Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The language from this translation of Henry Bullinger is rather antiquated (the editor did try to update it a bit), yet his arguments are useful. I am only posting an extract here, yet the whole blog post is worth reading if you have time:
The sixth argument shall be taken out of the manifest and express testimonies of the apostles. The apostles did baptise all whole households and families, ergo they did baptise children also, for the children are in the number of the family or household. This we do prove by the xvii of Gene. For Abraham doth circumcise all the male children that were in his house. For he understood the promise of God, that saith. I shall be thy God, & the God of thy seed. Likewise in the new Testament, when the goodman of the house, had herd & believed the gospel, that is to say, that God was his God, & the God of his seed also, he caused all them that were in his house both great and small, to be baptized.
Thus the apostles did baptize whole households and families. That the children do pertain unto the father’s household & family, it is plain & manifest by the xii. of Exodus & ii. of the Acts: this do I inculcate & beat the oftener into men’s heads, because that I see the Anabaptists to be at this point that they do exclude the children from the family & household. for they can not deny but the whole households were baptized by the Apostles. But who doth not see, that this cometh of mere contention?
For though they could prove that there were no children at all in the families & households, that the apostles did baptise, yet had they not proved that all families or households were, or be without children: wherefore we do make again our argument after this manner. The Apostles baptized all whole households, ergo, they did baptise children, saith the children are the principal & chief part of the family & household. ...
For more, see Henry Bullinger on the apostles and infant baptism.
The sixth argument shall be taken out of the manifest and express testimonies of the apostles. The apostles did baptise all whole households and families, ergo they did baptise children also, for the children are in the number of the family or household. This we do prove by the xvii of Gene. For Abraham doth circumcise all the male children that were in his house. For he understood the promise of God, that saith. I shall be thy God, & the God of thy seed. Likewise in the new Testament, when the goodman of the house, had herd & believed the gospel, that is to say, that God was his God, & the God of his seed also, he caused all them that were in his house both great and small, to be baptized.
Thus the apostles did baptize whole households and families. That the children do pertain unto the father’s household & family, it is plain & manifest by the xii. of Exodus & ii. of the Acts: this do I inculcate & beat the oftener into men’s heads, because that I see the Anabaptists to be at this point that they do exclude the children from the family & household. for they can not deny but the whole households were baptized by the Apostles. But who doth not see, that this cometh of mere contention?
For though they could prove that there were no children at all in the families & households, that the apostles did baptise, yet had they not proved that all families or households were, or be without children: wherefore we do make again our argument after this manner. The Apostles baptized all whole households, ergo, they did baptise children, saith the children are the principal & chief part of the family & household. ...
For more, see Henry Bullinger on the apostles and infant baptism.