tles. "The Indian Missionaries baptize only individuals, whereas the Apostles baptized Households."

Undoubtedly our dear brethren in India would greatly rejoice, and we should rejoice with them, if they could send an account of one of the native officer's inviting a Missionary to his house, and "calling together his kinsmen and near friends" to meet him, and telling him, "We are all present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God," and if they could add, that all who assembled on such an occasion were influenced by the Holy Spirit cordially to embrace the Saviour as revealed in the Gospel. But this narrative would differ from the account of Peter's visit to Cæsarea, if it should be added, that not only they who believed with all the heart were baptized, but their infants also. There certainly is no hint, in the xth and xith of Acts, either that Cornelius had any infant children, or that the children of any who met at his house were baptized. Peter did not command any to be baptized, but those who had received the Holy Spirit.

As to the term household or house, used in three other places, there is not only no proof that infants were included in the household of Stephanas, of Lydia, and the Philippian Jailor, but strong evidence is contained in the history of the contrary. Stephanas indeed is not mentioned in the Acts, but by Paul, in the first Epistle to the Church at Corinth, (i. 16) he says, "I baptized the household of Stephanas," and he afterwards (xvi. 15.) beseeches the brethren " to submit themselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth;" alledging as the reason of peculiar respect being paid to them, that they knew the members of this family to be "the first fruits of Achaia, and that they had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Now infants could neither preach the gospel, nor even wait upon or assist those that did; and some considerable time must elapse before they could be fit to take the lead in the church.* '

As to Lydia, whose marriage is no where recorded, she appears to have crossed the Ægæan sea, from Thyatira to Phillippi, upon a trading voyage, and to have left her husband and infants, if she had either, at home; and her household, consisting most likely

Dr. Whitby thinks this Epistle was written but three years after Paul was at Corinth, others reckon double that time; but this will not suffice for infants to become preachers or leaders in a Christian Church.

1

of her servants employed in preparing the purple dye which she sold, are spoken of as "brethren," whom Paul and Silas" comforted, before they departed." Acts xvi. 14, 15, 40. We have no objection to baptize any household which consists of those who can receive evangelical consolation.

With respect to the Jailor, we are expressly assured (32) "they spake the word of the Lord to all that were in his house," and that he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." If our brethren had had equal success in the Jail at Calcutta, they would not only have baptized Mr. Gordon the Jailor, and his young daughter, but all his family, and the prisoners too, upon their believing for there is a fine tank of water in the prison, as there usually is in the East. But without this pre-requisite, they durst no more baptize his unconverted children, than the unconverted criminals.

St. Luke mentions Crispus as believing in the Lord with all his house, xviii. 8. and adds, that many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. And he tells us that when the Samaritans believed, they were baptized, both men and women, viii. 12. but he no where speaks of the baptizing of children, though he introduces children on a much less, important occasion, (xxi. 5.) as going out of the city, along with their parents, and Paul, who knelt down and prayed with them on the shore, before he embarked to go to Jerusalem.

I infer, therefore, that the account of the baptisms in Bengal are really more conformable to those recorded in the Acts than those of that eminent Man of God David Brainerd himself, whom I have revered for nearly forty years, as much as good Mr. Gauntlett can do. But I dare not follow even Brainerd farther than I am sure he followed Christ. In baptizing unconverted children, I could not answer the question, Who hath required this at your hands?

Though Kreeshnoo Paul, the first convert at Serampore, had not the pleasure of seeing his whole household converted at the same time with himself, yet his wife, with two of her daughters, and both their husbands, have long since been baptized; so have a good part, if not all, of some other families there; and we have known in England instances of whole households baptized on a profession of Faith. As soon as children can give evidence of repentance and faith, we are ready to baptize them. A lad of twelve years old was baptized along with me, and I was last week

reading a sermon preached by Dr. Baldwin, at the ordination of Mr. Chaplin of New-York, who was hopefully converted at ten years of age, and baptized at eleven. But I should tremble at the thought of a child of mine believing that he was made a member of Christ and an heir of heaven, by an act of mine, performed before he could know what was done to him, and of which he could have no knowledge now but by the information, of others.

I only add, that instead of speechless babes being necessarily included in the term household, the Scripture sometimes speaks of all the house where an infant existed, without his being in-, cluded, 1 Sam. i. 21, 22. "The man Elkanah, and all his house went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice and his vow, but Hannah went not up, for she said unto her husband, I will not go up, until the child (Samuel) be weaned, and then I will bring him that he may appear before the Lord and there abide for ever."

