(322)
ARGUMENT II.
APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM.
According to custom, my Opponent represents the argument drawn from household baptism as destitute of probability;
and, if I remember rightly, there are some Pedobaptists who speak of it, as if it amounted to little or nothing
more than probable evidence. I would ask such persons, upon what sort of authority do they receive females to
communion? Is it probable or certain? They will say, with my Opponent, that the evidence is indubitable, because
females are disciples, and for disciples it was instituted. Yet our Saviour gave no express command to administer
it to a female; there was no female among the disciples to whom he administered it; and there is no express record
of Apostolical practice, in favour of female communion. If, without these, the evidence is certain, how much more
so, if, like infant baptism, it could be supported by divine command and apostolical practice. This practice of the
apostles would have been taken as positive evidence, fully made out, if the Acts of the Apostles had recorded several
instances in which heads of families communed; because heads of families would embrace females. Now we have evidence,
in the Acts of the Apostles, that they baptized households, and we hope to shew that households embrace infants;
and the fact that some households are without infants, is of no more avail in the one case, than the fact that some
families have no female head, will avail in the other. In proving that infants are included in the baptized
households of the New Testament, I shall, of course, make liberal use of Taylor's "Facts and Evidences," much of
which Dr. Rice, of Virginia, has copied, with valuable additional matter of his own.
But the strength of our argument cannot be duly appreciated, without giving some attention to that of my Opponent.
He speaks as follows, viz. *
__________
* The reader will notice, that from p. 223 to note (w) on p. 331, is Mr. Campbell's argument.
( 323 )
Mr. M'Calla has adopted the criticism of Rice and Taylor on the words oikos and oikia, and is to give us positive evidence of infant baptism from the import of these words, Mr. Rallston, who has written what he calls a Brief Review' of the Debate at Mount Pleasant, has adopted the same, and mightily boasts of the importance of the criticism. Mr. M'Calla tells us it is founded on the decisions of Aristotle and Plato, and lays the greatest stress upon it. Now we have not read Rice's Pamphleteer, but we have read some [all] of the writings of Aristotle and Plato in the original, and we have read Dr. Samuel Rallston's "Condensed View' of the criticism, and we boldly pronounce that it is a f refuge of lies.' And we will go a little farther yet, and affirm, that not only is the criticism erroneous, but that assertions are made in the Condensed View' referred to, that are downright falsehoods. Mark it well, my friends, we have said falsehoods. Whether intentional or not, is not my duty to say. But if I do not prove to the satisfaction of every one who understands English, and especially to any one who knows only the Greek alphabet, all that I have now affirmed concerning this criticism and those assertions, I will say that I know neither English nor Greek. But this we will not attempt until Mr. M'Calla gives us the whole it. In the mean time, we will request your attention to the households baptized, or ' family baptisms" as some call them, mentioned in the New Testament. Of these there are but four. Of three of these we have positive proof that all baptized were professed disciples, capable of hearing, believing and obeying the word. The only family that admits of the least hesitation with respect to the members of it, is that of Lydia: and if there had not been another family baptized in the narrative than this one, or if there had been the same want of particularity in describing, incidentally or explicitly, the baptism of the others, it would be utterly impossible for any man living to furnish a positive evidence of infant baptism from Scripture testimony. We have, indeed, already shewn, that the apostles
( 324 )
baptized none but professed disciples, by facts and arguments that Mr. M'Calla dared not to impugn; and therefore might be excused from noticing this ten thousand times refuted notion of infants having been baptized in these four families. But that the fullest satisfaction may be afforded to all interested, we will again condescend to visit the families alluded to. With respect to Lydia's family, of the circumstances of which there is the least said, and therefore the more room for conjecture, as we see in all the references to it by the Paido-baptists, we will just mention, that six things must be proved, before it can be proved from it, that we have positive evidence of apostolic practice of infant baptism. 1. That Lydia ever had a husband. 2. That she had a husband lately. 3. That she ever had children. 4. That she had brought her children with her from Thyatira to Philippi, a journey of 200 miles, mostly by sea. 5. That her children were then infants, and 6. That they were actually baptized. All this must be done before Mr. M'Calla's positive can be adduced. Now let me ask, can Mr. M'Calla prove ANY ONE of these circumstances? I positively answer, No, not one. Where, then, is his positive evidence to be obtained from Lydia? s house? Indeed there is not probable evidence, much less positive evidence, of infant baptism in this family." "But just let us look at the circumstances of Lydia's family, and consider what is most probable in the case. 1. She shews herself to be the sole proprietor of her house, and precludes the idea of having a husband, in these words, Acts xvi. 15. ' Come into my house, and tarry with me.' 2. That she was an unmarried woman is probable from her manner of giving the invitation, which indeed is the most singular invitation on record, [[* If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into my house.' It is equivalent to saying, if you have formed a good opinion of my being under subjection to Christ, you will not impeach my modesty, or suppose me actuated by any other motive
( 325 )
than the love of my Master, in inviting you to sojourn with a woman. 3. That she was an unmarried woman at this time, is further evident from her manner of life. She was a travelling merchant, and far from her own city. 4. It is also probable that the brethren mentioned in 4th verse, were members of her family, servants or relatives in her employ." "Thus, from a fair and full consideration of all the circumstances of Lydia's house, there is not the least probability that there was an infant in it. But if even it had been probable that infants belonged to Lydia's house, we are absolutely certified from other portions of the divine testimony, that they were not baptized." "The time has fully come when it becomes my duty, from a promise already given you, my friends, to prove that this new discovery made on purpose to aid the falling cause of infant baptism, is a refuge of lies. I have said that it is a refuge of lies. Many seek shelter under such refuges without knowing them to be such. Perhaps this was the case with Mr. Rallston and my Opponent. Be this as it may, we are sure it is a refuge of lies, and that the alleged difference between oikos and oikia is not only an erroneous criticism, but that statements made concerning these terms are absolutely false. Whether intentional or not, lies not in my way to judge or to express. We are only concerned in what is said, on the present occasion, and not in the motive or design of the speaker or writer. I then positively assert that in the bible, there is no more difference betwixt the use and application of the words oikos and oikia than there is between the words brothers and brethren. I suppose you all know that the difference betwixt the words brothers and brethren is only in the orthography or spelling of the words, and that there is no difference in the sense. Now for the proof. Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 16, I baptized the oikos of Stephanas, and in the same Epistle, addressed to the same church, in speaking of the same family, Chap. xvi. 15, he calls this family the oikia of Stephanas. ( Ye
( 326 )
know/ says he, [[ the household (TEN OIKIAN) of Stephanas that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints/ Here the same family, by the same writer, is called, in the same letter, both oikos and oikia. Any person that knows the Greek alphabet can see that this is as I have said. Where now is the truth of Mr. Rallston's declaration, p. 19. ' Hence/ says he, when we read of Cornelius and his house, of Lydia and her house, of the Jailer and his house, and of Stephanas and his house, in all of which, oikos and not oikia is used. He says, not oikia is used, but here I have shewn that it is ! This proves the assertion false. And that you may see that it is erroneous, we have only to observe that Mr. Rallston and Mr. Rice and Mr. M'Calla say, that oikia denotes servants, as the servants of Cesar's household, (OIKIAS) as Mr. Rallston quotes it; and then so to translate it whenever it occurs. Thus said Paul, Chap. i. I baptized the infants, (OIKOS) of Stephanas, and Chap. xvi. Ye know the servants, (OIKTA) of Stephanas that they were the first fruits, &c. and thus make the apostle give a representation of Stephanas as a father, in one place, as a slaveholder or master in another; having servants that were not servants, but freemen, addicting themselves to the service of the saints, when they were their master's property, and having no time at their own disposal. What contradictions and inconsistencies appear in a bold advocate of this human tradition! But that oikos and oikia are applied in the bible to the self-same family, and to the self-same house, will appear from a few references. I would only premise one remark, viz. that the difference betwixt the families called oikos and those called oikia, is plead upon the allegation that oikos literally denotes the dwelling place of the master or father of the house, and that oikia denotes the house, cabin, or hut, in which the servants or slaves lived. It is said that in their figurative application the same difference exists. As oikos signifies the master's dwelling house, it figuratively denotes his children: and as oikia denotes the
( 327 )
servant's house, it figuratively denotes the servants that lived in it. The jailer's house is called, verse 31, oikos; in v. 32, it is called oikia; and in v. 34, it is again called oikos. Once here it appears evidently to refer to the family, ' Thou shalt be saved, and thy house.' [[< They spake the word of the Lord to all that were in his house, (OIKIA).' This evidently refers to the house, literally considered. And 34, ' He led them into his house,' (OIKOS) the place of abode. But whatever meaning we may fix to the word, it affects not the point for which we contend; for the fact still remains, and it is undeniaable, that the jailer's house is called both an oikos and an oikia. Mr. M'Calla, or rather Mr. R. from whom the criticism is taken, aware that oikia is applied to the jailer's house, as well as oikos, will have it, contrary to appearance of probability, used metaphorically, and says that it means the jailer's servants, to whom he spake the word of the Lord. This is an evident assertion to suit the hypothesis. But suppose we should admit it for the sake of argument, then how does it stand? It stands thus, he preached to the servants, and baptized only the oikos, the infants ! ! ! The oikia was not baptized, but the oikos was. Paul and Silas, then, were more successful in discipleing the oikos than the oikia. Mr. R's infants, they were more easily converted than the servants. They spake the word of the Lord to all the jailer's servants, but not to his wife nor children, if he had any ! Partial preachers these. Assuredly they were Paido-baptists!!" "We shall, for the sake of giving sufficient data to explode this absurd criticism, here register more circumstantially and methodically, a number of plain evidences or proofs of its falsehood. We shall first shew that oikos and oikia are used by the inspired penmen of the New Testament as completely synonymous. The Centurion's house, whose faith was so famed, and whose servant the Messiah cured, is, by Luke, in the VI. Chapter, called, verse 6th, oikia, and in verse 10th it is called oikos The same house is by Matthew called oikia, Chap. viii. 6. Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue,
( 328 )
whose daughter the Messiah brought to life, had a house, which Luke calls oikos, ChaJ). viii. 41; and and in the same chapter, verse 51, he calls the same house oikia. Mark calls the same house oikos, Chap. v. 38, and Matthew calls it oikia, Chap. v. 23. In the parable concerning the house divided against itself, which is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is called oikia, Matt. xii. 25 , also oikia, Mark iii. 25, but it is called oikos epi oikon, Luke xi. 17. In the parable concerning the house being attacked by thieves, recorded by Matthew and Luke, Matthew calls it oikia, Chap, xxiv. 43, and Luke calls the same house oikos, Chap, xii. 39. The same house is called both oikos and oikia in the same verse, Luke x. 5. Into whatever house, (oikia} ye enter, say peace be to this house, (oikos. ,) The Messiah calls his Father's house both oikos and oikia, John ii. 16, and xiv. 2. The house of Martha and Mary is called oikos, John xi. 20, and in the same chapter it is called oikia, verse 31. These few instances, selected from the four Gospels only, will show how much dependence ought to be placed on such critics, the very foundation of whose criticisms is laid in a falsehood, viz. that oikos and oikia literally signify a house, but not the same kind of a house. We have produced from the very portion of the Bible where they say this distinction is observed with the greatest accuracy, unequivocal evidences that both words are used to denote the same kind of an house. Many instances more can be produced. We shall expose the fallacy of this new discovery a little farther. These sagacious Doctors of divinity say, that oikia literally signifies the servants' house, and metaphorically signifies the servants themselves. Thus Dr. Hallston, 'oikia signifies a man's household or servants.' Let us test the correctness of this assertion. Matt. x. 1 2. Salute the house when ye enter it, (oikia) i. e. salute the servants only. Matt. x. 13. If the house, (oikia} be worthy, i. c. the servants. Matt. xii. 25. Every house divided, (oikia) i. c. servants, divided come to desolation. The Centurion, whose son Jesus healed, John iv.
( 329 )
50, believed, with all his house, (oilcia ok] i. c. all his servants only believed. Matth. xiii. 57, A prophet hath no honour in his own house, (oilcia} i. e. among his slaves or servants. Joshua said, as for me and my house, (oilcia) we will serve the Lord, i. e. myself and my servants. Receive him not into your house, (oikia) i. e. into your kitchen among your servants. In every great house, (oilcia) there are vessels of gold and silver, &c. i. e. in every great hut or cabin. In my Father's house, (oilcia) are many mansions. I forbear to expose this criticism farther. Hundreds of instances similar to those adduced can be given. But we must not pass by the most important point, viz. that oilcos signifies sometimes children, and even infants, apart from their parents. And what of this, ye sagacious critics ! The word family in English, very often signifies the same thing! But does that prove any thing favourable to your hypothesis ! So long as the word family, which you say is the meaning of oilcos, frequently denotes all that live under one father, mother, master, or mistress, whether infants or adults, so long it remains to be determined, from the circumstances of the case, who are the constituents or members of the family; and thus, after all your boasted discovery, you have to confess yourselves to be just where you were; unable to prove that there ever was an infant in any house, oilcia, or family that was baptized. But you intended to carry some point by the discovery, and we know of nothing you could propose, except to lead captive the ignorant and unwary admirers of THE PATENTED PRIESTHOOD. For, Gentlemen, you must know that oilcos and oilcia are used interchangeably in all books, and by all Greek writers, if you know any thing of Greek; and you must know, if you have read the Septuagint of the Old Testament, that oilcos hundreds of times is applied to denote every kind of house or family. The very first time it occurs is Gen. vii. 1, where Noah is commanded to take all his house into the ark, oilcos. Now we all know that Noah's oilcos was composed of three other oikoi, and that each of these oilcos [[T t
( 330 )
was composed of adults: four oikoi composed (pas o oikos) all the house of Noah. The youngest child or infant in this house (oikos) was about 98 years old. This same oiJcos occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Numbers, and includes under 12 occurrences 603,550 adults from 20 years and upwards. And so extremely far from truth and correctness is this criticism, that we can furnish instances where oiJcos signifies a man's servants. Thus Gen. xvii. 27, all the men of Abraham's house, oiJcos, of which there were 318 servants born in his oikos, were circumcised when Abraham's eldest son was 13 years old. Observe, not oikia, household, but oikos, house ! But observe, God said of Abraham, he will order his children, (hoi huioi) and his household, oiJcos, yes, oikos, his servants, not oikia. Joseph was placed over the house of Pharaoh, (oiJcos,) i. e. over all his servants, noble and ignoble, Gen. xli. 40. Solomon gave Hiram 20,000 measures of wheat, and 20 measures of pure oil every year for the use, for the annual consumption of his oikos. Assuredly Hiram must have had many infants to consume all this!! Again, the whole house of Jacob is sometimes called oikos, and pan oikia, Gen. 1. 22. xlvi. 31, &c. cfec. To round off this bold period of learned criticism, Mr. Rallston adds, [[* It is true, indeed, that the English Translators have sometimes rendered both words house, and sometimes household, but the distinction is generally observed with accuracy,' (mark this,) and, adds he, 'certainly it would have been better to have uniformly rendered OIKOS house, and OIKIA household, as they have done, (once) Phil. iv. 22.' Now, courteous reader, [hearer,] don't be startled when I tell you that it is a fact that our Translators, in the New Testament, have only once translated oikia, household, and oikos three times, and that of forty three times household in the English Old Testament forty one times it is oikos, in the Septuagint, and only twice oikia [[f f When this is denied, we shall give chapter and verse. So speaks the Paido-baptist, and so speaks fact. Now judge ye. Thus I have shewn that the whole of this
( 331 )
criticism is a mere fabrication of an overweening imagination, say the best of it. Were it necessary I could fill, from Classical authority, a respectable pamphlet of refutations of this miserable refuge. But as the Old and New Testament were only referred to on this point, I confine myself exclusively to them," "and design it to stand here as a refutation of Taylor's, Rice's, Rallston's, and M'Calla's new theory of positive proof. I should except Mr. Rallston, for he only calls the argument derived from the family baptism, * presumptive evidence' of apostolic practice. Mr. M'Calla presumes a little farther, and calls it positive proof. We will call it positive proof of positive presumption." (u)
Thus has my Baptist Opponent entertained you. His ingenuity, wit, and severity, I leave you to admire. The charge of falsehood, which he has so liberally brought against Mr. Rallston, needs no other notice than to remind you, that it is merely grounded upon his holding a different opinion from my Opponent. Mr. Rallston thinks, that even when oilcos and oikia are applied to the same tenement or the same domestic community, they do not mean the same part of that tenement or the same persons of that community. My Opponent boisterously asserts that they do mean the same, and that "any person that knows the Greek alphabet can see that" his opinion is right, and that Mr. Rallston or any other person who holds a different opinion is guilty of falsehood and lying, which charges are so agreeable to him in this sad dearth of argument, that he repeats them as often as three times in one breath.
