The Atlanta constitution., 1900-11-19

In Infancy are lost? That paragraph
tells how children and other incapaDies
are saved. but II makes no mention OF
any one being lost. The apter as
whole is devoted To telling no v eject peo-
pie are saved, and II divides the saved
into two classes. to-wit, those VINO are
of sane mind and responsible age, ana
who are saved by their intelligent ac-
ceptance of Christ i'm the use OF the
word of God; and. secondly, those VINO
die before they reach a cOndltloii OF HIuI'l
accounta bIity. and who are, therefore,
saved by Christ through the spirit with
out that ordinary means. That thlrd
paragraph speaks of elect Infants prop
erly i'm order to distinguish them from
nOn-elect infants, because mtliions OF
infants grow up to mature years ana ole
rejecting Christ, thereby demonstrating
that they We're not elect. II SPEAKS ol
elect Infants. dying in infancy, IN or
der To distinguish them from the elect
infants who do not die in infancy. Dr-
cause myriads of elect infants grow 10
maturity and are brought to- Christ by the
ordinary means How, then. can the Oh
jectiOnS make that paragraph teach thaI
some infants dying in infancy periSh
They accomplish this piece of ieSerdc-
main I'm two ways, first, by diSmenlbtr-
ing the paragraph which deprives 1t OF
It's plain intent ana meaning, ana, ser
Ondly. by insisting that the fact that
this paragraph Is silent as 10 whether OF
not all Infants who die in infancy are
saved il must therefore, of necessity.
mean that some infants are not saved at
all. Both of these methods of diScrediting
our confession are Illogical and unfair
by dismembering the first sentence of
the paragraph. leaving out all of the
second sentence and ignoring the entire
aim and purpose of the Who'll" chaplrr'
the confession is made to teach both nom
sense and error If one really desires 10
know precisely what the confession does
teach, he must not garble Il and ms
treat il In this fashion. Like every other
document. il has a right to be considered
as a whole. The paragraph under CON
sideration means what II says, and says
what it's authors meant. It's plain pur-
pose is not to tell how many people are
saved. or what sort OF people are not
saved. but simply To show that some OF
the elect are saved in one way and the
balance of them i'm a different way That
being the aim and purpose of the para
graph there was no absolute necessity,
either moral or logical for inserting a
statement about the universally Of the
salvation of those who ~ie in Infancy Hut
the critics of the confession are not will
ing to read il just as it stands. but must
separate Il part of sentence from ltS
statement as Presbyterian doctrine. to-
wit Fleet infants. diving in infancy, are
regenerated and saved" In this tncom-
plete and distorted form the paragraph
does not teach single thing that l.
useful. while il expresses some silly
truiSTns and some very palpable errors
which the trainers of the confession
would have repudiated with emphasis
can discover four possible meanings IL
may have not one of which was IN the
mind of the Westminster diviueS.
For instance in this form The sentences
is an assertion that those little children
whom God from all eternity resolved 20
save forever IN heaven. and whom death
viii snatch away before they reach ma
tuTc age will hc saved In other words,
God Will neither forget nor lie about such
infants. Imagine tho Westminster di-
vines Solemnly writing down that state
mcnt.
Secondly. il may mean that uon-eiec,
Infants, dying i'm infancy. will not oe
saved. the plain inference being that
there are such infants. Now, TINS Is tne
odiouS doctrine which some people are
anxious to deduce from our confession
But the confession does not say or ii'
innate that there are any non-eiect in-
fants who die In infancy ihe lflble u"'S
not say that any child dying i'm infancy
is lost. and no man has any rlEht ID
say IT, What the confession does say
IS that those elect infants who die ~
infancy are saved in different manner
from those other elect infants who grow
tp TO mature age. AS there are TWO dis
tinct classes of elect infants. and aS
these two classes are saved i'm different
WaNs IL was proper the confession should
saw So II does say so affirming that the
one Class-thosc who grow 20 mature
ycars-are saved by means OF the WORD
Of God which they hear and "he!, ana
that the other ciuSs-thoSc VINO dle iil
earlv vears-arc saved without the word
by Christ through Ills spirit
Thirdly The sentence as above NUTS
lated may mean that elect Infants VINO
DO not die I'm infancy. but grow up z"
maturity. are lost This ls of course
false Lastly. 10 may mean that non
elect infants who grow up I" maturity
are saved which is another absurd error
We thus see how foolish and wrong u is
to attempt to understand the coilirsSi1l-
or any other document When Us state
mcnts are diSmcmhercd ana "hi\ q par
..fsf.e IS FN-fE Is
I am willing Go concedr THAT hpt oiil
some intelligence. but also some fairness
of spirit and some careful attention nI
mind are necessary to grasp correctly
the statements of our creed 4 me very
logical cNaefHes~ which We hnd IN IN"
language employed bE the MrStmlh0tti
tIiviues Is sometimes confusing @" persons
accustomed 60 loose ana popular forms
of ,ynression statute framed by am
able lawyer and enacted 10y Legislative
body after careful cOuSIderd llon "itN
amendment will often seem lacking ln
clearness to a mere beginner IN laW 1lSt
because il was Worded SO as 10 mean
only one thing. and made very eN'tct-
II is perfectly plain that th" trainers 81
the confession had uo intention Of stating
whether an little children who die in
infancy are saved Or not. They give no
expression mt ai pn THAT point one way
or another They assume ass certain th1t
there will be little children I'm heaven
and knowing that all who reach heaven
I'm any way are of the elect they refer
To them very properly dS elect lnfaNf-
who die i'm infancy. But ass 90 whether
There are To Toe any children dying ~
infancy who do not reach heaven they
do not so much as offer am iutimation of
their opinion.
But this silence of the confession I'm
regard To the salvation OF ul who die
iu infancy is most severely criticised by
many good people. They seem 10 think
Il was an unpardonable omission ou tine
part of the Westminster diyiucS; that IL
they believed an such infants are sawed
they would surely have said as much.
and that their not having said So is
conclusive proof that they did believe
i'm the damnation of all babes dying un-
baptized. Can we assign no other rea-
son for their silence except this Oue2
Does a mere failure to assert "a given
proposition always mean that we regard
that proposition as false2 Surely not.
Ii is probably true that there was not
more than mere handful uf men i'm that
great assembly who seriously doubted the
salvation of any little babe that died in
infancy. But the majority of them cvi-
IDENTIFY doubted the wisdom of putting
their opinions in the cred they were
making. There was certainly mo- urgent
necessity for doing SO. Moreover. the
great majority of Christians then living
,Iid not believe the word of God gave
as clear statements on this subject as il
does ON many others. The arguments iu
favor of the salvation of all infants dying
i'm infancy were not considered So clearly
convincing as 10 warrant a positive aSeer-
tiouof in the creed But everything those
diyfueS did say IN the confession was
favorable to infant salvation. and not n
syllable was said i'm IL faVoring the idea
Of infant damnat.on They repudiateu
baptiSmal regeneration. that repuISiN.
orr or which more than all else. has caused
Christians to doubt the salvation Of un-
baptized infants. and in the paragraph
We have been considering they assume