8
1
8
download/literature/watchtower/1900-21.pdf
../literature/watchtower/1900/21/1900-21-1.html
VOL.
XXI
ALLEGHENY,
PA.,
NOVEMBER
1,
1900
No.
21
VIEWS
FROM
THE
WATCH
TOWER
STILL
DEBATING
INFANT
DAMNATION
In
debates
on
creed
revision
among
Presbyterians
no
feature
has
called
forth
such
heated
discussion
as
that
re
latmg
to
"elect
infants
dying
in
infancy."
This
clause
of
the
'Vestminster
Confession,
with
those
clause£
which
have
pop
ularly
been
taken
as
interpreting
it,
follow:-
III.
3.
"By
the
decree
of
God,
for
the
manifestation
of
his
glory,
some
men
and
angels
are
predestmed
unto
ever
lasting
life,
and
others
foreordained
to
everlasting
death.
III.
4.
"These
angels
and
men
thus
predestmed
and
fore
ordained
are
particularly
and
unchangeably
designed,
and
their
number
is
so
certain
and
definite
that
It
can
not
either
be
increased
or
diminished.
"The
Lutheran
church
did
not
rid
itself
altogether
of
Roman
sacramentalism.
Its
Augsburg
Confession
teaches
that
'Baptism
is
necessary
to
salvation.'
It
condemns
all
'who
affirm
that
children
are
saved
without
baptism.'
"Archbishop
Cranmer,
the
first
primate
of
the
English
church,
said
in
his
'Catechism':
'If
we
should
have
heathen
parents
and
die
without
baptism,
we
would
be
damned
ever
lastingly.'
"
.
.
.
.
The
founder
of
the
Methodist
Episcopal
church,
John
Wesley,
in
his
'Treatise
on
Baptism,'
1756,
says:-
"'If
infants
are
guilty
of
original
sin,
then
they
are
the
proper
subjects
of
baptism,
seeing
in
the
ordinary
way
they
can
not
be
saved
unless
this
be
washed
away
by
baptism.
It
has
already
been
proved
lhat
this
original
stain
cleaves
to
every
child
of
man,
and
that
they
thereby
are
children
of
wrath
and
liable
to
eternal
damnation.'''
'l'he
Independent
(August
30)
says:-
"It
is
a
mere
eyasion
to
assert
that
'elect
infants'
can
mean
all
infants.
It
would
be
as
easy
to
say
'all
infants',
as
'elept
infants'
if
that
'Yare
intended.
and
if
it
were
not
contu·
dicted
by
the
doctrine
clearly
expressed
in
the
Confession.
that
original
sin
i'5
worthy
of
eternal
death.
That
the
plain
meaning
of
the
Confession
and
its
implications
throu)!hout
in
cludes
infants
among
those
who
are
lost,
is
sufficiently
proYed
from
the
lan~age
of
Dr.
Twiss,
prolol'utor
of
the
"-estminster
AssC'mbly,
who
says
distinctly
in
IllS
'VrxDIc:r:'
I.
-lR
-
"'Many
infants
depart
from
this
life
in
original
sin,
and
consequently
are
condemned
to
eternal
death
on
account
of
original
sin
alone.
Therefore.
from
the
sole
transgression
of
Adam
condemnation
to
eternal
death
has
followed
upon
many
infants.'
"What
Dr.
Twiss
said
was
the
belief
of
the
rest
amI
the
teaching
of
the
Confession."
The
Rev.
Henry
Frank
quotes
John
Calvin
himself,
saying:-
"John
Calvin
savs
with
his
accustomed
clearness:
'The
children
of
the
repr~bate
[i
Coo
the
non-elect]
whom
the
cune
of
God
follows,
are
~ubieet
to
the
sa.me
sentencC"
(Oppra
II.)
Again:
'You
deny
that
it
is
lawful
for
God,
expept
for
mis
deeds,
to
condemn
any
human
being.
.
..
Put
forth
your
evidence
against
God.
who
precipitates
into
eterllal
dCflth
harmless,
new-born
children
torn
from
their
mother's
bosom.'
('De
Occulta
Dei
ProVidentia').
'As
the
eggs
of
the
asp
are
de'5ervedly
crushed,
and
serpents
iust
horn
are
deservedly
killed,
though
they
have
not
yet
poisoned
anyone
with
their
bite,
so
infants
are
justly
obnoxious
to
penalties'
(Molineaux
of
France)
.
.
.
.
"Once
again
hear
John
Calyin:
'Very
infant'5
themselves
bring
in
their
own
damnation
with
them
from
their
mother's
womb;
who.
although
th"!y
have
not
yet
brought
forth
the
fruits
of
their
iniquity,
yet
have
the
seed
thereof
enclosed
within
them;
yea,
their
whole
nature
is
a
certain
seed
of
sin;
and
therefore
it
can
not
be
otherwise
than
hateful
and
abom·
inable
to
God.'
"Now
let
us
learn
what
the
framers
of
the
Confession
themselves
said
concerning
this
damnable
doctrine.
William
Twiss:
'If
many
thousands,
even
all
the
infants
of
Turks
and
Saracens,
dying
in
original
sin
are
tormented
by
him
in
hell-fire,
is
he
to
be
accounted
the
father
of
cruelties
for
this?'
For
a
vivid
picture
of
the
disposition
of
these
eternally
damned
infants
by
this
mild
and
maudlin
PreSbyterian
God,
read
Samuel
Rutherford,
one
of
the
Scotch
commis'5ioners
who
assisted
in
framing
the
creed.
'Suppose
we
saw
with
our
eyes
a
great
furnace
of
fire,
.
.
.
.
and
all
the
damned
as
lumps
at
red
fire,
and
they
boiling
and
louping
for
pain
in
a
dungeon
of
everlasting
brimstone,
and
the
black
and
terrible
devils,
with
long
and
sharp-toothed
whips
of
scorpions
lashing
out
scourges
on
them;
and
if
we
saw
our
own
neighbors,
brethren,
sisters;
yea,
our
dear
children,
wives,
fathers,
mothers,
swim·
ming
and
sinking
in
that
black
lake,
and
heard
the
yelling,
shouting,
crying
of
our
young
ones
and
fathers
...
.'''
*
*
*
It
will
now
be
quite
in
order
for
some
very
conscientious
Presbyterian
brother
to
tell
us
that
Jolm
Calvin
knew
nothing
about
Oalvinism
anyway;
or
to
assure
us
that
though
there
were
damned
non-eleet
infants
in
times
past,
there
are
none
today,
though
God
and
his
Word
have
not
changed
in
the
interim.
If,
instead
of
saying
elect
and
non-elect
infants,
Brother
Calvin
had
said
the
children
of
the
non-elect
are
damned
when
they
are
born,
he
would
have
come
much
nearer
stating
the
matter
truthfully,
however
erroneous
his
conception
of
the
facts.
For
the
word
dalMled
in
plain
English
simply
signifies
[2718]
(323-324)
X.
3.
"Elect
infantA,
dying
in
infancy,
are
regenerated
and
saved
through
the
Spirit,
who
worketh
when,
where,
and
how
he
plcaseth;
so
also
are
all
other
elect
persons
who
are
incapable
of
being
called
by
the
ministry
of
the
Word.
X.
4.
"Others,
not
elected.
although
they
may
be
called
by
the
'Vord
and
may
have
some
common
operatIOns
of
the
Spirit,
yet
thcy
never
truly
come
to
Christ
and,
therefore,
can
not
be
sa.vceL
Much
lcss
can
men
not
professing
the
Christian
religion
be
sawd
in
any
other
way
whatsoever,
be
they
never
so
diligent
to
frame
their
lives
according
to
the
light
of
na
turc,
and
the
law
of
that
religion
they
do
profess;
and
to
asscrt
and
maintain
that
they
may,
is
vcry
pernicious
and
to
be
detested."
