CHAPTER VIII.

The three instances of the Baptism of a Household, recorded Acts, xvi. 14, 15, 33, and I. Cor. i. 16, particularly examined.

Great stress being laid on the baptism of the households of Lydia, the Jailer, and Stephanas, as so many examples of infant or household baptism in the Pedobaptist sense of the phrase, a particular examination of each is required.

I will begin with that of Lydia, Acts, xvi. 14, 15. "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spo ken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us."

To make out, from this instance, an apostolick example for infant baptism, it must, in the first place, be made to appear that Lydia's household contained infants, properly so called. And in the second, that they were baptized on her faith. Unless both of these points are proved, it is not an example for the baptism of infants, or unadult children. But neither has ever been proved, and neither can be proved, for the proof does not exist.

It is, moreover, necessary to the argument, to prove that this household contained none but infants, or unadult children; for there is precisely the same evidence that the whole household were baptized upon Lydia's faith, as that any of them were. If it be admitted as possible, and even probable, that there were others in the family besides infants, who were baptized upon their own faith, the argument is lost. For the main force of it lies in this, that there is no express mention made of any one's faith except hers; and yet there is a record of the baptism of the household in connexion with hers. If, therefore, notwithstanding this manner of recording the baptism of the household, it be admitted both possible and probable that there were some in it that were adults, and were baptized

on their own faith, it will follow that all might have been of this description. If the words do not necessarily exclude all adults from the household who were baptized on their own faith, they contain no solid argument for the baptism of any upon the faith of Lydia. For if there were any adult believers, they might have all been such. And hence there is no proof that she had any infants who received baptism upon her

account.

And, now, is there any thing, in fact, in this record, which excludes the idea that there were adults in her family, who were baptized on their own faith? There evidently is not. The word household is not limited to infants, as every one knows. It contains the members of a family, be they adults, or infants, or both.

The household of a man includes, not only his children, but his wife and servants-all that compose his family. But when the household of a woman is spoken of, it seems to be implied that she has no husband. Nevertheless, she may have adults in her family, as well as infants; or it may consist altogether of adults. It may consist altogether of adult servants and boarders; or it may consist of children that have arrived to adult age; or of these and some infants. From this known use of the word, household, it will follow that Lydia's household might have contained adults that were baptized on their own faith. And if it might have contained adults of this description, it might have contained no other; notwithstanding no one's faith is expressly mentioned but hers. Yea, it is not only possible, but probable, that she had adults in her family that were capable of acting, and did act, for themselves, in this important concern.

This appears from her occupation and rank. It is most natural to conclude from the history, that her home was in the city of Thyatira, three hundred miles distant; and that she was here on business merely-for the purpose of disposing of her purple goods; and, of course, she would be very likely to have adult servants, or attendants. And if she actually had small children, it is not probable that she brought them with her upon such an undertaking.

There is, therefore, the highest probability that she had adults in her household, who were bound to act for themselves, and who were baptized upon their own faith. And if there might have been such in her family, there might have been no other. Yea, it is probable there were no other. The argument, therefore, is lost.

The words certainly do not, of necessity, imply that she had

infant children, and that they were baptized on her faith. The most that any one can pretend to say is, that it is more probable that she had, than that she had not.

But will this do, even allowing the statement to be correct, to found so important a practice upon as that of infant baptism? Was the matter left to be determined by mere probability? It is unreasonable to conclude this.

But even this argument fails. For there is the greater probability that they were all believers, as above stated. This is especially the case, when we connect the subsequent account, related verse 40. "And they went out of the prison, (viz. Paul and Silas,) and entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed."

Now, who were these brethren? Were they some of Paul's company whom he had left there, or who had collected there while he and Silas were cast into prison? Or were they the members of her household? It is altogether most probable that they were the latter, as we have no account that Paul left any of his company there, provided he had any more with him at the time than Silas. The phraseology also, better suits the case of those who were taught than that of the teachers, and of those that were resident there than of those that travelled with the apostle. "When they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." These brethren, it appears, were left behind; and of course, it is in no wise probable that they were any of Paul's companions; but there is every reason to believe that they were the members of Lydia's household. And their being called brethren, shows that they were converts who were baptized on their own faith. At any rate, it is quite as probable that these brethren composed her household, as that it was composed of infants or unadult children. So that the argument, even from probability, to make the best of it, is lost.

If it be still alleged, that in most families there are infaut children, and that consequently it is most probable there were in this, it may be replied, that many families contain no such children, and that most families, under similar circumstances, do not contain any. And this, with the additional mention of the brethren that were in her house after the baptism, renders it decidedly the most probable that she had no infant children in her family on this occasion. Therefore the greatest probability is still on the side of believers' baptism merely, even from this very instance, which is unquestionably the most favourable of the three to the cause of infant baptism.

This greater probability in favour of their all being believ ers is not materially lessened by the manner in which the bap

tism of the household is related. To give the argument from hence any weight, the practice of infant baptism must be presupposed. From the known practice of Pedobaptists, we should, indeed, conclude from such a mode of expression, that the household contained infants that were baptized upon her account. But we should not conclude any such thing from the known practice of anti-Pedobaptists. All that would be inferred in that case would be, that the whole family believed as well as she, and were baptized on their own faith. There is evidently nothing in this record, allowing the apostles to have practised believers' baptism only, which is inconsistent with that practice, or which conveys a different idea. The only force of the argument lies in presupposing that the apostles practised infant baptism, which is the very thing to be proved.

Nor is there any thing to lessen the probability in favour of this being a family of believers, in the words, "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there," without any express mention of the faith of the household: because she spoke as the head of the family, whose business it was to give the invitation. There was no necessity for mentioning the faith of her household in this place. The mode of expression is perfectly consistent either with the idea that she had no infant children, or that she had. It is no proof either for or against the piety of the household. But the subsequent account of there being brethren in her house, as I have shown, is a plain intimation that her household were believers. On the whole, therefore, there is nothing gained in favour of the Pedobaptist cause on the ground of probability.

But even if there was as great a probability as the Pedobaptists suppose, that there were infants in this family; yea, if it were certain that there were; this would not be satisfactory proof that they were baptized on her account. We might meet the Pedobaptists on their own ground, and say the record respects merely the adult part of the family, as the Lord had given no order for the baptism of any but adults. They generally say that the words of Christ in Mark, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned;" relate merely to adults, and do not touch the case of infants; that the very argument from these words which would exclude them from baptism, would exclude them also from salvation. Although I do not admit the justness of this statement, yet they cannot complain, if we dispose of the other case in the same way that they do of this. Certainly it might be argued with as much propriety, and more, that the mention of the baptism of the household only related to the adult part,

and not to those who were too young to be instructed and to profess faith. Seeing the commission to baptize expressly mentions none but believers, it might be plead that the mention of the baptism of a household means, of course, the adult part, and no more. Therefore, the fact that there were infants in her family, if ever so probable, and even if proved, would not prove infant baptism.

And further; if it were as probable as Pedobaptists suppose, that there were infants in this household who were baptized on Lydia's faith, this would not settle the point; because this is not the kind of proof required, especially in the case of a positive institution. To base such an institution upon mere probability, would open a field for inference and conjecture quite too wide, and it would be a gross reflection upon the wisdom, accuracy, and faithfulness of the New Testament lawgiver. What if this probability, as some allege, were as three to one in favour of the Pedobaptist view; so long as it is mere probability, in a case where an explicit warrant is required; and so long as it is admitted by these persons that the probability on the side of there being none but adults who acted for themselves is as one to three, i. e. one third as probable as the other, there is evidently no warrant to consider this as an example of infant baptism. If it be allowed that one family in three have no infant children; yea, if the proportion were stated to be still less; it will clearly follow, that this household might have been of that description. And so the point is not proved that here were infants baptized on Lydia's account. And when it is considered that mere probability would not afford adequate proof, even if it were ever so great, it is palpably unjust to consider this as an example of infant baptism. I have even shown that the argument, from probability itself, is in favour of the baptism of believers only, from this very instance.

Moreover, it should be particularly observed that it does not belong to me to prove that there were no infants in this family; or, if there were, that they were not baptized upon Lydia's account; but to the Pedobaptists to prove that there were infants in it, and that they received baptism on her account; neither of which is capable of being done. And if, after all, it should be said that as Pedobaptists cannot prove that there were infants in it, so neither can I prove that there were not, then I would say, that in that case, the passage is no proof either for or against the point in debate; and so it is left just where the apostolick commission and history leave it, as I have already shown, in favour of a warrant merely for the baptism of believers.

The next instance of the baptism of a household which I