being of the community; their description of the crime being thus expressed" tending to the dishonour of God, the scandal of the Christian religion, and the professors thereof, and destructive to human society." As J. M. C. has attempted, though in vain, to impress Milton into his service; I shall be excused in giving some other quotations, from his works, to prove that his opinions have been misrepresented. In his "Speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing, addressed to the Parliament," he expressly sanctions the suppression of blasphemous publications; while he pleads most powerfully against a censorship of the press. "I deny not," says he, "but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest judgment upon them, as malefactors: for books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve, as in a viol, the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous dragon's teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men." "But, lest I should be condemned of introducing license, while I oppose licensing,* I refuse not the pains to be so much historical, as * Milton knew how to draw the line between Liberty and Licentiousness; license and licensing: "That bawl for freedom, in their senseless mood, will serve to shew what hath been done by ancient and famous commonwealths, against this disorder, till the very time that this project of licensing crept out of the Inquisition, was catched up by our Prelates, and hath caught some of our Presbyters. "In Athens, where books and wits were ever busier than in any other part of Greece, I find but only two sorts of writings which the magistrates cared to take notice of; those either blasphemous and atheistical, or LIBELLOUS. Thus the books of Protagoras were, by the judges of Areopagus, condemned to be burnt, and himself banished the territory, for a discourse, begun with his confessing not to know, whether there were gods or not." Again, in Milton's "Observations upon the Articles of Peace with the Irish Rebels," he says, in reply to some taunts, that even blasphemers were protected in England: "Our protection, therefore, to men in civil matters unoffensive we cannot deny; their consciences we leave as not within our cognizance, to the proper cure of instruction praying for them. Nevertheless, if any be found among us declared atheists, malicious enemies of God and of Christ; the Parliament, I think, professes not to tolerate such, but, with all befiting endeavours to suppress them:-that we invite such as these, or encourage them, is a mere slander without proof." From fully approving the sentiments of this greatest of uninspired men, advanced by him, too, in several different treatises, and, when writing in defence of unrestricted religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of conscience, I shall continue to maintain, that "discountenancing impiety and irreligion, is a legitimate exercise of the magistrate's authority;" and that, magistrate, he is bound to suppress as a impiety!" I, however, dený, the consequences which J. M. C. states result from this sentiment. What, then, is there no differ ence 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 partisans 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 some thing 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, 1 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, con-* sequently, 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 conces sions 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 niniber of theoretic Pædobaptists 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 "6 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 cóncessions," 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." 66 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 acquainted 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 |