Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 20
SECT. XX.
The practice of infant-baptism is not proved Acts 16. 15. by baptizing a houshold against Mr. M. Dr. Homes, Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cook, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Fuller.
ANother Text to prove the practise of infant baptism is Acts 16. 15. and the mention of baptizing housholds elsewhere. From whence Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 40. (though the Assembly leave it out Confess. of faith ch 18. art. 4.) would gather examples of the new administration taking place just as the old, and so the practise of infant baptism by good consequence. To which I answered in my Examen at large, pag. 138. &c. 1. That the new administration is much different from the old, to wit, baptism from Circumcision. 2. That the practise of baptism in all the Evangelists is set down of singular persons. 3. That the practise in the Acts of the Apostles is differently set down, sometimes of singular persons sometimes of a City, sometimes of families. 4. Where housholds are said to be baptized there is no mention of an infant and the circumstances with other places do shew that Luke doth understand onelyonly the believers of the house. What Mr. M. replied here to doth yield so much as shews there is no good consequence in this Argument. Housholds were baptized, therefore infants, sith he saith, It may be granted that a house is sometimes taken for the grown persons in that house. And what else he speaks that is to the point is briefly answered in my Apology pag. 100. And in my Postscript sect. 19. I have sufficiently answered Mr. Blake his arguing from housholds being the precedent of baptizing, and what he saith vind. foed. pag. 416. is answered before in this part of the Review sect. 6.
Dr. Homes in his Animadv. on my Exercit. ch. 8. pag. 71. tels us that the Syriak in the story Acts 16. 33. renders it, he was baptized and all the childern of his house, and sure enough a son of eight days old is a son. And if sons of the house then some sons of the Father of the house. But he might consider that the same Syriak renders v. 32. they spake the word with him, and with all the sons of his house, which cannot be said of infants. Nor is it true that the Doctor saith, that the sons of the house are the sons of the Father of the house. For as Tremelius in his note sayth, it is an Hebraism, in which the son of the house is all one with the inhabitants in the house, servants as well as children. As for the evasion which the Doctor and M. Cook in his Font uncovered, pag. 18▪ have, that it is said [all that were in his house, v. 32. not, of his house] so that the word might be spoken to the prisoners and others which ran in on the …ame of the thing, and then he and his were baptized, v. 33. it is. 1. Without ground and unlikely, that the prisoners should be reckoned in his house when the prison is named distinctly from his house, as v. 30. & 34. compared shew, and he took such care about securing the prisoners v. 28, 29. and then brought Paul and Silas out, v. 30. afore he spake to them or they to him about salvation, nor is it likely that into the house of the Jaylour could others get or would attempt it at that time of night. 2. Were it granted yet it no whit avoyd… the objection, which is, that either there were no infants in the house▪ or else they spake the word to them, which were absurd. But saith, the Doctor, they spake the word to the infants, because they should be the better for it, v. 31. To which I reply, this reason is most gross it being contrary to all use of writers and Grammar construction to say he spake the word to infants, to whom he directed not his speech at all, onelyonly because the speech might be for their good. Besides he spake the word to all in his house as he spake to the Jaylour, it was the same speaking and Preaching to the one and the other, and therefore if infants be there meant, the Apostle is made as ridiculously to Preach to infants, as Francis the Frier is by the Popish Legend to Preach to a brute. Besides the same Syriak renders v. 34▪ he exulted, and all of his houshold in the faith of God, and Tremellius hath this marginal note, to a word sons of the house as a little before. As for what Dr. Homes with Mr. Cook adds about rendering foreign, all over his house, and rendering foreign, he did skip as in a dance of a Galliar with triumph, they are such as having no other approved interprete… for their author, nor indeed agreeing with the gravity and seriousness of the business and the Jaylors condition, are justly rejected as meer shifts to avoyd the plain evidence from that and many more places in my Examen pag. 139, 140. (which Mr. M. yeilded) that under the term [houshold] persons of years onelyonly are meant by Luke. As for what Mr. Baillee in his Anabaptism pag. 146. tels us, that infants are not excepted; I answer, that infants are plainly excepted from being meant in those speeches, if the things spoken of the houshold cannot be said of infants. But then, saith he, they will be excepted from salvation if they be not comprised under the term [house] sith Luke▪ 19. 9. salvation is said to come to the house, and Acts 11. 14. Cornelius and all his house should be saved by Peters words, and Acts 16. 