person who has thrown up his preferment and office in the church, and himself into want and dependence, as the test of the conviction that he has been in error in having been a minister and member of the church, and that he has gone over to, what he thinks, a better and a sounder faith; and he has since taken great pains to show that the Christian world lies in error and darkness, and that he is a voluntary martyr to the light of truth.

Att. Gen. But how does this martyrdom and this apology show the truth of his new belief?

Witness. To my mind they neither of them prove it. Submission to distress in preference to a dishonest concession to an opinion, proves indeed the sincerity of the sufferer, but not the soundness of the opinion for which he suffers. It may prove, as I think in this case it does, the weakness of his understanding, rather than the strength of his cause. I fear, that too easy credit may be yielded to a doctrine held forth by the claimant to martyrdom. The seal of blood has given an apparent validity to many a position from which the assertors had previously derived no glory. The stake, where it has been the only argument, has sometimes been considered as a very convincing one; and a departure in flames has been thought to have revealed the angel, where the precepts for which they are sus

tained has, perhaps, only shown forth the contemptible man.1

Court. Have you, sir, dedicated much of your time to the study of theology?

Witness. No, my Lord, and any one who has read my confutation of the Defendant's arguments will soon perceive that I am altogether unread in theological disputations.

Court. May I ask, then, what led you to take up the subject?

Witness. A great noise was excited by the Defendant's surrender of his preferment, and still greater on the consequent publication of his “ Apology." Drawn by curiosity to look into this book, I found, to my surprise, the design of it was not barely to offer a vindication of the motives, conduct, and sentiments of a private person; but to assail every fundamental doctrine of the Church, to degrade the God of our salvation, to snatch from us the object of our religion, and to evince that Jesus Christ is not one with the Father and the Holy Ghost. With perfect freedom from prejudice, nay, I am almost ashamed to confess, with the first serious consideration of so important a point, I sat down to read the Defendant's book; and for the truth of every position contained in it I appealed to the word of God itself, that I might

1 Scriptural Confutation, p. 5.

learn how truly that word was advanced; when, to my utter astonishment, I soon found, that this was the only book upon the subject which the Apologist had not critically read; and that, in every particular, it directly opposed itself to him and to his frequent quotations. Convinced, however, that the Bible was the only guide to be depended upon, I thought that reading it with attention would be a sufficient preparative for writing; that my very ignorance in controversy would turn to account; and that it might be considered as a corroborating proof of the truth of what I should write; and that the Bible alone would be found sufficient for my purpose: and, consequently, the Bible alone have I consulted, without a single prejudice either of my own, or borrowed from any other person.1 Court. Very well, sir.

Att. Gen. How does the Defendant impugn the doctrine of the Trinity?

Witness. By declaring that the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity is as new as the title given to it, and that both name and title are unscriptural.

Att. Gen. What do you say to this?

2

Witness. I deny it altogether; for the name of a sacred doctrine not being found in Scripture is no proof against the doctrine itself being a true one. We speak of God's omniscience, his omni

1 Scriptural Confutation, p. 221.

£ Apology, p. 12.

potence, and his omnipresence; and though such words are not found in the Scriptures, yet no one can deny that they are the attributes of God, and that the Scriptures declare such attributes to belong to him. In the same manner, if we show, as assuredly we can, that the attributes, the titles, and the inherent power of the Supreme Being are severally and clearly ascribed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, any word or name which will include and express all this may be used to designate what is thus found to be a Scripture doctrine.

"The Rose, by any other name, will smell as sweet."

Att. Gen. Well, sir; but tell us what is the general opinion of the Defendant, not merely in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, but of the other mysterious doctrines and parts of Scripture?

Witness. He lays it down as an undeniable position that "Our Saviour Christ taught no mysterious doctrine;" and he treats with contempt every thing connected with the term mystery.1

Att. Gen. How do you answer this?

Witness. By stating the difference between the precepts and the doctrines of Scripture: the former, as being clear and intelligible to all; but the latter, many of them mysterious, and are so declared to be by the Apostles themselves. St. Paul, speaking of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and him crucified,

Apology, p. 16.

declares it not to be given or delivered "with the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit; that our faith might stand, not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God;" and he further adds, "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery," and this, "by the Spirit of God, by which alone the deep things of God are searched."—"The Spirit compares spiritual things with spiritual, which things are foolishness to the natural man, who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." -But clear as this seems to be, the Apostle is even more explicit, where, speaking of Christ, he says, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 2-Is not this a mystery? Is not the Trinity declared to be a mysterious doctrine by St. Paul himself; for he says, "Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness. God was made manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Here is the mysterious doctrine of the divinity and incarnation of Christ, circumstantially discovered; the whole doctrine is here literally epitomised, and the Father and Son are clearly declared to be the same God.4

"3

11 Cor. ii. 4, 5. 7. and 15.

31 Tim. iii. 16.

? Col. ii. 9.

4 St. Paul speaks of another mystery, and a great one, when