Yet while my Opponent would thus stigmatize Mr. R. for a mere difference of opinion, ought he not to be more careful of his own statements as to matters of fact? In relation to this criticism on oikos and oikia, he has unreservedly asserted that "Mr. R.? ' is the man "from whom
__________
(?/) This argument, chiefly elaborated since the real debate, is copied from Mr. Campbell's Spurious Report, where it will be found in the text and a large note of pp. 262265. 278283.
( 332 )
the criticism is taken." (v) Now this whole audience, whether acquainted with the Greek alphabet or not, knows that I did not take it from Mr. R. They know also that the Pamphleteer does not even publish it as the production of Dr. Rice of Virginia, but as taken from Taylor, the Editor of CalmetY Dictionary. With this fact my Opponent shews himself to be acquainted: for in a former speech he called it "the criticism of Rice and Taylor, on the words oiJcos and oikia" (iv) Knowing this, what invectives could have conveyed his indignation against Mr. R. if Mr. R. himself had so far forgotten the truth, as to claim originality in this argument, or to assert that I had taken it from him? Yet an assertion, which, in the judgment of our Greek scholar, would have constituted Mr. R. guilty of falsehood and lying, my Opponent, to answer a purpose(a?) can make, without a blush.
But whosoever originated this argument, my Opponent is determined that no one shall make it good, if he can prevent it, by prejudgments and arbitrary restrictions. He says, "Mr. M'Calla affirms, that there were infants baptized in Lydia's house, let him prove it then. But it is impossible. Ergo, Mr. M'Calla affirms that which he cannot prove." (y) To make this undertaking impossible, as he thinks, he insists repeatedly and emphatically, that I must "prove POSITIVELY, that there were infants in this family/' By this word POSITIVELY, he means, according to the context, that I must find out Lydia's husband, and the number, age, education, and residence of her children. Upon such terms as these, I should be glad to know how my Opponent
__________
T;) Spurious Deft. p. 280. This and the context are copied above, w) Spurious Deb. p. 262, copied above.
(x) Mr. Campbell's Spurious Debate divulges the reason of this wild statement. There it appears that he was not possessed of either Taylor's or Rice's, or my argument, and, therefore, copied Mr. Rallston's forme. My Collateral Papers, published some time ago, shew, that this is only one of many "refuges of' lies" to which he was driven by the scantiness of his materials and the badness of his cause.
(//) Spurious Debate, p. 266.
( 333 )
would set about proving POSITIVELY from the scriptures, that Tabitha, or any other female, was ever admitted to the Lord's table. Let him give us her name, in connexion with a direct statement of the fact, accompanied with the name of the administrator, and the time, place, and circumstances of the communion. After his declining this undertaking, as he certainly will, would you not think me a wonderful logician, to close the question of female communion, as he has done that of household baptism? Let us see how the argument would walk.
** My Opponent affirms that females communed with the Apostles.
Let him prove it then.
But it is impossible.
ERGO, my Opponent affirms that which he cannot prove !!"
If those whom my Opponent politely calls "The Patented Priesthood" were to compose such a syllogism, he would hardly give them credit for patented powers of reasoning. In opposition to this he would tell us, as he has done, that the communion was administered to disciples: disciples include female believers: ergo, the communion was administered to female believers. So we say, Baptism was administered to households: households include infants: therefore, baptism was administered to infants. Now the question in both these cases is this; Do disciples include females? Do households include infants? To shew that households do not embrace infants, my Opponent quotes Noah's household consisting height adults without one infant. Would he think it conclusive in the other question, to remind him, that the first company of ^communicants in the Christian church, consisted of eleven or twelve DISCIPLES without one, FEMALE? Does this shew that disciples do not include females? My Opponent says, No. Then neither does the case of Noah, or any other case, shew that households do not embrace infants. To prove his point, my Opponent produces one passage of scripture, calling Tabitha a disciple. To prove mine, it will be convenient
( 334 )
to shew that infants belong to households, by as many authorities as your patience can endure: and after so much has been said on oikos and oikia by my Opponent, it is to be feared that indulgence will be almost as difficult for you, as it is necessary for me.
There are certain principles which are acknowledged, either expressly or practically, by all men of real learning, who undertake the explanation of words, whether in the scriptures or elsewhere. These principles my Opponent takes for granted, and to them he virtually appeals for a verdict in his favour. As they are really in my favour, an express recognition of them would be an advantage; and the time occupied in stating them would be compensated by their shewing the bearing of the evidence adduced. They shall be transcribed from Classical and Theological scholars, and among the latter, from Baptist as well as Pedobaptist authority. The celebrated Duke de Montausier, who was the first promoter of what we call the Dauphin edition of the Classics, used often to say that in "The difficulties which occur to us in reading the works of the ancients," arising "from our not knowing in what sense they used such a word formerly" "the commentator should endeavour to determine the meaning of the word in question, by consulting how it is used by the same author, in other places, where the meaning of it may be more evident; or by any other of the same country, and as near as may be of the same times." (z] On the same subject, the celebrated Thomas Harlwell Home, in his Introduction to the Bible, directs us to "ascertain the notion affixed to a word by the persons in general, by whom the language either is now or formerly was spoken, and especially in the particular connexion in which such notion is affixed." "The meaning of a word used by any writer, is the meaning affixed to it by those for whom he immediately wrote. For there is a
__________
(z) Quoted in the Preface of Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, from Spcnce's Polymetis, p. 286.
( 335 )
kind of natural compact between those who write and those who speak a language; by which they are mutually bound to use words in a certain sense: he, therefore, who uses such words in a different signification, in a manner violates that compact, and is in danger of leading men into error" ** The received signification of a word is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should be abandoned or neglected" (a] To the same purport, the late Dr. Ryland, an eminent Baptist clergyman of England, says, "Every word should be taken in its primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning, unless, there be something in the connexion, or in the nature of things, which requires it to be taken otherwise." "Whenever, by the connexion of a term, or by the nature of things, we are obliged to depart from the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning of a word, we should depart as little as possible from that meaning; and even with reluctance." (b) To these rules I have no objection, though an experienced polemic will easily perceive that in the construction of them, Dr. Ryland had his eye on the Baptist controversy. The same prejudice is so obvious in another rule, as to make it perfectly nugatory. It is as follows, viz. u Whatever is expressed in scripture, is conclusive argument: whatever is not expressed, is not conclusive [[^' If Dr. Ryland, or my Opponent, or any other person can shew that female communion is expressed in scripture, then I will shew that infant baptism is expressed there. But if they consider the communion of disciples an expression of female communion, then the baptism of households is an expression of infant baptism.
The application of the canons now read, to the matter in hand, is plainly this. There is a dispute about the meaning of the word household, as it is used a few times in the New Testament, in connexion with baptism. The question is, Does this word household include in-
__________
(a) Home's Introd. vol. 2. Part. 2. Chap. 2.
(A) Taylor's second publication of Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism, p. 23.
( 336 )
fants, as the word disciples includes females? We affirm; they deny. Both Baptists and Pedobaptists agree that it must embrace infants, if the following statements can be made good, viz. 1. The word household and its cognates, embrace infants, in the "primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning" of the words. 2. In the disputed passages, there is nothing connected with the word household, which requires it to be taken otherwise than in its "primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning." 3. This was the meaning of the word household, among those for whom the authors of the disputed passages "immediately wrote." 4. This was the meaning of the word household and its conjugates, in other writings of the same authors, and of cotemporary authors, and of former authors, Sacred and Profane, with whose writings they were more or less familiar. These positions, therefore, I shall, with divine assistance, endeavour to make good, in the examination of the following Greek words and phrases. [[Ocxca, rfavotxia, ^oueta, ?taca rtagoixia: Otxoj, 67,0$ oixo?, jta,$ otxoj, rtavoixf (Tea, rtaKuxtoj, rtavoixi, otxo5o ( ata. otxoSofjLtjj jtaffa otxo8o^vj) otxooju.a. 1 JlCSe]] We Shall endeavour to consider, as they are used in relation to the material or spiritual HOUSE, the ecclesiastical [[orn celestial, the national or sectional, the royal or pontifical, the patriarchal or domestic HOUSE: all of which, if we mistake not, will confirm and illustrate the doctrine, that a household includes infants, and that the household baptism of the New Testament is infant baptism.
You now see the scope of my argument, and you see what ought to be the scope of my Opponent's argument. It is incumbent upon me to shew that OIKOS, house, or household, and its kindred words, include infants. His object is properly to shew that they do not include infants. Yet is this the aim of the argument which he has actually given us? The greater part of his time and strength have been spent in trying to shew the identity of oikos and oikia. A Baptist preacher of England, Mr. Anderson, the learned antagonist of the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, has wasted his strength in the same
( 337 )
way. If this course is really calculated to defeat them in the main question, whether a household includes infants, then their argument lays no obstruction in my way, but is an actual assistance to me. Let us examine this matter for a moment. Among those passages which speak of a house divided against itself, Anderson shews that one Evangelist uses the word oikos, and two others use the word oikia. My Opponent has shown the same thing in your presence. If they have gained their point, they have established the identity of these words: but does this prove that neither of them includes infants? A more minute investigation wall shew from the texts themselves, and from the comments and criticisms of my Opponent and other Baptists, that infants are included in both. One of these passages says, u If a house, OIKIA, be divided against itself, that house, OIKIA, cannot stand. '" (c) Instead of translating the word OIKIA by house, my Opponent's New Testament, in both these places, renders it family; and Dr. Gill says that it means "any family, small or great." Now we know that the majority of families, both small and great, have infants -- and that these infants are liable to be the greatest sufferers in domestic broils. Another of these texts says, "Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought to desolation; and, OIKOS EPI OIKON, a house divided against a house falleth." (c?) But my Opponent's New Testament gives this quite another turn, as follows, viz. "By intestine broils any kingdom may be desolated, one family, OIKOS, falling after another, OIKON." According to this translation, the name of oikos is expressly given to every family in the kingdom: for the kingdom is desolated in detail, family falling after family. Is it possible to find a kingdom whose families have no infants? This itself would soon bring them to desolation, if there were no divisions among them. But perhaps my Opponent means to deny the existence of infants in any of these households throughout the kingdom, however
__________
() Mark iii. 55. (d] Luke xi. 17.
( 338 )
numerous and fruitful their Lydia's may be, until, for the honor of the sex, we can obtain some account of their husbands, as he requires in the case of our converted Lydia. I hope you now see that instead of laying obstructions in our way, by his laborious criticisms on oikoSy and oikia, he has aided in proving, that a household, whether called by the one Greek name or the other, ordinarily includes infants.
If I understand those who make a distinction between oilcos and oikia, they consider the first as comprehending the children of the householder, and the second as including the rest of the family, particularly the servants. These appear to consider the servants as excluded from household baptism, because the New Testament says nothing of baptizing any person's oikia, but the oilcos only. As this position was taken by some Pedobaptists, Mr. Anderson of England thought it, of course, his duty to say the very contrary. He accordingly makes a great display of learning to prove "that OIKIA signifies [[/amzVy]], exclusive of attendants;" and "that OIKOS has the sense of family y including domestics." U/) You may perhaps, ask how this will comport with my Opponent's very positive assertion that "there is no more difference betwixt the use and application of the words oikos and oikia, than there is between the words brothers and brethren:" yet, inconsistent as it may seem, Mr. Anderson also labours to prove that they are synonimous; and it does not lie in my way to dispute the matter with them. Household circumcision was administered to the infants of servants, as well as those of the master; because they were all to be trained up in the way they should go: and, as for the difficulty suggested by the circumcision of so many adults in Abraham's family, this is removed by inspired testimony; that they were already "trained up by him in religious exercises," as Dr. Gill expressly admits. (e) On this subject I agree
__________
(d} Taylor's pamphlet, entitled, "The Baptists Self-convicted, by the Rev. William Andersen," p. 30.
(r) (len. xiv. 14.
( 339 )
with the sentiments expressed by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, A. D., 1786, and by our General Assembly, in the year 1816. The Act of the former reads thus: "The following case of conscience from Donnegal Presbytery was overtured, viz. Whether Christian masters, or mistresses, ought in duty to have such children baptized, as are under their care, though born of parents not in the communion of any Christian church? Upon this overture Synod are of opinion, that Christian masters and mistresses whose religious professions and conduct are such, as to give them a right to the ordinance of baptism for their own children, may, and ought to, dedicate the children of their HOUSEHOLD to God, in that ordinance, when they have no scruple of conscience to the contrary." The subsequent Act of our General Assembly reads thus: "The Committee to whom was referred the following question, viz. Ought baptism, on the profession and promise of the master, to be administered to the children of slaves? reported, and their report being amended, was adopted, and is as follows, viz. 1. That it is the duty of masters who are members of the church, to present the children of parents in servitude to the ordinance of baptism, provided they are in a situation to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, thus securing to them the rich advantages which the gospel provides. 2. That it is the duty of Christ's ministers to inculcate this doctrine, and to baptize all children of this description, when presented to them by their masters." (/) Our church, then, has already agreed with my Opponent and Mr. Anderson in believing that OIKOS, house or household, includes servants. That it certainly includes infants, we now proceed to prove, from the proposed examination of itself and the words related to it, in the following sections and particulars.
