolve which they had entertained, will have some degree of hold upon them. This may very well be the beginning of spiritual discipline and of spiritual development. It would seem that this may be a reasonable view of the destiny of most ordinary folk after death. Perhaps their immediate lot is neither that highest bliss which will be the reward of those who on earth have made it their joy to love and serve Christ, nor the pains of everlasting damnation, but a state of growth.¹⁰⁰

Contemporary Arminians

During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the views which characterized Arminian theology have been widely disseminated by numerous evangelical writers. These views have been espoused by writers such as Clark Pinnock,¹⁰¹ John Sanders,¹⁰² and Veli-Matti Karkkainen.¹⁰³ While they have popularized these views to a broad reading public, they have essentially endorsed views long held by Arminian writers of the past four centuries. Pinnock’s views, however, deserve special attention.

Pinnock believes that the Holy Spirit is reaching out to every person through God’s natural revelation. He writes: “There is no general revelation or natural knowledge of God that is not at the same time gracious revelation and a potentially saving knowledge. All revealing and reaching out are rooted in God’s grace and are aimed at bringing sinners home.”¹⁰⁴ Furthermore, he states: “The Spirit embodies the prevenient grace of God and puts into effect that universal drawing presence of Jesus Christ. The world is the arena of God’s presence, and the Spirit knocks on every human heart, preparing people for the coming of Christ; the Spirit is ever working to realize the saving thrust of God’s promise to the world. From the Spirit flows that universal gracing that seeks to lead people into fuller light and love.”¹⁰⁵ He believes that salvation can come to people through one of three means: “through the cosmic covenant established with Noah, through the old covenant made with Abraham, and through the new covenant ratified by Jesus.”¹⁰⁶ He acknowledges that there is “more complete saving knowledge of God” in the new covenant than in the old, and in the old than in the cosmic covenant.¹⁰⁷ But there is salvation through all three covenants. Under all three covenants, the condition for salvation is faith in God.¹⁰⁸ He states: “By faith, one receives the prevenient grace of God on the basis of an honest search for God and obedience to God’s word as heard in heart and conscience . . . . There is no time or space where he is not free to move or where a person cannot call on God for mercy.”¹⁰⁹

Pinnock elaborates on the nature of a faith response to general revelation by noting Peter’s words concerning Cornelius: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34–35). Pinnock holds that this statement defines a faith response to general revelation as consisting of a cognitive element (fearing God) as well as an ethical element (doing what is right).¹¹⁰ In fact, he states that an ethical response is just as valid as a cognitive response to God: “(N)oncognitive responses to God count as much as cognitive responses do . . . . Serving the poor embodies what the love of God himself is, and is accepted as the equivalent of faith.”¹¹¹ He even states: “Someone might be an atheist because he or she does not understand who God is, and still have faith.”¹¹²  He states: “By faith, one receives the prevenient grace of God on the basis of an honest search for God and obedience to God’s word as heard in the heart and conscience. A premessianic believer is, one might say, latently a member of Christ’s body and destined to receive the grace of conversion and explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ at a later date, whether in this life or after death.”¹¹³

John Sanders has also been a major proponent of the inclusivist view. He states: “Anyone who believes God will respond benevolently to those who seek him thereby gives evidence of trusting God and thus possesses saving faith.”¹¹⁴

Impact Of Inclusivism On The Christian Mission

We should not end this chapter without noting the effect which inclusivism had on the Christian mission, even in the 19th century. It is of some interest that an editorial appeared in the January 1887 edition of the Methodist Review entitled “Why Should We Seek to Christianize the Heathen?”¹¹⁵ In this editorial, the writer lists several schools of thought which, in his view, had dampened the sense of urgency with regard to Christian missions. In fairness, we should acknowledge that one of the schools of thought which in his view discouraged the mission of the church was Calvinism. But of interest is the fact that, he included also those who promoted the idea that many might be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ:

Another class of theological specialists assume, that after all that has been said about it the heathen are not in a very desperate condition; that probably as large a proportion of the inhabitants of heathen as of nominally Christian lands will ‘somehow’ find salvation . . . . That notion—it can scarcely be called an opinion—is very wide-spread and effectively operative. We occasionally notice the recognition of distinctions in the forms of faith, with the inference that there may be a real saving faith exercised by those who have never heard of the ‘historical’ Christ. But if this supposed possibility should be granted as a bare possibility, the appreciable number of the ungospeled heathen show in their lives and characters that they have the substance of the faith, which, if it is unto salvation, must also ‘work by love and purify the heart?’ . . . . We are, therefore, less concerned to ask whether any of these can be saved, according to the provisions of the Gospel, than we are to ascertain whether any appreciable number of them appear to have been saved, and are showing forth to any hopeful extent the fruits of righteousness? And if it should be found that a very few, one of a million, or even of a thousand, give some little ground for hope, what must be said of the almost absolutely unbroken multitude that is sweeping onward, with the volume of a Niagara, to the certain destiny of the wicked and abominable? May it not be that a preached Gospel would rescue some of these? And if so, we have the answer to the question at the head of this paper . . . . St. Paul himself (Rom. x, 14, 15) indicates the necessity for the preached Gospel, in order to men’s salvation, by a very simple array of gospel axioms: Salvation is by faith, faith comes by hearing (the word), and the word can be heard only where there is a preacher. This is God’s usual method for saving men. Perhaps it does not absolutely exclude every other way in any possible case; but if there be any other way it is not hinted at, nor are we at liberty to trust any other, either for ourselves or others . . . . On this important passage Olshausen remarks: ‘Preaching is the only way by which the Gospel is propagated among mankind. It cannot be produced by some immediate operation of the Spirit, scattered as seeds here and there, but in order to its propagation there is constantly required an imparting from the central point of the Church . . . . The action of the Holy Spirit in the world, according to Christ’s promise (John xiv, 26), is of the nature of a prompter of the memory as to what Christ himself had spoken and men had heard. He will ‘guide them into all the truth’ (John xvi, 13), but ‘he shall not speak from himself; but what things he shall hear, these shall he speak.’ The lesson here taught seems to be that the efficiency of the Spirit is conditioned on, and only follows after, the preaching of the Gospel; and both the promises of the Scriptures and the facts of experience agree to show, that if there is a universal diffusion of the power of the Holy Ghost among men it almost never germinates into spiritual life, except as stimulated and made fruitful by the word of God, and that, also with very few exceptions, by the word delivered by the living preacher. It is true that the Scriptures do not very definitely inform us what will be the destiny of those who die in their sins without having heard of Christ and his salvation; but every intimation given implies for them the most horrible ruin and hopelessness. Saved by faith they cannot be, for ‘how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?’ and if a salvation through moral fitness might be thought available for those so situated, which, and how many of them, could claim eternal blessedness on that condition?¹¹⁶

The significance of these words stems from the fact that they were written by the editor of a leading Arminian publication, grieving over the implications of views held by most of his theological brethren.

Interestingly, this same journal published an article in the January 1889 issue entitled “The Atonement and the Heathen” in which George W. King argued in behalf of the view that the “heathen” may be saved apart from the gospel: “Now, may it not be that the principle of religious faith is the same every-where, no matter what the object, if it is coupled with sincerity and earnest striving to the degree of the light possessed? And on this condition may not God extend the benefits of the atonement in justification to millions of the heathen . . . .”¹¹⁷ At one point in the article, King stated his view that “it is possible . . . for the heathen to be justified, perhaps regenerate, sons of God, while the moral life is not only not up to Christian standards, but even not up to the standard of the light of nature” (a view which the editor noted was in his opinion “contrary to an orthodox conception of the Scriptures”).¹¹⁸

In the May edition that same year, a symposium on views regarding the “heathen” was published. In this symposium, three segments appeared. The first was that of the Methodist theologian Milton S. Terry: that the “heathen” may be saved by responding to “that measure of light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”¹¹⁹ The second was that of the Presbyterian William G. T. Shedd: refuting the idea that there is a probation after death, but that God can regenerate the unevangelized apart from the gospel, and that “although the Redeemer has not been presented historically and personally to him, yet he has the cordial and longing disposition to believe in him.”¹²⁰ The third segment, written by James M. King, focused on “The Mission of the Church.” In this segment, King completely ignored discussion of whether the “heathen” can be saved apart from the gospel, but simply wrote:

The heathen being salvable, and the Scriptures giving us no saving gospel for souls beyond one probation, the mission of the Church is to now bring the Gospel into contact with living heathen . . . . The mission of the Church to the heathen is its chief mission. The one object of the coming of Christ and of the founding of the Church bearing his name is to bring the world out of heathenism. Christ’s command is, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.’ This alone defines duty so simply that there can be no misunderstanding and no rational debate. Hesitation about obedience is nothing less than disloyalty, and deprives the individual Christian and the Church of any claim to ‘Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.’¹²¹

These articles illustrate the diverse sentiments even within Methodism regarding beliefs about the salvability of the unevangelized, and the impact of these beliefs on the mission of the church at that time.

