Infant Salvation

INFANT SALVATION: The doctrines of infant damnationand of non-elect infants were unknown to the early Church. That the baptism of

Primitive infants was often postponed to Easter and week (see Baptism, III., 5) proves that

Roman it was not considered a loss to the Catholic child to die unbaptised. But as sacer DoctrIne. dotal and ecclesiastical ideas spread in the Church, baptism was more and more emphasized, until in the fourth century Gregory Nasianzen and Ambrose could say that unbaptized children could not be saved. It was Augustine who first taught the damnation of infants (see Baptism, II., 1, § 3); but their sufferings, though eternal, are of the mildest character (De peccatoru m merilis, i. 16); indeed, it seemed to him doubtful whether they were punished at all. The Roman Church, accepting Augustine's conceptions of the necessity of baptism to salvation and of the mildness of the punishment of those infants who died unbaptized, agreed with him that they were sent to bell and assigned to them a distinct place in it, the limbua infantium or puerorum (see LImBus; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III., queest. lxviii. 2, Sup. qua:st. bud. 7). The Council of Trent refused to commit itself to a decision, though affirming the necessity of baptism (Session v. 4); and, since then, some theologians have followed Peter Lombard in the supposition that infants suffer some sort of misery in punishment of original sin (Bellarmine, De amissione gralice, vi. 6); others, like Cardinal Celestino Sfondrati (Nodes prcedestimtionis disso lute, Rome, 1697, I., i. 23), have maintained that they enjoy as much happiness as they are capable of. Perrone reprents, probably, the prevalent view when he says (v. 275) that they suffer only the lack of the beatific vision; they are in " a condition of pure nature." And, further, Roman Catholic theo logians teach that the desire for baptism, even on the part of unborn children, is accepted for the baptism itself; therefore, there need be no fears for children of Christians who die in infancy.

The first to enter the lists against the theory of the necessity of baptism to infant salvation was Zwmgli. He taught that all elect

Protestant children who die in infancy are saved, Confessional whether they are baptized or not,

Statements. whether pagan or Christian; and, further, that all who die in infancy are elect, since their early death is a token of God's peculiar mercy, and therefore of their salvation.

491

Luther, on the other hand, taught the necessity of baptism to salvation; and this doctrine is part of the Lutheran creed, involving baptismal regeneration. Calvin held to election in regard to infants, and speaks thus:

.. As to infants, they seem to perish, not by their own fault, but by the fault of another. But there is a double solution. Though sin does not yet appear in them, yet it is latent; for they bear corruption shut up in the soul, so that before God they am damnable." ·' That infants who are to be saved (as, certainly, out of that age some am saved) must be previously regenerated by the Lord is clear."Instifdee, iv.,:vi. 17.

This doctrine of infant salvation through election is expressed in the Calvinistic symbols. The Canons of the Synod of,Dort (1619) declare:

" Since we am to judge of the will of God from his word (which test that the children of believers are holy. not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended), godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleseeth God to call out of thin life in their infancy."-Final Head of Doctrine. art. :vii.

And the Westminster Confession (1648): " · The grace promised ['m baptism] is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."-maviii. 8. " Elect infants dying in infancy am regenerated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth."-a. 3. But the Second Scotch Confession (1580) says:

·' We abhor and detest . . . his [the pope's] cruel judgment against infants dying without baptism."-Cf. Schaff, Creeds, vol. iii., p. 482.

Since Calvinists distinguish between elect and non-elect infants, it is not strange that some of their theologians have spoken of elect and reprobate infants. Thus Musculus says:

Since, therefore, this discrimination of elect and reprobate in new-born infants in hidden from our judgment, it is not fitting that we should inquire into it, lest by ignorance we reject vessels of grace."-Loci oommuses, 336.

And the Swiss theologians at the Synod of Dort mid:

" That there is an election and reprobation of infants, no less than of adults, we can not deny in the face of God, who loves and bates unborn. children."-Acts synod. Dort, iudie. 40.

In the seventeenth century, the Arminians resumed Zwingli's position, and, consistently with their theory that original sin was not punishable apart from actual transgression, taught the general salvation of infants; so do the Methodists and Baptists to-day. On the other hand, the Lutherans, and all others who teach baptismal regeneration, am logically shut up to the view that all who die unbaptised are lost. Also the Rev. John Henry Blunt, speaking, doubtless, for High-churchmen generally, says:

'. It can hardly, I think, be doubted that they do sustain s lose, of whatever kind. In the Inatifution of a Christian Man, the Church of England declares, ' Insomuch as infants and children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby (i.e., by baptism), else not' In the last revision of the Prayer~Book is read, ' It is certain by God's word that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly savd': in other words, we are certain of the future happiness of the baptized, but have no assurance of the salvation of the unbaptiaed ifant.

Infallibility of the Dope Inge

no quern must thus be left in obscurity, ae we have no sufficient warrant to go beyond the cautious statement of our Church."-(Dictionary/ of Doctrinal and Historical 77rr ology, p. 348, note i. London, 1870.)

But the tendency is toward milder views. It may well be questioned if there be a single living Lutheran theologian of high stal%ding who

modern confines the grace of salvation to bap Tendencies. tined infants. So too with the Calvin ists the heart is stronger than logic. Dr. Charles Hodge teaches emphatically the salvation of ail infants who die in infancy, and asserts that this is the " common doctrine of Evangelical Prot estants " (Systematic Theology, i. 26). The West minster Confession a. 3 (ut sup.) was supplemented in 1903 for their own use by American Presbyte rians by the following " declaratory statement":

"It in 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 , and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how heyleeees."

Bibliography: Besides the pertinent sections in the works on theology and on' history of dogma, eg., Harasok, Dopna, ii. 142-143, v. 175 sqq., consult: C. P. Krauth, In fant Salvation in the Calvinistic Systen, Philadelphia, 1874; G. W: Bethune, Early Lost, Barly Saved, London, 1888; W. E. Sobsaek, Children in Heaven, Philadelphia, 1888; h. M. Ayer, Infant Salvation according to the Bible, New York, 1879; E. N. White, Wdsy Infants ors Baptised, ib.,1900.