hearts on those who have the manliness to expose the dark machinations of their malevolence. An obscure morning paper of the 1st of June copied Dr. Kipling's letter into its columns, together with the remarks of the Courier of the preceding evening. And on the subsequent day appeared the following letter, addressed to the editor: "DR. KIPLING AND Mr. LINGARD. "MR. EDITOR.-I read in your paper of this day, the letter from Dr. K. to Mr. L. and take the liberty of saying, that my opinion coincides with your own as to the inexpediency of calling in the strong arm of the law to punish Mr. L. They who have taken the trouble, which I have, of perusing the controversial works of ENGLISH PAPISTS (such as Bishop Milner, Mr. Gandolphy, Fletcher, and the Editor of The Or thodox Journal) must know the language of Mr. L. is perfectly modest, when compared with the abuse and virulence of these writers, so that, if "words in derogation of the esta blished religion are indictable," I con Mr. pressions, and thereby criminate himself still farther, if it really is a crime: now this is contrary to the rules of English jurisprudence. To defame our church, says the doctor, is an offence for which you are liable to suffer the penalties of the law. This I conceive you have done by certain words which you have used; but if you will assure me that you will justify yourself by similar means, I will cease to prosecute you, until I have first handled the same weapon which you fight with yourself; and if the spectators of the combat shall be satisfied that you have triumphed over me, than will I retract my opinion; but if you fail there in, you shall receive corporal punishment. Thus, then, if Mr. L. proves the truth of the principle on which his argument is grounded, he is liable, according to the Doctor's opinion, of falling under the censure of the law; yet still the Rev. Dean dares him to the battle; and he further tells him, that if he should have the mortification of being beaten in the assault, he shall be taken before a court of justice, to undergo a second punishment for the same fault. Surely there must be ceive it would not be at all difficult to Something very superior in the acumen of Catholic writers that the antagomake out a much stronger case of denists of Popery fly to the strong arm linquency than this of Mr. Lingard, I' of the law to intimidate their oppowho only calls the church of England "new" and "modern." nents before they will engage in the Contest. Now, there is such a want Dr. Kipling will examine the succesof generous feeling in this attack, it sive numbers of The Orthodox JourIs so contrary to the nature of Eng-nal, printed, published, and edited by lishmen, SO adverse to the freedom Mr. Andrews, No. 5, Orange-street, Red Lion-square, this Rev, Gentleman may perhaps turn his own attention and that of the public to an object of greater political importance than the individual whom he has now selected for indictment. I am, &c, 1 of opinion and the liberty of the press, that I am convinced the Rev. Dean was not aware of the nature of his challenge when he ordered it to be made public. But, although I am willing to give the utmost credit due to the sentiments and character of Dr. K. yet there are men who profess to be the advocates of Protestantism, and the opposers of Popery, who are void of every noble sensation peculiar to the character of Britons, and who, with the cowardice of the midnight assassin, will seize every opportunity to gratify the lurking rancour of their June 1, 1815. RALIB." If Here, reader, you have as refined a specimen of sanctified hypocrisy as ever came from the pen of a disciple of Dr. Henry Schaverell, or a follower of the renowned Lord George Gordon, who headed the Protestant Association in 1780, raised for the noble end of stemming the growth of Popery; and expect that, when the bigoted and intolerant zealots of the present day renew the foul lies fabricated against Popery in the 16th and 17th centu make use of the press, to charge the ministers of the Catholic religion with teaching the most impious, seditious, and treasonable doctrines, terming them "fanatical blood-hounds," "pa who, out of hatred to the Papists, and to shew his great veneration for the Protestant creed, afterwards renounced Christianity and professed himself a Jew! With the cant of a true hy-ries-when the Laicuses, or the Ralibs, pocrite, the writer declares that he is averse to harsh measures, and yet he makes no scruple to accuse personally three most respectable individuals and myself of being public delinquents, and holding us out to the no-pists," and other scurrilous and optice of others, as fit objects of their avengement. Was ever any thing so base, so cowardly, so abhorrent to genuine English feelings as this das tardly attack upon literary and religious contestation, and the freedom of the press? This unmanly scribe, I have reason to believe, although he now assumes the name of "Ralib," is the same individual who has been amusing the credulous English public with his glaring and unstudied lies against the Jesuits under the signature of "Laicus."