Before closing out this chapter, it is enlightening to read excerpts of three sermons, including a couple by those who believed some of the unevangelized might be saved, promoting Christian missions in the nineteenth century. They do provide evidence that those who embraced an inclusivist view were not necessarily kept from obedience to the Great Commission. Excerpts will be provided here of sermons by preachers from both Congregational and Baptist backgrounds.

The first is that given by Jacob Norton (1764–1858), Pastor of the First Church in Weymouth, MA. Note Norton’s argument:

Although we would not peremptorily decide that none will be saved, who do not enjoy the gospel, and in a direct manner believe on the Son of God; yet we do not hesitate to avow the belief, that if any among the Jews, Mahometans and Pagans, are saved, the number is comparatively very small; and, indeed, that none among them will be saved. Unless they be possessed of the temper of heart, which is implied in ‘the faith of God’s elect’ . . . . In the view of this discourse, does it not evidently appear, that the sentiment advocated by not a few, at the present day, that it is of but little importance what scheme of religion a man embraces, originates from gross blindness of the heart? How can that religion be ‘just to God, or safe for man,’ which opposes the character exhibited by Christ, during his public ministry on earth, and which rejects the doctrines he taught and inculcated? How can the religion, which venerates a vile and shameless impostor, as the true prophet of God, and which cherishes the desire and expectation of a future reward, consisting in voluptuousness the most selfish and alluring to the unholy mind, conduct to the pure regions of endless life? . . . . And to what source is that latitudinarian doctrine to be traced, which removes these obstacles to salvation, but to an evil heart of unbelief, which darkens and perverts the understanding?

. . . . We are sometimes told, indeed, that God delights no less in variety, with respect to religion, than with respect to his works; that variety in religious opinion, like the collision of flint and steel, elicits the sparks of truth; that it is conducive to much good, and therefore, that this variety, in none of its parts, can be destructive to the souls of men. However specious this reasoning, it is, we are persuaded, radically unsound, and dangerously delusive . . . . The truth is, that erroneous doctrines in religion, whether they exist among Jews, Mahometans, Pagans, or Christians, are as really opposed to the revealed will, or command of God, as overt acts of wickedness . . . . Does it not appear from what has been advanced in this discourse, that the subjects of saving faith must be engaged in deeds of active and diffusive benevolence? Not only do they wish peace on earth, and exercise good will towards men; but to promote their best interest, is the object of their actual pursuit. Vain and dead is that faith, which worketh not by love; and vain and useless is that love, which delighteth not to ’do good and communicate.’ The faith of the gospel will not fail to manifest itself by visible acts, in doing good to all within the reach of its benign influence . . . . (M)ust we not, my brethren, cheerfully exert ourselves to meliorate the condition of our suffering fellow beings, with respect to this world, and especially, to secure their everlasting happiness in the world to come?¹²²

Though Norton believes that some might be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ, he is quick to distance himself from those who believe that one’s religious beliefs are matters of indifference. And he suggests that there were many in his day (apparently among professing Christians) who held this “latitudinarian” view. Furthermore, he believes that those among the as yet unconverted who do possess the grace of Christ will exhibit it in a godly life.

A second sermon is that by Frances Wayland (1796–1865), pastor of the First Baptist Church in Boston. Wayland also became President of Brown University. In this sermon, Wayland states:

Here you will observe the question with us is not, whether a heathen, unlearned in the gospel, can be saved. We are willing to admit that he may. But if he be saved, he must possess holiness of heart; for without holiness no man shall see the Lord. And where shall we find holy heathen? Where is there the vestige of purity of heart among unevangelized nations? It is in vain to talk about the innocence of these children of nature. It is in vain to tell us of their graceful mythology. Their gods are such as lust makes welcome. Of their very religious services, it is a shame even to speak. To settle the question concerning their future destiny, it would only seem necessary to ask, What would be the character of that future state, in which those principles of heart which the whole history of the heathen world develops, were suffered to operate in their unrestrained malignity? No! solemn as is the thought, we do believe, that dying in their present state, they will be exposed to all that is awful in the wrath of Almighty God. And we do believe that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Our object is to convey to those who are perishing the news of this salvation. It is to furnish every family upon the face of the whole earth with the word of God written in its own language, and to send to every neighbourhood a preacher of the cross of Christ. Our object will not be accomplished until every idol temple shall have been utterly abolished, and a temple to Jehovah erected in its room; until this earth, instead of being a theatre on which immortal beings are preparing by crime for eternal condemnation, shall become one universal temple, in which the children of men are learning the anthems of the blessed above, and becoming meet to join the general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven.¹²³

