It was upon the subject of the
deplorable consequences of neglecting the baptism of infants.
If a parent truly gave up a child in baptism, it would be accepted and
saved, whether it died in infancy or lived to pass through the mental
exercises of an adult convert. But on the other hand, if that duty was
purposely neglected, or if baptism was unaccompanied by a proper frame
of mind in the parent, there was no reason or hint from revelation to
believe that the child was saved. Considering that the infant was
justly liable to eternal suffering on account of Adam's sin, it was
impossible for the human mind to see how God could be just and yet the
justifier of an unbaptized infant. But it was not for the human mind
to limit infinite mercy and wisdom, and possibly in His secret
councils God had devised a way of salvation even for so desperate a
case. So that while hope was not absolutely forbidden to parents who
had neglected the baptism of their infants, confidence would be most
wicked and presumptuous.
Deacon Edwards fidgeted on his seat at the laxity of this doctrine as
well might the son of Jonathan Edwards, and Deacon Nash, who inherited
his Calvinism from a father who had moved from Westfield to
Stockbridge for the express purpose of sitting under that renowned
divine, seemed equally uncomfortable.
Pages:
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224