and still further instructed. It was similar with the Samaritans

to whom Philip preached. "When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs that were done" (Acts viii. 12, 13). True it is that Simon afterwards proved to be still "in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity." Even Philip could not see into this man's heart. At the time however, his profession seemed sincere, and that was enough for the administrator, until the contrary was undeniably proved. Although Simon turned out to be a bad man it no more follows from the fact that he had been baptized that those known to be ungodly should be baptized, then it follows from the criminal conduct of Judas that the vilest men are to be admitted knowingly to the Lord's Supper, and the highest offices of the church. It only shows that we are to give men credit for sincerity and faith when there is nothing in their lives inconsistent with their profession, though afterwards they may make it manifest that they were only formalists and hypocrites. The eunuch who was returning from the worship of God at Jerusalem is specially mentioned as one of Philip's converts. Did Philip baptize him first and then teach him? Did he even disciple him by baptizing him? Did he not make him a convert to Christ first by preaching Christ from the grand evangelical chapter which he was reading, and thus prepare the way for baptism? (Acts viii. 26-38). Leaving out the answer which Philip is said in our version to have given to the question, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" as it is supposed by some to be an interpolation, the narrative is in harmony with our interpretation of the Lord's commission, and shows how it was obeyed. We come next to the baptism of Saul, who was afterwards better known as Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. We know how Saul's conversion was effected by the Lord Himself appearing unto him, and how he afterwards was baptized. He became a genuine disciple of Jesus when he humbled himself and said, "Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?" He openly confessed his discipleship when he was baptized, washing away his sins, as we believe, symbolically. Next in order we look at the case of Cornelius, and his kinsmen and friends, as recorded in Acts x. It is said that he was a devout man, and 66 one that feared God with all his house." He was directed of

God to send for Peter to instruct him more fully. He waited for Peter coming from Joppa, having called together his kinsmen and near friends, and on Peter's arrival told him how God had directed him, and added, "Now, therefore, we are all here present before God, to hear all things commanded thee of God." Whilst Peter was speaking unto them, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word, and Peter commanded them to be baptized. They were first instructed, and received the Holy Ghost. "Can any one doubt that they became believers before baptism was administered?"

We come now to Lydia and her household (Acts xvi. 13, 15). Whatever may have been the case with her household, we know that she was first instructed, and that her heart was opened to receive the things spoken by Paul before she was baptized. Who can doubt that Lydia was a genuine, disciple when her heart was thus opened? If not, then where shall we find a genuine disciple? Having been discipled, she was baptized, and still further instructed by Paul, whom she received kindly into her household, extending to him saintly hospitality. As to her household, we know not of what it consisted, nothing is said about it. We are not told whether there were any children in it too young to have their hearts opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul. Must we, then, without evidence either way, allow this case to force us to put a different meaning upon the Lord's commission, notwithstanding so many cases which are plainly confirmative of the view we have expressed? "Neander," says Dr. Kirk in his commentary, "regards it as highly improbable that St. Paul, the opponent of all opus operatum, without personal faith, would have introduced, or permitted to be introduced, a practice which might be so easily perverted into a sanction for the delusion of a justification to be obtained by external things, and which would transfer the external righteousness of circumcision to Christian baptism."

We find nothing here then, inconsistent with the view of our Lord's commission which we have already expressed. In the same chapter, however, is another instance of the baptism of a household. It is that of the gaoler. But if here the family are said to have been baptized, it is also said that Paul and Silas spoke the Word of the Lord to them as well as to him, and promised that they should be saved by faith as well as he, whether it is meant his faith or theirs must be determined by other passages of Scripture. And how can we interpret it in

the face of such statements as "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned," would it not require the clearest evidence before we could believe in the salvation of a household because of the faith of its chief, notwithstanding all the passages which seem very clearly to prove that faith is required of each person for himself. At any rate, when it is said that the Word was spoken to his house, and that he rejoiced and believed in God with all his house, it seems to Baptists great presumption to suppose that there were those in the house who were not old enough to attend, to rejoice, and to believe in God, who nevertheless were baptized. If it be said that it signifies that the means of salvation would be brought within the reach of the children, if any, we reply that it also signifies only that the means of salvation would also be brought within his reach, whereas the Scriptures say, "He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life."

