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 scrupulous, and weak-minded persons induced to submit to adult immersion, 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. him full credit in this proceeding for discretion: he has sufficiently exposed himself in what he has attempted.

I give

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

eritique, he denominates me arrogant and dogmatical Mr. Birt weak and absurd - Dr. Gale the most confused, illogical, and unfair of controversial writers, and in another place muddy-Dr. Campbell, (reiterating Mr. Ewing's allegations) rash, dogmatical and inconsistent; and has, at the same moment, the happy art of exhibiting, in most beautiful and luxuriant combinations, not one, but all these charming qualities himself; as if to show in every way his vaunted superiority! What a most wonderful circumstance it is, that every writer on our side the question should be so arrogant, and rash, and weak, and illogical; while every writer on the opposite side, should exhibit such perfect specimens of humility, caution, vigour of mind, and argumentative accuracy,-that the one side should be ail fools, and the other all logicians! save and except this Reviewer, who, as I have remarked, is determined to excel us all, even in our rashness, inconclusiveness, and prejudice! He writes thus-"would any one believe, that Mr. C. could so far impose upon himself, as to imagine that he had settled, in about 15 or 16 lines, a question of so much extent, (that is, whether infant baptism is spoken of in direct, terms, and as a thing not questioned by the earliest writers,) and upon which the array of learned authorities is more than a hundred to one against him?"Yes, Mr. Cox asserts and re-asserts, that not fifteen, but five lines are in fact sufficient to settle the question; and more than this, the Reviewer has the sagacity, amidst his loudest complaints, to concede the truth of my statement. After the preceding citation, he adds, "not to dispute with out friend, whether it is spoken of directly or indirectly."-Then, Sir, you have yielded the point; for what is my demand? "Will any Pædobaptist writer after this, (the uncontroverted

evidence I have adduced,) venture to re-assert, that infant baptism is spoken of by the earliest writers, in direct terms, and as a thing unquestioned ?"-Oh, says the Reviewer, "we will analyse this question of antiquity." Very well, and what is your analysis! Why, first, "can Mr. C. so far impose upon himself,” &c.-and secondly, "we do not dispute with him, whether it is mentioned in direct terms." Very good and very wise, on your part; for you well know there can be no dispute;-you well know you cannot answer my fifteen or sixteen lines upon that question; but you ought to have seen, that you have gone very far towards stultifying yourself by such an admission.

"The array of learned authorities is more than a hundred to one against him!" This is absolutely one of the most shameless and wauton assertions that ever proceeded from fair or unfair controversialist. What, a hundred authorities to one where it is shewn that "infant baptism is spoken of by the earliest writers in direct terms, and as a thing not questioned?" Now, Sir, in the first place, I have shewn that not one of the earliest writers ever mentions infant baptism at all; for a proof of this I appeal to their own writings. If a hundred or a thousand learned men asserted they did, all their declarations united would amount to nothing in contradiction to the writers themselves: but so far from a hundred to one asserting it, I defy the Reviewer to produce ONE that ever made the assertion at all, and I, moreover, refer him to his own concession already noticed! This is merely one of those sweeping declarations in which an antagonist who is either absolutely ignorant or ineffably prejudiced deals, to save himself the trouble of examination, to escape out of a difficulty, or to gratify the illiterate multitude.

(To be continued.)