Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

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

6

[ocr errors]

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 alledged 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

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, (OIKIA) 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

:

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 synonimous. 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 sy

nagogue, whose daughter the Messiah brought to life, had a house, which Luke calls oikos, Chap. 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. Rallston, oikia signifies a man's household or servants.' Let us test the correctness of this assertion. Matt. x. 12. Salute the house when ye enter it, (oikia) i. e. salute the servants only. Matt. x. 13. If the house, (oikia) be worthy, i. e. the servants. Matt. xii. 25. Every house divided, (oikia) i. e. servants, divided come to desolation. The Centurion, whose son Jesus healed, John iv.

« PreviousContinue »