__________
(/) Assembly's Digest, pp. 96, 97.
( 340 )
I.
OIKIA.
This word has, in one instance at least, been the occasion of much stumbling to Baptists and Pedobaptists. This one instance is 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16. "I beseech you, brethren, (Ye know the HOUSE of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such 9 and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth." On this passage an able writer of our own country, Dr. Rice, in his Pamphleteer, (0) speaks as follows, viz. "I confess, however, that this passage, as it stands in the Original, presents difficulties in its grammatical structure, which I do not know well what to do with. I speak here not as a theologian or polemic, but simply as a grammarian. And adopt what system of doctrine I may, the difficulty presses on me: nor do I stand alone in this case. The harshness and difficulty of the Original has embarrassed every commentator that I have seen. The best solution of the sentence that I have met with, is to be found in the pamphlet already quoted, under the title of Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism." Dr. Rice then gives a long extract from one of the able pamphlets of Taylor, the English Editor of Calmet's Dictionary; a part of which reads as follows, viz. "The passage respecting the household of Stephanas is a tissue of difficulties. The first remark on it is, that, as it stands, it is neither Greek, grammar, nor common sense. It cannot be regularly construed. All commentators have felt this, and have attempted to force it into sense by supplementary words." At last this eminent scholar concludes that we should drop from the text all that part of the 15th verse, which our Translators have enclosed
__________
(o) p. 58.
( 341 )
in parenthesis, and that we should consider it as only intended by the Apostle as a marginal note; but one which was unskilfully introduced into the text too early to leave any trace in our ancient manuscripts or versions. This conjectural emendation, he thinks absolutely necessary, to preserve the passage from the absurdity, of commanding the whole Corinthian church, and Stephanas among them, to submit to his servants, or, at best, his children, intended by household, as some think.
I confess myself utterly averse to taking such liberties with the Original text, merely because it appears harsh, ungratnmatical, and hard to be understood. Would not this plan, generally and uniformly pursued, make a new bible? or, rather, would it not make bibles as numerous and various as the tastes and understandings of critics and commentators? This would certainly make sad work of our only infallible standard, not excepting that portion of it which was written by Paul, the penman of the text; in whose epistles, as Peter tells us, "are some things hard to be understood."
I am inclined, however, to doubt, whether Peter would attribute this character to our text. The difficulty, with us, monstrous as it is said to be, appears to arise only from a slight inadvertency in interpreting the reference of a single word. The word SUCH in the 16th verse, may be understood to refer to one of two things in the 15th verse; that is, either house or saints. If to the former, then the passage is difficult: but if to the latter, it is easy and consistent. This will appear, I think, when the subject has received that patient investigation, which our highly respectable objectors have given to other passages of scripture.
If the word SUCH refer to the house of Stephanas, then the Apostle seems to require, that as the household or
children of Stephanas had ministered to the saints, therefore, the church of Corinth, and even Stephanas himself,
must submit to these children. This would teach, that where a house of children exercises a benevolent ministry,
or DEACONRY, to Christians, they,
( 342 )
thereby, acquire a right to govern their parents, contrary to the Apostle's instructions to Timothy, that Deacons should have a character for "ruling their children and their own houses well;" (o) instead of letting their houses rule them. Instead of this ministration to the saints giving a right to rule, the same Apostle, in the next epistle, declares, that it is itself an evidence of submission. "Whiles by the experiment of this DEACONLY, ministration, they glorified God for your professed HYPOTAGE, submission, to the gospel of Christ." It seems, therefore, that SUCH cannot refer to the house of Stephanas, as Christians are not required to submit to children.
If, however, we can lawfully construe the word SUCH, as referring to the saints, there is no difficulty in the matter; because the scriptures as uniformly require us to submit to saints, as to govern children. Peter says, "Likewise, ye younger, HYPOTAGETE, submit yourselves unto the elder: yea, all of you, HYPOTASSOMENOI, submit yourselves one to another." (p) In accordance with this, Paul, the penman of our text, says to the Ephesian saints, "HYPOTASSOMENOI, submining, yourselves one to another, in the fear of God." (<7) Let us now paraphrase the passage according to this view, reading the translation given by Macnight, and approved by my Opponent, and, (strange to tell,) copied into his New Testament. It is as follows, viz. "Ye know the family of Stephanas, that it is the first fruit of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the DEACONRY, ministry, to the saints. I entreat you, therefore, brethren, that ye HYPOTASSESTHE, submit yourselves to such, [that is to the saints,] and to every joint worker and labourer, [in the gospel, especially.]"
This interpretation has the advantages of containing no monstrous sentiment, but a meaning which is perfectly scriptural; it preserves the text from any need of
__________
(0} 1 Tim. iii. 12. (fi) 1 Pet. v, 5, (?) Eph. v. 21.
( 343 )
jugulation; and it makes the pronoun SUCH, refer to a nearer and more natural antecedent, instead of one more remote. The amount of the passage is this; that Paul beseeches the Christians of Corinth to submit to the saints, by ministering to them, as the household of Stephanas had ministered to them, and thus submitted to them; and as all saints should submit to one another, and serve one another. This should remove the difficulty, on the part of the Pedobaptists.
But it was observed that the Baptists also stumble at this passage: for they insist that it proves that the OIKIA, household, of Stephanas, consisted of adults, who officiated as deacons, or preachers, or both. Admitting, then, that oikos and oikia have the same meaning, they consider this as proof that the baptized OIKOS, household, of Stephanas, consisted of these same adults, who officiated as deacons or preachers, or both. This conclusion, however, must rest upon one of two positions, both equally false. One is, that there is no other ministration allowed in the Scriptures, besides an official deaconry. But they might as well say that submission is always official, and that none but adults can yield submission and obedience. It may be easily shewn from Scripture that there are personal and pecuniary ministrations or deaconrics, which the saints may and do receive from children. When Jesus went to Bethany, it is said, "There they made him a supper, and Martha DEACONIZED, served." (o) Was hers an official deaconry? or was it above the capacity of children under thirteen years old, whom Jews and Christians consider subjects of infant circumcision and baptism? There are, probably, few of us who are not in the habit of seeing such ministrations from children, black and white, bond and free. Again; Paul says, "But now I go unto Jerusalem, to DEACONIZE, minister, unto the saints. (p) If this pecuniary ministration was an official deaconry, then Paul held the office of a deacon in the church, although this
__________
(9) Jno. xii, 2, (ft) Rom. xv, 2.5.
( 344 )
office was originally instituted for the relief of the Apostles, whose office was entirely distinct. Dr. Gill, therefore, praises the Apostle's condescension, in submittingto this inofficial ministration, "though this might seem below his office as an apostle, and as what more became an inferior officer, a deacon in the church. "But if children may minister food to the saints, surely they may minister money also. Let the collectors of the sabbatical contributions in our churches say, whether children never throw in their mite. Many of us are acquainted with interesting anecdotes upon this subject; and they are becoming more common, as it is more common for parents to teach their children to give their pocket money to pious and benevolent objects, rather than for the mere gratification of their palate. Thus the first position of our opponents will not stand. And as for the second, that household always excludes infants, we hope to shew that this is equally untenable. To this we now more directly proceed.
The word oikia, now under consideration, often designates places or property. Such is thought to be the case, when our Saviour, as reported by three of the Evangelists, (g-) censures the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees, or devouring widows' houses. Dr. Gill believes it to mean the goods deposited in their houses. My Opponent's New Testament, however, in all three of these places, renders it families; ye "devour the families of widows." Now if widows have infants, and these infants belong to their families, "then infants are included in the word oikia, by the decision of my Opponent's own incomparable translation of the New Testament. Even where this word does signify property, it is apt to be that sort which has infant tenants. The Septuagint uses this word for those "tents" in which the "plain man" Jacob was said to dwell. (h) We all know what sort of a family Jacob had, to occupy these tents. This
__________
Matt, xxiii. 14. Mark xii. 40, Luke xx. 47,
Gen. xxv. 17.
( 345 )
word is used in that text also, which says, "As for the stork, the fir-trees are her house." Now we know that the house or nest of birds is usually huilt for no other end than the accommodation of their young. Indeed Mr. Thomson, a favourite translator of my Opponent, considers these directly intended in the text. His translation of the Septuagint says "The family of the stork account them their own." Akin to these texts is that one which says, "But in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour." (r) This great house is literally the place and the property of the owner: but Gill considers it a figure of the church. Whether this great house contains any small vessels or not, may be learned from the same Apostle, who spoke to the Corinthians," even as unto babes in Christ;" (/) and said to the Hebrews, "Every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." (k) Passing over many instances in which this word directly denotes families with infants, we shall only specify two or three. Moses says to Israel, "Thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath given unto thee, and unto thine house." (I) Dr. Gill explains it, "To them and their families, by which they were comfortably provided for." Here the word is applied to every family in that miraculously fruitful nation, and is used in connexion with that provision which God made for the youngest infants in those families; with which the parents are said to rejoice, as the jailer did with all his house. Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "and thou shalt live, and thy house." (m] Dr. Gill says, "not only himself, but his wives and children and servants." It appears, then, that oikia is used in the Greek Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to include children and servants. The same thing appears more glaring, if possible, in that passage in which Joseph says to his brethren, "Fear not; I will nourish you and your
__________
(0 2 Tim. ii. 20. (j) 1 Cor. iii. 1. (*) Heb. v. 13.
(/) Deut. xxvi. 11. (in} Jcr. xxxviii. 17.
( 346 )
OIKIAS, households." (n) The Hebrew word (o) which is here translated OIKIAS by the Septuagint, is a collective noun, signifying, as Parkhurst says, "young children" Calasio explains it by "CCETUS SEU MULTITUDO PUERORUM ET INFANTIUM, a collection or multitude of children and infants" The latter, with the Vulgate and Tremellius, has rendered it in the text, by the word PARVULOS, little ones; exactly the rendering of our English Bible, "I will nourish you and your little ones." The manner in which the word is used throughout the Scriptures, proves this to be its real meaning. Robinson, after his fashion, would make them all young men and women, as he does the "little ones" of Tertullian: but Ezekiel expressly distinguishes these "little children" as our translation has it, from old men and women, from young men and maids. (p) And the history preceding our text, speaks of these little ones as nurslings which need to be carried in waggons, with their mothers and the aged Patriarch Jacob, Pharaoh says, "Take you waggons out of the land of Egypt, for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come." "And Jacob rose up from Beer-sheba: and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives, in the waggons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him." (q) It is no wonder, therefore, that when Joseph promises to nourish them and their oikias, Dr. Gill should explain it, as he has done, in the following words, viz. "will nourish you and your LITTLE ONES; provide food for them and their families, not only for themselves and their sons, now grown up, but their grand children, and even the youngest and latest of their families should share in his favours." In this instance the Septuagint uses OIKIA not as a general term including infants, but as a particular and distinct designation of infants. If, then, as Mr. Anderson and my Opponent allege, OIKIA and OIKOS are synonymous, OIKOS also must designate infants; and the household baptism of the New Testament be infant baptism.
__________
(n) Gen. 1. 21. (o) f|D
(/) Ez. ix. $. (?) Gen. xlv. 19. xlvi. 5.
( 347 )
II.
PANOIKIA.
Taylor quotes from Apocryphal Greek, that Haman was "hanged at the gates of Susa, SUN TE PANOIKIA, "with all his household;" (s] among whom were ten sons. This was in consequence of Esther's obtaining a decree, empowering "the Jews which were in every city, to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women." (f) This decree was intended as an offset to a preceding one "to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women." (M) It must be evident to "every candid and intelligent person, that it was Hainan's intention to destroy every Jewish subject with his whole household, "young and old, little children and women;" that it was the intention of Mordecai and Esther to destroy every assailant, with his a LITTLE ONES and women :" in consequence of which retaliation, thousands of infants actually perished, some of whom most probably belonged to the numerous panoikia of Haman.
III.
PAROIKIA.
"Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob." (v) For household here the Septuagint reads PAROIKIA.U #) Dr. Gill considers it as embracing "their families, wives, children, and servants." After the armed adventurers of the tribe of Dan had secured Micah's priest, it is said "They turned and departed,
(s) Apocryphal Esther xvi. 18. (Gr. 12.) in Bap. Self-convict, p. 45.
J Esther viii. 11. (u} Esth. iii. 13, (v) Ex. i. 1.
__________
(w) I observe that the Margin of Calasio reads fianoiki. This is the reading of Grab: but the Septuagint of Wechelius, and the Venetian edition, both weighty, read [[/zarozfa'a]].
( 348 )
and put the little ones and the cattle and the carriage before them." (a?) Dr. Gill believes that these predatory emigrants carried their wives with them, though they are not mentioned. As for these "little ones" the Doctor considers them their "children." "Little ones" is a literal translation of the Hebrew, (y) and is an exact accordance with the parvulos of the Latin Vulgate, of Junius and Tremellius, ofTrommius, and of Sebastian Castallio. The Vatican Septuagint has TA TEKNE, children, a good rendering, though a bad reading. Grab has a better reading, panoikia; and best of all, the Aldine Septuagint reads paroikia. This reading is reported by Calasio, in the margin of his Hebrew Concordance, and found in the text of the Francfort Septuagint, used by Kircher and Trommius in their Concordances to the Septuagint. Here then, is an instance in which this ancient version uses paroikia, not as a general term including infants, but as a particular and distinct designation of infants. The conclusion to which analogy would lead us is obvious.
IV.
PASA PAROIKIA OR PANOIKIA.
The first is the reading of the Francfort edition, and the second of the Vatican and others, in Gen. 1. 22. "And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his brethren, and all his father's numerous household." Dr. Gill says, "Not only he but his brethren and their families." The preceding verse shews that these families were composed, in great part, of "little ones," there called oikia. These infants, then, must, of course, be included in pasa panoikia, which appears intended to magnify oikia doubly.
V.
OIKOS.
Like oikia this sometimes signifies property, BONA, FACULTATES, as Hedericus explains it. The Lord said
__________
(jc) Judg. xviii. 21. (y) *
( 349 )
to David, "I gave thee thy Master's house." () Gill says "his family, his wives, servants, wealth and riches." Solomon says, "If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned." (a) So the thief shall give all the substance of his house." (b) So Jehoram's enemies carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house." (c) Pharaoh says to Joseph, "Thou shalt be over my house." (d) Gill says, "have the care of his domestic affairs, and be the principal man in his palace and court." While with Potiphar, Joseph said, "Behold my master wotteth not what is with me in the house." (e) Gill says, "what goods or money are in it." Concerning the dinner which Joseph gave to his brethren, he gave orders "to the ruler of his house." Gill says, "his steward;" and so Moses calls him in the context. (/) The steward of the house was to take care of the property which was in the house. But when this word denotes the building itself, and still more when it is applied to persons, it illustrates and confirms the doctrine that household baptism is infant baptism, as we shall see in the following particulars.
