THE antipaedobaptist asserts that there is no reference to Infant Baptism in the New Testament, but to such an assertion we cannot agree; for it is clearly stated in Acts 16: 15, that Lydia was baptised and her household. Acts 16: 33. The Philippian jailer was baptised, he and all his. Acts 18: 8. Crispas with all his house were baptised. 1st Cor. 1: 14. Paul declares he baptised the household of Stephanas. But, before giving further consideration to household baptism, we will deal with the antipaedobaptist's form of objection.

The antipaedobaptists tell us that the above texts are not sufficient to warrant Infant Baptism, but that they require the specific terms, "Infant Baptism," to appear in the Holy Scriptures before they are prepared to accept Infant Baptism as a sacramental rite to be administered to the children of believing parents.

We have already turned the antipaedobaptists' reasoning against themselves with regards to "Conscious Experience" (see previous issue). We shall now see to what nonsense and confusion the antipaedobaptists' methods of interpretation lead us.

The doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, is not found in an express statement in the Holy Scriptures, but it is clear from necessary inference. To adhere to the method of interpretation adopted by the antipaedobaptists with reference to Infant Baptism, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity must be denied. There is not any specific text in the New Testament for women to partake or be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Must we, therefore, conclude that women are not to be permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper? Simply because the term "Infant Baptism" does not appear in the New Testament, the infants of believing parents are denied the sacramental rites of baptism by the antipaedobaptists; but when it comes to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they conveniently drop their principle of interpretation, and ignore the fact that there are not any specific terms in the New Testament with reference to the Holy Trinity or of women partaking of the bread and wine of the Sacrament. They accept the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and allow women to come to the Lord's Table because the inference is clearly set forth in the Scriptures, but they repudiate necessary inference with regards to Infant Baptism. We have here a glaring case of distorting the Holy Scriptures.

In the New Testament, there is no express command or reason given for observing the Christian Sabbath. According to the antipaedobaptist method of interpreting Infant Baptism, the desecration of the Sabbath is a meaningless phrase. The antipaedobaptist applies the method of necessary inference with regard to the Holy Trinity, the Lord's Supper to be partaken of by women, and the observance of the Sabbath Day; but completely disposes of this method of interpretation when it comes to the question of Infant Baptism. To repudiate necessary inference when it does not dovetail in with the preconceived ideas of the antipaedobaptists is little better than the Modernist's approach to the Holy Scriptures, and leads to such distortion that the fundamentalists among the antipaedobaptists would be forced to discredit it.

We shall now return to our consideration of household baptism. In the New Testament, we have six references to a number of people, up to 3000 in one day, being admitted to the membership of the Church by baptism. Acts 2: 41. Following Peter's sermon, "Then they that gladly received His word were baptised; and the same day there were added unto them about 3000 souls." Acts 8: 12. Following Philip's ministry in the city of Samaria, it is recorded "when they believed Philip's preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women." Acts 10: 48. The Apostle Peter and certain brethren from Joppa went to Caesarea, and, after the Apostle had addressed a meeting, "He commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord." Acts 18: 8. It is recorded that "Crispas, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised." Acts 19: 5. Certain disciples at Ephesus, who had been ignorant of the sacrament instituted by our Lord, were instructed by Paul, and "when they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus." We also have a reference to Crispas and Gaius in 1st Cor. 1: 14.

In all the above references, we notice that a meeting had been organised or conducted, and, following the meeting, the sacrament of Baptism was administered. If the above were the only reference to Baptism in the New Testament, we would be justified in refusing to administer the Sacrament of Baptism only in the church, that is, when the church was assembled in one place. But we have other references to Baptism.

We have two references to baptism being administered to individuals. Acts 8: 38. Philip was instructed to go to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, where he would meet an Ethiopian, and on the Ethiopian's confession of faith, Philip baptised him by the roadside. Acts 9: 18. Ananias is instructed to go to the house of Judas, in the street called Straight, in Damascus, and enquire for "one, Saul of Tarsus." Ananias, having found Saul, addressed him as "brother Saul," explained his mission, "and immediately there fell from his (Saul's) eyes as it had been scales; and he received his sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptised." Thus we have the warrant of Holy Scripture for administering baptism to individuals without taking into consideration time or place. Therefore, whatever objection may be raised against baptism being administered outside the church, that is, apart from the assembled church, under certain circumstances, is contrary to the Holy Scripture.

It is equally contrary to Holy Scripture to object to Infant Baptism; as we have three references to family baptism; and, if we include the house of Crispas, Acts 18: 8, we have four. Acts 16: 15. When Paul was at Philippi he met Lydia, a seller of purple, who received the word spoken by Paul. "And when she was baptised and her household," she offered Paul and his companion accommodation. Acts 16: 33. Paul and Silas, having spoken unto the Philippian jailer the word of the Lord, and to all that was in his house, "He took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and was baptised, he and all his straightway." In 1st Cor. 1: 16, Paul says, "And I baptised also the household of Stephanas."

It would prove a very difficult task to find a more suitable term to entitle little children of believing parents being received into the membership of the Church by baptism, than the term "household" or "family." The term includes the babe in its mother's arms and the other members of the family, in varying stages of development. The term makes provision for the infant as well as the teenager, which, in the early church, was so necessary. It is also evident that the term "household" is used to meet the objection of the antipaedobaptists; as we have no reference in Holy Scripture of a child of believing parents, on reaching the age of conscious experience, being baptised, for the simple reason that they were baptised as infants.

The infants in the household, being members of the church, would enjoy the privilege of being brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This is supported by Paul, when he says, concerning Timothy, "that, from a child, thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith, which is in Christ Jesus." Timothy's mother, Eunice, was a Christian, his father probably a heathen. Our mind immediately turns to the word of the Apostle to the Corinthians, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." We also have the Apostle confirming the baptism of the household of Stephanas. 1st Cor. 16: 15. "I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas that it is the first-fruits of Achaia)."

We have already noticed that there are six general references to baptism in the New Testament. Two references to individuals being baptised; and the four references to household or family baptism.

Although we have only six references to general baptism, tens of thousands were baptised in the early church, of which we have no references in the Scriptures. We do not have any reference in the New Testament of Christians being baptised in the Church of Antioch, Iconium, Rome, Thessalonica, or Colosse. Would the antipaedobaptists have us conclude that baptism was not administered in these churches? We know that baptism was administered in these churches; it is a necessary inference from the general references to baptism.

We have four references to household baptism, therefore the sacrament of baptism must have been administered to great numbers of households, of which we have no reference in Scripture. Therefore the objection of the antipaedobaptists to Infant Baptism is carried to an extreme when they suggest, rather, insist, that infants were excluded from every household that received baptism, or that children were not included in forming part of the household. The antipaedobaptists inform us that the words in Acts 16: 32 are addressed to adults; therefore infants were excluded from the household of the Philippian jailer. If we adopt the same method of interpretation to Exodus 12: 4, then there would not be an infant in all the households of Israel on the night of the Passover. Such conclusions are not only unjustified, but nonsense.

The antipaedobaptists have no justification to allow their imagination to suggest that little children did not form part of the household in the references referred to in Scripture; not only is there the necessary inference, but the very term itself, "household" or "house," embraces little children. In the light of the evidence produced, the onus is upon the antipaedobaptists to produce a reference or necessary inference, where the children of believing parents were refused baptism.