Q. 1.-In Help and Food, 1888, p. 270:" Suffer little children to come unto Me," is no authority for their baptism, but must refer, as all "coming" does, to an act of faith in the child, which baptism expresses.

Ans.-You will find that the circumstances of the case contradict this common idea. " Suffer them to come " was said to the disciples who were hindering the children being brought. They had not " come" of themselves at all.

Q- 2.-How can you say, there is no resisting will in children, when all naturally are at enmity?

Ans. This is spoken of such as were there, young enough to be taken up in His arms; it does not at all imply the absence of an evil nature, but an undeveloped state simply. But it is plain also that in putting the child under the authority of the parent, the training of the will is a main point, and it is not considered as yet established. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." The child and the adult are held to be on a different footing.

Q. 3.-Page 271:" As far as it goes, it is baptism unto death, not life." Scripture never severs baptism from resurrection, never leaves the one in death. (Rom. 6:; Col. 2:; 1 Pet. 3:) Where would the "good conscience" be to leave the child in death?

Ans.-On the contrary, I believe it will be found that baptism never goes farther than death. It is burial, contrasted as such with resurrection. Only it is " to Christ," and " to His death," which thus, as it were, pleads for him who is baptized. But the baptism in itself goes no further.

Take the passage in Col. 2:, which seems most favorable to the other thought, and indeed, as it reads in every translation that I know, really necessitates it; but in this case, how are we raised up with Christ in baptism? In figure only? That cannot be, for it goes on to say, "through the faith of the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead." But faith is not necessary to make a figure a figure:it would not do to say, " raised up with Him in figure, through faith.''

If not figurative, it must be real, however. Are we, then, really raised up with Christ in baptism? That would be to attach virtue to an ordinance in a way contrary to all scripture elsewhere, and to the whole spirit of Christianity. This very chapter speaks of our not being "subject to ordinances; " and for my readers I need perhaps scarcely pursue that.

Read now, as the Greek gives undoubted right to do, "in whom," instead of "wherein," and the thought is clear:"In whom ye are raised together "-there is no "him"-"through the faith of the operation of God, who raised Him:" how evident that "through faith " is just what is needed here. It is by faith we pass into this condition,-not by baptism.

In the passage in Rom. 6:, there is no difficulty. All that is said is (I read it according to J. N. D.'s translation), "If we are become identified with [Him] in the likeness of His death, so also we shall be of His resurrection." If the meaning of baptism has been fulfilled in us, our walk will show the consequence-we shall "walk in newness of life." Happily true it is, as our correspondent says, that Scripture does not leave the baptized one in death. So far, true:but only the grace of Christ, and that not in an ordinance, can carry him beyond it.

No good conscience can be where the child-or adult either- is left in death. But a good conscience does not come through baptism. Baptism is the "demand" of one,-"request" would perhaps be better. "Answer" is generally admitted to be wrong. In baptism, Christ is owned, that a good conscience may be the result. But this is actually given, not by baptism, but "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," as the passage itself (1 Pet. 3:21) clearly says.

Q. 4.-Page 272:Circumcision is nowhere a type of baptism, but " a seal of the righteousness of the faith, being yet uncircumcised." Does not circumcision figure the private or individual faith toward God (the Romans' side), while baptism figures James' earthly or kingdom side? Col. 2:11, 12 shows both, and a distinction between them, not that they are the same thing. And both are true of a believer now; on which ground 1 Cor. 7:14 shows wife and children are holy-" in a place of privilege, etc.-the kingdom, I take it, without their being baptized,- grace outstripping law.

Ans.-"Circumcision is nowhere a type of baptism;" there are no types of it:it is simply analogous as the Jewish, as baptism the Christian, mark. Nothing more has been claimed for it than this. Moreover, although "the seal of the righteousness of the faith," which Abraham had, " being yet uncircumcised," it was by God's express command performed upon the child of eight days old. Should not this be weighed?

Circumcision does not figure faith, but sealed it (in Abraham). It figures, according to Col. 2:, the " putting off the body of the flesh;" and "we are the circumcision who . . . have no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). Nor does baptism figure the earthly or kingdom side, by which I suppose is meant the introduction into the kingdom. It actually introduces into it. Baptism figures burial with Christ, according to Rom. 6:4. The two are thus very nearly allied in meaning. A great difference is, that while circumcision simply speaks of the judgment of the flesh, the Christian rite, as burial, shows death (and Christ's death) as what sets it aside for us, and all hope for us in a resurrection from the dead.

"On what ground," I do not understand. The wife and children of 1 Cor. 7:14 are not alike said to be holy:only the children are. The wife is sanctified only " in the husband," not in herself. As one flesh with her husband, she is covered by this:that is all. But the holiness of the children is different:it is a recognized thing, and thus proves the wife to be sanctified in the husband. The acknowledgment of the relationship is shown by the acknowledgment of the fruit of it, which surely implies that there was some open acknowledgment. Of course the holiness is not renewal of nature, but whatever is dedicated to God is, in the Scripture-sense, "holy." But this cannot show that there was no way of dedication (as by baptism). Rather, it argues for it.

Q. 5.-Page 236:" Two keys . . . admits into the body of the disciples." Thus also in Eph. 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," are found together." How is it true of unconscious infants?

Ans.-In the passage from which the first words are quoted, it is said, "Here there are two keys:'baptizing' and 'teaching' are the joint-methods of discipling. In the one, we have the key of knowledge; in the other, that which, as the outward part, authoritatively admits into the body of disciples upon earth."

Our correspondent will see that only baptism is the authoritative admission–one key, not two; but that to be in the kingdom in its full thought, the key of knowledge also must introduce. Therefore the word " Bring them up in the nurture and discipline of the Lord."

As to the rest, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," are joined together in the kingdom in God's thought of it, and thus again the previous exhortation.