1. The Material or Mechanical House. For a few examples we would refer to the house of Zacharias and Mary; (g) the house which the owner suffered to be broken through; (A) the king's house, and houses of the people, which the Chaldeans burned with fire. (t) They burnt moreover the house of the Lord, which was a figure of the church, with all its members, infant and adult. (/) Our Translators have once rendered OIKOS, temple; (k) and where they say, "Your house is left unto you desolate," (/) Gill considers it as including "the
__________
z) 2 Sam. xii. 8. (a) Cant. viii. 7.
6) Prov. vi. 31 (c) 2 Chr. xxi. 17.
rf) Gen. xli. 40 4. So Gen. xlv. 8. and Acts vii. 10.
e) Gen. xxxix. 8.
/) Gen. xliii. 16. 19. So Gen. xxxix. 4. 5. Ps. cv. 21,
) Luke i. 40. 56. (//) Luke xii. 39.
i) Jer. xxxix, 8. ^j ) Jer. Hi. 13.
k) Luke xi. 51, (/) Matt, xxiii. 58.
( 350 )
temple, formerly the house of God, but now only [[theirs]]." With the burning of this house, Ezekiel expressly connects the slaying of their sons and daughters;(m) and the Septuagint considered Ezra as implicitly recognizing this connexion, when he calls it "The house of the great God, which is builded with elect stones," (n) according to their rendering. As they have here called the constituents of the material temple, elect stones, so they have elsewhere applied the epithet elect, to the foundation and chief-corner stone of the spiritual temple. (o) In this they are copied by the Apostle Peter, where he speaks of the spiritual house being built up of lively stones. (p) It is evident, therefore, that the building of the material house of elect stones, is intended to illustrate the building of the spiritual house of elect stones, and of infants, of course, if there be any elect infants. That there are elect infants, is admitted even by the most rigid Calvinists; among whom I desire always to be ranked. On this subject my sentiments are exactly expressed by our excellent Confession. ^) As almost all errorists believe in the universal election of infants, both sides should agree that they belong to this house.
2. The Spiritual House. Paul says of Christ, that he is a faithful ruler "a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (r) The angel said to Mary, "He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever." (s) Dr. Gill says, "As his father David reigned over the Idumeans, Syrians, and others, as well as over the house of Judah, and Israel, so this his son shall reign over both Jews and Gentiles: his kingdom shall be from one end of the earth to the other, even over all the elect of God." Now if there are infants to be found among "Jews and Gentiles;" if there are infants to be found "from one
__________
(m) Ez.xxiii. 47. (n) Ezr. v. 8.
(o) Is*, xxviii. 16. (A) 1 Pet. ii. 5. 6.
(7) Chap. 10. Sect, 3. (r) Hcbr. iii. 6. (*) Luke i. 33.
( 351 )
end of the earth to the other;" and if there are infants to be found among "all the elect of God;" then, according to this commentary of the great Dr. Gill, infants must be included in that "house of Jacob," over which Christ shall reign for ever. The fact that every converted adult becomes a spiritual infant in regeneration, will be found, on examination, to be more for us than against us. In relation to this spiritual birth, the scriptures speak as follows. "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord." (/) In reference to this desolate church it is said, "God setteth the solitary in families." (w) Gill understands this of converts, who "are set in families, or placed in gospel churches, which, as families, have a master over them, who is Christ the Son and first born, of whom they are named; where are saints of various ages, sizes, and standing; some fathers, some young men, and some children." Paul had to speak to the Corinthians, "even as unto babes in Christ." (f) To the Hebrews he said, "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe." (w) Concerning the excellent woman, Solomon says, "She riseth also while it is yet night; and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens." (57) Dr. Gill says that "spiritually may be meant by her household or family, the same with the family of Christ, that is named of himself, which consists of various persons, fathers, young men and children." As to the maidens, the ministers, these are to distribute "milk indeed to babes, and meat to strong men." Of this same woman, Solomon says: "She is not afraid of the snow for her household; for all her household are clothed with scarlet." (y) Gill
__________
(0 Isa. liv. 1. Comp. Gal. iv. 26. 27.
(w) Ps. Ixviii. 6. (v) 1 Cor. iii. 1.
(iv) Hebr. v. 13. (.r) Prov, xxxi. 15.
(v) Prov. xxxi. 21.
( 352 )
admits that this passage has a literal meaning, and that of course, literal infants are included in this woman's household: but when he spiritualizes it, and considers the scarlet clothing as pointing to Christ's blood, does he mean that no literal infants have the benefit of this crimson covering? Certainly not. Then, as I said before, the fact that adults become spiritual infants by regeneration, by no means refutes the doctrine that there are literal infants in the spiritual household, but rather establishes it. When Peter says, "Ye also, as lively f( stones, are built up a spiritual house" (z] Gill says that these lively stones "lie in the same quarry, and are the same by nature, as the rest of mankind, till dug out and separated from thence, by the powerful and efficacious grace of God." Now I would ask, are there no literal infants in nature's quarry? and are there no literal infants which are "dug out from thence by the powerful and efficacious grace of God ?" You will answer, Yes. Then there are literal infants belonging to the spiritual house. But the Doctor believes that there is a spiritual house of Antichrist as well as of Christ. When Solomon says, "The Lord will destroy the house of the proud," (a) Gill understands it generally, as including all proud persons, "their families, their children, and posterity;" and particularly, "the house of the foolish and adulterous woman, the idolatrous church of Rome." Now I ask, are there no infants in the families, children, and posterity of the proud? Are there no infants in the house of the Roman Harlot? The Anabaptists say that infant baptism is a main pillar of Popery. Yet they themselves must and do acknowledge that the spiritual house of Christ has infants, as certainly as the spiritual house of Antichrist. Analogy, therefore, would teach us that household baptism is really infant baptism; although we should be very far from following the Roman Antichrist in their corruptions of this ordinance.
__________
(r) 1 Pet. ii. 5. (a) Prov. xv. 25.
( 353 )
3. The Ecclesiastical House. Several texts quoted on the spiritual house, are instances which apply, primarily and literally, to the domestic house hereafter to be considered: but Dr. Gill, by an allowable allegorizing, applies them to the invisible church, and also, in general, to the visible church, the ecclesiastical house. On that passage in which Solomon's woman "giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens;" Gill says, "It is by these the church gives meat to her household." When Solomon says, "He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children." Gill says, "This may be applied to the church of God, as it is to the congregation of Israel by the Targum" But if this application be made, it must recognize literal infants in the church of God; for they belong to the congregation of Israel; and they are certainly included in the house here mentioned, in the literal sense of the passage, according to an express statement of Dr. Gill, which we may take a future opportunity of quoting. The membership of infants in the Jewish and Christian churches alike, shews itself plainly, to one who traces through the New Testament, this important word household. "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (b) Here the Jewish and Christian societies are considered as one household, built upon a common foundation, and united by a common corner. But it is certain that household circumcision was infant circumcision; and if the Jewish household included infants, why not the Christian household? It is said moreover, that "Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." Dr. Gill says, "He was not a servant in the world, and with respect to civil things, and the affairs of Providence, but in the
__________
Eph. ii. 1922.
( 354 )
church of God" even "in the house of Israel, or among that people which were the Lord? s family." (c) Whether the "Lord's family," as it existed in the "house of Israel" had infants or not, judge ye. It is undeniable that infants did belong to the Jewish ecclesiastical house. But Paul's words which immediately follow those just now quoted, prove the identity of the Jewish and the Christian ecclesiastical house: "But Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are we" (d] In the preceding verse, Dr. Gill could see plainly that an ecclesiastical house was meant: His commentary would have been more correct and perspicuous, if he had told us the same of this last verse, which belongs to the same sentence; especially when the same Apostle tells a Christian minister how to behave himself "in the house of God, which is the church of the living God." (e) But there is reason to suppose that the Doctor meant a church, when he spoke of a spiritual house, as he does in his exposition of Peter's "spiritual house" where he says, "These living stones, being laid and cemented together, in a gospel church-state, become the house of God in a spiritual sense." (/) In conformity with these views, the ecclesiastical house to which I belong, considers itself a spiritual house built upon a spiritual foundation. In speaking of the judicatories of the church, our Constitution says, "These assemblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to inflict any civil penalties. Their power is wholly moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial and declarative." ^) Accordingly they say, "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ:" (h) even he of whom it is said, "The stone which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the corner." (0 Gill tells us that those rejecters
__________
(c) Gill on Hebr. iii. 5. and Num. xii. 7.
(a?) Hebr. iii. 6. (e) 1 Tim. iii. 15.
(/) Gill on 1 Pet. ii. 5.
(?) Form of Gov. Chap. 8. Sect. 2.
(/) Confess, of Faith. Chap. 25. Sect. 6,
(0 Ps, cxviji. 22.
( 355 )
are ''those who were the support of their civil state, and the maintainers of it; but more especially their ecclesiastical builders." "They refused to make use of him in the spiritual building." This spiritual ecclesiastical house in which the Jews refused to use this head corner stone, had infants, beyond all contradiction; and one instance in which they rejected him from their building, was, when "All the people answered and said, His blood be on us and on our "children." (j) Dr. Gill says, "It is a notion of the Jews, that the guilt of innocent blood, and the blood of that innocent man's children, lie not only upon the persons immediately concerned but upon their children to the end of the world." "This imprecation of theirs has been notoriously verified in them." (t On the generality of them his blood was, in the sense they wished it." "And to this day this dreadful wish of the blood of Christ upon them is to be seen in their miserable, abject and captive state; and will be, until such time as they look to him whom they have pierced and mourn." This appears to be contemplated by that prediction that "Judgment must begin at the house of God." (A) When this judgment did begin, the infants of this house of God were in some cases actually eaten by their own mothers, as we are informed both by scripture prophecy and the history of Josephus. But before this just and dreadful judgment against the Old Testament ecclesiastical house, with its adults and infants, Christ came "unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," (l) with its adults and infants: and he is still an High Priest over the house of God," (m) with its adults and infants, and "he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever:" () for even in the New Testament dispensation, "the promise is unto you and to your children."
__________
j ) Matt, xxvii. 25.
/) Matt. xv. 24.
n) Luke i. 33.
(*) 1 Pet. iv. 17.
Hebr. x. 21.
( 356 )
4. The, Celestial House. The Septuagint makes Job say, "Hades is my oikos" (o) If the unseen world is here meant, it must be that state of departed spirits in which Job's Redeemer lived. (p) There must certainly be infants there. Whether Job referred to this happy rest or not, we know that our Saviour did, in a passage where the evangelist uses a word, which my Opponent says differs from oikos, no more than brothers differs from brethren. He says, "In my Father's OIKIA, house, are many mansions." (g) Some of the mansions in this house must certainly have infant tenants. So Paul says, "We have a building of God, an OIKIA, house, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." (r)
5. The National House. As the passages to be adduced under this particular, can hardly be understood without the doctrine of imputation, it will be well to remember a few plain authorities in support of this important scriptural truth. Concerning the wicked, Job says, "God layeth up his iniquity for his children." (s) Dr. Gill says, "God does not punish them [the wicked] now for their sins in their own persons, yet he will punish them in their children, for whom he reserves the punishment of their iniquity." "And when they have filled up the measure of their fathers' sins, by their own transgressions, the deserved punishment shall be inflicted, according to Ex. xx. 5." The Lord said to Israel, "But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wan-der in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms;" () that is, "the punishment of their idolatries," as Dr. Gill says; for, says he, "It was on account of them, their children wandered so long in the wilderness." Jeremiah, in speaking for his people, says, "Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have borne their iniquities;" (wj that is, according to Dr. Gill, "the punishment of them, or chastisement
__________
(o) Job xvii. 13. (/z) Job xix. 25, (a) Jno. xiv. 2.
(r) 2 O>r. v. 1. (a) Job xxi. 19. (/) Num. xiv. 32, 33.
(u) Lam. v. 7.
( 357 )
for them: this is not said by way of complaint, much less as charging God with injustice, in punishing them for their fathers' sins, or to excuse theirs, for they were ready to own that they had consented to them, and were guilty of the same; but to obtain mercy and pity at the hands of God. "How different this language of the great and pious Baptist Commentator, from that of the impious and Deistical Robinson, my Opponent's master: and, at present, the darling of the Baptist church!! The same doctrine is plainly taught in the following passages. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." (#) Millions of infants thus perished in "the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the "children of Israel" (w) and afterward in the Jewish nation itself, concerning which, Christ said, "All these things shall come upon this generation." ^) The same is true of Babylon, which, in one place, Jeremiah calls "that nation" (y) in another, "the daughter of Babylon." (z) in which latter place the Septuagint uses OIKOS, house, for daughter. That all these national houses are full of infants cannot be denied. It is remarkable that the Septuagint often puts the word house for children, and children for house. Thus, when the Original reads "children of Israel!" the Septuagint reads "O house of Israel!" (a) When the Original condemns Mount Sier for slaughtering "the children of Israel," the Septuagint has it "the house of Israel:" (b) in which national house, infants are certainly included; as in many other instances of a similar description; in one of which, while the Septuagint has OIKOS, house, other Greek translators, fas Trommius shews,) use HUIOI, children; (c] thus shewing, that house and children were interchangeable terms. This is farther confirmed from the
__________
) Isa. xiv. 21. (>) 2 Kings xxi. 9. (.r) Matt xxiii. 36.
) Jer. xxv. 12. (z) Jer. li. 33. (a) Am. iii. 1.
) Ez. xxxv. 5. (c) Ez. ii 3. For other cases alledged, see Ez. xxxvii. 21. Jer. xxiii. 7. xvi. 14, Ez. xliv. 9. xxxvii. 21.
( 358 )
other fact just mentioned; that where house is in the Original, the word children is often found in the Septuagint. When Ezekiel distributes his two sticks to the two nations into which the twelve tribes had been long divided, he assigns one to "all the house of Israel," or to the "children" of Israel, (c/) according to the Septuagint, in such a way as to embrace every infant in the nation. Many other instances of this rendering also are at hand. (e) Analogous to this ancient way of translating Hebrew into Greek, is the way in which the Ancients rendered Greek into Syriac; when speaking not of the national, but of the domestic house, whether this domestic house be designated by oikos or oikia, orpanoiki, and whether the children of this house be mere infants, or children of an age to hear the gospel and receive instruction, yet young enough to be discipled upon the faith of their parents. In the New Testament we are told that Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer "and to all that were in his OIKIA, house." The Syriac Translation says, "to all the children of his house." Immediately after we are told that the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God, PANOIKI, with all his house." The Syriac says, "and, or then, rejoiced both he and all the children of his house, in the faith of God." In the same chapter it is related that Lydia "was baptized and her OIKOS, house." The Syriac says "and the children of her house." (f) That this was done upon her faith, is evident from the language of her invitation to her instructors, which my Opponent says, "is the most singular invitation on record." (g*) He may well be amazed at the whole transaction; since it not only proves, that through Lydia's faith, she and her household was baptized, but gives us reason to believe, that the joy of the jailer's household, was just that sort of happiness which must have been diffused through the household of Lydia, and is generally communicated to
__________
(rf) Ez. xxxvii. 16. (e) Joshua xxi. 45. Lev. xvii. 3. xxii. 18.