If we proceed a little further we find an account of the conversion of Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue After Paul had "reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, for some time," and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks, "Crispus believed in the Lord, with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." (Acts xviii. 4-8.) Here we are not distinctly told of the baptism of the household, but of a household believing. Will anyone, in the face of such a plain and unequivocal statement, say that in this household there were probably children who were too young to understand, and believe, and make profession of faith, and if not in this household, why in others where no mention is made of them, and no undoubted allusion made to them? We are told of many Christians hearing, believing, and being baptized, (note the order), and among them, doubtless, were those who composed the household of Crispus. How young or how old they were is a matter of no importance, if they believed.

It may be more convenient, while on the subject of household baptism, to notice an allusion to the only other household baptism mentioned in Scripture. It occurs in 1 Cor. i. 12-17, where Paul, in consequence of the division of the Corinthian Church into parties, one of which was called after his name, thanks God that he had baptized none of them, save Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus. All we know of this household is from a few words at the close of this same

Epistle (xvi. 15), "Ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.' We have no more reason to suppose that there were infants among those who were baptized than that there were infants among those who addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

Neander, in his history of the "Planting of and Training of the Christian Church," p. 163, remarks on this—“We cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Corinthians xvi. 15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanus, who were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults." The most candid Pædobaptists must concur with Henry Ward Beecher when he says-"I affirm that the cases where it (infant baptism) is implied, are by no means conclusive and without doubt, and that if there is no other basis for it than that, it is not safe to found it on the practice of the apostles in the baptism of Christian families. Therefore I give up that which has been injudiciously used as an argument for infant baptism." Sermons, p. 202.

The only other record of baptism that we find is that of twelve men at Ephesus, who, it seems, had received John's baptism, but were ignorant of the Holy Ghost. John required his disciples to believe on the Coming Messiah, but now that Christ had come they were required to believe in Him as the One who had come, and were therefore required to be "baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." They were first instructed -taught that Jesus was the Coming One, and "when they heard that, they were baptized into His name," which we believe implies their profession of faith in Him. (Acts xix. 1-7.) Thus, looking at all the recorded examples of baptism in the New Testament, Baptists think themselves justified in maintaining that the apostles adhered to the order of discipling, baptizing, and teaching apparent in the Commission of our Lord. They also believe that all the allusions made to the subject are consistent with the view that Christian baptism was confined to those who professed faith in Christ. They regard it as an ordinance designed for profession, one in which the intelligent and willing subject testifies that he puts his confidence in Christ, that he is not ashamed of Christ nor His ordinance, and is desirous of doing His will, honouring His name, and imitating His example-an ordinance in which he openly "puts on Christ."

And as they fail to see the obligation to baptize those who do not profess to believe, neither can they see its utility. If the baptism of infants is not Divinely commanded, and if there is no undoubted apostolic example of it, who will say that a child loses any real benefit by not being baptized in infancy? Who will say, still further, that a child's salvation is imperilled by it? May not a parent give his child Christian instruction just as early, pray for his child just as earnestly, set him quite as good an example, exert upon him quite as good an influence, and train him quite as well without baptizing him, and then take special delight to hear the child ask, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" But more of this in the next paper.

XIII.—THE VALUE AND UTILITY OF BAPTISM.

"The minds of multitudes are utterly at sea as to the purpose, the nature, and the benefit of baptism."-CANON STOWELL.

It is no uncommon thing for parents to have extreme anxiety about their unbaptized children's baptism when suffering under what seems likely to be a fatal illness. Rev. Geo. Gilfillan says, "I have often been asked, and asked by women with tears in their eyes and horror in their hearts, to come away in haste and baptize dying babies, lest they should perish for ever." we have known many a mother send to a number of ministers, without respect to denomination, to get some one to come and. christen her dying child. We who do not believe in such things at all, have been entreated to go and do this act of great kindness, ignorant applicants wondering, above all, that Baptist ministers should refuse to baptize a poor dying baby!

We are bound to say that, though it is somewhat widespread, this superstition, for such we must regard it, is regretted by many Evangelical Paedobaptists. Thus Dr. Guthrie, in the Gospel in Ezekiel, says, "Prone as we of Scotland are to boast that our fathers, with Knox at their head, came forth from Rome with less of her old superstition about them than most other churches, to what else than some lingering remains of Popery can we ascribe the extreme anxiety which some parents show to have baptism administered to a dying child? Does not this look like a rag of the old faith? It smells of the sepulchre. Is there not reason to suspect that, at