thought he had as well give the reader the whole, as I had already given all that was material to the question. He says, on the subject of dividing the sentence, and giving part of it as though it were the whole, "As to using a period, I could not close the sentence without it; and I hope you will not require a man to quote all that another writer says, in order to avoid mutilating." I do not expect a man who quotes a writer to give all he says, but I do expect that he shall give enough truly to represent the views of the author. But this gentleman could not close the sentence without a period. What he quoted was not a sentence, and, therefore, ought not to have been closed. Surely, as this gentleman is a teacher, he knows that a quotation can be finished as well with a colon, semicolon, or comma, as with a period. I ask now again, Does Dr. Clarke's note prove that to immerse is the only sense of baptizo? for this is the point that he was brought by Mr. B. to prove, Strictures, page 15. His words are, "But this (baptizo) is an obstinate word. It has but one meaningthese learned men knew it-and their candour forced them to acknowledge it." I boldly affirm that they never did acknowledge it. Dr. C.'s language with regard to this word is, Matt. iii, 6, Were the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is CERTAIN bapto and baptizo mean BOTH."

Mr. B. may write as many explanations and vindications as he pleases, but while his Strictures exist, they will fully sustain all that I have said of him, on this case, in my

Appeal, to which I beg leave to refer the reader.

As it regards what the gentleman says about "confessing my folly, and asking forgiveness, and about his "being one of the first to forgive me, in the event of my asking forgiveness," &c., I would only observe, it is a feature of " MY CREED" that confession is a part of repentance, and that conviction always precedes it. Hence, for the want of conviction that I have done any wrong in the premises, I cannot repent or ask pardon. The conviction I have at present is, that Mr. B. deserved all he got in my first argument, and that he is now desirous of getting out of the dilemma in the best way he can, under cover of the dust raised by him in his Letters. I invite any candid man to take his Strictures and compare them with what I have said, for proof of the above. See Strictures, pp. 13-15; Appeal, from page 104 to 111.

He next attempts to clear himself from the charge with regard to Mr. Wesley, page 61, and begins by confessing that he "had, in mistake, put Dr. Doddridge's words into Mr. Wesley's mouth in the Strictures; but that in his Sermon he had given the quotation exact." I ask, Does that prove the point he had undertaken to make out? He had asserted that Mr. Wesley "preferred immersion," that "he had acknowledged that baptizo had but one meaning." Whereas Mr. W. says, "The greatest scholars, and most proper judges in the matter, testify that the original term (baptizo) means not dipping, but

washing or cleansing." I ask the candid reader, Is this an acknowledgment? What I complained of was, that he should take part of a sentence from Mr. W.'s Notes, and the circumstances of Parker's child, and Mary Welch, from his Journal, to make out that Mr. W. favoured his views: and with Mr. W.'s Works in his hands, containing positive evidence to the contrary, he should still abuse the minds of his readers with this partial testimony concerning that good man's actual sentiments.

Mr. B. did not quote Mr. Wesley on Colos. ii, 12, he says, either in his printed Sermon or while delivering it, "because he could see no meaning in it." And he thought he had satisfied "my friend" of it in the conversation they had after the sermon was preached. This gentleman thinks my "friend" like Goldsmith's schoolmaster- -"though convinced, he can argue still.” Now, I undertake to say that Mr. B. never did either convince or "vanquish" him. I suppose he did not like to quote Goldsmith correctly, and say, "though vanquished, he can argue still," lest those who know the circumstances of that conversation should think his boasting unauthorized by the true state of the case.

Mr. B. says, page 63, that "I seem to have found it necessary to apologize for Mr. Wesley." I remark, when Mr. W. is not misrepresented he needs no apologist. And I blush for Mr. B. that he should make it necessary for me to become the vindicator, not the " apologist," of a man whose name is interwoven with that revival of

the work of God, which commenced in the last century; and whose fame shall be more imperishable than the foundations of empires. I "APOLOGISE" FOR MR. JOHN WESLEY!! "His works bear witness of him." I only attempted to remove the dust that had been thrown upon his "fair escutcheon."

While I am upon the subject of Mr. W.'s testimony, I would just observe to the reader, that Mr. B. seems to have suspected his readers would "be surprised at his frequent references to Mr. W.," and sets about assigning the reason, viz.," that the large proportion of the congregation assembled to hear the sermon were Methodists."-Sermon, p. 10. Now, admitting this statement to be true, what was to be gained by attempting to prove to Methodists that Mr. Wesley held one thing on the subject of baptism, and practised another? Was this the quintessence of politeness, to tell a congregation, "the large proportion of whom were Methodists," that the founder of their sect was an inconsistent man, and that he held "baptismal regeneration," and entertained, indeed, worse views on baptism than Mr. Alexander Campbell ?" And this, too, from a gentleman who writes about "common politeness!" This I have written upon the supposition that the statement is true. I now pronounce it to be utterly without foundation, unless this gentleman has some mode of calculation that I have never heard of, by which he can make it appear that fifteen or twenty Methodists are "the large proportion of a con

66

gregation" of several hundred persons. Perhaps Mr. B. was misinformed about his auditors. I am willing to hope he was. At the same time I am afraid he is very liable to be imposed upon by those who may imagine they please him, or advantage their cause, by repeating silly tales, or things not founded in fact. Of this character is the silly story of Mr. Toplady, page 80, about "Mr. Wesley's having immersed a woman in a hogshead." He knows, candid reader, that Mr. Toplady was one of Mr. Wesley's bitterest opponents, and that he was quite as much exasperated at Mr. W. as Mr. B. has been at me. Even religious men, under such circumstances, can sometimes consent to gratify one of the worst feelings of human nature, by retailing marvellous stories about an opponent, if they can only get some one else to endorse them, whether they themselves believe them or not. Mr. Toplady thought that sin could not hurt the elect. Query, Is Mr. B. less partial now to this gentle-. man's views than formerly?

His next attempt is to show that he has not misrepresented Professor Stuart's views, and gravely says to me," If you examine his essay," &c. Does he suppose I have not examined it? He knows I have examined it, quite sufficiently to show the reader that Professor Stuart, so far from confirming Mr. Carson's view of baptizo, says expressly, page 100, that "Mr. Carson lays down some very adventurous positions in respect to words having one meaning only; which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth