vation,] and that is, hurrying on the baptism of a child because it is sick; for which I can see no show of argument....I rather think, a dying creature, one, of whose recovery we have no hopes, cannot be the object of baptism. That ordinance was never designed to be used among Protestants, as extreme unction is among the Papists. To the foregoing authors I will add Mr. Peronet, who has expressed himself in the following sarcastical manner : "A child is born-'tis born to die: § 6. Acts ii. 39. "The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." Dr. Owen." This promise of the Spirit, is sometimes called the promise of the covenant, (Acts ii. 39,) 'The promise is to you;' which promise is that which Christ receiveth from his Father, verse the thirty-third ; even the promise of the Holy Ghost." Doct. of Saints' Perseverance, 116. 2. Witsius. "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,' (Joel ii. 28.) Concerning which promise Peter speaks, Acts ii. 39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children.'” Exercitat. in Symb. exercit. xi. § 19. 3. Mr. Gataker." To the obtaining the promise as well repentance, as partaking of baptism, at least in this place, is exacted; so that, hence the promise of remission of sin cannot be proved to be made to infants when they are entered by baptism, unless also they repent." In Mr. Tombes's Antipædobap. part iii. p. 17. * Duty and Doct. of Bap. p. 20. The Mitre, canto iv. p. 218. 4. Dr. Doddridge.-" Considering that the gift of the Spirit had been mentioned just before, it seems most natural to interpret this, as a reference to that passage in Joel, which had been so largely cited above, (verse 17, et seq.) where God promises the effusion of the Spirit on his sons and daughters: and, accordingly, I have paraphrased the latter clause of this verse, as referring to its extraordinary gifts; and the rather, as the sanctifying influences of the Spirit must already have been received, to prepare them for entering into the church by baptism." Note on the place. 5. Dr. Hammond.—“ If any have made use of that very unconcludent argument, [Acts ii. 39,] I have nothing to say in defence of them. I think that the practice is founded on a better basis than so; and that the word children there, is really the posterity of the Jews, and not peculiarly their infant children." Works, vol. i. p. 490. 6. Dr. Whitby." These words will not prove a right of infants to receive baptism. The promise here being that only of the Holy Ghost, mentioned verses 16, 17, 18; and so relating only to the times of the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, and to those persons who by age were made capable of these extraordinary gifts." Annotation on the place. 7. Limborch." By TEKVα, the apostle understands, not infants, but children, or posterity; in which signification the word Teкvα occurs in many places of the New Testament: see, among others, John viii. 39. And here Peter also comprehends in that expression their unborn posterity.... Whence it appears, that the argument which is very commonly taken from this passage for the baptism of infants, is of no force, and good for nothing; because it entirely departs from the design of Peter. It is necessary, therefore, that Pædobaptism should be supported by other arguments." Comment. in loc. 8. Venema. "The promise is unto you and to your children.' The common opinion of interpreters is, that children destitute of reason are here intended; and hence it is inferred, that the promises of grace are equally made to them, as to, their parents, seeing the covenant of God is said to be made with Abraham and his seed. If this interpretation be true, no doubt can remain concerning the infants of believers being in a relative state of grace; but I fear that, more accurately examined, it cannot be defended. For the promise manifestly pertains, not to the blessings of grace and salvation, but to the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, just before poured out upon the apostles, which is mentioned verse the thirty-eighth, and to which infants have no special right. Nor is there any doubt but the apostle had in his eye the second chapter of Joel; both because he had just cited that prophecy, verse the seventeenth, and because he takes the last words of our text from Joel ii. 32. Sons, therefore, as in Joel, are here the citizens of Jerusalem; young men, such as the apostles themselves were, and as many as should believe in Christ. • To you,' he says, 'and to your sons;' to the old and the young, to parents and children, to Jerusalem and its inhabitants, is made the promise of pouring out the Spirit, wherefore it is your special privilege to receive Christ, and to be planted in him by baptism; that so you may be rendered actual partakers of the promise, which is not to be obtained without that condition. Interpreters, perhaps, might not have been averse to this view of the text, if they had clearly seen that the words of Peter are taken entirely from the prophecy of Joel." Dissertat. Sac. 1. iii. c. iv. § 7, 8. REFLECTIONS. Reflect. I. We are taught by these quotations That the promise intended is the Holy Spirit, or his extraordinary gifts, No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8;-that the term children, signifies posterity, No. 5, 7, 8;-that repentance, and a reception of Christ, are necessary to an enjoyment of the blessings promised, No. 3, 8;-and that the argument formed on this passage in defence of infant baptism, is very inconclusive, of no force, and good for nothing, No. 5, 6, 7.-Such is the doctrine of eminent Pædobaptists relating to this text, which is frequently produced against us with an air of confidence. Reflect. II. But supposing it were proved, in opposition to these learned authors, that the word children is here to be understood of infants, and that the term promise refers to remission of sins, in the preceding verse, our Brethren would be far from gaining their point; because, unhappily for infant baptism, there is nothing said about the promise respecting any besides those that were then awakened, and such as "the Lord our God shall CALL." Yes, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, whether they be parents or children, they must be called, before this text will permit us to view them as interested in that promise of which he speaks; which entirely excludes infants from all consideration here. Besides, our opposers themselves are obliged to consider the fulfilment of this promise, let the blessings included in it be what they may, as very much limited. For, either they view the gracious declaration as absolute, or as conditional. If the former, and if it refer to pardon, peace, and life eternal, there can be no such character as a finally impenitent person, whose parents were truly pious. This, however, few of our Brethren will dare to assert. Mr. Maurice indeed seems to have been of that opinion:* and Dr. Addington also has an assertion which is very much like it; for, speaking of this text, he says, "Herein pardon, grace, and glory, are promised to such as repent and return unto the Lord....This he [Peter] calls, by way * Social Religion, dialogue viii. of eminence, The promise; partly on account of the superior value of the blessings engaged for in it, and partly because it secures the continued succession of them to the people of God and their seed to the end of time.' "'* Candour compels me to suppose, that Dr. Addington did not well consider the necessary consequences of these positions, or he would never have penned them. For if those ineffable blessings, pardon, grace, and glory, be not only promised to the people of God, but SECURED to their seed also, to the end of time; how should the immediate offspring of any believer-nay, how should any of his descendants, in the remotest generations, fall short of eternal blessedness? Because, on the same ground that the immediate posterity of a pious parent are assured of converting grace, of pardoning mercy, and of heavenly happiness, are their immediate offspring equally assured of the same blessings; and so on till the whole of that lineal succession cease. According to which, all the Jews, as descending from Abraham, and all the post-diluvian world, as descending from Noah, would be secured of immortal felicity. Though I am far from imputing a sentiment so erroneous to the worthy author, yet his unguarded assertion reminds me of what the Talmudists have said, concerning the final safety of all the seed of Abraham. They tell us, "That Abraham sits at the gates of hell, and does not permit any unrighteous Israelite to enter the infernal regions."†- Mr. Baxter, when animadverting on a position similar to those of Dr. Addington, says: "If this doctrine of yours stand, (that this be the promise to all the faithful for their seed, to give them cor novum,) then all the seed of the faithful are certainly saved, whether they die in infancy or not. But that is certainly untrue."-If the * Christian Minister's Reasons, p. 120. + Apud Lampium, Comment. in Evang. Joan. ad cap. viii. 33. Plain Scrip. Proof, p. 362. |
