in which a household is said to have been baptized, is that of Lydia at Philippi. Now it seems evident from her history that she had no husband. The house is twice called _her house_; and _the household_ is called _hers_ also. And the invitation to Paul and his company is given _by herself and in her own name_. “Come into _my house_, and abide there.” (v. 15.) This language could never have been used of her and by her, if she had had a husband. Nor does it appear at all likely, that she was a widow with children; for, from the particularity with which her circumstances are related, there is every probability that, had this been the case, some intimation would have been given of it. We have not only _her name_ mentioned, but _the place_ she came from or still belonged to, and _the business_ which she followed: but no allusion whatever to any family. She could not have been a person in a low condition of life, or she would not have been able to receive and entertain in her house for many days the Apostle and those who were with him. She would therefore have “household servants,” and probably persons to assist her in her business as “a seller of purple.” But the whole tenor of her history is against the supposition, that there were in her house _any who could not answer for themselves_. It appears, then, from the consideration of the cases in which the baptizing of households is mentioned in Scripture, that no argument whatever can be deduced from them on the subject of Infant-baptism. A reference to them, therefore, only gives an advantage to the opponents of the practice:—an argument which will not bear close examination being always worse than none. The xviiith Chapter of this Book of The Acts of the Apostles contains the account of Crispus and his house just referred to. It is also simply, though very strikingly, said of many others of the Corinthians, that they “heard,”—they “believed,”—and they “were baptized.” (v. 8.) Faith came by hearing; and baptism, according to the institution of Christ, followed faith.