31. upon the Jaylours faith he and his house should be saved. I answer Though infants be not in those passages comprised among the saved, yet it follows not by this interpretation that there is no other Tex out of which we may conclude their salvation. And therefore all his inferences of wrong to infants …s excluding them from salvation. because they are not included in the term [houshold] are but calumniatory And his other inferences shall be shewed to be vain in answering Mr. B. As for Mr. William Cooks collections from Luke 19. 9. Acts 16. 31. in his Font uncovered, pag. 18. 19. They require faith of the Jaylour, that he and his family might be admitted into a saving estate. They said not that every one of his family must of necessity actually believe and profess, that so his houshold might be saved with him. So (as he did with Zacheus) God shews here by his servants that he would deal with the Jaylour, not standing for the present on strict terms of actual faith of all in his house, If the Governour believe, it is enough to put the whole family into a saving estate inchoatively at least in respect of admission into Covenant, neither are any to be excluded, but such as by stubborn refusal of the Gospel offered deprive themselves of that privilege, I except against them 1. That he makes one sort of salvation to the believers, and another to his house in the same words and by the same means. 2. That he imagines a salvation inchoative that shall not be consummate. 3. That he makes a member of a family to have right to this salvation by the faith and profession of the head of the family, if they do not express their dissent or refusal of it. 4. That God at some time stands not on strict terms of actual faith of all in a house for salvation. All which are gross conceits and contrary to Mark 16. …6. John 3. 17, 18, &c. In vain likewise doth Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in his Exercit. c. 11. infer from these passages of saving and baptizing houses, and instances in the old Testament of family Churches, as if God had cast by an eternal decree this platform, baptism to be administred to families, and so to children. And why not then to servants, and wives, and friends? Are not they of the houshold? And why doth not Mr. Sidenham take the whole nation into a Church, when the whole nation was taken in formerly in Abrahams posterity? Why doth he gather his Church with such choice distinguishing some from others? How doth Mr. Sidenham cross himself when he interprets Luke 19. 9. the Covenant is not made with him onelyonly but with his house that is his seed, where he appropriates the term [house] to seed, and in the next page makes the term house a general phrase, which may sometimes comprehend more, and will have [all his, Acts 16. 33.] to note no servants, which cannot be meant of servants, who are our own as goods and lands are, but not of a man: but must firstly and primarily refer to his children who are begotten of him; and it may be secondarily to his kinred. In which his strange shiftings may be discerned, sometimes the term [house] must note the whole family of which servants and wives are a part, sometimes it must mean the seed, and then straightway it must be a general word comprehending more, and then foreign, must be meant not servants for they are a mans own but not of a man, and yet kinred secondarily must be meant, though they be not any more, no nor so much of a man as servants. But if we ask Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants Advocate c. 16. he will tell us, For the Jaylor; That children (if he had any) were comprised under the expression of all his, is sufficiently known by Satans interpretation, Job 1. 12. of Gods Commission, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; and Gods co…senting thereunto, when permitting him by vertue thereof, to destroy all Jobs children; concerning which passage I say. 1. If [all his, Acts 16. 33.] must be expounded as Job 1. 12. all that is his, then must the Jaylours sheep, and oxen be baptized as well as his children, for they were comprehended under [all that he had] 2. Though Jobs children were comprehended under [all that he had] yet there was never an one an infant: but such as did feast, and might curse God in their hearts. As for Dr. Homes his question, Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families? I say, 1. It belongs to him to prove, who brings it for infant-baptism, that there were, and that they were baptized. 2. Yet we are sure from the words none were meant but persons capable of hearing, and believers under the term [house, Acts 16. 32, 34.] Yea, but sayth Mr. Sidenham, Those in his house are a larger term, but when he sp…aks of the baptized he sayth all his or of him; But how doth it appear that [all in his house] is larger than [all his] or what can he gather from it but this, that he spake to more than he baptized; but will Mr. Sidenham say, he baptized any to whom he spake not? Yea, that a man may see with what raw conceits these Scriblers abuse people, who reade such ind…gested Pamphlets with examination. His own observation excludes infants. For if [all that were in his house] …e the largest term, then It comprehends [all his, v. 33.] But it notes no infant: For he spake not the word to any infant. Therefore by his own observation infants are excluded. But enough of the janglings of these wrangling Baby-sprinklers about this Text.