THE Christian Century in the issue for November 25th, 1936, in an editorial that purports to deal with some actions of the second General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church of America says: “In plain words, what Dr. Machen and his followers have now done is to deny that the Presbyterians were true Christians when, a generation ago, they expunged from their creed the declaration that children dying in infancy are lost and inserted the assertion that God loves all men.” We confine our attention now to the part of the sentence that deals with the question of infants dying in infancy.
Misrepresentation
We could not expect that The Christian Century in an editorial dealing with The Presbyterian Church of America would not be influenced by the theological bias which it represents. But it is surely not too much to expect that the editors of The Christian Century would before writing make some attempt to become acquainted with the elementary facts. What they have done, however, is to give us an example of amazing ignorance and misrepresentation.
To say that the Presbyterians, a generation ago, “expunged from their creed the declaration that children dying in infancy are lost” is simply not true. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. did not expunge such a declaration simply because there was no such declaration that needed to be expunged. It could not expunge what did not exist.
The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. did in 1903 adopt with several other revisions of and additions to the Confession of Faith a Declaratory Statement, and part of that Declaratory Statement declares as follows: “With reference to Chapter 10, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.”
The second General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church of America meeting in Philadelphia last month in adopting a Confession of Faith and Catechisms omitted in toto the Declaratory Statement of 1903 as well as the two additional chapters and certain other revisions adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in that same year. It therefore included in that which was omitted the part of the Declaratory Statement quoted above.
This means that The Presbyterian Church of America on the question of infants dying in infancy is content, so far as creedal statement is concerned, to revert to the position held by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. before 1903, which in turn is the position of the Westminster Standards as they were framed by the Westminster divines in 1646.
The question is now very simple. What do the Westminster Standards, or more particularly what does the Westminster Confession of Faith, say on this question? All it has to say is contained in Chapter 10, Section 3.
The Teaching of the Confession
This section of the Confession of Faith reads as follows: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” This is a statement that has been much maligned and misunderstood. We proceed to show that it is adequate and unassailable. It reflects the wisdom and care so characteristic of the Westminster divines.
First of all it is to be noted that this section occurs in the chapter on “Effectual Calling.” It seems hardly to have occurred to many of the critics of the statement to take note of this fact. It is a statement in a particular context, under a particular heading, and must not, therefore, be abstracted from that context. The Confession in this chapter is not dealing at all with the question of the extent of the salvation of infants dying in infancy. The question at issue is that raised by the terms in which effectual calling has been defined in the two preceding sections of this chapter. They read as follows: “1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
“2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.”
Effectual calling, it is apparent, has been defined in terms that require an intelligent act of faith. The minds of the called are enlightened spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. They are effectually drawn to Jesus Christ. They come most freely, being made willing by His grace. They answer the call, and embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. These intelligent exercises of understanding and will are such as can be predicated only of those who have reached a certain stage of intellectual and intelligent apprehension. They are predicable, in other words, only of those who are capable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and not predicable of those who do not in the nature of the case possess that equipment.
Now if this is so the question is forced upon us: What about those who are incapable of being called outwardly by the ministry of the Word, who are incapable of the intelligent exercises of understanding and will, in terms of which effectual calling has been defined? Are all such, simply because they do not have the psychological equipment required for such exercise, excluded from that grace and salvation by Jesus Christ to which men are introduced by the call of God? In a word, are they excluded in toto from the election of grace? It is precisely to that question that the Confession gives its answer in this section.
When we speak of those who are “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word,” there are two classes that naturally come to our mind. They are infants dying in infancy and imbeciles. With these two classes the Confession deals. Our interest at the present time is with the first class, infants dying in infancy. They are the first sub-class of those who are “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” They are not, the Confession implies, for that reason excluded from the election of grace and the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved.”
Important Principles Conserved
By this terse statement the Confession guards certain very important principles. (1) Infants dying in infancy belong to the mass of fallen humanity, and are therefore in need of redemption and regeneration and salvation just as are all others not dying in infancy. They are not in this regard in a class by themselves. They are not to be regarded as free from corruption and guilt simply for the reason that they are infants. The Westminster divines were jealous to remember that we are born in sin and shapen in iniquity.
(2) If infants dying in infancy are saved, they are saved- because they have been by God elected to salvation. Election respects all of the human race, infant and adult, who inherit eternal life. The salvation of infants, just like the salvation of adults, finds its ultimate source in the sovereign election of God. Even if all infants dying in infancy are saved, it is just because in the amazing grace of God they have all been elected to salvation.
(3) The salvation of infants dying in infancy is realized through the redemption that is in Christ and regeneration by the Spirit.
Extent of Infant Salvation Left Undetermined
The Confession, therefore, as stated already, does not deal with the extent of the salvation of infants dying in infancy. That is entirely outside the scope of the chapter and beside its purpose. Why should it determine a question that is not relevant to the topic under discussion? The framers were better logicians than their critics.
It is not to be supposed that the phrase “elect infants, dying in infancy,” in the context in which it occurs, implies that there are non-elect infants, dying in infancy. If it is to be argued that the logical opposite is implied or at least suggested, then the logical opposite of “elect infants dying in infancy” is not non-elect infants dying in infancy but elect infants, not dying in infancy. That, of course, is implied. All of the elect were infants at one time or another, with the exception of Adam and Eve, if they are included in the election of grace. With that exception all the elect were infants. Some die in infancy, some do not. It is with the former the Confession deals in this section.
In the minutes of the Westminster Assembly the phrase “elect of infants” occurs. Dr. A. F. Mitchell says that this is the form it appears to have borne in the draft first brought in to the Assembly. If that had been the form finally adopted some plausibility would have been given to the argument that the Confession distinguished between elect and non-elect infants dying in infancy. “But the very fact,” says Dr. Mitchell, “that the form of expression was changed shows how anxious the divines intrusted with the methodising of the Confession were to guard against pronouncing dogmatically on questions on which neither Scripture nor the Reformed Churches had definitely pronounced.”1
It is true that Reformed theologians of the highest repute believed and argued that all infants dying in infancy are elect and therefore regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit There are others, also of the highest repute, who would say that we may indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. There are still others who suspend judgment on this question and who therefore take the position that we have no warrant from Scripture to affirm or deny that all infants dying in infancy are elect and therefore saved. Among the latter are some of the most highly accomplished in the art of Biblical interpretation. It is surely a question on which the teaching of Scripture cannot be expressly explicit. Creedal dogmatism, therefore, on such an issue would run counter to the whole genius and purpose of true creedal formulation and confession. Chapter 10, Section 3, is just another example and proof that the Westminster divines were governed by that high conception of their function as creed-composers.
The Presbyterian Church of America by its action at the last General Assembly exhibited something of appreciation for that conception of creedal confession, appreciation for the care that governed the Westminster divines in the discharge of the task undertaken by them. The Presbyterian Church of America has to that extent, at least, shown itself worthy of the great Reformed tradition it seeks to represent and perpetuate.