From this it seems that he was disposed only to concede that they ought not to teach nor practice infant baptism without divine authority, and that they should preach and practice scriptural baptism in regard to all who were to make, for the first time, a profession of faith. In deference to his views, the son dismissed the subject for the time, “seemingly satisfied with the fallacious reasoning imposed by circumstances, which prevented his father from seeing then the real position which baptism occupied in the Christian economy, and consequently from making, in regard to it, a practical application of his own principles.” With this Alexander Campbell seems to have suspended his investigation of the subject, and to have foreborne giving to it that impartial and continued attention necessary to the discovery of truth. In a discourse delivered June 5, 1811, on Christ’s commission to his apostles (Mark 16:15,16), he said, in reference to baptism: “As I am sure it is unscriptural to make this matter [baptism] a term of communion, I let it slip. I wish to think and let think on these matters.” But circumstances came up later which compelled him to give it a most painstaking examination. He was married March 12, 1811, and on March 13, 1812, his first child was born. Soon after this event a great change took place in his views in regard to baptism. His wife, with her father and mother, was still a member of the Presbyterian Church, and, as the child grew, it was natural that the subject of infant baptism should become one of immediate practical interest. As viewed from the viewpoint of his early education, infant baptism was a rite justified, inferentially at least, and not to be neglected; but viewed from the principles set forth in the Declaration and Address it possessed no divine authority, yet as an ancient and venerated practice, and for the sake of peace, it seemed to his father and to himself expedient to allow its continuance in the case of such members as conscientiously believed it proper. Most of the members of the church, furthermore, supposed themselves to have been baptized into the church in their infancy. From the occasional discussions of the subject among the members of the Brush Run Church, there was an increasing conviction on the part of many that baptism was a matter of much more importance than had been generally supposed, and now his changed relationship caused him to share in this conviction. Admitting that infant baptism is without divine warrant assumed a very different aspect, and was no longer, “May we safely reject infant baptism as a mere human invention?” but, “May we omit believers’ baptism, which all admit to be divinely commanded?” In other words, if infant baptism is without divine warrant, it is invalid, and they who receive it are as a matter of fact still unbaptized. “When they come to know this in after years, will God accept the credulity of the