unto the women which resorted thither. 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 spoken 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.' No one denies that Lydia was a believer; she was therefore a proper subject of baptism. But it is inferred by Pedobaptists that, as her household was baptized, infants must have been baptized. This does not follow, for the very good reason that there are many households in which there are no infants. The probability—and it amounts almost to a certainty is that Lydia had neither husband nor children. She was engaged in secular business-was "a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira," which was a considerable distance from Philippi. If she had a husband and infant children, is it not reasonable to suppose that her husband would have taken on himself the business in which she was engaged, letting her remain at home with the infant children? She evidently had no husband with her; for we cannot believe that she violated conjugal propriety so far as to reduce her husband to a cipher by saying "my house." Nor can we believe that the sacred historian

would have spoken of "the house of Lydia," in verse 40, if she had a husband. The most reasonable inference is that her household consisted of persons in her employ, that they as well as Lydia became Christian converts, and that they were the "brethren " whom Paul and Silas "comforted" when, having been released from prison, they "entered into the house of Lydia." Enough has been said to invalidate Pedobaptist objections to the Baptist explanation of this narrative, and nothing more can be required. Pedobaptists affirm that Lydia had infant children. Their argument rests for its basis on this view. On them devolves the burden of proof. They must prove that she had infant children. This they have never done—this they can never do. rative therefore furnishes no argument in favor of infant baptism.

The nar

The same chapter (Acts xvi.) contains an account of the baptism of the jailer and his household. Here it is necessary to say but little; for every one can see that there were no infants in the jailer's family. Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." It is also said that the jailer rejoiced, “believing in God with all his house." Surely the word of the Lord was not spoken to infants; surely infants are incapable of believing. It is worthy of notice that this record shows

how Paul understood the Commission of Christ. He first spoke the word of the Lord, and when that word was believed, but not till then, was there an administration of baptism.

It is only necessary to refer to the household of Crispus (Acts xviii. 8) to show what has just been shown-namely, that a man's house as well as himself may believe on the Lord. It is not said in so many words that the family of Crispus was baptized, but it is said that he "believed on the Lord with all his house." No doubt the family was baptized, but faith in Christ preceded the baptism.

In 1 Cor. i. 16, Paul says, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas." Will any one infer that there were infants in this family? This inference cannot be drawn, in view of what the same apostle says in the same Epistle (xvi. 15): "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." Infants could not addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. It follows that there were no infants in the family of Stephanas. I am aware that to invalidate this conclusion an argument from chronology has been used. It has been urged that, although infants were baptized in the family of Stephanas when Paul planted the church at Corinth, sufficient time elapsed between their baptism

and the date of Paul's First Epistle to the church to justify the declaration, "They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." This argument avails nothing in view of the fact that the most liberal chronology allows only a few years to have intervened between the planting of the church and the date of the Epistle.

Reference has now been made to all the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, and there is no proof that there was an infant in any of them. On the other hand, facts and circumstances are related which render it a moral certainty that there were no infants in those baptized families. It will not do to say that ordinarily there are infants in households; it must be shown that it is universally the case. Then the household argument will avail Pedobaptists-not till then. But it cannot be said of all households that there are infants in them. Many a Baptist minister in the United States has baptized more households than are referred to in the New Testament, and no infants in them. It is said that more than thirty entire household baptisms have occurred in connection with American Baptist missionary operations among the Karens in Burmah. In view of such considerations as have now been presented, the reasonings of Pedobaptists from household baptisms are utterly inconclusive. They cannot satisfy a logical mind.

SECTION V.

Certain passages in the New Testament supposed by some Pedobaptists to refer to infant baptism shown to have no such reference.

Conspicuous among these passages is what Paul says in Rom. xi. of the "good olive tree" and of the "wild olive tree." It is assumed that by the "good olive tree" is meant the "Jewish church-state." This assumption requires another-namely, that the "wild olive tree" denotes a Gentile church-state; but from the latter view the most earnest Pedobaptist recoils. The truth is there is no reference by the apostle to any "church-state," whether among Jews or Gentiles. Paul teaches in substance what we learn from other parts of the New Testament-that the Jews enjoyed great privileges, which they abused; in consequence of which abuse, the privileges were taken from them and given to the Gentiles. This is the teaching of Christ; for he said to the Jews, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. xxi. 43).

Why this kingdom was taken from the Jews we may learn from John i. 11: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." They rejected the Messiah who came in fulfilment of their own prophecies, and thus they surrendered the vantage-ground