18. Lecture XVII; Baptism of Lydia and the Jailor.
LECTURE XVII.
BAPTISM OF LYDIA, AND OF THE JAILOR.
" And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake 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. 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." In this example, nothing peculiar occurs on the privileges, design, perpetuity, or mode of baptism. On these topics, I remark only, that the history of Lydia’s baptism contains nothing contrary to the doctrine of the commission, or of the preceding examples; and that the truths omitted here must be supplied from these and other Scriptures. On the qualifications, duties, and subjects of the ordinance, this example is very explicit; and on the previous profession no less instructive than the case of the Ethiopian. Lydia was instructed, believed, and professed her faith, previous to baptism. In obedience to his commission, Paul begins with teaching. Lydia received his doctrine; the Lord opened her heart, that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul.
There is indirect, but very satisfactory evidence, that a credible profession of faith preceded her baptism. 1 refer to the argument by which Lydia enforces her request that the apostle and his companions should become her guests. “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." When a profession of faith was made, the apostles judged of its credibility. They had heard Lydia’s profession, and judged her to be faithful, and by that judgment she enforces her request: “If, <or since), ye have judged me to be faithful." The rule of receiving a Christian profession ought to be observed. Not only must a profession of faith be made and heard previous to baptism, but its credibility must be judged of and approved. Words must be employed; but, if they be not credible, they are not to be regarded. The case of this woman is equally explicit as to the subjects of baptism. After Lydia was judged faithful, she was baptized; and every one who believes should, after her example, be baptized on his profession of faith. It ought likewise to be observed, that there was no unnecessary interval between her profession of faith and her baptism.
There is not the least evidence that infants were baptized on this occasion. There is no mention in the narrative of infants, but only of the baptism of Lydia and her household; and until it be proved that there were infants in this household, and that these infants were baptized, the cause of infant baptism is no way supported by the narrative. A moment’s attention to the facts will convince us that there is no evidence that Lydia had infants, and none, of course, that her infants were baptized. If she had infants, she would, if possible, on a journey of traffic, leave them at home; her children, if she had any, might be adult; if married, she might be childless; her household might consist of adult friends, or of her servants who assisted her in the manufacture of purple. Her whole language inclines one to believe, especially if acquainted with the manners of the East, that she was not married.
I said, therefore, that in this example there is no mention of infants, or of their baptism. Unproved suppositions must never be mistaken for facts.
Acts 16:23 — 36, “And when they had laid many stripes upon them (Taul and Silas), they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: who having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must. I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. And when it was day, the magistrates sent the Serjeants, saying, Let those men go. And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now, therefore, depart, and go in peace."
Nothing peculiar occurs in this history on the perpetuity, design, privileges, duties, or mode of baptism: but it confirms the doctrine of the preceding examples respecting the qualifications and subjects of the ordinance; and teaches us what ideas we ought to attach to the expression, “baptized household."
What are the qualifications for baptism? If we are to take the answer from this approved pattern, these qualifications are, knowledge and faith. Ver. 30-33, “And he (the jailor) said, What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And (he) was baptized, he and all his, straightway, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." He was convicted, he was instructed, he believed, and was baptized. Is it the duty of every believer to be baptized? The narrative answers in the affirmative, and confirms the doctrine of the immediate connection between baptism and faith. No interval of time, without necessity, must intervene between believing and being baptized. The language here is very expressive of this doctrine. Straightway, the same hour of the night, without any interval, he was baptized. The friends of religion who are tempted to procrastination, will do well to consider this language. To the expression, “baptized household," what ideas are we to attach? The narrative answers explicitly: Not the idea of infancy, but of grace, and of grace exercised and professed, ver. 30-34.
