are calling upon them to submit themselves to the laws of the New Testament. O that all controversial argumentation might for the future be conducted only in the spirit of love! that all might be prepared to lay aside censoriousness, and all appearances of contempt, to avoid all unseemly confidence, and sedulously to watch against a spirit of self exaltation, desiring that the Lord alone may be exalted in the display and in the triumph of his truth! When the Spirit of the Lord shall be so poured upon his church, that the truth shall be sought in this way, errors will soon be detected, and the blessed union of saints be quickly accomplished. The church is not without the means. The cause of our differences is not the want of sufficient spiritual light. I have remarked above, that _one_ of the parties only on the subject of infant baptism can be wrong with regard to the letter; and here it is with real grief that I must appear in the character of a partisan; but I humbly submit to the candid consideration of my Pædobaptist brethren whether what follows be not a fair representation of the principal grounds on which the advocates of the practice of baptizing infants found their arguments in support of the practice: _The covenant of grace, as it was revealed to Abraham, discovers it to be the will of God, that the infants of believers in Christ should be dedicated to God by baptism. That the practice was sanctioned by the apostles, and designed to be a blessing to children, and serviceable to the cause of the gospel._ The following queries are, with great Christian respect and affection, offered for the consideration of the Pædobaptist servants of Christ. 1. Does it not appear to be a fundamental principle in the New Testament, and designed to have been constantly kept in view, that the churches of Christ should, as far as human judgment and Christian charity would allow, be exclusively voluntary associations of persons brought to desire the salvation of Christ, and to be numbered as his servants? 2. Is there any part of the New Testament which will justify a church in recognizing any persons as the children of the promise, unless they appear to be partakers of the faith of Abraham? On the contrary, does it not plainly appear that the New Testament children of the father of the faithful should receive baptism as Abraham received circumcision, a seal of the grace which they had being yet unbaptized? 3. Were not circumcisions under the Abrahamic covenant more extensive and indiscriminate than the circumcisions under the Mosaic economy, and therefore more unlike New Testament baptisms than the latter? Wherefore, then, is the former covenant represented as affording the archetype of Christian baptism?