"children by her;"(u) 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, "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 mantain 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 "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 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 Horne; but only those which were received from the Baptist Dr. Ryland, with a view (v) Prov. xxiv. 27.

(u) Gen. xvi. 2.

66

to this very controversy. They are as follows, viz. 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." 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.

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 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 Jew. ish 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 believ ers 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.

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.