parent for the faith of the child?” “Men may be pleased to omit faith on the part of the person baptized, but will God sanction the omission of baptism on the part of the believer, on the ground that in his infancy he had been the subject of a ceremony which had not been enjoined?” “On the other hand, if the practice of infant baptism can be justified by inferential reasoning on any sufficient evidence, why should it not be adopted or continued by common consent, without further discussion?” Such were some of the thoughts which at this time passed through the mind of Alexander Campbell. Desiring to maintain “a conscience void of offense toward God and men,” and sensible of the responsibilities resting upon him in the new relationship which he sustained as a father, he was led to think more earnestly and seriously upon the whole subject, so that he might not come short in any duty that God had placed upon him. At this point he parted company with all uninspired authorities and turned to the Greek New Testament and diligently applied himself to the meaning of the words translated into the English by the words “baptize” and “baptism,” and soon became thoroughly satisfied that the act indicated by them could not be performed short of a burial of the subject in water. By further investigations he was led to the strong conviction that believers, and believers only, were the scriptural subjects of the ordinance. “He now fully perceived that the rite of sprinkling to which he had been subjected in infancy was wholly unauthorized, and that he was, consequently, in point of fact, an unbaptized person, and hence could not consistently preach a baptism to others of which he had never been a subject himself.” The subject was of such serious and anxious inquiry that he frequently conversed with his wife on the subject; she also became interested in it, and finally reached the same conclusion.