2 Sam. vi. 5. Jer. ii. 26. Ez. iii, 1. xii. 24. iv. 3.
(/) Acts xvi. 15. 32, 34. (#) Spurious Debate with me, p. 265.
( 359 )
the household of a pious Pedobaptist, through the faith of the head, and the covenant blessings of the baptized members.
6. The Sectional House. As the whole nation was called a house, so was each section or tribe. To decide the dispute concerning Aaron's priesthood, the Lord commanded Moses to u Speak unto the children of Israel, and take of every one of them a rod, according to the house of their fathers, of all their princes, according to the house of their fathers, twelve rods." (A) These twelve rods were for the twelve tribes or twelve sectional houses into which the national house of Israel was distributed. That each of these houses had a great proportion of infants, will not probably be disputed; especially as we can give an authentic account of their twelve fathers, which my Opponent thinks so important in the case of Lydia? In this sense oikos occurs in the Septuagint as often as fifteen times in one Chapter. In one of these places, God says, "Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the home of their fathers." (t) Gill says, "[[After]] their families; into which their tribes were divided: by the HOUSE of their fathers; for if the mother was of one tribe, and the father of another, the family was according to the tribe of the father, as Jarchi notes, a mother's family being never called a family, as Aben Ezra observes." Out of these sectional houses Moses made a selection of such as were over twenty years and not superannuated, nor otherwise unfit for war. The selection shews that the million of children from whom they were drafted, belonged to the houses as well as themselves. This passage my Opponent has treated in the following artful manner, viz. "This same oikos occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Numbers, and includes under 12 occurrences, 603,550 adults from 20 years and upwards." ^/) This sweeping declaration was made in such a way as to strike your minds with
__________
(A) Num. xvii. 2. 3. (p Num, i, 2.
y ) Spurious Debate with me, p, 282, Note.
( 360 )
the impression that these twelve houses were composed of adults only, and that the including, of which he speaks, referred to the sum of the twelve particulars, each of which consisted of male adults exclusively. If so, it would be a far more brilliant case than the house of Noah, which consisted of eight adults without one infant; and far more impressive than the family of Christ, which consisted of more than eight DISCIPLES, without one female communicant. But on examination, it turns out far otherwise. Instead of these warriors constituting the tribe, family, and house of their fathers, they were, as Dr. Gill says, only "all IN every tribe, family, and house, that were above 20 years of age, healthful and strong, and fit for war." In this respect, they resembled the twelve princes who drafted them. Instead of their composing the house themselves as Noah's adults did, it seems, according to Moses, that "each one was FOR the house of his fathers;" as Dr. Gill says, "FOR the tribe he belonged to, with which it might reason ably be supposed he was best acquainted, and could more readily take the number of them." (A) At a subsequent period of the Jewish history it is said that Nashon was a "Prince of the oikos of Judah." (/) Now it may be asked, were there any infants in this oikos? and did or did they not owe allegiance to Nashon as members of the oikos over which he was a prince? In this place the Hebrew reads children instead of house, as the Septuagint reads children in several other places where the sectional "house" is found in the Original, embracing infants in it. (m)
7. The Royal House. Under this particular we have again to notice the punishment of children and grand children for the sins of parents. The Lord told David that the famine was "for Saul and his bloody house; "because he slew the Gibeonites." On which account, long after Saul was dead, the Gibeonites said that they would not accept a pecuniary ransom "of Saul, nor of
__________
(*) Gill on Num. i. 44. 45. (/) 1 Clir. ii. 10.
(?T?) See Joshua xvii. 17. xviii. 5. Ez. xxv. 12. Hos. i. 7.
( 361 )
his housef'" n) but demanded that seven of that house should be executed by way of retaliation. Five of the seven were Saul's grandchildren, the sons of his daughter Michal, by Barzillai. Concerning the royal son of Nebat, God says, "I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam," "and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam." In this house there was a child, concerning which it is said, {f All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him; for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing, towards the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam." (0) When God said to David "The sword shall never depart from thy house," "I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house," he says, "the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die:" (/>) leaving us to conclude that this child belonged to his house, as the child of Jeroboam belonged to his house. When God said by the Prophet Amos, "I will rise against the house of Jeroboam," (q) Gill considers it to mean "the family of Jeroboam." When it is said that Zimri "slew all the house of Baasha," (Vj Gill says that it means "his whole family, all the children that he had;" and "not only his posterity, but all any way related to him." Were there no infants related to him? When it is said that "Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab [[/YsJ]] Gill says that this royal house of Ahab included "Joram his son and seventy more sons." Strange if there were no infants among them! When Nathan said to David, "The Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house" (t) this house prominently contemplated an infant yet to be born. The very next verse says, "I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. "From the first of these verses, Gill understands that God will "not only
__________
(n) 2 Sam. xxi. 1. 4. (o) 1 Kings xiv. 10. 13. Comp. xv. 29.
(fi ) 2 Sam. xii. 10. 11. 14. (q} Am. vii. 9.
fr) 1 Kgs. xvi. 11. 12. (*) 2Chr. xxii. 8.
(/) 2 Sam. vii. 11. Comp. 12 16.
Z z
( 362 )
build up his family and make that numerous, [by giving him many infants, of course,] but establish the house of his kingdom.'' The next he says "has regard to a future son of his not yet born; not Absalom nor Adonijah, nor any of the rest born in Hebron were to succeed him in the kingdom, but one as yet "unborn." It will not do to say that this prophecy contemplated this unborn son as grown to maturity, and fit to reign, before he belonged to his father's royal house. There is incontrovertible evidence at hand that he belonged to his father's royal house the moment that he was born. This evidence is contained in a prophecy concerning one of his royal successors: viz. "Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name." (w) But these prophecies contemplate ultimately that King who is the Root and off-spring of David, whom Dr. Gill considers as introduced into the house of David from the moment of his conception. The rapturous song of Zacharias tells us that God "hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, in the house of his servant David." (v) Gill says, "In David's family, he being now conceived by a virgin of his house, and who, in a little time, would be born in Bethlehem the city of David." There is no need, therefore, to go in search of Lydia's husband, or of the jailer's wife, in order to tell what sort of houses they were, which were baptized upon the faith of the parents.
8. The Pontifical or Sacerdotal House. Eli, the High Priest, of the house of Ithamar, was addressed as follows; "Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house and the house of thy fa-ther should walk before me forever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me, shall be
__________
() 1 Kgs. xiii. 2. To this add 1 Chr. xvii, 25. 2 Sam. vii. 27. I Kg*, xi. 38.
(i') Luke i. 69.
( 363 )
lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, and there shall not be an old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house forever. And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age," (or "die men,") as the Margin reads, (w) Here is a numerous house without one old man. As to these young men, the question is, were they in the flower of their age, when they first became the increase of Eli's house? If so, they were the only instance of the kind since the days of Adam. Instead of "thine arm and the arm of thy father's house," the Septuagint reads "thy seed and the seed of thy father's house." With this Dr. Gill's Commentary agrees: for he says that his arm means "his children, which are the strength of a man, and the support of his family :" as when Jacob calls Reuben "the beginning of my strength" (x) the Septuagint calls him "the beginning of my children:" and this he was, the moment that he was born. This arm of Eli's house, therefore, would have embraced his infants, if he had had any, and did actually, as Dr. Gill admits, embrace the children of his sons, concerning which the Dr. says, "The CHILDREN they left were VERY YOUNG:" and if the memorable Ichabod, one of these very young children, who was born just after the death of his father, had been said to join his bereaved mother in the mourning of despair, it would have no more proved him an adult, than the fact that the jailer's house participated in his joy of faith, proves them to be adults. Rachel's new born son did actually participate in his mother's anguish, when she called his name EENONI, the son of my sorrow; and it was perfectly consistent with the language
__________
(w) 1 Sam, ii. 3033.
Gen. x'ix. 3.
( 364 )
of the scriptures for his first smile to be construed into a participation of his father's joy, when he called his name BENJAMIN, the son of my right hand.
9. The Patriarchal House. In accounting for Daniel's calling Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was really his grandson, Prideaux remarks that "This is to be understood in the large sense, where-in any ancestor upward is often called father, and any descendant downward, son, according to the usual style of Scripture. "This extensive range of family-ascent and family-descent is sometimes comprehended in the patriarchal house. Pindar, in an address to Xenophon, calls him, and his father, and grandfather, "the (OIKOS,) house, thrice victor in the Olympic games." (y] Taylor has shewn that Paul once uses oikos for family-ascent. "If any widow have children or grandchildren, [as my Opponent justly renders it,] let them learn first to shew piety to their own OIKOS, house, and to requite their progenitors;" (z) which are their own house. It more generally means family -descent. Lycophron calls the adulterer, a "KOPHTHORON,# corrupter of houses;" and Ignatius, writing to the Ephesians, says that HOI OIKOPHTHOROI, corrupters of houses, shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Houses are evidently thus corrupted by the introduction of illegitimate infants: for, as Taylor, (from whom these cases are borrowed,) observes, the adulterer is "not merely the seducer of wives, but the corrupter of the blood, of the family-descent, by introducing a spurious brood." (#) This is a prominent feature in the definitions of a house, which the same author has given us from Aristotle and Cicero. 'The for-mer says, "A house is a society connected together according to the course of nature, for long continuance." (b] To this long continuance Cicero adds the relation of affinity, which the Old Testament recognizes in the daughters-in-law of the house of Noah, and which
__________
(v 1 ) 2d edition of Taylor's Facts and Evidences, p. 33.
C-T) 1 Tim. v. 4. (a] Taylor's 2d Ed. of Facts & Evid. p. 33.
(b) FaUr, and Evid. 1st Ed. p. iSl.
( 365 )
the New Testament recognizes in the house divided against itself, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (
__________
(c) Facts and Evid. 2nd Ed.
(d) 2 Sam. vii. 29.
(/)Ex. xx. 5.
(A) Gen. xlvi. 27. 31.
p. 34.
(f ) 2 Sam. xii. 10.
(g) Gen. ix. 22 25.
Gen. xlv. 11,
( 366 )
Beriah, because it went evil with his house." (j) Gill observes that this infant "in some measure made up for the loss he had sustained," in his house: then of course this child must belong to his house, as soon as he comes into the world. So, as soon as Joseph the reputed father of Jesus was born, he "was of the house and lineage of David." (k) But Christ was said to be "in the house of his servant David," (/) before he was born; "He being now conceived by a virgin of his house," as Dr. Gill observes.
10. The Domestic House. Here w r e find the house-holds of Lydia and the jailer, which have been the innocent occasion of so much dispute. Along with these, Dr. Gill reckons the house of Zaccheus, concerning which our Saviour says, "This day is salvation come to this house:" (m) [that is, ft to the inhabitants of this house;" as Dr. Gill informs us the Arabic Version renders it.] On this passage the Dr. says, "Sometimes the Lord takes one of a city, and two of a family; and sometimes whole families, as Lydia's and the jailer's, and here Zaccheus's, as seems probable.'' In this controversy, it is of no great importance whether, on the one hand, we lose Stephanas, upon the authority of some Greek writers, (w) who believe him to be the jailer, removed from Philippi to Corinth; or whether, on the other hand, we gain Fortunatus and Achaicus, upon the authority of some Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate, which associate these names and their houses with "the house of Stephanas," as the Apostle's "first fruits of Achaia." (0) In the same church, the Apostle baptized Crispus and Gaius, (p) without telling us whether they baptized their households, or whether they had any or not. With respect to Crispus the defect is made up by another writer, who informs us that he had a large household. (q) But even then it is not mentioned
__________
) iChr. vii. 23. (c. 21. 22.)
) Luke ii. 4. The same may be said of Mary. Luke i. 27.
/) Luke i. 69. (TO) Luke xix. 9.
w) Asserted by Dr. Gill on 1 Cor, i, 16.
o) 1 Cor. xvi. 15. & Gill there, (/z) 1 Cor. i. 14.
0) Acts xviii. 8.
( 367 )
that the household was baptized. Of this, however, there can be no doubt, since there is the same reason for baptizing his house that there is for baptizing the jailer's; and the baptism of "many of the Corinthians" is mentioned in the very same sentence. There is reason to believe that these "Many" were composed of whole houses and separate individuals; and that this was not applicable to Corinth only, but that this gospel ordinance followed the gospel itself, which, as Clemens Alexandrinus says, "Spread itself over the whole world, converting equally Greeks and Barbarians, in every nation and village, and in all cities, whole houses and separate individuals." (r)
To prove that the Apostles practised household baptism, it is not necessary to find a multiplicity of instances in scripture. If many cases of household baptism be necessary to prove apostolical practice, then many cases of female communion are as necessary to prove apostolical practice. But if such evidence be requisite, we shall not only have to relinquish female communion, as an apostolical practice, but w r e must give up even male communion also, since there are not as many recorded cases of male communion as there are of household baptism.
Neither is it necessary to have a minute detail of names and ages in a household, to ascertain the presence of infants, since this is implied in the very word itself. On this subject my Opponent reasons as follows, viz. "So long as the word [[/ami'/?/]], which you say is the meaning of OIKOS, frequently denotes all that live under one father, mother, master, or mistress, whether infants or adults, so long it remains to be determined, from the circumstances of the case, who are the constituents or members of the family; and thus after all your boasted discovery, you have to confess yourselves to be just where you were; unable to prove that there was an infant in any house, OIKIA, or family
__________
(r) Taylor's 2nd Edit. p. 116.
( 368 )
"that was baptized." (s) .The amount of this reasoning of my Anabaptist Opponent, is as follows; A house or family embraces adults and infants: Therefore, when we are told that a house or family is baptized, we are to understand that there are no infants in it, unless there is additional proof of this fact!! But if a house embrace adults and infants alike, why is additional proof required for one, and not for the other? To be consistent, he ought to reason as follows; A house or family includes adults and infants: Therefore, when we are told, even by infallible testimony, that a house or family is baptized, this is no proof that there was a baptism of either adults or infants, unless there is additional evidence of one or the other, or both!! So in relation to the other ordinance. The word disciples embraces males and females; Therefore, when we are told that disciples communed, we are not to understand that females communed, or males either, without additional evidence!!
To shew the absurdity of this, let us see how it will affect what Dr. Judson, the Baptist missionary to India, has said about houses, in his journal of Nov. 11, 1822. It is as follows, viz. "Understand that, according to the public registers, 40,000 houses have removed from Ah-mah-rah-pore to Ava the new capital, and that 30,000 remain. The Burmans reckon ten persons, great and small, to a house, which gives 700,000, for the whole population of the metropolis of Burmah." (/) Now I ask, Is any additional proof necessary to shew that half of the persons included in these 70,000 houses were of the age to which infant baptism is administered. But suppose that they had all renounced Paganism and embraced Judaism; and Dr. Judson had told us that 70,000 houses were circumcised: would this alter the case? Suppose again, that this Baptist missionary had proselyted them all to Christianity, and had told us that
__________
() Spurious Deb. with me. p. 282. Note.