Farther, the apostles say, in verse 31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Do they mean that the jailor’s wife, and infants, and adult children, and servants, and their infants, should all be saved, whether they themselves had faith or had it not, provided only that he, the head of the family, believed? Are we thus to understand the apostles? Or are we to understand them as saying that, if he believed, he should be saved, and that if any, or all of his household should believe, they should be saved in the same way with himself? In the first sense, say the abettors of infant sprinkling; the Anti-pedo-baptists say, in the latter. The historian gives the answer, and by his answer teaches us how we are to understand similar words whereever they occur in the sacred history. The words of the historian, in verse 32, are, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." The word of the Lord was spoken to all that were in his house; of course, they could hear and understand it; then they were not’ infants. The historian proceeds, verse 34, “And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." All his house rejoiced in God, all his house believed in God; they were neither graceless, nor unbelievers, nor infants, but sanctified persons, believing and professing their faith. Thus the Holy Spirit has taught us how he wishes to be understood, when he speaks of “baptized households" — of men believing, and being saved with their houses; and, in particular, how we are to understand the account of the baptism of the household of Lydia. The remarks formerly made on the subject of households confirm this conclusion. Households were baptized when they believed, and not otherwise. The cause of infant baptism is not supported by the case of the jailor. The words of the narrative speak nothing of infants. They record the conversion, and consequent baptism of the jailor and his house. The whole is an example and proof, that, after faith, the believer ought to be baptized; but, in no way, does it give any sanction to the baptism of infants. A text of like import is quoted from 1Co 1:16, "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas." These words speak nothing of infants, and consequently can furnish no proof of their baptism. Allow me to read 1Co 16:16, "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such." The household of Stephanas, you see, were not only believers, but believers of distinction, ministering to the saints, and entitled to their submission. I need not repeat the consequence; this evidence, like the rest, subverts the cause which it is adduced to support. Under the head of households, some other passages have been mentioned; but the inquirer, on reading them, will, without assistance, perceive, that, if possible, they are even less to the point for infant baptism than the histories of Stephanas and the jailor. But before leaving this topic; two or three remarks may be of use.
First, the word household, in connection with baptism, must signify the believing part of the household. The reasons are such as follow: — 1st, The commission and consequent practice of the apostles, limit baptism to a profession of faith. 2dly, Two of the three baptized houses are expressly adult, and oblige us to understand the house of Lydia as adult also. 3dly, The households saluted by the apostles are adults, for they are supposed to be capable of receiving the salutations. Take the word household in connection with baptism, as restricted to believers, and all is scriptural and plain; but take the word in the Pedo-baptist sense, that is unrestricted, and, mark the consequence. The household is baptized on the faith of its head; that is, the infant part of the children, the adult part of the children, the relative inmates, the slaves, the servants; the whole household, like the infants, are baptized or sprinkled on the faith of the parent or master. Shall we admit all these, or reject part of them? If the Pedo-baptist answer, Admit; his practice refutes his answer. If he say, Reject; his plea is gone; its force lies in the unlimited sense of the word. In a word, if the household is to be baptized on the faith of its head, how are we to dispose of the part of it that is unbelieving, but willing to be baptized or sprinkled on the call of their superior?
Farther, The sacred historians have nowhere said that the apostles baptized believers with their households. They say, indeed, that the houses of Lydia, Stephanas, and the jailor, were baptized; but this is a thing very different from a general assertion, both in itself and its consequences. The general assertion would have indicated, that to baptize believers and their households, was the usual practice of the apostles. But the general assertion does not occur; it is studiously avoided, and the reason must be, that this was not their practice. The house of the jailor is mentioned, and perhaps the other two, because they were extraordinary cases; had they been ordinary, or had the general assertion been used, it is not probable that particulars would have been recorded; and it is still less likely that they would have been recorded, without some intimation that they were instances of a general practice. Take an example of the historian’s language in a similar case. The apostle went into the synagogue, "as his manner was." This remark detects the fallacy of one of the most plausible pleas for pedo-baptism. It is alleged, that multitudes of households were baptized by the Apostles, and that it is altogether improbable that there were infants in none of them. But the reverse of this is the doctrine of the sacred historians. They avoid the general assertion that the apostles baptized households; they mention three extraordinary cases; two of the three are declared to be adult. Instead of a multitude of households, we have the house of Lydia only, and to it I must apply a common rule of interpretation: “The more obscure must be explained by the more clear Scriptures." Judging by the houses of Stephanas and the jailor, I conclude that the house of Lydia believed. The conclusion is strengthened by a degree of positive evidence. Acts 16:40, “And they (the apostles) went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." Whether these brethren consisted of Lydia and her household only, or of others along with them, they are all described as comforted, that is, as believers. Our last remark here is that a believing household may be restricted to two or three of its members. A whole, in the language of Scripture is often used for a part; thus, all Judea is said to be baptized of John, and yet Christ is said to make more disciples than John The whole is used for a part of Judea. On this principle, the believer’s household is that part of it, whether great or small, partaking of like precious faith with the head. It must be restricted to believers, and it need not be extended beyond the lowest plurality. The sum of these remarks is, that the apostles did not usually baptize households; that the households baptized were few; that, without perhaps a single exception, the baptized households are described as believers. In a word, the sacred record of baptized households furnishes no proof of pedo-baptism.