William G. T. Shedd:
And this brings us to the subject of “elect infants.” There is no dispute that the Confession teaches that there are “elect dying infants.” Does it also teach that there are “non-elect dying infants?” In other words, does the phrase “elect infants” imply that there are “non-elect infants,” as the phrase “elect adults” does that there are “non-elect adults?” This depends upon whether the cases are alike in all particulars. The argument is from analogy, and analogical reasoning requires a resemblance and similarity upon which to rest. But the Confession directs attention to a great and marked diversity between infant and adult regeneration, which sets off the two classes from one another, making some things true of one that are not of the other. The Confession points at and signalizes the striking difference in the manner in which the Holy Ghost operates, in each instance. Infants are incapable of the outward call and common grace; adults are capable of both. Consequently an elect infant dying in infancy is “regenerated by Christ, through the Spirit,” without the outward call and common grace; but an elect adult is “regenerated by Christ through the Sprit,” in connection with the external call and common grace, and after both have been frustrated by him. Election and non-election in the case of adults is the selection of some and omission of others who are alike guilty of resisting the ordinary antecedents of regeneration. Election in the case of dying infants is wholly apart from this. There being this great dissimilarity between the two classes, it does not follow that every particular that is true of one must be of the other; that because election is individual in the instance of adults it must necessarily be so in that of infants; that because adults are not elected as a class infants cannot be. The state of things in which the regeneration of an adult occurs, namely after conviction of sin and more or less opposition to the truth, is entirely diverse from that in which the regeneration of a dying infant occurs; namely, in unconsciousness and without conviction of sin. The only form of grace that is possible to the dying infant is regenerating grace, and the only call possible is the effectual call. If therefore God manifests any grace at all to the dying infant, it must be special and saving; and if he call him at all, he must call him effectually.
Now, since the authors of the Confession have themselves distinctly specified such a peculiar feature in the regeneration of the dying infant, it is plain that they regarded it as differing in some respects from that of adults, and intended to disconnect it from that of adults and consider it by itself. For why should they take pains, when speaking of elect infants, to call attention to the fact that the “Holy Ghost worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth,” if they did not mean to signalize the extraordinariness of the Divine action in infant regeneration? And if infant regeneration is extraordinary in not having been preceded by the usual antecedents of common grace and the outward call, why may it not be extraordinary in being universal and not particular? that of a class and not of individuals? Does not the singularity that distinguishes the infant in regard to regeneration without conviction of sin, suggest that of electing the whole class? But what is far more conclusive, does not the fact that the Assembly does not limit infant election by infant preterition, as it limits adult election by adult preterition, actually prove that there is this great diversity in the two cases? Does not the fact that the Assembly, while explicitly, and with a carefulness that is irritating to many persons, balancing and guarding the election of adults by preterition, does not do so with the election of infants, show beyond doubt that they believed their election to be unlimited, and that no dying infants are “passed by” in the bestowment of regenerating grace? We have already seen that the proposed omission of preterition, so as to leave only election in the case of adults, would make their election universal, and save the whole class without exception. The actual omission of it by the Assembly in the case of dying infants has the same effect. It is morally certain that if the Assembly had intended to discriminate between elect and non-elect infants, as they do between elect and non-elect adults, they would have taken pains to do so, and would have inserted a corresponding clause concerning infant preterition to indicate it. Whoever contends that they believed that preterition applies to infants, is bound to explain their silence upon this point. Had infant election been explicitly limited by infant preterition in the Confession, it would have been impossible for any candid expounder of it to hold that it permits subscribers to it to believe in the salvation of all dying infants. But Calvinistic divines for the last century or more have put this interpretation upon this section of the Confession, namely, that infant election is not individual but classical, and we think they are justified in so doing by the remarkable omission in this case.[fn. 1: Respecting the necessity of construing the Confession as teaching that there are non elect infants, Dr. Schaff remarks as follows: “The Confession nowhere speaks of reprobate infants, and the existence of such is not necessarily implied by way of distinction, although it probably was in the minds of the framers, as their private opinion, which they wisely withheld from the Confession” (Creeds of Christendom, i 795).]
On the face of it, the thing looks probable. The case of the adult, in which there is both the outward call and the effectual, both common grace and regenerating, may be governed by the principle of individuality; while that of the infant, in which there is only the effectual call and regenerating grace, may be governed by the principle of community. Of those who have had the outward call and have rejected it, some may be taken and others left; while of those who have not had the outward call and have not rejected it, all may be taken. It is election in both instances; that is, the decision of God according to the counsel of his own will. In one case, God sovereignly decides to elect some; in the other, to elect all. And it is unmerited mercy, in both instances; because God is not bound and obliged by justice to pardon and eradicate the sin of an infant any more than that of an adult. And there is nothing in the fact that an infant has not resisted common grace, that entitles it to the exercise of special grace. In the transaction, God is moved wholly by his spontaneous and infinite mercy. He does an act to which he is not compelled by the sense of duty or of justice, either to himself or to sinners, but which he loves to do, and longs to do, because of his infinite pity and compassion.[fn. 1: The assumption that God is obliged by justice to offer salvation to all mankind, and to redeem them all, precludes all gratitude and praise for redemption, on their part. Why should they give thanks for a favor that is due to them, and which it is the duty of God to bestow? Christians adore “the riches of God’s grace” because it is utterly unclaim able on their part, and unobligated on his.]