-A sort of Harlequino-biblico-pharmaco-theologico ani-Catholic is gifted with equal abilities probrious epithets, the Catholic is to lie dormant, and not avail himself of the same instrument to repel the gross malignity of the dastardly and anony mous libellers? Does he think the Catholics of this empire are degraded to an equality with the black slaves in America, and willing to crouch and kiss the feet of their task-mas ters? If La cus-Ralib entertains such ideas, he will find them to be as erroneous as the principles he has been endeavouring to fix upon the believers in Catholicity. So long as the to the Protestant, it is natural for him to use them in his own defence; and, until Mr. Laicus-Ralib can prove that he and his bigotted associates are endowed with qualities superior to their Catholic neighbours, it is a piece of arrogance and presumption in them to assume such pre-eminence; and an act of cowardly intolerance to desire to controul their fellow-subjects of the benefit of a just retaliation. However, Mr. Laicus-Ralib may be as mal, whose principles resemble the hue of the Chamelion, and whose unprovoked attacks are dishonourably made under as many names as there are colours in a Jack pudding's jacket. This venal and wanton libeller accuses Catholic controversial writers of virulence and abuse, because they defend the principles of their creed with the strong arm of truth, and an honest warmth and just indignation And yet the hypocrite himself feels no compunction, no remorse of con-sured, that while he and his coadjutors science, in vending forth to the world the most foul and malignant falsehoods against the professors of the Catholic faith, charging them with crimes which exceed in atrocity even those invented by his prototype for lying, the infamous Titus Oates. And, does Mr. Laicus-Ralib imagine that the spirit of the Catholic is so cowed down by the operation of the proscrip-lies to gull their too credulous coun tive laws which press upon him, that trymen, and degrade their country in he dares not exert it to defend him the eyes of foreign nations, I shall self against the calumnious and re- always consider it my duty, as it is peated attacks made against his civil my inclination, to afford and employ and religious principles? Does he every means in my power to confound continue to issue forth their vile and 1 their abominable and disgraceful prac of 2 tices. I cannot, however, take my leave of this cowardly defender of Protestantism, without thanking him most heartily for his kind recommendation | of my work to the notice of Dr. K. which, I trust, the Rev. Dean will always find worthy his attention, as an object of great political importance; and, as Mr. Ralib is so feelkingly alive to the established creed, and at the same time an officious he member of the Bible Siciety, 1 recommend, in return, to his serious perusal and meditation, the late charge delidevered by the Bishop of Lincoln to his clergy, condemning those associations o as subversive of the doctrines of the church of England. WM. EUSEBIUS ANDREWS. London, June 24, 1815. 7 For the Orthodox Journal. MR. EDITOR, -The undersigned Writer having seen in your Journal for last month, proposals for subscriptions and other measures, by way of doing him public honour for the conscientious discharge of his professional duty, feels himself obliged, with every doctrine contained in the following * Dr. M. has, within these few days, resentiment of gratitude to the pro-ceived an Address of Thanks for his conduct posers, to decline, and indeed posi- in opposing the late Bill, signed by above tirely to refuse, their offers. His 4,000 English Catholics (whose number, if Conduct in opposing a late schismatical the occasion should require it, would soon Bill, and the fatal pledge, which he encrease to 40,000 English Catholics,) while, So often foretold would lead to some such measure, has been approved of in that quarter to which alone he looks for a decision on theological questions, previously to the sentence of the great Master who can adequate ly reward as well as infallibly judge of the right behaviour of his minis of about forty individuals (who, in a moment ters. of irritation, voted against him for that conduct, two years ago, some have signified their from their late Address to the Pope, to give concern at having done so, and all appear, up the Bill itself, as an uncanonical attempt to alter the discipline of the Church without his authority, INFANT BAPTISM. To the Editor of the Orthodox Journal. In opposition to these proposed hahours, the writer understands from four different public prints, that he SIR-In glancing over the contents bas, within these few days, been of your last Journal, my attention charged in Parliament, by an honour was suddenly arrested by an article able and learned member of it, with entitled "Infant Baptism taught in publishing, in contravention of his Scripture;" and not recognising in oath of allegiance, the treasonable such an expression the ordinary lane guage of Catholic writers, I was cu- | dition; while the former founds its To rescue the subject from that obscurity in which I find it involved, it will be necessary to restate the ques-ed as most agreable with the institution. It will be in the recollection, tion of Christ. (See Comparative then, of many of your readers, that View, p. 143.) "But what," replies about eight months ago, Dr. Marsh Mr. L." is meant by this agreement? published a very elaborate work, pur- Does it mean that Christ really insti porting to be "A Comparative View tuted Infant Baptism? Then they of the Churches of England and (the Reformers) must have learned Rome," under the three heads of Ar-it from Tradition. Does it mean, ticles of Faith, Church Ceremonies, that after considering the subject atand the exercise of Church Autho- tentively, they think it most proba rity. On the first of these heads the ble that Christ intended children to Doctor examines the fundamental dif- be baptised? Then, they acknow ference between the churches of Eng ledge that a very important part of land and Rome, which he states to be, the doctrine of Christ has been left that "the latter founds its doctrines unrecorded in Scripture." (See on two authorities, Scripture and Tra- Strictures, p. 55.) 廟 30 difficult to demonstrate its sense by the unsatisfactory aids which criticism can supply. Let "But," says your correspondent, "I entirely differ from the elegant and learned controvertist. I still beliere as I did twelve years ago, when I published my Tracts on Baptism, pretended evidence of this passage, us examine, therefore, the that Infant Baptism is taught in Scrip- and see what can and what cannot be ture. I grant that no particular in- | inferred from it. To justify the constance of it is recorded in the New clusion which your correspondent Testament; but its necessity, and has drawn, it will be necessary to deConsequently its institution, are clear-monstrate two things. 1st. That our blessed Saviour, in the passage in question, is speaking of baptism by water, and 2dly, that the words ly expressed in the words of our Sa=viour to Nicodemus. Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king-of institution are so absolute as nedom of God. That which is born of cessarily to comprise all mankind.— the flesh is flesh, and that which is Probability, in this case, will not be born of the spirit is spirit." (See sufficient; an article of faith must Orthodox Journal for May, 1815, p. rest on demonstration. 187.) But, does your correspondent imagine that this passage is so clearly expressive of the necessity of baptism as a medium of salvation, that it needs no authority to fix its meaning? Does he really believe that, independent of the determinate sense of Tradition, the simple text is so self-evident as to justify the hazard of committing a sacrilege, by conferring a sacrament where not only we are not otherwise sure the application is intended, but where we are uncertain even of the capability of the subject. All this he must have assumed, or his inference is unwarrantable; but he ought not to have assumed it, because he should have recollected that the question is not between Catholic and Catholic, but between Catholic and Protestant, which latter disclaiming every authorised construction, is thereby exposed to all the uncertainty of arbitrary interpretations. It is therefore quite irrelevant to the subject to say, as your correspondent does, that of the meaning of this Catholics have never doubted. He must know that if Catholics have never doubted, Pelagians have; Calvinists have, Anabaptists have, and Quakers have; and that although by recurring to the traditionary explication of the church, it is not difficult to ascertain its meanng, yet, that it is difficult and very passage (c. iii. v. 1.) that a certain man of the 1. It appears, then, from St. John, Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, came to Jesus by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these miracles which thou dost, unless God be with him.This conviction of the divine mission of Christ, we may naturally suppose, inclined him to ask some such question as the lawyer in St. Luke (c. x.) is recorded to have asked: Master, what must I do to possess eternal life. Jesus answered and said to him, Amen, Amen, I say to you except a man be born again, (or as it is in the Greek* be born from above,) he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven. To be "born again," or "born from above," is a metaphorical expression used to imply in Scripture language, a total renovation of life and manners, called * A Philologist might be inclined to question the accuracy of the vulgate translation; and it perhaps would puzzle N. G. to ex be rendered, both in the Latin and English plain why the Greek word avw9v should versions, by the sense of denuo, again." Its ordinary etymological meaning is indisputaand thus I find it rendered in nine other bly desuper, olim, or cœlitus, from above," Testament. I have, therefore, retained its literal signification, a liberty which the laws passages where this word occurs in the New of criticism would entitle me to take, were |