and they expected the reader to understand, as he read the words "elect infants dying in infancy," that these were the opposites of those who, having reached adulthood, were saved by the intermediation of the word. In short, "elect infants dying in infancy" is equivalent to "such elect infants as die in infancy," and not at all to "such infants dying in infancy as are elect." This is absolutely necessary to the progress of the thought. And this being so, the phrase does not start the question as to whether there are non-elect infants dying in infancy at all. To raise that question here is perfectly gratuitous; and as it was not in the minds of the writers as they wrote this phrase, no proof that the majority of the Westminster divines believed that there were, or might be, non-elect infants dying in infancy, has any bearing on the interpretation of this passage. We deal with the Confession that they framed, and with what they teach in it—not with what outside of it they are known to have believed. What they would have said had they felt called upon to speak of the question whether there be non-elect infants dying in infancy, we may indeed learn from their private writings. But we are not concerned with what they teach elsewhere on subjects not here under discussion; but only with what they teach here. And what they teach here is that all of God's elect that reach adult age are called by the "word and Spirit," but such elect infants as die in infancy, and all others of the elect who are incapable of the outward call, are saved, apart from the outward call, by the Spirit's regeneration. How many there are—whether all or some of such as die in infancy—is a question wholly out of mind. The antithesis is that unless these infants die in infancy, or these others are really incapable of receiving the outward call, they cannot be saved without a knowledge of the gospel—and that the fourth section goes on to assert. To raise any other antith-
