impiety!" I, however, deny, the consequences which J. M. C. states result from this sentiment. What, then, is there no difference between the apostles having told the Athenians, that "they ought not to think the godhead was like unto silver and gold?"-and that "they were no gods which were made with hands;" and those atheists and infidels who curse the living and true God, and reproachfully revile and ridicule the inspired oracles? What pernicious effects, or public inconveniences to the well-being of the civil community, was the gospel the cause of producing? J. M. C. says, the Roman Emperors considered the apostles as "impious Atheists!" This, however, was not the opinion of the judicious GALLIO! He evidently saw through the nature of the charge brought against them by Demetrius; and, in his reply, vindicates them from any improper exposure of "the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter!"—"For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess!"-Now, if the heathen magistrates had acted upon the principles of GALLIO, as they ought to have done, the apostles would not have been treated as criminals, nor obtained the crown of martyrs! The same remarks apply to Missionaries among the heathen, or Mahometans, at the present day. While they propagate Christianity with its only legitimate weapons, sober argument, and scriptural discussion, it would be a wicked pretext for persecution, were they to be punished by Pagan or Mahometan magistrates, as "evil doers;" -but, if they were to employ scurrilous declamation, for "ridiculing the heathen gods," what friend of religious liberty would undertake to

prove, that they were not justly "buffetted for their faults?"

I give credit to J. M. C. and those who think with him, for sincerity, and for supposing that they are defending Christianity from being chargeable with the improper exercise of magisterial authority. But, when I find them treating, with affected contempt, or studied indifference, the opinions of such men as Gill, and Watts, and Blackstone, and Locke, and Milton! I cannot but conclude, that they have either misunderstood the subject which they oppose, or have not weighed the arguments by which it has been defended. The sophisms they endeavour to maintain are ;-that, because religious opinions are not within the province of the magistrate, that wicked actions, relating to God, relate to him only; and, therefore, are not cognizable by human authority: and, also, that those vicious practices which, while private, cannot come under human cognizance, when they are publicly committed, necessarily do so; because the care of the magistrate, like the duties of a father, extends to the wellbeing of the whole family subject to his authority, and entitled to his protection. Let these distinctions be observed, and, we may conclude, no more will be said to condemn the laws of our enlightened country, as being antichristian, nor to blame the equitable administration of them, against those, who, by uttering, or publishing, blasphemy against God, or by reproachfully and scurriously ridiculing and reviling the sacred scriptures, have done all in their power to destroy all those bonds which are essential to promote and preserve the social compact.

20, Harpur-street, Dec. 3, 1824.

J. I.

The review of my work" ON BAPTISM," inserted in your number for October, which many parti. sans may be likely enough to think a very clever thing, appears to me to require some animadversion; I trust to your impartiality to publish the following remarks. Had the review in question been merely abusive, (with which quality it is sufficiently sprinkled,) I should have left it to that unpitied dissolution, which is the usual fate of an adversary when mortally wounded; but who still retains his inveteracy, who frets, and fumes, and worries himself to death; but, as it makes some pretension to reasoning, and carries with it an air of conscious victory, I wish just to inform your Reviewer and his readers, that something may yet be said on the other side; and, indeed, that for aught he has been able to accomplish, we have" all the argument" still!

Although it is difficult, in a reply, not to exceed the extent of the objecting publication, yet, to avoid giving either myself or your readers more trouble than is absolutely necessary, I shall compress my observations into the smallest attainable limit. Really, Gentlemen, I had no intention of inflicting such tortures upon any poor opponent, as I appear to have done, by simply stating my persuasion, that "as an evidence the argument is ours, not only have the best Pædobaptist writers made us repeated and most important concessions, while many, if not a majority, of their living teachers, constantly admit one-half, at least, of our arguments for the mode of baptism; but their churches con

tain a vast number of theoretic Baptists." He exclaims, in anguish, "the other party," that is, his own, "have quite as good a right to take up the same sentiment," and, consequently, that this would be a proper subject for arbitration. It really is not in my power to pacify him by any concession here: for so far from our Pædobaptist friends having as good a right to make a similar declaration, I believe there is not one of them, no, not this Reviewer himself, who has temerity enough to affirm, that the best Baptist writers have made them repeated and important concessions, or any concessions whatever; or that many, if not a majority, of our living teachers, admit half their arguments; for they never admit any; or that a vast number of theoretic Padobaptists are found in our churches; for it is notorious and incontrovertible, that our churches contain no theoretic Pædobaptists!

