and the house of Stephanas; and though it is taking them out of their order, it may be well to notice them also here. Let us consider first the case of the jailor. It is said that “he was baptized, and all his,”—that is, “all his house;” to whom, as well as to himself, Paul and Silas had “spoken the word of the Lord.” But if we are told that _they were baptized_, we are also told that _they believed_. In the 34th verse we read, that the jailor “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” In order to force this case to support Infant-baptism, an attempt is sometimes made to change the construction of the sentence, _thus_; “He, believing in God, rejoiced with all his house.” This makes very little difference in the meaning. For if his house were capable of rejoicing with him, they must have been of a sufficient age to understand _why_ they rejoiced: and as his faith in Christ was the cause of _his_ joy, it must have been also the cause of _theirs_; and if they could rejoice in _his_ faith, why might they not have had faith _of their own_ to rejoice in? But the Greek will not admit of the above construction. The adverb translated “with all his house” must be referred to the participle “believing,” which in the Original follows it; and these words express the reason of his joy, which was, his own faith and the faith of his family. Beza gives _this_ as the sense of the latter part of the 34th verse; “He,” that is, the jailor, “rejoiced because that with the whole of his house he had believed in God.” {50} _As believers_, therefore,—of whomsoever his “house” consisted—they were entitled to baptism _on their own account_, and thus they stood precisely in the same situation with himself. And _no inference_ can _hence_ be drawn respecting Infant-baptism. Of Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue at Corinth, mentioned in the xviiith Chapter, it is at once said that he “believed on the Lord with all his house;” and though their baptism is not particularly spoken of, it would of course take place with the baptism of the other believing Corinthians. From St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we learn that he himself baptized Crispus;—no mention being made of his household: but as we are informed that they were _believers_, they would certainly be baptized, like the household of the Philippian jailor. This case, therefore, does not apply to the subject of Infant-baptism. Neither does the baptizing of the house of Stephanas. St. Paul tells the Corinthians, in the beginning of his First Epistle, that he baptized this house: but what does he say of them at the close of the Epistle? “Ye know,” he says, “the house of Stephanas, that it is _the first fruits of Achaia_, _and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints_:” (xvi. 15.)—a description this, of _personal religion_; and proving that they were _all_ capable of meeting the requirements of baptism _in their own persons_. The only remaining case