That many of the elder Calvinists believed that there are some non-elect infants is undeniable; and that in the long and heated discussions of the seventeenth century between Calvinists and Arminians, and between Calvinists themselves, many hard sayings were uttered by individual theologians which may be construed to prove that man is necessitated to sin, that God is the author of sin, and that the majority of mankind are lost, is equally undeniable. But the Westminster Confession must be held responsible for only what is declared on its pages. The question is not, whether few or many of the members of the Assembly held that some dying infants are lost, but whether the Confession so asserts; is not, whether any Calvinists of that day, in endeavoring to show how God decrees sin, may not have come perilously near representing him as doing it by direct efficiency, but whether the Reformed and Westminster creeds do this.
The rigor of the theology of the elder Calvinists has been exaggerated. They took a wide and large view of the possible extent of election. Owen is as strict as most of them. But in arguing against the Arminians, in support of the guilt and condemnability of original sin, he says: “Observe that in this inquiry of the desert of original sin, the question is not, What shall be the certain lot of those who depart this life under the guilt of this sin only? but what this hereditary and native corruption doth deserve, in all those in whom it is? For as St. Paul saith, ‘We judge not them that are without’ (especially infants), 1 Cor. 5:13. But for the demerit of it in the justice of God, our Saviour expressly affirmeth that ‘unless a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Again, we are assured that no unclean thing shall enter into heaven (Rev. 21). Children are polluted with hell-deserving uncleanness, and therefore unless it be purged with the blood of Christ, they have no interest in everlasting happiness. By this means sin is come upon all to condemnation, and yet we do not peremptorily censure to hell all infants departing out of this world without the laver of regeneration [i.e., baptism], the ordinary means of waiving the punishment due to this pollution. That is the question de facto, which we before rejected: yea, and two ways there are whereby God saveth such infants, snatching them like brands from the fire. First, by interesting them into the covenant, if their immediate or remote parents have been believers. He is a God of them, and of their seed, extending his mercy unto a thousand generations of them that fear him. Secondly, by his grace of election, which is most free and not tied to any conditions; by which I make no doubt but God taketh many unto him in Christ whose parents never knew, or had been despisers of the gospel. And this is the doctrine of our Church, agreeable to the Scriptures affirming the desert of original sin to be God’s wrath and damnation” (Owen: Arminianism, Ch. vii.). This is the salvation of infants by both covenanted and uncovenanted mercy, and Owen maintains that it is a tenet of Calvinism. That he does not assert the classical election of infants is true; but he asserts the individual election of some infants outside of the Church.
Such, then, is the Westminster doctrine of the Divine Decree. It is the common Augustino-Calvinistic doctrine. No part of it can be spared, and retain the integrity of the system. Whatever may have been the intention of the few first proposers of revision; or whatever may be the intention of the many various advocates of it who have joined them; the grave question before all parties now is, Whether the Presbyterian Church shall adhere to the historical Calvinism with which all its past usefulness and honor are inseparably associated, or whether it shall renounce it as an antiquated system which did good service in its day, but can do so no longer. The votes of the presbyteries within the coming six months will answer this question.
(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 65-71.)
William G. T. Shedd:
We proceed now to consider the second question, How wide and extensive is his agency during this period? How many of the human family, have we reason from Scripture to hope and believe, he will regenerate here upon earth?
Before proceeding to answer this question, a preliminary remark is to be made. It is utterly improbable that such a stupendous miracle as the incarnation, humiliation, passion, and crucifixion of one of the Persons of the Godhead, should yield a small and insignificant result; that this amazing mystery of mysteries, “which the angels desire to look into,” and which involves such an immense personal sacrifice on the part of the Supreme Being, should have a lame and impotent conclusion. On a priori grounds, therefore, we have reason to conclude that the Gospel of the Cross will be successful, and the Christian religion a triumph on the earth and among the race of creatures for whom it was intended. But this can hardly be the case, if only a small fraction of the human family are saved. The presumption, consequently, is that the great majority of mankind, not the small minority of it, will be the subjects of redeeming grace. What, then, is the teaching of Revelation upon this subject?