The irritability which pervades the whole review is most lamentable; though, to me, were I in pursuit of victory only, it would be most gratifying: it has betrayed the writer both into misrepresentation and sophism. His language is" It ill becomes the advocate, on either side, of a litigated question, to assume that he has all the argument;" and he goes on with a most abusive tirade about "vapid braggery," which only produces emotions of pity and regret!

Now, Gentlemen, you, whom I expect to look at my statement dispassionately, as editorial umpires, will, I am confident, perceive, that I have not asserted we have all the argument, implying by that expression, that Pædobaptists have nothing at all to say in their own vindication. The offensive words are, "my persuasion is, that popular feeling is theirs, the argument ours." A fair and candid critic would have

supposed me to mean, what indeed I did intend, that the preponderance of argument, in my opinion, not withstanding the popular feeling, which is so often excited by appeals to parental affection, is on our side of the question. If this were not my conviction; why am I a Baptist? If this be not your conviction, on the other side, why are you a Pædobaptist? I have stated simply my persuasion; a persuasion, which is the universal sentiment of every man on every subject, on which he professes to hold any truth whatever! Have I used any reproachful epithets? Have I employed scurrilous and depreciating language? Have I charged my brethren who differ from us, with dogmatism, and arrogance, and rashness, and I know not what beside? Your Reviewer may be angry still, but I repeat, (and I do it with the utmost coolness and deliberation,) it is yet my persuasion.

The Baptist denomination has the honour of being reproached through me, as "the smallest of Christian sects-a sect too distinguished, neither in its past or present state, by any overwhelming majority of acute reasoners and genuine scholars!" I am yet to learn, that the numbers composing a denomination have any relation to the truth or falsehood of their opinions, So then a theological question is to be settled by arithmetic! This is, at least, a novel application of ma. thematical science! This language would befit the mouth of BELLARMIN, or of any popish advocate, extremely well. I do not at this moment recollect whether BOSSUET, in his celebrated work against the Reformers, employs it; but I think it not improbable; and it must have been wonderfully available! Ye Protestants of yore-LUTHER and MELANCTHON, how dare ye assert, that it was your persuasion,

that the argument in favour of PROTESTANTISM was yours-ye who were, at the time, advocates of " one of the smallest, nay, the very smallest of Christian sects!"

There is a bitterness in the concluding part of the sentence, which I am truly grieved to observe, though I will not retort by intimating it is characteristic of a "bad cause." Whatever asperities may escape this anonymous critic, under the influence of resentment and vexation, I think he will not dare me to the invidious task of proving that we have had, and do at present possess, a competent share of "acute reasoners and genuine scholars." I should, indeed, undertake such a service with very little hope of producing conviction in his mind; because whoever pleads, that when a person is said to come out of the water, it implies, that he had previously gone into it, is, in his estimation, doubtless, a miserable reasoner; and whoever maintains that βάπτω and βαπriw signify to immerse, is a perfect ignoramus !!

To the contradiction of the statement, "that the best Pædobaptist writers have made us repeated and most important concessions," I can only say, it is nevertheless still my persuasion, and, notwithstanding the Reviewer's contempt of what he terms the secondhand authorities of Booth, (though with what propriety I am at a loss to divine,) "to that acute reasoner" I beg to refer for ample demonstration. The Reviewer remarks, that "before an opponent counts upon the concessions of these writers, he should ascertain how far they carry the concurrence of the party." If he wait for this, he will certainly wait long enough, because the party will always quarrel with those, however learned, who have made concessions. All the stiff, and bigoted, and illiterate, all who are either unwilling or unable to exercise a

vigorous judgment, and a literary discrimination, will object to concession; but, if it should appear, that the most competent, the most learned, the most judicious, who have liberality, sufficient to publish their own discoveries and convictions, should unite in admitting, that the party have adhered to errors, either of criticism or argument, which have been propagated without inquiry, and swallowed greedily by the voracious appetite of prejudice -then every candid investigator of truth will admit, that the clamorous objections to liberal concession, repeated by the multitude or the party, weigh not a feather against learned testimony and critital acumen. With regard to Mr. Booth's citations, they are taken, as he correctly states, from those "who must be considered as persons of learning and eminence in the several communions to which they belonged; and, as no small number of them were famous professors in Protestant Universities, their declarations in the argumentum ad hominem, cannot but have the utmost weight."

