them. For such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests," themselves encompassed with infirmity, "to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people's; for this He did once, WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF."

ARTICLE V.-INFANT SALVATION.

[BY REV. H. C. TOWNLEY, PEEKSKILL, N. Y.]

THERE are few afflictions more heavy than those occasioned by the death of infant children. It touches the finer issues of our nature, when the invading chill stops the beating of these little hearts. We feel the reality of death most keenly; we realize its burthens as never before, when we gaze upon the marble features of a child whose little feet have gone down into the dark valley.

And yet how many pass through this mournful experience every day! To how many families, in every neighborhood, does the chain of events which makes up the circling years bring round its broken links! Carefully collected statistics prove that more than one third, and perhaps one half of the human family die in infancy. And considering the prevalence of infanticide in heathen lands, the number last named appears not too great.

A fact like this may well awaken our liveliest interest, and spring an anxious question respecting the final destiny of the infant dead. This unnumbered throng, swept away from earth's successive millions-whither] have they gone?—where

are they to-day-is it well with them for eternity? These are more than speculations.

Gathering them into a single inquiry, we propose in this article to treat the following question :-ARE ALL SAVED WHO DIE IN INFANCY?

The answers given by theological writers, both ancient and modern, have been various, and often contradictory. In the absence of a more full revelation, and upon a subject far removed from the legitimate sphere of philosophy, men have doubted, guessed, attempted to reason where reason was impossible, hazarded assertions the most reckless and painful, assumed relations where none existed, and often extinguished the light which they might have derived from the Bible, in their vain search after that which it was impossible to secure. And inasmuch as many of the views early expressed upon this question find their advocates in the present day, it is important that we furnish successively:

I. A BRIEF HISTORY AND REVIEW OF THE LEADING OPINIONS UPON THE DOCTRINE OF INFANT SALVATION.

Very early in the history of Christianity it was believed and affirmed, that the souls of baptized infants were saved, and all others were barred from the blessings of heaven. As far back as the writings of Clement of Alexandria, we find a strong tendency to confound the ordinances of Christ with the salvation they symbolized. This error, especially prevalent among the semi-gnostic theologians, soon took form in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and developed a general belief that, to be saved, infants must be baptized. It was argued that, since baptism is the only and necessary condition of salvation, unbaptized infants are excluded from its benefits. For a time this view was cautiously expressed; for while nearly all seem anxious enough to accept its consequences in respect to baptized infants, there was not so general an agreement in respect to those who died unbaptized. There was evidently a greater unanimity in sending the former class to heaven, than in consigning all the latter to hell. At length, however, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, with all its logical consequences, received a bold and unequivocal state

ment from the pen of Augustine. Having accepted the premises upon which it was based, such were his views of original sin, and such the logical vigor of his mind, that he not only taught that baptism is the only medium of salvation, but also that eternal reprobation is the fate of all who die without it. This he affirmed was the belief of all true Catholics. To use his own words: "Noli credere, noli dicere, noli docere, infantes antequam baptizentur morte praeventos, prevenire posse ad originalium indulgentiam peccatorum, si vis esse catholicus.”* "Omnino in remissionem peccatorum baptizantur et parvuli, alioquin non habebunt in regno coelorum vitam."+ Various modifying theories were proposed to smooth the harshness of this opinion. Some supposed that there might be an intermediate state for infants dying unbaptized, and some were bold enough to teach that all such were annihilated. But the views of Augustine prevailed, and the final perdition of all infants dying unbaptized, became the doctrine of the Catholic Church. This belief, however, appears to have been modified by the doctrine of purgatory, and the souls of infants who had been either baptized improperly, or not at all, were supposed to go, not into hell itself, but into a "Limbus Infantum," where they continued a kind of negative existence, free from pain or happiness. Martin, in his "La Via Futura," given the names of several Roman Catholic Doctors who held that the final state of those infants who are excluded from heaven is painless.

has

With this modification, the doctrine of Infant Salvation held by the Romanist to-day is the same as that taught by Augustine and his associates. Dr. I. Perrone, the highest living authority upon questions of Roman Catholic theology, has given the belief of his Church upon this point in language fully according with the celebrated Bishop of Hippo. In his manual of theology he lays down and treats at length the

*De Anima et ejus Orig., lib. 3. chap. 9.

+ Con. Pel., lib. 5.

2nd ed. Paris, 1853, pp. 439–455.

following proposition: "Infantes ex hac via sine baptisme decedentes, ad aeternam salutem pervenire non possunt." Such a statement, from such a man, fixes, beyond a question, the faith of the Roman Church upon the subject under review.

After the Reformation, the necessity of baptism to the salvation of infants was advocated by Protestants under two distinct phases. Baptismal regeneration was embodied in the liturgy of the Church of England, and gave rise to two parties; the one rejecting the reprobation of infants altogether, and the other holding that those who die unbaptized are condemned to à painless banishment from heaven. It is not very easy to see how the first of these opinions can be harmonized with the teachings of the Prayer Book; but harmony is not an element of Episcopal theology. Even the High Churchmen have not defined their position upon this subject with clearness. If, however, a creed in which consistency is the exception, and not the rule, can be held responsible for anything, the Protestant Episcopal Church may be justly charged with denying salvation to unbaptized infants. For, if an infant is made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," in baptism, it is dif ficult to say why he was not an alien before, and, dying in this condition, why he would not reap an alien's reward.

Other and respectable Protestant communions have urged the necessity of baptism to the salvation of infants on an entirely different ground. They tell us that, though baptism is not the channel of salvation, it is the seal of the Abrahamic Covenant; and inasmuch as only those infants are saved who are embraced by that covenant and sealed with its seal, to be saved, infants must be baptized. This sentiment clearly implies the condemnation of those infants who die without this hallowed inclosure, or not having that warrant which secures its benefits. This consequence, it is true, will not be confessed by many who have baptized the Abrahamic Cove

* Paris, 1842, pp. 878-879.

nant, and then made it authority for baptizing infants; but this is because they are more evangelical than their standards. From what has been said, it will be seen that the teachings of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches, and of those who confound the Covenant of Abraham with the covenant of grace, and make baptism its seal, agree in claiming the necessity of baptism to the salvation of the early dead. And though the converse of this proposition is often stated with caution, and sometimes entirely omitted, the inference is unavoidable, that those unbaptized are eternally lost.

But, though supported by a long line of illustrious names, this opinion is unauthorized by a single warrant of Scripture, and may serve to show how early and how frequently the stream of truth has been rendered muddy and filthy by the offals of the Man of Sin. The root from which this rank upas sprang, and from which it drew its life while spreading its branches until they overshadowed the broad extent of nominal Christendom, would upheave and overturn the whole tenor of New Testament teaching. The Scriptures distinctly declare that the ever blessed Spirit, and not the waters of baptism, regenerate the soul: that "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son," and no ordinance whatsoever, "cleanseth from all sin." Surely, if a few drops of water sprinkled upon the flesh; if the body buried beneath the waves of baptism; if any outward rite, or covenant, or seal, could give salvation to the death-struck soul of man, Christ might have been spared his lowly incarnation, the agony of the garden, and the cruel anguish of the cross. If an infant, without actual sin, and despite the atonement of Christ, is doomed to eternal destruction, no mere ceremony can turn aside that doom, and call down those clouds of wrath in endless showers of mercy.

A second leading opinion upon the subject before us is, that all infants are saved because all are innocent. It is impossible to fix the exact date when this view began to be taught. There is evidence in the writings of the earliest fathers, that they entertained diminutive notions of original