4. Under the Old Testament covenant the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were by natural birth--whether partakers of spiritual faith or not--equal members of the commonwealth of Israel. But is not the New Testament covenant, in this respect, essentially different, the principles of the gospel not recognizing unions of the holy and the unholy, and the New Testament containing no provisions for the government of such communities? 5. Is not the New Testament covenant peculiarly distinguished from the Jewish, whether considered as Abrahamic or Mosaic (was the latter any thing more than a development of the former?) by its _unveiled_ spirituality, and by its respect for individual moral character? 6. Does the New Testament, in any part, appear to recognize the people of Christ in a corporate capacity, except as they appear to be united by the spiritual principles of the gospel? 7. Is not the remarkable fact, that Pædobaptism obliges its advocates to retire back to the book of Genesis in search of a covenant to justify them in their use of the _New Testament_ ordinance of baptism, of itself nearly sufficient to evince that their practice is inconsistent with _the covenant of grace, as it is revealed in the gospel?_ and does it not become a certainty, when it appears that circumcision under _the Abrahamic covenant_ was, in some important respects, an institution of a perfectly contrary character to the ordinance of baptism; the former exhibiting a _compulsory_ character, which rendered it imperative upon Abraham to circumcise Ishmael, and to _enforce_ it upon his whole household, whether bond or free; and to enjoin it for all their posterity, under the awful threatening of utter exclusion from the covenant and family of God? Is there not here _a most striking contrast_ with the inspired records of the institution and administration of the ordinance of baptism? 8. If the views of the apostles on this subject had been coincident with those of Antipædobaptist divines, could they have refrained from declaring them, when the conduct of the teachers of circumcision was such as to create continual occasions which called for a plain statement of the gospel doctrine of baptism? Did not the state into which the infant church at Antioch had been brought by these teachers particularly require that such statements should be made? Would not a declaration on the part of the apostles, in their assembly at Jerusalem, of the doctrine of Pædobaptism, have tended at once to terminate the controversy? Is it imaginable that they should have refrained, on this occasion, from informing the Gentile converts that, by the substitution of baptism for circumcision, they and their children were exempted for ever from the claims of the circumcisers? 9. What law of the gospel is broken by those parents who, without baptism, prayerfully devote their children to Christ?