(0 Missionary Herald, Vol. 19. p. 392.
( 369 )
70,000 houses; reckoning "ten persons, great and small, to a house," had been baptized by his hands; could any one doubt that he had turned Pedobaptist again? But the very "circumstances of the case," which my Opponent demands, are found here, in the Christianizing of Jews, who are accustomed to introducing infants into the church. Yet these circumstances were found in the household-baptism of the New Testament, which, as we have shewn, was taken from the household-circumcision of the Jews.
When Dr. Judson found the jails of modern Asia fur-nished with tanks of water, he gave it instead of proof that the jailer of ancient Europe was immersed. It would be much more reasonable for him to have said that as the modern Asiatics "reckon ten persons, great and small, to a house" therefore the baptized houses of the ancient Asiatics included infants.
We do not, however, depend upon modern usage, for the doctrine that a household includes infants. This appears to have been the general understanding, at least as far back as the time of Boaz, the great-grand-father of David. When this pious man called upon his countrymen to attest his marriage with Ruth, "All the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the HOUSE of Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: and let thy HOUSE be as the HOUSE of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman. So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son." (w) How did Rachel and Leah build the house of Israel? By giving him infants. What sort of a house was the house of Pharez? One which rapidly increased
__________
3 A
() Ruth iv. 1113.
( 370 )
by the accession of numerous infants. Of what materials did these friends and witnesses wish the house of Boaz built, that it might resemble that of Pharez? "Of the seedy [the infant offspring,] which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman." And how was his house built in fact? "She bare a son/' And, as Taylor has already reminded us, this passage shews, that the meaning here attached to the word house, was familiar to "all the people that were in the gate, and the elders." To consider the word house, as embracing infants, was then common to civil courts and ordinary conversation: and from the manner in which they refer to their ancestors, they evidently considered this the meaning attached to the word, by the earliest patriarchs, and in the very first book of Moses. To this very passage of Ruth, Dr. Gill refers, in illustration of our Marginal rendering of Gen. xvi. 2, where Sarai, after giving her handmaid to Abram, says, "It may be that I may be builded by her." On this text the Doctor says, "For women, by bearing children, build up an HOUSE, see Ruth iv. 31, hence a son, in Hebrew, is called BEN, from BANAH, to build." Other passages of scripture giving it the same signification, are numerous. "God setteth the solitary in a house;" (v) that is, in a family of children. "He maketh the barren woman to dwell in an house, and to be a joyful mother of children." (w) As Achan and his family perished together; (#) and as the sons of Zedekiah were slain before his eyes; (y) so it is said of Korah and his company, "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that pertained unto Korah, and all their goods." (z) Who these houses are, is explained in the context, "And Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children, PARVULIS suis," as Junius and
__________
00 Ps. Ixviii. 0, Hcbr. LXX. & Eng. Marg.
(?y) l\s. cxiii. 9. Hbr. LXX. & Eng. 'Marg.
( (.) Ju.h. vii. 24. ({/) Jer. xxxix. 6. (r) Num. xvi. 32. (comp. 2
( 371 )
Tremellius render it. Dr. Gill thinks it possible that houses here may mean tents. Not so the Septuagint: for, in the immediately preceding context, they interpolate OIKOUS and SKENAS, houses and tents. [a] There is an instance now before me, in which both these words include the family. "And thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not sin." (b) The word tabernacle here, which Dr. Gill says, "includes all that dwell in his house, his family," is OIKOS, house, in the Septuagint. The word habitation "including his family also," as Dr. Gill says, is SKENE, tent, in the Septuagint.
The very great frequency with which infants are connected with their parents in the domestic house of the scriptures, looks so much like the spirit of Pedobaptism, that Dr. Gill sometimes makes a fruitless attempt to escape this consequence. The following text is an example. "The wicked are overthrown and are not; but the house of the righteous shall stand." (c) The Doctor denies that house here means "family, as the 66 generality of interpreters, for the family of the righteous may be extinct, and especially not continue as righteous." The same reason might be given for contradicting the inspired declaration of Peter, "The promise is unto you and to your children." (d) But Dr. Gill cannot continue such a strain uniformly. When Solomon says, "Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established;" the Doctor's Commentary says, "The prosperity of a man's family is continued and secured by his prudent conduct. "
In case of Esther's refusal to act for the Jews, Mordecai's denunciation was "Thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed." (e) When it is said in Job, "The increase of his house shall depart," (/) Gill says, "Either his children or his substance." Compare this with the prophecy, "Then will I build you, and not pull you
__________
Verse 30.
d) Acts ii. 39,
Job v. 24.
Esth. iv. 14.
(c) Prov. xii. 7.
(/) Job xx. 28.
( 372 )
down;" (#) which, Gill says, is a promise of "increase in numbers, wealth and riches." It is by the birth of children that a house is built up or increased in numbers. These are also embraced in the promise of Saul to the man who should slay Goliath; that he would "make his father's house free in Israel." (A) Also, in the prayer which our Saviour directed the apostles to make, "Peace be to this house." (i)
In the following half dozen instances, Gill considers the word house as equivalent to family, and neither he nor any other will probably deny that infants are included. The people are required to support the priest, "that the blessing may rest in thine house." (0) "And the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household." (p) "And thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath given unto thee and unto thine house." (q) "Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant." "And with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever." (r) "And all the people departed every man to his house, and David returned to bless his house." (s} "Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house." (t)
When it is said again, "Then David returned to bless his household." (u) Gill says, "his wife, children and servants." When it is said that "Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house," (v) Gill interprets, "his men-servants and maid-servants that were born in his house, or bought with his money." When Jacob "had a large family to provide for," as Gill observes, then he said to Laban, "When shall I provide for mine own house also?" (*#) When the prophet tells us that wicked
__________
$) Jer. xlii. 10. (/i) 1 Sam. xvii. ?5.
/) Luke x. 5. (o) Ez. xliv. 30.
(fi ) 2 Sam. vi. 11. (
(r) 2 Sam. vii. 29. (*) 1 Chr. xvi. 43.
(/) Habb. ii. 9. () 2 Sam. vi. 20,
(v) Gen, xxxvi. 6, (iv) Gen. xxx, 30.
( 373 )
governours "oppress a man and his house." (x) Dr. Gill interprets that they "distressed a man and his family for the present, and his posterity after him. My Opponent's New Testament reads, "By intestine broils any kingdom may be desolated, one family (house) a falling after another [[\Jious e.~\^(y}]] If these families had no infants, they would come to desolation without intestine broils. No doubt my Opponent will admit that they may generally have infants, as there is nothing said about their baptism. But suppose the text to read in this way; "By the Spirit and ordinances of God, any "kingdom may be Christianized, one family being baptized after another." How sadly that would alter the case. All the infants in the realm would immediately disappear, like those of Lydia, Stephanas, and the jailer; and the Moloch of Anabaptism would make it as desolate in a moment, as intestine broils could make it in many years. If, after this devastation, more general than that of Pharaoh or Herod; if while every subject was mourning, like Ephraim, that "it went evil with his "house," (z) Providence should give to each a Beriah, as he did to that venerable Patriarch, then it may be said of this infant son in every family, as Dr. Gill said of Beriah the son of Ephraim, that he "in some measure made up for the loss he had sustained" in his house.
When the wise man says, "Every wise woman buildeth her house." (a) Gill understands that she does it not only by her piety, prudence, and industry; but "by her fruitfulness, as Leah and Rachel built up the house of Israel," When it is said, "She looketh well to the ways of her household:" (b) Gill considers it as meaning "her children and servants.'' When it is said of this wise woman, that "She giveth meat to her household." (c) Gill, in spiritualizing the passage, makes household to include children and babes. Paul says that a bishop must be "One that ruleth well his
__________
(x z
Mic. ii. 2.
1 Chr. vii. 23.
Prov. xxxi. 2r
y) Luke xi. 17.
a Prov. xiv. 1.
Prov, .xxxi. 15,
( 374 )
own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (d) These houses Gill considers as embracing "the family, wife, children and servants."
Sometimes Moses directs the priests to eat the sacrifices with their sons and daughters, all of which are infants before they are adults; and frequently he says, "Every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it." (/) Gill says, "Their families, wives, children, and servants." While they eat together God says, "Thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household." (k) According to Gill, this requires that they should "eat their food with cheerfulness and gladness, making a feast of it, and keeping it as such, he and his whole family, his wife and children, or as many as were with him." That the households here meant, embraced myriads of infants, no one will deny. A question might arise, Would the number of these infants be in the least diminished, if, in both passages, we were to add the words, believing in God," which have stumbled so many, in the baptism of the jailer's household? The addition of the words will not make the least difference in the sense, because without faith it is impossible to please God by eating and rejoicing. t( Every one that is clean in thy "house shall eat of it, [believing in God.]" "Thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household [believing in God.]" If the fact, that the command implies this much, does not exclude infants, would the expression of the words exclude them? The scriptures condemn him, who eateth not of faith," [[W]] They also say, "If any would not work, neither should he eat." (m) Because infants cannot believe or work, are they to be excluded
__________
(d) 1 Tim. iii. 4. 5. 12.
(j ) Lev. x. 14. Num. xviii, 11. 13. 31. Deut. xv. 20.
(X-) Deut. xiv. 26. (/) Rom. xiv. 23.
(m) 2 Thess, iii. 10.
( 375 )
from eating? But if precepts and prohibitions concerning faith do not extend to infants, as far as faith is concerned, why may not this hold true with regard to narratives?
Yet it is not admitted that the narrative of the jailer is encumhered with this difficulty, except with those who misunderstood our translation. The jailer "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" This, it is confessed, affords some pretext for attributing faith to the jailer's house: yet I could soon point you to a passage which no one misunderstands, and which the collocation of our Translators has made much more liable to perversion. It is the following. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." (n) Is it Christ or ourselves who knew no sin? To give a correct answer, the relative, who in our Translation, must not be allowed to refer to the last antecedent, as in common cases. My opponent's favourite Thomson of our own country, has placed the relative by its proper antecedent. "For he hath made him who knew no sin, a sin offering for us" In this he follows the great body of the European translators, who themselves follow the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Original. "For him who knew no sin, he hath made sin (or a sin offering) for us." This is the order in which the Greek and Latin words stand, as far as the pronouns in question are concerned; and it seems strange that our Translators should alter this order, when it could have no other effect than to obscure the sense.
The great difficulty in the narrative of the jailer, arises from a similar misplacing of words. In this text, DE SACY, the Roman Catholic Translator, has hit the meaning more obviously, by more closely following the order of the original: "Et il se rejouit avec toute sa maison croyant en Lieu: And he rejoiced with all his house believing in God." In this he follows the ancient Latin Vulgate "Et Isetatus est cum omni domo sua credcns deo: And he rejoiced with all his house believing
__________
(n) 2 Cor. v. 21.
( 376 )
in God." Such is the construction of these languages, as to make the word, believing, applicable to the jailer only. These translations strictly follow the original in arrangement and sense. [[" *<" ??awuasaT'o i < rtuvoixt, 7
But if the sacred writer had expressly said that the converted jailer had a believing household, or "faithful children," as Paul requires that bishops or elders should have, it would have been no certain evidence that these infants were converted. Whether I can give you a satisfactory reason for this or not, I shall endeavour to support the position. The Apostle says, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children," ^) then they may be bishops or elders. Now if these faithfuls are intelligent converts, then converted children are a necessary qualification for the ministerial office; and that man who has an infant incapable of faith, is not fit for this office. This is too absurd. Dr. Gill, therefore, says, "By faithful children cannot be meant converted ones, or true believers in Christ; for it is not in the power of men to make their children such; and their not being so can never be an objection to their being elders, if otherwise qualified. At most, the phrase can only intend, that they should be brought up in the faith, in the principles, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The Doctor's [[" M most,"]] though a little
__________
(r) Tit. i. 6.
( 377 )
short of the mark, is much better than an interpretation which he had offered a few lines before. There he says that these faithful children meant "Legitimate ones, born in lawful wedlock;" and adds, that it is, "in the same sense as such are called godly and holy, in Mat. ii. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 14." In the second Point of the fifth Proposition of my first Argument, it was shewn that the word holy, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, did not mean legitimate; and you were reminded that the Baptists of the present day are inclined to relinquish this interpretation. We need not occupy your time, in refuting the notion that faithful means legitimate, since neither Doctor Gill, nor, as far as I know, any other human being, has ever attempted to prove it. There is no more evidence that the legitimacy of the elder's children is here intended, than there is, that the jailer and his children rejoiced in their legitimacy. But the Doctor has given us a part of the truth, when he says that these faithfuls are such as "should be brought up in the faith, in the principles, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." This is admitting, that, according to Scripture, infants may be called faithfuls, because their parents are bound to bring them up in the faith. As parents formally recognize this obligation, in the baptism of their children, why not say at once, that unconscious infants may be called faithfuls, when they are baptized? This would be the whole truth, as it was held by the ancient church, unsophisticated by modern Anabaptism. *' Theodoret, Oecumenius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and all the Greek Scholiasts," as reported by Taylor, call certain New Testament families "Faithfuls," not because they were all believers, or capable of believing, but because they were "baptized families." (f) Augustin, as reported by Wall, tells Boniface, that "An infant, though he be not yet constituted a faithful, by that faith which consists in the will of believers; is yet [[constituted a faithful.]]
__________
(/) Baptists Self-convicte4. p, 39,
( 378 )
by the sacrament of that faith: for as he is said to believe, so he is called a faithful, not from his having the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving the sacrament of [[W(g)]] According to Dr. Gill, an infant may be called a faithful in the Scriptures, because he should be brought up in [[\hzfaith]]; but, according to the ancient church, an infant is called a faithful, because he receives the sacrament of faith, in baptism. Admitting, then, that the jailer's household is said to believe, (which is not the fact,) still these interpretations would place them where they ought to be.
In the case of Lydia, (A) there is nothing said about any one being faithful except herself. "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." This would be a strange invitation for one to give, who had not a settled abode there herself, as some insinuate, but was only a travelling adventurer. That it was her fixed residence, appears, from her occupation in a wealthy line of business, and from her being able to entertain four missionaries for an indefinite time. That there were four in company, is plain from the context. The beginning of the chapter informs us, that Paul found Timothy at Lystra, and that he took him on this expedition. In the very text which records the baptism, Luke, the author of the narrative, associates himself with them, and in the 19th verse, Silas is placed in the same company. Of these four per-sons, only two, Paul and Silas, were dragged to prison; (/) leaving the other two, Timothy and Luke, still in the house of Lydia; whither the prisoners returned to comfort, not to baptize them, as soon as they obtained their liberty. "And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed;" (/) leaving them, as is thought, still in the house of Lydia, to organize and nourish the Philippian church.
