The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 1 · Argument 7
Argument VII.
Act. 16. 15. 33. Laſtly, the Apoſtles practiſe is our inſtructiō, but they baptiſed not onelyonly the maiſter of the familie which beleeved: but all his houſehold, Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now alſo the like is to be done: and ſo conſequently the infants are to be baptiſed, for they are a part of the family, ſee Gen. 45. 18. where Ioſeph bad his brethren, take their father and their houſehoulds and come to him. Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is ſayd they caried their children and wives in charets, noting hereby, that children were of the houſehold, els had they no commaundement to hauehave caried them into Egypt, ſee alſo verſe 27. and Exodus 1. 21. it is ſayd, becauſe the midwives feared God, therefore he made them howſes, in 1 Tim. 5, 8. The Apoſtle ſayth, hee that provideth not for his own & namely for them of his houshold he denyeth the fayth, &c. Now I would ask if children be exempted from the howſhold in any of theſe places. or in any other where mention is made of a particular howſhold. Therefore, this Argument will prove that children were baptiſed, unleſſe it can be ſhewed that they were eſpecially exempted. And if the holy Ghoſt have not exempted them, who dare do it, againſt a general commandement of baptiſing al nations.
M. Smyth.
I make anſwer to this Argument confeſſing it wholly, but yet denying the conſequent of your concluſion: for it doth not follow becauſe all the houſhold of Lidia and the Gaylor were baptiſed, that therefore infants were baptiſed, you ſhal ſee what exceptiōs I take.
R. Clyfton.
The conſequence wil follow, for if the Apoſtle baptiſed whole families, then children alſo if there were any, ſeeing they are of the familie, and no where excepted, but I wil come to your exceptions, the firſt whereof is this.
I ſay though infants are a part of the familie &c. yet it doth not follow that wherſoever there is mention made of a familie, that therefore that familie had infants in it, &c.
Neither doth it follow, that the families of Lidia, of the Gaylor and of Stephanas, were all of them without children, becauſe the ſcripture doth not mention their children. The generall ſpeech of baptiſing the houſhold, ſatiſfies you not, except it be proved that there were infants therein: and why ſhould not you (that ſtand… for actual beleeving before baptiſme) as wel prove that Lidias familie did beleev as the miſtreſſe did▪ of whom onelyonly it is ſayd, that the Lord opened her hart, and ſhe attended unto the things which Paul ſpake. The Actes of Chriſt and his Apoſtles are ſummarily recorded, and not every thing that was done at large explayned.
Certeynly, if the Apoſtle had minded that children were not to be baptiſed, he would not hauehave ſpoken ſo indefinitely of the family: yea hereby he teacheth that in the adminiſtration of this ſacrament: he followed the cō mon *Gen. 17▪-13. Exo… 1…, 4…. 4… ▪practiſe uſed in circumciſing of the whol family when the governor thereof received the faith.
2. By this reaſon you might proue that Lydiaes huſband and the Gaylors wife and their children of 40. yeres old and their ſervants of 60. yeres old were baptiſed, &c.
Firſt, it is a queſtion whether Lydia had a huſband, and more like that ſhe was a widow, becauſe it is ſayd to be her houſehold. 2. Concerning the Gaylors wife, their children and ſervants, what letteth that they might not be baptiſed, if they refuſed not the grace of God offered? The Apoſtle preached †Act. 16. 31. 32.ſalvation to the whole family, and the Gaylor beleeved, and he with all that belonged unto him were baptiſed. Dare you now except againſt any in that family, ſeing the holy Ghoſt ſo ſpeaks? from theſe general ſpeaches I prove that all in both houſeholds were baptiſed, ſhew the contrarie if you can.
3. If it were yeelded that there were infants in Lydia…s family and in the Gaylors, doth it follow that they were baptiſed? no thing les, and that I wil declare thus. 1. You ſay, to the baptiſme of the Gaylors wife and children of yeres of diſcretion, there was neceſſarily required ſaith and repentance, or els they were not baptiſed: ſo ſay I becauſe infants cannot beleeve and repent, though they were in the family, yet they ſhall not be baptiſed.