1. In the first place, we have ground for believing that all of mankind who die in infancy will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The proof of this is not so abundant as for some other doctrines, but it is sufficient for faith. (a) Scripture certainly teaches that the children of the regenerate are “bound up in the bundle of life” with their parents. “The promise [of the Holy Spirit] is unto you and your children” (Acts 2:38, 39). “If the root be holy, so are the branches” (Rom. 11:16). “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14). This is salvation by covenanted mercy, concerning which there is little dispute. (b) The salvation of infants outside of the covenant, is plainly supported by the language of Christ respecting “little children” as a special class. “They brought unto him infants that he would touch them. And he said, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:15, 16). The reason here assigned why infants constitute a part of the kingdom of God is their infancy, not their moral character. They belong to it solely because they are “little children,” not because they are sinless. Our Lord teaches that they are sinful, in saying, “Suffer little children to come unto me;” for no sinless beings need to come to a Saviour. This phraseology respecting infants is as all-inclusive as that respecting the “poor in spirit,” and cannot be restricted to a part of them. When Christ says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” he means that this kingdom belongs to them as poor in spirit, and because they are poor in spirit, and consequently belongs to all the poor in spirit. And, similarly, when he says, “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God,” he means that this kingdom is composed of such considered as little children, and because they are little children, and consequently is composed of all the little children. Had he intended to limit his statement to some infants, he would have said, ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. Infancy is an age that is singled out by the Saviour by which to prove a membership in the kingdom of God from the very age itself, and is the only age. He does not say that youths or adults constitute a part of the kingdom of God solely because of their youth, or their manhood. Other Scripture proofs of the salvation of infants are, Matt. 18:10, 14, “Their angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven. It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” In 2 Sam. 12:23, David is confident of the salvation of his infant child; but in 2 Sam. 18:33, he is not confident of the salvation of his adult son. In Jonah 4:11, God expresses a special interest in the infant population of Nineveh.
The Protestant Church understands the Bible to declare that all who die in infancy die regenerate. Probably all evangelical denominations, without committing themselves to the statements of the Westminster Confession concerning “election,” would be willing to say that all dying infants “are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth” (Conf. x. 3). But this is the regeneration and salvation of one-half of the human family. This of itself pours over human existence a mild and cheering light. “Whom the gods love, die young,” said the heathen, without any knowledge of God’s compassion for man in his “dear Son.” Much more, then, may the Christian under the irradiation of the gospel expect that the infinite mercy of God, by “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” will bring all the “little children” into holiness and heaven. The gloom of Virgil’s description,
“Continuo anditæ voces, vagitus et ingens
Infantumque animæ flentes in limine primo,”
is changed into the brightness of that of the prophet, “The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof” (Zech. 8:10); and of the Redeemer’s citation from the Psalms, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise” (Matt. 21:16).
(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 131-133.)
John Piper:
Will Infants Who Die Inherit Eternal Joy?
How will the suffering and death of children be set right? When I consider the final display of God’s justice at the day of judgment, I see God exercising a standard of judgment that opens the door for infants who die in this world to be saved from condemnation. I do not deny the sinfulness of every human from the moment of conception. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). I believe that all humans are “appointed sinners” by Adam’s disobedience (Rom. 5:19, my translation). I believe God does no wrong when he takes the life of any child (Job 1:21-22). He owns it (Ps. 100:3) and may take it when he pleases (Dan. 5:23).
Nevertheless, there is a standard of judgment that Paul expresses that causes me to think that God has chosen, and will save, those who die in infancy. That standard is expressed in Romans 1:19-20:
What can be known about God is plain to them [all people], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
The words “so they are without excuse” show that God’s principle of judgment is that someone who does not have access to the knowledge Paul speaks of will indeed “have an excuse.” That access involves both the objective revelation in nature (which he says is fully adequate), and the natural ability in the observer to see and construe what God has revealed.[fn. 3: The term natural ability is used to distinguish this capacity from moral ability, which fallen people do not have, and which is not a prerequisite for moral accountability. Moral ability is the capacity to see the glory of God for the beauty that it is and be drawn to esteem it for what it is worth. But in our natural condition we are blind and thus lacking in this moral ability (2 Cor. 4:4). More on this distinction between natural and moral inability can found in Sam Storms’s article “The Will: Fettered Yet Free,” Desiring God, September 1, 2004, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the -will-fettered-yet-free. It is also clarifying to think of the term inability with the same contrasting modifiers, natural and moral. Here is how Jonathan Edwards distinguishes them: “We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we can’t do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature don’t allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one; and it may be said in one word, that moral inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, ‘tis the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination, or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances, and under the influence of such views.” Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, ed. Harry S. Stout and Paul Ramsey, vol. 1, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 159-60.] The words “have been clearly perceived” in verse 20 imply that this natural ability involves a perception through mental reflection (νοούμενα καθορᾶται).
What I am arguing is that infants don’t have this perception through mental reflection, and therefore do not have access to the revelation of God, and therefore will be treated by God as having an excuse at the judgment day. Not in the sense of being guiltless (because of original sin), but in the sense that God has established a principle of judgment by which he will not condemn those who in this life lacked access to general revelation. How he will save these infants is a matter of speculation. But it will be in a way that glorifies Jesus’s blood and righteousness as the only ground of acceptance with God (Rom. 3:24-25), and in a way that honors faith as the only means of enjoying this provision (Rom. 3:28; 5:1).[fn. 4: For a fuller defense of this position of infant salvation, see Matt Perman, “What Happens to Infants Who Die?,” Desiring God, January 23, 2006, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what -happens-to-infants-who-die.]
(John Piper, Providence, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], pp. 507-508.)
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