Though Wayland acknowledges that some of the “heathen” may be saved apart from explicit faith, he voices his conviction that this cannot be apart from the evidence of a holy life. Believing that there are few among the “heathen” who evidence such a work of grace, he believes strongly in the necessity of the evangelization of the nations.

A third sermon is that delivered by Edward Abiel Stevens (1814–1886), Baptist Missionary to the Burmese. After delineating the fact that the Buddhists of Burma know the law of God in their hearts, and that they fall short of this law, Stevens concludes:

In reflecting on this subject, it is very important, that we clearly distinguish between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the gospel. The heathen are indeed ignorant of the gospel, but we have seen, that they are not ignorant of the law. Now it is not the gospel, but the law which acquaints us with our duty to God. The gospel is a special provision of pardon and salvation made for those who have broken the law and are therefore exposed to its penalty. As the heathen are acquainted with the law of God, and yet have not kept it, their guilt is clearly determined, though they may never hear of the provision of pardon which has been made for them. For what advocate would think of pleading in behalf of a criminal undergoing his trial, that, although he clearly is guilty of breaking the statute, knowingly and deliberately, nevertheless, in as much as he was ignorant of the fact, that pardon is possible for such an offender, therefore it would be unjust to condemn him? Yet this is just the reasoning of those, who contend that the heathen shall not perish, because they are ignorant of the gospel. Such reasoning is clearly confounding the law with the gospel. Let us then make the distinction, and remember that the heathen will be judged and their final eternal state determined by the law, and not by the gospel. It is those only who have heard and have rejected or slighted the gospel, who shall be judged by that . . . . Let us recognize our duty with respect to the heathen . . . . This duty is based on two grounds, sympathy and the command of Christ . . . . We know of the remedy, which God has graciously provided for our ruined world; that in Christ Jesus may be obtained forgiveness and eternal life, that this provision of salvation is made for the whole race. How can we reconcile it to our consciences then, to sit down at our ease to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel, as though they were provided for ourselves only, and make no effort to communicate them to our brethren of the human family, that they might share these benefits as well as ourselves? What would be thought of a man possessed in abundance of a sovereign remedy for the pestilence, which was spreading death and desolation all around him, yet concerned himself not to use it, except for himself and his immediate relatives? Yet such is the conduct of those, only incomparably worse, who, provided with the gospel, are satisfied to be saved by it themselves, and make no effort for the perishing heathen . . . . But how much is the guilt of such conduct aggravated, when it is remembered, that those who are saved by the gospel are entrusted with it, as stewards for dispensing it to all the race, by the special command of the benevolent Saviour in his last commission, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature?’ If benevolence and compassion to our fellow-men supply not motives sufficient to lead us to special efforts in behalf of the heathen, surely a regard for the authority of Christ, the great Deliverer, and a solemn sense of responsibility to him, for the faithful exercise of our stewardship, and gratitude for the salvation experienced at his hand, ought to move us to do all in our power for the fulfillment of his will . . . . In view, therefore, Beloved Friends, of the perishing condition of the heathen around us, and of our duty to them, and to our blessed Redeemer, allow me to commend to you the Burmah Bible and Tract Society, for whose aid your contributions are now solicited . . . . It is a society which has been formed expressly to aid in spreading abroad among the various tribes of this country the knowledge of the word of God, and especially of that rich and abundant provision, which is therein revealed for the salvation of our guilty world. This precious boon freely received, freely also let us give.¹²⁴

Stevens believes that the unevangelized do have the moral law (which they possess in their heart and conscience). Yet he believes that far from being a means of their salvation, it is the basis of their condemnation. Salvation and deliverance from God’s judgment comes only through hearing and believing the gospel. He therefore strongly urges his listeners to make every effort to spread the saving message of the gospel—both out of compassion for the lost, and out of obedience to Christ.

---