66 promise before us be conditional, it must be limited to persons of a certain character; and if limited, by what? The secret intention of God? but that can be no rule for the administration of baptism. By the text itself? then it must be by those expressions, many as the Lord our God shall CALL." For these words are as plainly as possible a limiting clause, and extend a restrictive force to the term children, as much as to the pronoun you, or to that descriptive language, "all that are afar off." Consequently, the promise is limited to such as are called by the Lord our God; but whether infants be of that number the reader will be at no loss to determine. Besides, if the gracious intention of this promise be not thus limited, the passage will prove more than many of our opposers wish to establish. For as it would be absurd to confine the term children to the infants of Peter's alarmed hearers, such of their offspring as were capable of religious instruction, whether converted or not, must be considered as having had an equal title to baptism with their infants; because, on this view of the text, the promise was to their children without exception. Some of our learned opposers, indeed, contend for this indefinite sense of the term children. Thus, for example, Vossius: "To you and to your children was the promise made. Now mention is made of children simply, without difference of age.' Heideggerus: "The promise was made to their children indefinitely, without difference of age."--Witsius: "Mention is made of children simply, without difference of age." Consequently all the children of the apostle's awakened auditors, whether infants or adults, were, without exception, to be baptized. But did these respectable authors imagine that such as were grown up, be their parents * Disputat. de Bap. disp. xiii. § 6. Econ. 1. iv. c. xvi. § 43. whoever they might, were entitled to baptism previous to instruction, and without a profession of repentance? I can hardly suppose it; yet this is the unavoidable consequence of their assertions. Some of our opponents, I know, represent the distinct mention of children in this passage as a trifling affair, if understood according to our interpretation, and that of learned Pædobaptists already produced; because the promise thus considered, exhibits no spiritual blessings for the offspring of Peter's awakened hearers, in preference to the children of others. Our Brethren, however, seem to forget, that the mentioning of children, on this important occasion, was peculiarly proper to remove those painful fears which it is highly probable, some of the auditors then had respecting their offspring, on whom the blood of Immanuel had been solemnly imprecated but a little while before. Was it then a small thing to be informed by the oracle of heaven, that there was forgiveness with God for their own damnable crimes; and that the gift of the Spirit should not be withheld from their children, notwithstanding the enormous load of imprecated guilt under which they lay, whenever they should feel their want, and be willing to accept salvation as a blessing of divine grace? Or would our opposers have the offspring of repenting sinners fitted for baptism and future felicity, by other means than Providence employs for the happiness of children whose parents are impenitent and ungodly? Those, when infants, to be entitled to baptism, and, if they leave the world in their infancy, to eternal bliss, in virtue of parental piety; while these, except they arrive at years of discretion, and give evidence of regenerating grace, are to be treated as outcasts, both here and hereafter? The Talmud-a book to which our Brethren often refer us for information, respecting the proper subjects of baptism,-the Talmud assures us, "That all the Israelites are the sons of kings; but the compilers of that huge farrago consider the Gentiles in a very different point of light. Must we, then, or does the Almighty, make a similar distinction between the offspring of godly parents and the children of impenitent sinners? The scripture is far from asserting any such thing. That heavenly volume gives us abundant warrant, I think, to conclude, that as all are equally the children of wrath by nature, from whomsoever descended, so they must all be interested in spiritual blessings, and entitled to baptism, on the same grounds, or have no share in the one or the other. §7.-Acts xvi. 15, 33. "When she was baptized, and her household. -And was baptized, he and all his, straightway.... 1 Cor. i. 16. I baptized also the household of Stephanas." Dr. Whitby." And when she [Lydia] and those of her household were instructed in the Christian faith, and in the nature of baptism required by it, she was baptized, and her household." Paraphrase on the place. 2. Calvin." Luke commends the pious zeal of the jailor, because he dedicated his whole house to the Lord; in which also the grace of God illustriously appeared, because it suddenly brought the whole family to a pious consent." Comment. in loc. 3. Mr. Henry." He rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house.' There was none in his [the jailor's house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the harmony; but they were unanimous in embracing the gospel, which added much to the joy." Exposition on Acts xvi. 34. 4. Dr. Hammond." I think it unreasonable that the apostle's bare mention of baptizing his household [that of Stephanas] should be thought competent to conclude that infants were baptized by him, when it is uncertain whether there were any such at all in his house." Works, vol. i. p. 494. 5. Bp. Patrick." If there were any infants in this person's [the jailor's] family, it is certain they were baptized; for he was baptized, he, and all his.' It is doubtful, indeed, whether there were any or not.' course of the Lord's Supper, p. 447. Dis 6. Dr. Doddridge.-"Ye know the household of Stephanas, and as they have set themselves to ministering to the saints'....They have set themselves : This seems to imply, that it was the generous care of the whole family to assist their fellow Christians; so that there was not a member of it which did not do its part." Version of 1 Cor. xvi. 15, and Note on the place. 7. Limborch." Whether any infants were in her house [Lydia's] is uncertain. An undoubted argument, therefore, cannot be drawn from this instance, by which it may be demonstrated that infants were baptized by the apostles. It might be, that all in her house were of a mature age; who, as in the exercise of a mature understanding they believed, so they were able also to make a public profession of that faith when they received baptism. As I neither will nor can deny that there were infants in that house, so likewise I cannot affirm the contrary. . . . It may be urged, [in favour of infant baptism,] That we read of whole families being baptized, wherein doubtless there were some children. Answ. As for my part, I will readily grant that there might be children in those families; yet the Holy Spirit furnishes me with no solid argument, whereby I can demonstrate it evidently against others, who shall deny or question the truth of it; since it does not expressly say there were any children in them. And though this should be granted, yet we are not informed that they were baptized together with their parents: on the contrary, all those who were baptized are said to give thanks to God, which children could never do. So that, at the most, this argument amounts to no more than a bare probability." Comment. in loc. System of Div. b. v. chap. xxii,› sect. ii. REFLECTIONS. Reflect. I. These Pædobaptists inform us, that it is uncertain whether there were any infants in the households here mentioned, No. 4, 5, 7;-that if there were, it affords no solid ground to conclude upon their being baptized, No. 7;-that the household of Lydia was instructed in the Christian faith, No. 1;-that the whole family of the jailor were brought to a pious consent, and were unanimous in embracing the gospel, No. 2, 3;-. that all the members in the family of Stephanas, were active in promoting the good of their brethren, No. 6;— that the argument from these passages only affords a bare probability in favour of infant baptism, No. 7;— and that it is unreasonable to conclude the apostles baptized infants, merely because the ordinance was administered to households, No. 4. Let us now consult our impartial Friends, with reference to these families; by which it will soon appear that they are decidedly in our favour. Thomas Lawson." It is written, that whole families believed, (John iv. 53.) Must it be inferred hence, that children not grown up to years of discretion believed? Families may be without children: they may be grown up; or they might be newly married families; or their children might be dead. So it is a wild inference to ground infant baptism upon, saith Optatus." Baptismalogia, p. 92. Samuel Fothergill." If any proof, or plain declaration, could be produced in support of sprinkling infants, it would have been long ere now produced by those who have continued the practice of that ceremony. The present advocates for it would not be reduced to the necessity of presumptive arguments and uncertain consequences; such as the supposition that there were |