From
a
remote
period
these
statements
have
been
pop
ularly
supposed
to
teach,
by
implication,
that
non-elect
infants
dying
in
infancy
are
damned.
However,
the
recent
General
Assembly
of
the
Presbyterian
church
(South)
claimed
that
no
such
interpretation
could
rightly
be
put
upon
the
clause,
and
refusC'd
to
cOIlfnder
a
propositIon
to
alter
it.
For
instance,
Dr.
'Varficld.
of
Princeton,
says,
"I
think
we
may
characterize
the
interpretation
of
Chapter
X.,
section
3
[of
the
Westmin
ster
Confcssion],
which
finds
a
body
of
non-elect
infants
dying
in
infancy
implied
in
its
statements,
as
one
of
the
most
astonishing
pieces
of
misrepresentation
in
literary
history."
Rev.
Dr.
Eugene
Danicl
also
asserts
that
it
is
unjust
to
say
that
t
1
1c
Confession
imphcitly
teachcs
thc
damnation
of
non·
elect
infants.
He
points
out
that
it
teaches
posiNrely
the
sa
lvation
of
elect
infants,
but
makes
no
attempt
whatever
to
solve
the
Creator's
intentions
with
regard
to
non-elect
infants.
It
seems
peculiar
indeed
that
anyone
claiming
to
believe
in
Calvinistic
predestination
of
adults
could
dispute
that
the
same
conditions
prevailed
in
infancy.
But
hearken
to
other
interpreters
of
the
'Vestminster
Confession,
as
follows:-
Rev.
Dr.
Horace
L.
Singleton
(The
Homiletic
Review,
Sep
tpmbpr).
states
that
prior
to
the
'VestminRter
Confession
all
of
Chri'.tendom
had
believed
that
infants
dying
without
baptism
are
rlllmucd,
but
that
Confession
took
a
step
forward
in
aSRPrting
that
elect
infants,
even
if
unbaptized,
are
saved.
He
sayR:-
"The
sacramentarian
doctrine
of
the
papal
and
other
prel
atical
churches,
and
the
logical
conclusion
of
Arminianism,
left
no
other
provision
for
infant
salvation
than
baptism.
To
dIe
without
it
waR
to
he
lost
forever.
This
detestable
doctrine
the
Confession
of
Faith
was
designed
to
destroy.
It
does
de
stroy
it.
The
Christian
church
and
the
world
are
debtors
to
it
for
removing
the
gloom
which
surrounds
the
death
of
babes.
The
ASRembly
rHvmes
were
all
Calvinists,
in
entire
accord
with
the
second
Scotch
Confession,
which
on
this
subject
'abhors
and
detests
among
the
doctrine'5
of
the
Roman
Anti
christ
his
cruel
judgment
against
infants
dying
without
the
sacrament.'
The
Calvinists
of
the
Westminster
Assembly
who
indorsed
or
approved
that
Confession,
would
surely
not
frame
an
article
on
infant
salvation
which
would
imply
that
any
dying
in
infancy
were
without
the
pale
of
God's
grace
and
redemption.
So
they
made
provision
for
all
by
referring
all
to
the
sovereign
will
of
him
'who
worketh
when
and
where
and
how
he
will.'
Only
Calvinistic
theology
and
a
Calvinistic
Confession
can
say
that.
The
phrase
contains
the
essence
of
Calvinism.
What
is
that?
Why,
the
grace
of
God
is
sovereign
both
in
its
source
and
application.
"As
to
the
device
of
the
doctrine
of
infant
damnation,
not
one
of
the
other
denominations
can
point
at
the
PreSbyterian
church
and
say:
'Thou
didst
it.'