I might ask you where I ſo ſayd of the Gaylors wife and children, but I wil not cōtend with you about it. Cōcerning infāts, I hauehave proved that their baptiſing is not to ſtay, until they can themſelves make confeſſion of their faith and ſinnes, and you do not yet ſay any thing worth anſwer, to the contrarie.
2. I ſay, that although it be ſaid, that all that perteyneth to the Gaylor were baptiſed yet it is alſo ſayd, verſe, 32. that the word was preached to all that were in his houſe. & verſe 34. that all his howſhold beleeved, &c. ſeing therfore all that were baptiſed in the Gaylors houſe beleeved by the preaching of the word. Infants that could not beleeve were not baptiſed, &c.
Firſt, all that you here ſay doth not prove that all that were baptiſed in the gaylors howſe beleeved by the preaching of the word. The word was preached to al in his houſe, that were able to underſtand, and ſo muſt both ver. 32. & 34. be und…ſtood of ſuch. But Paul ſpeaking of baptiſing them, ſayth, that he was baptiſed and al that belonged unto him. Which ſpeach muſt needs include his little children alſo, if he had any.
And although it be ſayd, that he reioyced that he with al his howſhold beleeved in God, yet wil it not follow hereupon, that his children were not baptiſed, ſeeing children are to be eſteemed in the number of beleevers. And thoſe words may have this conſtruction, viz. that he rejoyced, that he with al his familie were received into the fayth of Chriſt, or were accepted into the number of beleevers, and ſo it includes his children.
Concerning the tyme, being midnight, which you ſay was a diſtempered time to waken yong children, it is nothing that you ſay: were not the infants of Iſrael awakened and caried out of Aegypt at the like tyme of the night? Exod. 12. 31. upon leſſe occaſion then either of theſe, children may be awakened.
…. I ſay for Lidias familie, it is not ſayd that al her howſe was baptiſed, or yet if it had been ſo ſaid, that everie particular perſon of her familie was baptiſed, for Mat. 3. …. It is ſayd, al Judea went out to John and were baptiſed of him, &c. yet hence it cannot be concluded that al and every one that went out were baptiſed▪ &c.
The ſcripture ſayth, that Lidia was baptiſed and her houſhold without excepting of any, the like is ſayd of Stephanas familie, 1 Cor. 1. 16. And by † that which is written of the gaylors houſe, we are taught how to underſtandAct. 16. 33 the Apoſtle. And be it that this word (al) be uſed ſometimes for many, as in that of Mat. 3. 5. 6. What then? yet it followes not: therefore, it is ſo to be taken in this place of the Apoſtle, ſeeing he uſeth it for every particular of the whole in al theſe places, 2 Cor. 5. 10. Hebr. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 27. 28. & 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 4. 20. & 4. 15. & 5. 18. and in divers others.
But you ſay, As Act. 16. 32. 34. onelyonly they that beleeved were baptiſed, ſ… was it with them of Lidias familie.
You are to bold with the text to add unto it. The Apoſtle ſayth not, that onelyonly they that beleeved were baptiſed, but that they preached to al that were in his howſe, and wa… baptiſed with al that were his. Next, you proceed to conclude two Arguments againſt baptiſing of infants, the former is this.
The Apostles practiſe is our inſtruction, but the Apoſtle in baptiſing howſholds, Firſt Preached to all that were in the family, and then they beleeving were baptiſed. Ergo they onelyonly that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptiſed.
This argument might have bene granted, had not the concluſion contayned more then the former propoſitions, viz. this word, (onelyonly) which ought to have bene placed in the one of them, and if in the aſſumption, then were it falſe to ſay, that onelyonly they that beleeved were baptiſed and …o more: the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are anſwered before. And it is to be further obſerved, that this was the Apoſtles practiſe to ſuch as were of yeares and not before of the Church. Your other Argument is this.
That which the Apoſtles practiſed in one family, they practiſed in all families that they baptiſed: But in the Gaylors family according to Chriſts comiſſion, Mat. 28. 19. they firſt made them Diſciples by preaching the word, Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. &c.
This argument alſo may be granted, and maketh nothing againſt the baptiſing of infants, except your heretical collection which I deny. And this may ſuffice for reply to your anſwer to this & the reſt of my argumēts.