We conclude therefore, that neither of these cases affords even a presumptive argument in favor of infant baptism, and the discrepancy between the ancient and modern accounts of the administration of this ordinance is to be found among the pædobaptist missionaries, and not among ours. Nevertheless, this mistake shall never hinder our rejoicing in their success in the conversion of souls.

J. R.

ON THE DEACON'S OFFICE.

To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine.

I take the liberty, sir, of sending you a few reflections which occurred, on reading the letter in your Magazine for December, subscribed," A Deacon."

The writer observes, that "the origin and nature of the Deacon's office is a subject seldom entered upon." This seems an extraordinary declaration, as the subject has not been overlooked by any writer of note, who has treated on the order and discipline of the primitive churches; and as the " address," on which he animadverts, professedly, though briefly, of course, treats upon the subject, and with which he avows his dissatisfaction.

Why the appointment mentioned in the Acts, should be deemed that of "extraordinary Stewards," and essentially different from that of Deacons, I cannot conjecture. The circumstance which called for their appointment might be singular, and not happen in other churches, but the general purpose of their appointment, signified by "serving tables," was not singular, or extraordinary, but a business over which it is necessary that persons should in every church preside,

But the writer considers the designation of the work of a Deacon, viz. that of "serving tables," to be unappropriate, and suggests his apprehension that the primary object of his appointment was that of " aiding the pastor in the work of instruction." What a deacon might occasionally be employed in, or what his subsequent promotion might be, is not the enquiry, but what was his appropriate work as Deacon?

If the appointment in the Acts, in reference to the nature of a Deacon's office, be set aside as irrelevant, the New Testament supplies no positive answer to the enquiry. Ecclesiastical History indeed invariably represents the appointment to be that of superintending the temporal affairs of the church. And why should the qualifications required in Deacons in this view, be thought unappropriate to the nature of their work?

The business over which the persons mentioned in the Acts were placed, was of a secular kind, and yet the qualifications required in them were equal, if not superior, to those which the apostle mentions to Timothy, as necessary in a deacon. They were to be men" of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom," Acts vi, 3. Might it not be said with equal propriety therefore in reference to them-"How few of these qualifications could have been comprehended in what we understand by "serving tables ?"

But do the qualifications which the apostle requires in a Deacon, on the supposition that his primary and specific work under that character, was to " serve tables," or superintend the the temporal concerns of the church, appear unnecessary and superfluous? Let us attend to Doddridge's paraphrase of 1 Tim. iii, 8, &c. "In like manner (let) me now say something relating to the other order, I mean that of deacons, who are more immediately appointed to serve tables, and especially to take care of the poor. (Acts vi. 2) Concerning these I would observe that it is of importance, that they likewise (be) grave in their

deportment, that they may avoid the contempt which the excesses of levity are ready to produce. They should not by any means be double-tongued, deceitful, or inconstant in their words, as they may chance to come into different companies; nor addicted to much wine, which will render them utterlyunfit for their office; Nor greedy of dishonourable gain, which may tempt them to violate their engagements to the church, and appropriate its stock lodged in their hands to private uses, rather than those charitable purposes for which it was collected. In one word, let them be persons well instructed in the doctrines of christianity, and retaining the sublime and long-concealed mystery of our holy faith, not merely as a point of speculation, but practice; and let it ever be held in a pure and undefiled conscience, and those only chosen into this office, who seem conscientious men in the judgment of charity. And let even these be first proved, † and tried for a while, and then, if they be upon trial found to be blameless, let them use the office of a Deacon."

Is there not something surprising and awfully affecting in the conduct of professors of the present day, with respect to the salvation of others? Is not the language of Cain the very language of many-Am I my brother's keeper? Is it not truly

☛ Soundness of faith being required in deacons, it is a presumption that they were sometimes employed in teaching; but whether by preaching, or by catechising, it is hard to say. Macknight

+ The rule was this: they published in their assemblies for worship, the names of the persons designed for ecclesiastical functions, that if any one had aught to accuse them of, they might shew it.—But Estius thinks the Apostle in this direction, required that no one should be made either a Bishop or a Deacon, till he had given proof both of his steadfastness in the faith, and of his other virtues, during a reasonable space of time after his coversion.

Macknight