__________
(?) Wall's Hist, of Bap. Book 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 4. fiubsect. 4.
(/;) AcU xvi, (/) Vi-rscs 19. 25. 29, (;') Verse 40.
( 379 )
But although Lydia was pleased with the company of these brethren, the Baptists appear to wish that they had sought other quarters. It will not do to say that Timothy and Luke were the household of Lydia, which Paul baptized: and yet they try to believe that the household which was baptized, and the brethren who were comforted, were the same persons; and adults, of course. They, therefore, wish you to believe that Lydia's servants and grown children were her household, and that her grown children and servants and other adult converts were the brethren whom Paul and Silas comforted. This, however, is conjecture, without evidence, and against evidence. It is without evidence, because this adult assembly of children, servants, and other Philippian converts at Lydia's house, is no where recorded nor hinted at, except in uninspired conjectures, and those, it appears, of a modern date. It is against evidence; because the inspired record furnishes us with the names of the brethren whom Paul and Silas comforted at Lydia's house, while the whole tenor of the narrative marks the absence of adults in her baptized household. It is quite possible that after they had been for some time under the influence of Christian prayers, instruction, and example, this household became as worthy of notice, as that of Stephanas, which, though baptized on the father's profession, was afterwards commended for ministering to the saints, according to their age, ability, and opportunity. Much more would this commendation have been deserved and received, if, instead of being promising children, Lydia's household had consisted of converted adults. If such had been the case, how natural would it have been, for the historian to tell us that Lydia's household, as well as herself, resorted to the sea shore to worship; that the Lord opened their hearts as well as hers; that they, as well as she, attended to the things which were spoken of Paul; that they, as well as she, were faithful to the Lord; and that for this reason, they joined her in beseeching, and aided her in constraining Paul and his companions to enter their common residence
( 380 )
How different the account which the sacred writer has given ! If it were not for baptism, we should never have known that she had a household. They are never once mentioned, except in receiving this ordinance with her. It is Lydia alone who resorts to the sea-shore; Lydia alone whose heart is opened; Lydia alone who attends to Paul's preaching; Lydia alone who is faithful to the Lord; she alone beseeches the preachers to visit her; and she alone constrains them to enter her house. But "She was baptized, and her household!" and thus proves household baptism to be infant baptism.
VI.
HOLOS OIKOS.
This appears to be generally considered as synonymous with pas oikos. Accordingly, while Luke points out the household of Cornelius by the latter phrase, Eusebius describes it by the former. (k) It will not be denied that when Baasha "smote the whole house of Jeroboam," (/) there were some children in that house. Nor will this be denied in another instance; where it is said that Zimri "slew the whole house of Baasha:" (m) where Dr. Gill says, that it means "his whole family, all the children that he had," "that not only his posterity, but all any way related to him should be cut off." When Paul says, that t( Moses verily was faithful in his whole house, as a servant," (w) Gill properly understands this whole house to mean the Old Testament church, which had millions of infants. Yet when the same Apostle says, that certain deceivers of his day "subvert whole houses," (o) the Baptists answer, that "whole houses could not be subverted) unless they had first been converted;" and, taking it for granted that no infant can be said to believe or be converted, they would have us conclude
__________
(* ) Arts x. 2. See Taylor's "Baptists Self-convicted," p. 41, Note.
(/) 1 Kings xv. 29. (m) 1 Kings y vi. 1 1. 12. where this is twice said,
(n) Hebr. iii. 2. 5. where this is twice said. (o) Tit. i. 11.
( 381 )
that these whole houses, subverted [[x]] false teachers, were composed of adult converts, instead of unbelieving and unconverted infants. And so they think of the family of Crispus, when it is said, that "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with his whole house." (p) But to this it is answered that this baptism of believers, each on his own profession, would not be called household baptism, but the baptism of separate individuals.
This distinction was expressly recognized among the Greek and Latin Fathers, who certainly had some acquaintance with the Greek language. Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the second century, says, "The doctrine of the Master of Christianity did not remain confined to Judea only, as the philosophy of the Greeks was confined to Greece: but it spread itself over the whole world, converting equally Greeks and Barbarians, in every nation and village, and in all cities, whole houses, and separate individuals." (q) Here we find that separate individuals, making a personal profession, are distinguished from whole houses, embracing infants incapable of this profession: yet both are said to be converted. How this was understood, before the refinements of Anabaptism perplexed the church, may be learned from a passage of Augustine, which has, if I mistake not, been quoted in relation to the jailer's household. His words are as follows, viz. "When an infant that has not yet the faculty of faith, is said to believe, he is said to have faith, because of [baptism] the sacrament of faith; and to be converted (CONVERTERS SE) to God, because of [baptism] the sacrament of conversion." And so an infant, though he be not yet constituted a believer, by that faith which consists in the will of believers, yet he is, by [baptism'] the sacrament of that faith; for as he is said to believe, so he is called a
__________
(fi) Acts xviii. 8. (y) oixovs
Facts and Evidences, first edition, London 1818, p, 116. London, 1819, p. 106.
Taylor's Second edition,
( 382 )
believer, not from his having the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving [baptism] the sacrament [[-oftt>%r) ]]
Let it not be said that this is giving human authority in divine things. This common-sense understanding which the church of God has always had of the subject, has already been shewn to be founded upon the infallible word. Remember that children are there declared to have entered into covenant; and, certainly, faith and conversion may be ascribed to them as correctly as covenant-making, and they are ascribed to them in the same sense, as the Fathers, just now quoted, have explained. If this language may not be used, concerning infants, on account of their participation in the external ordinances of religion, I should like to know what the Baptists would make of a passage of scripture, in which such language is applied to irrational domestic animals, on account of their participation in the privations of a public fast. The proclamation of the king of Nineveh says, "Let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them be converted every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands." (5) The word converted is here used, be-cause, that is the force of the Original and of all our translations, and is expressly used by the ancient Latin Vulgate, which reads convertatur; as a modern French Bible reads, "que chacun se convertisse;" the very phraseology used by Augustine, when he said that it is possible for infants "CONVERTERE SE; to convert themselves, or be converted," in a certain sense, by receiving the sacrament of conversion. These, then, belonged to the whole house of Crispus, and the whole houses which were subverted by false teachers.
__________
(r) Wall's History of Baptism, Book 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 5. Subsect. 4. [) Jon. iii. 8.
( 383 )
VII.
PANOIKESIA.
In the use of this word, Thucidides speaks as follows, viz. "In the manner above mentioned, were the Athenians, for a long series of time, scattered about the country, in towns and communities, at their own discretion. And as not only the more ancient, but even the latter Athenians, quite down to the present war, had still retained the custom of dwelling about the country PANOIKESIA, with their whole households." (t) In this place, panoikesia is used to include the millions of children, which are born to a whole nation, in many successive generations.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, uses the same word in the same meaning, in the following passage, viz. "And very great numbers removed, PANOIKESIA, with their whole households, some of whom returned when the affairs of the city were composed: but others re-mained where they were." (^)
The same writer says, "And by this usage they forced those who were unable to bear it, to leave the country, with their wives and children, and to take refuge in the neighbouring cities... but the greatest part also a of these had removed, PANOIKESIA, with their whole households, and leaving their [dwelling-] houses empty, lived in the country." (v)
Thucidides uses the word to embrace all the infants of Greece in general. He says, "How horrible will it seem for Platea to be destroyed by Lacedaemonians ! that your fathers inscribed the city on the tripod of Delphos, in justice to its merits; and that, to satisfy the Thebans, you expunged it, [[sx jtavto? *ov EMuptxow t( ,*,- fvnvn]] all the whole household of Greece" (iv)
__________
[/) Taylor's "Baptists self-convicted." p. 49.
(u) Do. p, 48. (T) Do. p, 49, (w) Da p. 49.
( 384 )
From the speeches, which, for historic effect, are put into the mouths of the seven celebrated Maccabean brothers, one would suppose that none of them were infants; yet this family appears by the history to have consisted of sons from under the age of eighteen, to about three years old; that is, lately weaned/' Gregory Nazianzen makes them say, "Let the issue be fixed and unmoveable as to us, [[*avoixc
VIII.
PANOIKIOS.
According to Diodorus Siculus, the Carthaginians intended, if urged by necessity, to emigrate, in a body, to a certain island. His words are, "For they hoped, that being masters at sea, as they then were, they might easily, (unknown to the conquerors,) transport themselves, PANQIKIOUS, with their whole households, into that island." (y\
In another passage, the same ancient writer explains panoikioi by [[texvw xat, ywaixw]] children and wives; whom certain Roman fathers and husbands were afraid to hazard by a protracted and disorderly flight. They, therefore, "removed, jtavowoi, with their whole households" [that is their wives and children, mentioned above,] "to the neighbouring towns and villages." (*)
There is similar evidence in Dionysius of Halicarnas-sus. He informs us that the country of the Antemnates and Caeninenses, and the city of Crustumerium were conquered by Romulus, and reduced to the rank of Roman colonies. From the two former he conveyed to Rome many volunteer emigrants, together with their "wives and children" In like manner, from the latter,
__________
(x) Taylor's "Baptists self-convicted, "p. 50 Taylor, of course, refuses to translate by the word household,
(y} Do. p. 46. 47. and Note. (z) Do. p. 47.
( 385 )
"several brave men joined him, bringing with them considerable powers, together with PANOIKIA, their "whole households;" (a) evidently embracing their wives and children.
IX.
PAS OIKOS.
The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, "who shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved." [[Y^j]] The 'historian tells us that this was "a devout man, and one that feared God, with all "his house." (c] By this, Dr. Gill understands that "he brought up his family in a religious way." * From this the -Dr. certainly believed that Cornelius had children; and that they were included in all his house.
Rahab's house in which her relatives obtained safety, Dr. Gill seems to think a figure of the church of Christ. According to him, the spies whom she entertained, a represent the ministers of the gospel, who are the "messengers of Christ and the churches [[/' When they directed her to bind the scarlet thread in the window, Dr. Gill considers them as preaching, by this figure, the same doctrine taught in Mk. xvi. 16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." Now let us see whether these typical ministers of the gospel, allowed infants to enter their figurative church, or not. Rahab's request was, "Shew kindness unto my father's house." (d) She made no express stipulation about infants, because they were included in the house; and to exclude them, would be as inconsistent with the religion of the Jews, as it was inconsistent with her own wishes. Accordingly, the spies said, "Thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and ALL THY FATHERS
__________
(a) Taylor's "Baptists self-convicted," p. 47. 48.
(A) Acts xi. 14. (c) Acts x. 2. (d) Josh. ii. 12,
( 386 )
"HOUSEHOLD, home unto thee." (e) It probably never entered into any one's mind, to suppose that the children of Rahab's connexion were excluded from this refuge; and it ought never to have entered their mind to suppose that the children of believers were to be excluded from that visible church, of which her house is thought a figure: especially as our Saviour has required us to suffer them to come to him, declaring that of such is the visible church.
X.
PANOIKI.
Of the jailer it is said, [[qya,M.iaaa-to Ttavoixi, rttrti$vxus *o fw]], believing in God he rejoiced WITH ALL HIS HOUSE. On this, Taylor says, "Observe, he rejoiced panoiki; but he did not believe panoiki. Rejoicing was an act of the person; believing was an act of the mind: there is no instance known of panoiki being referred to an act of the mind." (/) He observes that as this word "is referred to bodily action, in which infants share without volition, without understanding, or expression of any kind, on their part, so it always signifies the whole, the entire of a family: every individual with-out exception: it includes all and excludes none: for, if a single one be excluded, the term becomes absolutely inapplicable. And this accounts for the infrequent use of it; as it is not constantly that a whole family resides together, or continues so combined as to form one band, and to be capable of one and the same individual action, the same fate, &c. at the same time. And this, again, agrees with a young family, since the separation of the members of a family usually takes place, after the elder are grown up; and if but one be detached from the family, the term is [[irivalida- ]]
__________
(0 Josh. ii. 18. (/') Baptists self-convicted, p. 42.
(g) Baptists self-convicted, p. 51. 52.
( 387 )
Among the instances collated by this able writer, there is one which appears to give peculiar countenance to this position. It is a case in which panoiki includes every member of the family, old and young, strong and feeble, male and female, without admitting a single exception. It is the family of Pithius the Lydian, as related by Herodotus. The faithful subject wished only his eldest son to remain at home, while all the rest, capable of bearing arms, accompanied Xerxes in the Grecian expedition. To his humble petition, the haughty tyrant made the following reply; "Infamous man! you see me embark my ALL in this Grecian war: myself, my CHILDREN, my brothers, my domestics, and my friends; how dare you, then, presume to mention your son, you who are my slave, and whose duty is to accompany me on this occasion, PANOIKIE, with all your house, and even your wife." (/j)
Admitting the correctness of these statements in part, still an antagonist of Mr. Taylor, "argues, that the jailer's family must have been adults, because they ' rejoiced in God." (/) Yet why may not infants participate in their parents' joy, in one religious ordinance, as well as partake of their sorrow, in another ordinance? That they do the latter is admitted by the Baptists themselves. When the prophet orders the church to assemble for a solemn fast, he says, "Gather the children, and those that suck the breast," (f) Gill speaks of these sucklings, as those "who were involved in the common calamity and distress, were obliged to fasting, and whose cries might affect their parents, and engage them the more to humiliation and repentance for their sins, which brought such miseries, not only upon themselves, but upon their tender infants; and they might think their cries would move the pity and compassion of God." It is not at all uncommon for the Scriptures to attribute rejoicing to bodies of men, which include
__________
(K] Baptists Self-convicted, p. 50.
(z) Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 122.
O") Joel ii. 16.
( 388 )
thousands and millions of infants. To save time, I pass over several instances, which are now before me. (A) Although Dr. Gill would have it, that the babes and sucklings which rejoiced at our Saviour's coming, were adults, (/) yet he admits, as has been shewn already, that rejoicing is attributed to literal infants, in the law of Moses, where he tells the priests to rejoice in the goodness of the Lord "unto thee and unto thine house." (m) He says, "rejoice thou and thine household," (n) by which Dr. Gill understands [[' i he and his family, his wife and children, or as many as are with him."
On the same subject of sacerdotal families being supported by the sacrifices and other emoluments, Josephus uses the word panoiki; "So that he, PANOIKI, with all his house, might eat them in the holy city." (0) That infants are here included is absolutely certain. But to them, in company with their parents, Eusebius attributes conversion; because, as Austin said, they received the sacrament of conversion. His words are as follows, viz. "And by the same word of the gospel, many of all ranks were converted to the worship of the God of the universe; so that at Rome itself, many who were eminent for their riches, and for their descent, did, PANOIKI, with all their house, and their kindred, embrace the way of salvation." (p) Where Moses speaks of the Israelites who went into Egypt, some ancient Greek translators, as Trommius informs us, reckon them to be, "every man, PANOIKI with all his house." (q) which Dr. Gill says, includes u their families, wives, children, and servants."
