Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
THe Argument from the place,*E…cercit. Sect. 7. The argument from Act. 15.16. &c. for Infant Baptiſme examined. Act. 16.15.32.33. Act. 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. is thus formed: If the Apoſtle baptized whole houſholds, then Infants; but the Apoſtle baptized whole houſeholds, Ergo,
Anſwer. This Argument reſts on a ſleight conjecture, that there were Infants in thoſe houſes, and that thoſe Infants were baptized, whereas the words of the Text evince not theſe things, yea, thoſe things which are ſaid, Act. 16.32. He ſpake the Word of the Lord to him, and to all in his houſe; and verſ. 33. He rejoyced, beleeving God with all his houſe. Act. 18.8. Criſpus believed the Lord with his whole houſe, do plainly prove, that under the name of the whole houſe, are underſtood thoſe onelyonly that heard the Word of God and beleeved. Whence it is anſwered by denying the conſequence of the major Propoſition.
We reply.*Animad. If this be but a ſleight conjecture whether there were Infants in theſe houſes, why do the Anabaptiſts proclaim with ſuch confidence, that for certain there was none; and that there is for certain no inſtance in the New Teſtament of any baptized? Me thinks they ſhould leave it at leaſt uncertain, when they ſay it is uncertain. 2 It is not ſo ſleight a conjecture to all, as to Mr. Tombes, whether there were children. For the Syr. in the ſtory, Act. 16. hath it foreign He, the Goaler, foreign and the children foreign of his houſe, Vid. Schindl. de voce, foreign. & Buxt. Sure enough a ſon of eight dayes old, is a ſon. And if ſons of the houſe, then ſome ſons of the father of the houſe, what ever notes may be put on the text different from the words in the text. 3 It is not ſo plainly proved, that under the name of the whole houſe, children or infants are not underſtood: Firſt, becauſe when the holy Ghoſt mentions houſe, it means children too, if there be no expreſſe exception. Gen. 50.22. (for they abounded with children, Exod. 1.) So 1 Tim. 3.5. for there is mention of the children, v. 4. I omit many other inſtances for brevities ſake. Secondly, where by houſe, children are not included, they are expreſly excluded. Gen. 50.7, 8. And Joſeph went to bury his father, and all the houſe of Joſeph went, onelyonly their little ones they left in Goſhen. Numb. 16.32, 33. And the earth opened her mouth, and ſwallowed them up and all their houſes, and all the men that appertained to Korah. Numb. 26.11. notwithſtanding the children of Korah dyed not. Thirdly, it is diſtinctly ſaid, Act. 16.32. that Peter ſpake the word to the goaler, and to all, foreign, IN his houſe, which is more then to all OF his houſe. The holy Ghoſt makes ſome ſuch diſtinction, Rom. 9.6. They are not all [Iſrae that are [of] Iſrael. So that all IN the Goalers houſe ſeems to be put to include thoſe priſoners at large, and others that were not of his family, but onelyonly in his houſe at that time; by reaſon of the hurry and noiſe of the priſon open, &c. running together to ſee what was the matter. Fourthly, He ſpake the Word to all in his houſe, is a ſpeech that may not abſurdly in ſome proportion be extended to children, when ſomething by it redounds to children, (as it is ſaid John leaped in the wombe of his mother Elizabeth, And Elizabeth was filled with the holy Ghoſt at the ſalutation of Mary. And Act. 2. The promiſe is to you and your children; for they ſhould be the better for this.) The Word was ſpoken, was extended to the goalers children, in that by his faith they were nearer to and in a readier capacitie of ſalvation, then before, when the father was an enemie. What means elſe that v. 31. Believe THOƲ and thou ſhalt be ſaved, and THINE HOƲSE. Can we poſſibly exclude here ſome that were not able to hear the Word diſtinctly? Fifthly, it is ſaid ſignanter, acuratcly, and by way of diſtinction for him and his, foreign, And HE was baptized, and all THOSE that were HIS. How can this be true; if thoſe children he had were not baptized? And therefore Mr. Tombes was too bold to ſpeak that latter clauſe, That it was a ſleight conjecture if any infants were here, that they were baptized. If they were in this houſe, as ſure they were baptized, as that they were the Goalers. Sixthly, to that ver. 34. He rejoyced, believing God …h all his houſhold (which is one of Mr. Tombes his evincing arguments) we ſay, that the Greek muſt be accuratly heeded, that we may ſpeak juſt ſo as the Spirit ſpake. For firſt, that which divers render confidently with all his houſe, is but foreign, an Adverbe; which ſignifies neither with, nor his, nor houſe, but throughout, or over all the houſe or family 2 That the pointing, and placing of the words in the Engliſh doth not anſwer ſo well to the beſt Greek copies as it may. For the Greek copies that Arius, Pagn, old lat (which followeth an ancient Greek, and therefore very conſiderable in its various readings of words and points, ſaith learned Ʋſher) put away the point at rejoyced, ſo that no more can be evinced but that which is in the words, which is this. HE joyed with exultation or triumph over towards or throughout all his houſe or family, HE having believed God. So juſt according to the true idiom, and proprietie, and order of words, in all Greek copies, and according to the pointing in the beſt; reaſon aſſenting, for why did he exult, or skip (as in a dance of a Galliar as the Greek imports) with triumph: but becauſe he beleeved. He believing rejoyced triumphantly; He rejoycing with triumph, his families joyes were raiſed and lightned; even children ſmile, when the parents rejoyce. Let them therefore look to this, that maſh the Text, and un pronounce, unperſon, and unnumber the words, and diſpoint the ſentences, as if it were to be read, the Goaler rejoyced becauſe all his family actually believed. 7 That though Mr. T. anſwers to Criſpus, yet nothing to Gaius *Co…ſult. 3. ep. of Joh. v. 1. And the new Notes on the Bible upon it.(for ſure he had a family as well as Criſpus) nor to the family of Stephanas. Is any Anabaptiſt ſure there were no infants in theſe families? Or that they were not baptized? why then do they put it upon us, as an infallibilitie, that no infants were baptized in theſe families, or any elſe? For that of Criſpus, Mr. T. and I muſt leave it as we find it. It appears not evidently in the Grammar of the words that Criſpus was baptized.