In reply to my statement, that many, if not a majority of living Pædobaptist teachers admit our arguments for immersion, as the apostolic mode of baptism; it is said, by your Reviewer, we are not ac quainted with a single individual who admits it." He nevertheless takes credit to himself, for being as extensively acquainted with Pædobaptists as myself, (which I do not question,) and adds, "really it is a very bold and peremptory thing for a man to affirm and publish of so large a body of learned and pious men as the Pedobaptists of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the many thousands of clergy, &c. &c. that they allow it to be the scriptural mode." All that can be said to the former part of this statement is, that your critic's acquaintance and mine lie in a very different di

rection; and with regard to the latter, it is a mere misrepresentation. He ought to have seen that my reference was to that body of Christians, who are distinctively classified as Pædobaptists or Independents. I can only say, that I have conversed with some of their learned men, who have really conceded this point; and I could name one of their most learned friends who has solemnly avowed to me his belief, that on that part of the controversy, we had the strongest evidence; and, as a little amusing anecdote, which I had not thought of repeating, much less printing, had he not insisted upon some effort at plausible proof, I can assure your readers, that only a few months ago, I heard, in company with a respectable Pædobaptist friend, a popular preacher in one of our University towns, and in a University pulpit, positively declare to approving multitudes and consenting gownsmen, (with whom I know that he had had previous discussion,) that "the allusion to the Israelites being baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, was to the initiatory ordinance of baptism;" and he added, "this allusion would appear far more forcible and obvious, did we in the present day retain the true apostolic mode of plunging the candidate in water." Another fact is worth recording. At no very great distance of time, I had the opportunity of hearing in our metropolis a Scotch Minister, who has attained extraordinary celebrity, positively declare, that John DIPPED (this was his word) the people in Jordan. To this statement, I could bring a hundred witnesses. How is it that the representatives both of the English and Scotch churches will make these public avowals, while their writers, or at least some of them, pertinaciously insist upon it, they believe no such thing? Though

we possess no overwhelming majority of " acute reasoners," yet we have reasoning powers sufficient to perceive, that here is a most singular discrepancy between their oral and written testimony. Your critic might, and certainly must know, whether he may choose to acknowledge it or not, that I could produce a very sufficient number of recorded opinions of a similar description. These, however, if adduced, he would, I suppose, call unimportant, as he affects to term other remarkable concessions; for my part, I must differ from him on this subject, and beg leave to call concessions important, when they actually give up the point at issue, and proceed from high literary authority.

Having said of theoretic Baptists in Pædobaptist churches, that "they have discernment enough to appreciate the force of evidence, but not piety enough to pursue the path of duty" the Reviewer first affirms, that many of them have no discernment at all, (it is natural for him to think so,) and then adds, we must pronounce this a rash and uncharitable judgment of his brethren. Ought these individuals," he demands, be they wise or unwise, fairly or unfairly staggered by some Anabaptist advocate, who are perplexed on a point of duty, and are seeking information, to be treated as if they wilfully neglected their Lord's will? Are they to be told, that they have not piety enough to do their duty? This is precisely the dragooning kind of system on which converts are frequently made to re-baptism, and by which we have known some timid, and scru pulous, and weak-minded persons induced to submit to adult immer sion, lest they should incur the tremendous guilt denounced upon them by some bigoted partisan of Anabaptism." Again, I must complain of the bitterness, and (did I

not suspect that a Christian Minister wrote it, I should add) the malignity of this whole paragraph. The term Anabaptist is calumnious, and can only be used in spite : little better can be said of the introduction of the word dragooning, and afterwards bigoted partisan. The vexation of the critic has again led him into a perfect misrepresentation. Does my term theoretic Baptist indicate the case of one who is perplexed and seeking information? would it, can it for a moment be imagined, that I or any of my brethren would oppress, dragoon, or insult a tender conscience, and an anxious inquirer? The case supposed, which every person of ordinary understanding must perceive, is that of individuals, who, being convinced of the doctrine of immersion, refuse to practise it. Now, if those who know their Master's will, and do it not, are not defective in piety, I should thank your Reviewer to inform me, what is the defective principle-by what name. will he designate it?

After these explanations of the obnoxious sentence in my advertisement, from which, I trust, it will appear that I have not manifested quite so much arrogance, illiberality, and dogmatism as the Reviewer imputes to me, I may be permitted to refer to his observations on the work itself. He has only touched, indeed, upon two or three passages; leaving the whole body of evidence and argument unnoticed. I give him full credit in this proceeding for discretion: he has sufficiently exposed himself in what he has attempted.

My curious antagonist takes a flying leap from the advertisement, to about the last page in my volume, and pounces, with a true Harpeian vengeance, upon the statement, which disproves Dr. Wardlaw's representation of the antiquity of infant baptism. During his general