"The
Roman
Catholic
church
in
the
Council
of
Trent
decreed,
and
the
decree
still
stands:-
"
'If
any
denies
that
new-born
children
must
be
baptized,
or
says
that
they
do
not
derive
from
Adam
anything
of
original
sin
which
makes
the
washing
of
regeneration
necessary
to
cleanse
them
for
an
entrance
into
everlasting
life,
let
him
be
accursed.'
Vout. XXI ALLEGHENY, PA., NOVEMBER 1, 1900 No. 21 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER STILL DEBATING INFANT DAMNATION Jn debates on creed revision among Presbyterians no feature has called forth such heated discussion as that relating to “elect infants dying in infancy.” This clause of the Westminster Confession, with those clauses which have popularly been taken as interpreting it, follow:— IlI, 3. “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, somé men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. Ii]. 4, “These angels and men thus predestined and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that 1t can not either be increased or diminished. X. 3. “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved through the Spirit, who worketh when, where, and how he pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being called by the ministry of the Word. NX. 4. “Others, not elected. although they may be called by the Word and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ and, therefore, can not be saved. Much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the lght of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious and to be detested.” From a remote period these statements have been popularly supposed to teach, by implication, that non-elect infants dying in infancy are damned. However, the recent General Assembly of the Presbyterian church (South) claimed that no such interpretation could rightly be put upon the clause, and refused to consider a proposition to alter it. For instance, Dr. Warfield, of Princeton, says, “I think we may characterize the interpretation of Chapter X., section 3 [of the Westminster Confession], which finds a body of non-elect infants dying in infancy implied in its statements, as one of the most astonishing pieces of misrepresentation in literary history.” Rev. Dr. Eugene Daniel also asserts that it is unjust to say that the Confession imphcitly teaches the damnation of nonelect infants. He points out that it teaches positively the salvation of elect infants, but makes no attempt whatever to solve the Creator’s intentions with regard to non-elect infants. It seems peculiar indeed that anyone claiming to believe in Calvinistie predestination of adults could dispute that the same conditions prevailed in infancy. But hearken to other interpreters of the Westminster Confession, as follows:— Rev. Dr. Horace L. Singleton (The Homilctic Review, September). states that prior to the Westminster Confession all of Christendom had believed that infants dying without baptism are damned, but that Confession took a step forward in asserting that elect infants, even if unbaptized, are saved. He pays:— veThe sacramentarian doctrine of the papal and other prelatical churches, and the logical conclusion of Arminianism, left no other provision for infant salvation than baptism. To die without it was to he lost forever. This detestable doctrine the Confession of Faith was designed to destroy. It does destroy it. The Christian church and the world are debtors to it for removing the gloom which surrounds the death of babes. The Assembly divines were all Calvinists, in entire accord with the second Scotch Confession, which on this subject ‘abhors and detests among the doctrines of the Roman Antichrist his cruel judgment against infants dying without the sacrament.’ The Calvinists of the Westminster Assembly who indorsed or approved that Confession, would surely not frame an article on infant salvation which would imply that any dying in infancy were without the pale of God’s grace and redemption. So they made provision for all by referring all to the sovereign will of him ‘who worketh when and where and how he will.’ Only Calvinistic theology and a Calvinistic Confession can say that. The phrase contains the essence of Calvinism. What is that? Why, the grace of God is sovereign both in its source and application. “As to the device of the doctrine of infant damnation, not one of the other denominations can point at the Presbyterian church and say: ‘Thou didst it.’ “The Roman Catholic church in the Council of Trent decreed, and the decree still stands:— “If any denies that new-born children must be baptized, or says that they do not derive from Adam anything of original sin which makes the washing of regeneration necessary to cleanse them for an entrance into everlasting life, let him be accursed.’ (323-324) facts, [2718] “The Lutheran church did not rid itself altogether of Roman sacramentalism, Its Augsburg Confession teaches that ‘Baptism is necessary to salvation.’ It condemns all ‘who affirm that children are saved without baptism.’ “Archbishop Cranmer, the first primate of the English church, said in his ‘Catechism’: ‘If we should have heathen parents and die without baptism, we would be damned everlastingly.’ “... The founder of the Methodist Episcopal church, John Wesley, in his ‘Treatise on Baptism,’ 1756, says:— “Tf infants are guilty of original sin, then they are the proper subjects of baptism, seeing in the ordinary way they can not be saved unless this be washed away by baptism. It has already been proved that this original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that they thereby are children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation.’ ” The Independent (August 30) says:— “It is a mere evasion to assert that ‘elect infants’ can mean all infants. It would be as casy to say ‘all infants’, as ‘elect infants’ if that were intended. and if it were not contradicted by the doctrine clearly expressed in the Confession, that original sin is worthy of eternal death. That the plain meaning of the Confession and its implications throughout includes infants among those who are lost, is sufficiently proved from the language of Dr. Twiss, prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, who says distinctly in his ‘Vrnpic.r’ I, 48 — “Many infants depart from this life in original sin, and consequently are condemned to eternal death on account of original sin alone. Therefore. from the sole transgression of Adam condemnation to eternal death has followed upon many infants.’ ‘What Dr. Twiss said was the belief of the rest and the teaching of the Confession.” The Rev. Henry Frank quotes saying :— “John Calvin says with his accustomed clearness: “The children of the reprobate [i e., the non-elect] whom the curse of God follows, are subject to the same sentence’ (Cpera IT.) Again: ‘You deny that it is lawful for God, except for misdeeds, to condemn any human being.... Put forth your evidence against God. who precipitates into efernal death harmless, new-born children torn from their mother’s bosom.’ (‘De Occulta Dei Providentia’). ‘As the eggs of the asp are deservedly crushed, and serpents just born are deservedly killed, though they have not yet poisoned any one with their bite, so infants are justly obnoxious to penalties’ (Molineaux of France). ... “Once again hear John Calvin: ‘Very infants themselves bring in their own damnation with them from their mother’s womb; who, although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their iniquity, yet have the seed thereof enclosed within them; yea, their whole nature is a certain seed of sin; and therefore it can not be otherwise than hateful and abominable to God.’ “Now let us learn what the framers of the Confession themselves said concerning this damnable doctrine. William Twiss: ‘If many thousands, even all the infants of Turks and Saracens, dying in original sin are tormented by him in hell-fire, is he to be accounted the father of cruelties for this?’ For a vivid picture of the disposition of these eternally damned infants by this mild and maudlin Presbyterian God, read Samuel Rutherford, one of the Scotch commissioners who assisted in framing the creed. ‘Suppose we saw with our eyes a great furnace of fire, .... and all the damned as lumps of red fire, and they boiling and louping for pain in a dungeon of everlasting brimstone, and the black and terrible devils, with long and sharp-toothed whips of scorpions lashing out scourges on them; and if we saw our own neighbors, brethren, sisters; yea, our dear children, wives, fathers, mothers, swimming and sinking in that black lake, and heard the yelling, shouting, crying of our young ones and fathers... .” * * * It will now be quite in order for some very conscientious Presbyterian brother to tell us that John Calvin knew nothing about Calvinism anyway; or to assure us that though there were damned non-elect infants in times past, there are none today, though God and his Word have not changed in the interim. If, instead of saying elect and non-elect infants, Brother Calvin had said the children of the non-elect are damned when they are born, he would have come much nearer stating the matter truthfully, however erroneous his conception of the For the word damned in plain English simply signifies John Calvin himself,
To enhance your experience on our website, we use cookies and similar technologies. Some cookies are essential for the core functionality of our site and cannot be declined. You can choose to accept or decline additional cookies. We want to assure you that none of this data will be sold or used for marketing purposes. You can adjust your preferences at any time by accessing the Privacy Settings from the footer of the page. For more information, please refer to our
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
.
