our knowledge the evidences for the historical truth of the miracles of the Gospel outweigh the arguments of the Sceptics, will he condescend to give us such a comment on the assertion, that had we but a grain of mustard seed of it, we might control all material nature, without making Christ himself the most extravagant hyperbolist that ever mis-used language?  But it is impossible to make that man blush, who can seriously call the words of Christ as recorded by St. John, plain, easy, common sense, out of which prejudice, artifice, and selfish interest alone can compose any difficulty.  The Barrister has just as much right to call his religion Christianity, as to call flour and water plum pudding:—­yet we all admit that in plum pudding both flour and water do exist.

Ib. p. 7.

  Socinus can have no claim upon my veneration:  I have never concerned
  myself with what he believed nor with what he taught &c.

  The Scripture is my authority, and on no other authority will I ever,
  knowingly, lay the foundation of my faith.

Utterly untrue.  It is not the Scripture, but such passages of Scripture as appear to him to accord with his Procrustean bed of so called reason, and a forcing of the blankest contradictions into the same meaning, by explanations to which I defy him to furnish one single analogy as allowed by mankind with regard to any other writings but the Old and New Testament.  It is a gross and impudent delusion to call a Book his authority, which he receives only so far as it is an echo of his own convictions.  I defy him to adduce one single article of his whole faith, (creed rather) which he really derives from the Scripture.  Even the arguments for the Resurrection are and must be extraneous:  for the very proofs of the facts are (as every ‘tyro’ in theology must know) the proofs of the authenticity of the Books in which they are contained.  This question I would press upon him:—­Suppose we possessed the Fathers only with the Ecclesiastical and Pagan historians, and that not a page remained of the New Testament,—­what article of his creed would it alter?

Ib. p. 10.

  If the creed of Calvinistic Methodism is really more productive of
  conversions than the religion of Christianity, let them openly and at
  once say so.

But Calvinistic Methodism?  Why Calvinistic Methodism?  Not one in a hundred of the Methodists are Calvinists.  Not to mention the impudence of this crow in his abuse of black feathers!  Is it worse in a Methodist to oppose Socinianism to Christianity, that is, to the doctrines of Wesley or even Whitfield, which are the same as those of all the Reformed Churches of Christendom, and differ only wherein the most celebrated divines of the same churches have differed with each other,—­than for the Barrister to oppose Methodism to Christianity (his Christianity)—­that is, to Socinianism, which in every peculiar doctrine of Christianity differs from all divines of all Churches