Newspaper Page Text
16 th:
Contributed
THE ELECT INFANT CLAUSE.
By Rev. H. F. Hoyt, D. D.
In answer to the Assembly's overture
in regard to the "elect infant clause,"
the Presbytery of Athens recommends
the following answer: First, let the
text of the Confession of Faith remain
unchanged. Second, let a foot-note be
inserted to this effect: This clause does
not teach that any dying in infancy are
^UVDUU1| allies. DUl wnai HL)OUt
the little ones who are too young to
hear the word, or to be conscious of
the operations of the Spirit, how are
they saved? Section three answers:
"Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated
and saved by Christ through
the Spirit." It is telling us, nor that
our little ones dying in infancy are lost,
but. how they are saved. It is not teaching
infant damnation, but infant salvation.
But why use that word "elect"? Simply
because God uses it. He calls all
who are saved, whether adults or infants,
"elect." It is a Scriptural phrase,
and the framers of the Confession are
speaking in accordance with the Holy
Scriptures in the use of that word. But
let it be noticed that the word "elect,"
as here used, does not teach, even by imDlication.
that nnv who aio tr,
, ??^ ?. uic >>i iuiautv
are non-elect and unsaved. !t is simply
declaring, according to the teachings
of God's word, how one class of God's
elect, viz., those who die in infancy, are
saved. All the saved are at one period
of their lives "elect infants," "chosen
In Christ Jesus before the foundation
of the world." But all elect infants do
not die in infancy. Many millions of
them live to the age of responsibility,
some to maturity, some to old age. Sections
one and two tell how they are
saved. Others die in Infancy, and sec
tost. un me contrary, it gives the most
Scriptural answer that has ever been
given to the question: How are such
infants saved? It does not teach the
damnation, but the salvation of those
dying in infancy.
In support of this recommendation of
this Presbytery, and at its request, the
writer submits the following reasons for
its adoption: First, there can be no
objection to this clause as it stands if
its meaning is rightly understood, and
therefore we would not change its
phraseology. It does not teach, even by
implication, that any dying in infancy
are lost. In proof of this, notice where
this clause is found, and the subject
under consideration. Chapter three, of
the Confession, treats of "who of mankind
are saved." Chaptet ten of "how
they are saved." Now, if infant damnation
is taught anywhere in the Con
Tession lr. would r?e in Chapter three, but
It Is not there. Neither is this clause
found there, but in Chapter ten, where
the question is not who are saved, but
how are we saved? Sections one and
two answer that it is by the "effectual
calling of God by his word and Spirit."
This refers, of course, to those capable
of hearing the wor<l, and who have
reached the age of responsibility. Then
^ ho nilOoHrvrt nwlflAn* T"*..* ?1 a ? *
y
E PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SOUT
tiori three tells how they are saved.
But, it is asserted, the very word "elect"
implies non-elect. Not necessarily. When
in the ritual of the Methodist Church
we find tpar. 410) the words "elect
children of God," does that imply that
some of God's children are non-elect?
By no means. It is rather expressive
of the fact that all the saved are God's
"elect children." Neither does the expression
"elect infants" in our Confession
of Faith imply that any dying in
infancy are non-elect and unsaved. The
contrast is' not between the elect and
the non-elect. The qualifying words,
"dying in infancy," show this to bo the
case. The contrast is between elect in*
fants who die in infancy, and elect infants
who do nor die in infancy. The
one class are saved'in one way, the other
class are saved in a different way. The
trouble with many in understanding this
clause is found just here: They do
not see the real point of contrast. In
a recent article in' the Observer, the
writer says, in substance: "To say that
ripe apples are gathered means that the
unripe are not gathered. To order the
white sheep into the fold, leaves the
black ones out." These Illustrations are
not analogous to the case before us.
To make them so, a qualifying clause
must be inserted. Suppose we read it
thus: "Ripe apples falling to the ground
are gathered. White sheep under one
year old are to be put in the fold." Now,
the contrast is not between ripe apples
ana unripe, out Between ripe apples that
fall and ripe apples that do not fall to
the ground. The contrast 13 not between
white sheep and black sheep, but
between white sheep that are under, and
white sheep that are over, a year old.
The qualifying words make a wonderful
difference in the ipeanlng. So with this
clause in our Confession, the qualifying
words, "dying in infancy," show that
the contrast is not between the elect
and non-elect, but between the elect who
jlie in infancy and the elect who live
to the age of responsibility. There is
no reason for any change in (he phraseology
of this clause, ft contains a very
great and precious truth, clearly stated
in Scriptural language. We recommend,
therefore, that the text of the Confession
remain unchanged.
Second, it is a fact tnat the clause
is misunderstood and misrepresented by
a great many, both within afad without
the bounds of the Presbyterian Church.
Some, either intentionally or unintentionally,
misrepresent and pervert the
passage by attaching to the words, "elect
Infants," of the third section, the phrase,
"others not elected," from the fourth
section, with the evident intention of
making it appear that these latter words
have reference to infants. This is a
fcross misrepresentation, and is inexcusable.
Section four has no reference whatever
to infants. This is evident from
the words immediately following those
quoted from section four. It reads:
'"Others not elected, although they may
be called by the ministry of the word."
The reference is not to infants, but to
others of sufficient age and intelligence
to understand the call of God's word,
when preached or read. Section throe
ends all that the Confession has to say
H. April 7, 1909.
about the future state of infants, while
section four has no reference whatever
to that class. Because of such misrepresentations,
whether intentional or
through ignorance, we recommend that
an explanatory foot-note be appended,
stating clearly the meaning and intention
of the clause. This, we think, would
silence ail objections, and put an end
to the continued discussion of this
much-vexed question.
Do.. Mi
uai iiiiiieue, Ala.
SHOULD THE ELECT INFANT
CLAUSE BE REVISED?
A creed should contain, In clear and
systematic order, all scripture truths
that are directly stated, or that follow
by necessary inference.
And note that these are not synonymous
requirements; necessary inference
does not demand a direct and specific
declaration; it is equivalent to an inference
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Klrst, then, let us inquire whether
we have any direct declaration as to the
salvation of infants dying in infancy.
Many of my readers are familiar with
Dr. B. B. Warfield's article on Mt. 18: 10,
which appeared in the Bible Student
some years back. He shows that the
old interpretation of "Their Angels," as
reierring to "guardian angels," is highly
improbable; there being no such contemporaneous
usage; and away from
their charges "beholding always"' the
Father's face would not at all suit the
idea of a nurse or guardian. Furthermore
the similar passage in Acts 12: 15
would point not to a guardian angel,
but to our idea of a man's ghost or
departed spirit: "If it is not the man, it
must be his ghost." We have, then, the
direct declaration, "Th6 departed spirits
of these little ones do always behold
the face of my Father."
Undoubtedly this whole passage (Mt.
18: 1-14, note especially vs. 14; Mt.
1 Q 19 ?
iciers primarily to the actual ?
little ones, one of whom Christ had
placed immediately before him; and is
not to be confined to grown up folks
like them in spirit. Certainly as they
are the accepted standards, they will
not fail to pass muster.
We are unquestionably not inferring
too much, when we say that these passages,
to which let us add Jonah 4: 11,
assure us that our Father has a special
care for the little ones, and will
save them, if there is any way to do
so in consistency with righteousness.
Remembering this, let us inquire, Is
there any possible way?
Passing from the only passage which
can be interpreted as a direct declaration,
let us study the great principles
which bear upon this consideration
First. The Principle of Our Being.
We are a race; we are also separate
individuals. These are the centripetal
and centrifugal tendencies in our being,
giving equilibrium. Neither one should
be interoreted nt "
, vAj/cuar UL IIIO
other.
Second. The Principle of Our Judgment.
l^ight nnd Opportunity mehsure
responsibility. (See Rom. 2: 12-15, ML
7: Iff, Mt. 11: 20-24., Ezek. 18: and
parallel passage.)
This Is, to be sure, a much abused