certainly said nothing. Neither in The Times nor in the
Unitarian report is there anything about Mexico or Peru.

Mr Vizetelly next makes me say that the principle of limitation
is found "amongst the Pandects of the Benares." Did my editor
believe that I uttered these words, and that the House of Commons
listened patiently to them? If he did, what must be thought of
his understanding? If he did not, was it the part of an honest
man to publish such gibberish as mine? The most charitable
supposition, which I therefore gladly adopt, is that Mr Vizetelly
saw nothing absurd in the expression which he has attributed to
me. The Benares he probably supposes to be some Oriental nation.
What he supposes their Pandects to be I shall not presume to
guess. If he had examined The Times, he would have found no
trace of the passage. The reporter, probably, did not catch what
I said, and, being more veracious than Mr Vizetelly, did not
choose to ascribe to me what I did not say. If Mr Vizetelly had
consulted the Unitarian report, he would have seen that I spoke
of the Pundits of Benares; and he might, without any very long or
costly research, have learned where Benares is, and what a Pundit
is.

Mr Vizetelly then represents me as giving the House of Commons
some very extraordinary information about both the Calvinistic
and the Arminian Methodists. He makes me say that Whitfield held
and taught that the connection between Church and State was
sinful. Whitfield never held or taught any such thing; nor was I
so grossly ignorant of the life and character of that remarkable
man as to impute to him a doctrine which he would have abhorred.
Here again, both in The Times and in the Unitarian report, the