In a rare Apocryphal book, we have an account of Ptolemy's cruel persecution of the Jews, [[pno, ywa&v xac ttxvois,]] with their wives and children." He forbade any one to harbour even the youngest of them, at the peril
__________
(*) 2 Chr. xxx. 25. Ps. xcvi. 11. xcvii. 1. xiv. 7. cxlix. 2.
(/) Ps. viii. 2. Matt. xxi. 16.
(;/i) Deut. xxvi. 11.
(/>) Dcut. xiv. 26.
(o) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 44.
'/O Do. p. 52. Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 105. ) Ex. i. 1.
( 389 )
of losing his own infants and all belonging to him. The following is a part of the edict. "Whoever, therefore, shall protect any one of the Jews, [[arto y^atov ^%^i vqitiov, ptzt> **v vfto fia^a^v,]] from the elder to the younger, to the babes at the breast; he shall be punished with ignominious torments, PANOIKI, with all his house:" (r) that is, the oldest and the youngest, even tender sucklings; according to a retaliation customary in those times, as already noticed in the history of Esther. (s)
The learned Editor of Calmet's Dictionary is confident in the opinion that panoiki designates a numerous family. (/) This appears to be the understanding of Eschines, who compares the Athenians, when offended, to a nest of wasps, who never cease their molestations," until some one attack and destroy them, PANOIKI, with all their house." (u) Let it be remembered that one female wasp is the mother of ten thousand young, in a few weeks; and the Athenians had more than this number of infants in their panoiki. If the jailer had one for a thou-sand, some of them must have been infants, if he were young enough for his charge, and for the character and actions attributed to him in the inspired narrative. If we investigate it, we shall find that he could not be an old man; but rather in the hey-day of life. His first intention after the earthquake ' he drew his sword, and would have killed himself' is not the character of age, which usually takes events more coolly, and is much more deliberate in determination. The action is that of a fervid mind. In like manner, ' he called for lights, and sprang in:' the original well expresses the strenuous action of a robust body; of a man in the vigour of life: here is no decrepitude, no old age, with creeping steps, forcing an attempt to advance with some rapidity: it is the vehement burst of a man in full strength: yet this
__________
(r) 3 Mace. iii. 18. Baptists Self-convicted, p. 46. where but in Aldus, now before me,
(*) Esth. iii. 13. viii. 11.
(0 Second Ed. of Facts &Ev. Revised, p. 113. 114.
(u) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 51.
( 390 )
man had a numerous family. He appears to have been a soldier; soldiers seldom marry very early in life: his numerous family, then, according to nature, must have contained young children." (v) With these he rejoiced, and with these he was baptized.
XI.
OIKODOMIA, OIKODOME, AND PAS A OIKODOME.
The first of these words is used to denote spiritual edification; (>) so also is the second, in a great measure: (#) yet even here, our doctrine is supported by analogy: for the house of the mind, whether good or bad, is built up, not only by mature thoughts, but by those which are new-born, or even not yet brought to light. James says, "When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (#) The Psalmist says, "Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood." Cr)
In the use of the third phrase, Paul says, "In whom, PASA OIKODOME, all the building, fitly framed together, groweth up unto an holy temple in the Lord." (a) Dr. Gill believes that this house "grows by an accession "of new stones, or of souls called by grace [[; ??]] and is destined at last to receive the whole "number of God's elect." If, therefore, there are any elect infants; any infants saved by grace; then there must be an accession of infants to this building. Macknight, my Opponent's standard, considers this building as the gospel church. Their accession to it, then, must be by baptism.
__________
(v) 2nd Ed. of Facts & Ev. Revised, p. 114.
(fy) 1 Tim. i. 4.
(JT) Rom. xiv. 19. xv. 2. 2 Cor. xii. 9. 1 Cor. xiv. 3. 5. 12. 26. x. 8. xiii. 10. Eph. iv. 29. 16. 1 Cor. iii. 9. Eph. iv. 12. Jobxx. 28. 2 Cor. v. J.
( y) James i. 15. See Gill, who here quotes Kimchi on Ps. vii. 14.
(z) Ps. vii. 14. See also Prov. xix. 27. Job xv. 35. (Is. lix. 4. 13. Jer. xlix. 30. Rom. vii. 5.
(a) Eph. ii, 21.
( 391 )
XII.
OIKODOMEO.
The use of the verb, to build, may throw much light upon the present question. This word is used in relation to all the infants of "the Jewish nation, both as to church and state," as Dr. Gill thinks, in that passage, where God says, "That which I have built will I break down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up, "even this whole land." (&)
Paul says, "Every house is builded by some one." Gill says, "This is true of houses properly taken, or improperly, as nations, tribes, families, and kindred." I would ask, How are nations, tribes, families and kindred built? All are willing to admit infants into such buildings. Paul says, moreover, "He that built all things is God." (c) Dr. Gill understands this "of Christ, and of his building the church:" but there must be no infants there. Let us, however, examine this word farther, under the following particulars; as it relates to
1. The Spiritual Building. It is in relation to spiritual things that Paul says, "If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." (rf) "Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up." (e) There are many similar instances, in which our Translators render this word by, edify, which is etymologically synonimous. "Edify one another." "All things do not edify." (/) They frequently render the Original by the word build, when spiritual things are ultimately intended, as Dr. Gill teaches. "For which of you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" "This man began to build, and was not able to finish." (g)
__________
Jer. xlv. 4.
1 Cor. viii. 1.
1 Cor. xiv, 17. 4. Acts ix/31.
Heb. iii. 4,
1 Thess. v. 11.
(d) Gal. ii. 18.
1 Cor.
O) Luke xiv. 28. 30.
( 392 )
A saint is likened to a a wise man, which built his house upon a rock." (A) Are no infants built on this rock?
The Apostle Peter says, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house." (i) We have already had occasion to notice Gil's commentary on this passage; in which he represents all men as lying naturally in the same quarry: but some are graciously dug out, "and made fit for the spiritual building." If any infants are dug out of nature's quarry, and made subjects of grace, then some infants "are built up a spiritual house." The law of Moses ordained that the man who refused to "build up his brother's house," (y) should have his foot bared like a slave. No one doubts that literal infants are here meant. Dr. Gill says, "In the mystical sense of it, as Ainsworth observes, it spiritually signified, that such as would not beget children unto Christ, (or preach his gospel for that purpose,) it should be declared of them, that their feet are not shod with the preparation of the gospel of Christ." Thus, whether it be literally, or spiritually understood, babes are included.
2. The Ecclesiastical Building. This is intimately connected with the former, as are the church visible and invisible. Even when Peter says that Christians are built up a spiritual house, Gill says that they, "in [[a ospelrAwrc/j -state]], become the house of God in a "spiritual sense." The church is said to be a spiritual society, not as opposed to a visible society, but as distinguished from a political body. Concerning church courts, our excellent standards say, {( These assemblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to inflict any civil penalties. Their power is wholly moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial and declarative." () Omitting many passages which might be quoted we shall refer to a very few, and those in Jeremiah only. He says, "Again I will build thee, and
__________
f//) Matt vii. 24. 25. Luke vi. 48. 49.
(i) 1 Pet. ii. 4. 5. (y) Deut. xxv. 9,
[*) Form of Gov. Chap. 8, Sect. 2.
( 393 )
thou shall be built; O Virgin of Israel." "And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them to build, and to plant, saith the Lord." (7) "I will build you, and not pull you down." (ra) "I will build them as at the first:" (#) that is, with believers and their seed. As for the Gentiles, that is, the Christian church, "They shall be built in the midst of my people:" (rc) that is, engrafted on the old stock, as Paul teaches us; and, as Dr. Gill says, "partaking of the "same privileges and ordinances as the people of God." The administration of the seal of initiation to infants, was once a highly valued privilege and ordinance of the people of God. Believers scripturally demand the same privilege and ordinance now.
3. The Domestic Building. Here we come to the primary meaning of the law of Moses, which commands a survivor to 6( build up his brother's house." (/?) Solomon says, "Through wisdom is an house builded, and "by understanding, it is established," ^) that is,, says Gill, "The prosperity of a man's family is continued and secured by his prudent conduct." Again, 44 Every wise woman buildeth her house." (r) Gill says that this is done, in part, "by her fruitfulness, as Leah and Rachel built up the house of Israel." Rachel desired thus to build up the house of Israel; and for that reason she "said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die." (s) Her reason for giving Bilhah to her husband, was "that I also may be built by her," as the Hebrew and our English Margin read: or "that I also may have children by her;" U) as the Septuagint and the English Text read. From this passage, Dr. Gill refers to a former one, in which Leah, acting the same part, says, "It may be that I may be builded by her;" according to the Margin: "It may be that I may obtain
__________
[/) Jer. xxxi. 4. 28.
(o) Do. xxxiii. 7
[r) Prov. xiv. 1.
3 D
'm) Do. xlii. 10.
[ fi ) Deut. xxv. 9.
(?) Gen. xxx. 1.
(n) Do. xii. 16.
(q) Prov. xxiv. 3.
(0 Do. xxx. 3.
( 394 )
"children by her;" [[^]] according to the Text: On both of which, Gill comments in, the following words, viz. [[<]] { For women, by bearing children, build up an house, see Ruth iv. 11. hence a son in Hebrew is called BEN, 66 from BANAH, to build" To this same passage in Ruth, the Doctor refers concerning another of the Proverbs, which contains the command, "build thine "house?' [[(v)]] to confirm Jarchi's interpretation, that a man should "take a wife, when he is able to maintain her, whereby his house may be built up; see Ruth iv. 11." This passage we have already discussed in the tenth Subsection of the fifth section of this Argument on Household Baptism. It was there shewn, that this phraseology was generally used and understood, as we use and understand it, by [[(f]] all the people that were in the gate, and the elders" of the Jewish nation, in the time of Boaz, the great grand father of David; that such language with such a meaning, was common to civil courts and ordinary conversation; and that, from the manner in which they refer to their ancestors, they evidently considered this the meaning attached to such words and phrases, by the earliest patriarchs, and in the very first book of Moses, where Dr. Gill has shewn that a new born son is called ben, because he forms a part of the domestic building, and that when women desired children, they expressed a hope that they might be built it [[up]].
We will now recall your attention to the rules of interpretation by which we were all agreed that this discussion should be conducted. I will not now repeat those which were copied from the Duke de Montausier and Thomas Hartwell Home; but only those which were received from the Baptist Dr. Ryland, with a view
__________
''0 Gen. xvi.
2. (t>) Prov. xxiv. 27.
( 395 )
to this very controversy. They are as follows, viz. f6 Every word should be taken in its primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in the connexion, or in the nature of things, which requires it to be taken otherwise" "Whenever, by the connexion of a term, or by the nature of things, ice are obliged to depart from the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning of a word, [[ive]] should depart, as little as possible, from that meaning, and even with reluctance." Our object is to ascertain the meaning of the word household, connected with the baptism of several families in the New Testament. The question is, Does this word household include infants, as the word disciples includes females? In support of the affirmative of this question, I have, according to Dr. Ryland's rules, and others which were quoted, proved the following statements, viz. 1. The word household and its cognates, embrace infants, in the "primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning" of the words. (w) 2. In the disputed passages, there is nothing connected with the word household, which requires it to be taken otherwise than in its "primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning." 3. This was the meaning of the word household, among those for whom the authors of the disputed passages immediately wrote. 4. This was the meaning of the word household, and its conjugates, in other writings of the same authors, and of contemporary authors, and of former authors, Sacred and Profane. We, therefore, conclude, legitimately, that household embraces infants, and that household baptism is infant baptism.
__________
(w) That is, when these words are used in relation to the animate, and not the inanimate world.
( 396 )
As we are now closing my first Topic, The scriptural subject of baptism, it would not be amiss to take a very cursory review of the two arguments of which it consists; Divine command, and Apostolical practice. In support of the first argument, we established, upon a scriptural basis, the five following propositions, viz. 1. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God. 2. The Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic church: or, in other words, the Jewish Society before Christ, and the Christian Society after Christ, are one and the same church in different dispensations. 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian Baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms. 4. The administration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by divine authority; that is, God once commanded it. 5. The administration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibited by divine authority; that is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Testament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed. Regardless of their own prejudices or the empty declamation of others, let my hearers examine these premises in detail; let them calmly contemplate every article, and weigh the consequence of admitting them all. There is no person of candour and intelligence who can deny, that if these propositions are true, then there is now in force, both in the Old and New Testaments, an unrepealed divine command, for administering to believers and their infants, the initiatory seal of the church, which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism. But let it be remembered, that I have not asked you to take the premises on trust. They have been put to the most rigid test, and the more they are tried by the word of God, the more does their truth appear. We must, therefore, in good conscience, believe the inevitable conclusion from these scriptural premises, that there is a DIVINE COMMAND for the baptism of infants.
( 397 )
On the Second Argument, Apostolical practice, we have carefully examined the Household Baptism of the New Testament.;
To ascertain the meaning of OIKOS, house, or household, we have patiently explored the words Oikos Oikia, Oikodomeo,
with their numerous conjugates, whether used in relation to the material or spiritual house, the ecclesiastical or
celestial, the national or sectional, the royal, or pontifical, the patriarchal or domestic house. In this
investigation we have seen, that a promise of a house or household, is a promise of infants; that a house is given
or built, repaired or increased, by the birth of infants; that where good is said to be in a house, it is in infants;
that when evil is threatened or sent upon a house, infants die; that the death of 'infants is the rolling and flowing
away and destroying of a house; that the moving of a house is the moving of infants; and the establishing of a house,
the settling of 'infants. infants have been shewn to participate in the riches and poverty of a house, in the joys
and sorrows of a house, in the blessings and curses of a house, and in the mercies and judgments of a house. When
the solitary man is set in a house, he is placed among children; and when the barren woman sits in a house, the
meaning is, that she has an infant offspring. To govern a house, is to govern children; and to provide for a house,
is to take care of children. To feed a house, is to feed infants; and when a house eats, infants eat. According to
uniform Scripture usage, the circumcision of a house, would mean the circumcision of infants; and under the teaching
of God's Word and Spirit, we are compelled to believe, that the baptism of a house or household, is infant baptism.
Wherefore, the proposition with which this Topic commences, is true, that "The Scriptures consider infants as
suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian Baptism."
If, then, Infant baptism be found in the scriptures, it is no "human tradition" as the Challenge asserts, and as my
Opponent has undertaken to prove. You have heard and weighed his evidence. I am not aware of having unduly neglected
to meet any thing of his, which deserved the name of argument. I am yet disposed to plead, not guilty, to the charge
of observing a factitious and pernicious ordinance. May your judgments be formed by grace, according to truth and
justice. As for ourselves, we feel bound to stand by our present scriptural system, in the midst of reproach and
opposition, looking to the Spirit of Christ for strength, and hoping for the blessing of God upon an institution
which is founded upon DIVINE COMMAND and APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE.
|
