quick and dead in a commission with his Apostles, to award a sentence of which we know nothing at present.

That he had no power and no authority to assist mankind after his death.

That he can neither be a Comforter, nor send the Holy Spirit to dwell among us, and therefore that we have no Sanctifier.

That there is no Holy Ghost, no Son of God, no Trinity in Unity.

That there is no Evil Spirit, no Satan, no Devil, no Wicked One.

That the temptation of Christ in the wilderness was all a mere vision.

That what the Apostles have written is not to be regarded in every part as inspiration, but only so much of it as Unitarians will condescend to admit; and therefore the Holy Spirit did not guide them to all truth.1

Perniciosa cumprimìs est hæresis Sociniana, quâ inter hodiernas, sub nomine Christiano, nulla æquè detestanda. Non enim hæc articulum aliquem religionis, sed ejus animam et fundamenta concutit et evertit fermè secundùm hanc, et Christus nihil est nisi Doctor aliquis, aut Martyr egregius; ejus officium, docere duntaxat, non verè redimere; Evangelium, altera lex; justificatio, propter opera; probitas, solummodò ethica; infernus, et animæ plurimorum post hanc vitam, nihil; quodque primo loco dicendum fuerat, S. in Deo Trinitas ludibrium et idolum. Quæ omnia, usque annexa capita et errores, quantopere totam theologiam et religionem

Now, I ask, what can this "system of the best practical Deism," as the witness Horsley calls it; or "this sort of infidelity in disguise,” as the great Warburton designated it, be, but as gross and scandalous a libel as can be published against the Christian Religion; against Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour; and against his holy Apostles? I do not mean, however, to say by this that the Defendants are not sincere in their principles, but only to protest against the baneful influence of their principles, and to show and declare that, rational Christians as they may deem themselves, they are egregiously mistaken, and obstinately perverse in their errors; and that their principles only serve to shelter and cover Deists and others, who, arraying themselves under the guise of Unitarianism, screen from public view and public odium the indecencies of a more odious infidelity. There is nothing, indeed, in the system to captivate the affections of the soul. All there is cold and comfortless, and these deadly feelings are maintained at the expense of all that is fair, and open, and invigorating, in the Christian scheme; at the expense of unsatisfactory quibbles, gross distortions, and crooked criticism, which, though the coin of an ingenious mint, is base and worthless :

infestent ac corrumpant, nemo est qui non sentiat. Hoornbeck de Socinianismo, p. 441.

a system it is, that only flatters a false pride of sophism, at the expense of all that is pious, all that is honest and good, in philosophy. I therefore earnestly call upon you, Gentlemen, to mark your abhorrence of it, that it may go forth to all the world that an enlightened, rational, and religious Jury, of the most liberal and intelligent kingdom of the earth, after a full, fair, and clear investigation, have pronounced the several writings of the Defendants to be libels against the Established Religion of the State,—against the Religion of him who was truly the Son of God. By such a verdict you may guard, at least, some portion of mankind from falling under that fearful denunciation, which we will sincerely hope, through the mercy and the merits of this injured Christ, may be the final doom of none. "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall they be thought worthy, who have trodden under foot the Son of God, and have counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith they are sanctified an unholy thing, and have done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

The Judge then charged the Jury.

Gentlemen of the Jury, -The three Defendants are charged, on an Information filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General, with each having written and published works irreverently reflecting upon the great fundamental doctrine of the Christian Re

ligion, which doctrine, as grounded on Scripture, the Established Church receives and upholds; and therefore the offence with which they are charged has reference both to the Holy Scriptures and to the Religion of the State. I need only remind you that we live in a Christian country, and that the Legislature has recognised the canonical books of the Old and New Testament as being authentic and genuine Scripture, as being most true and holy, as being the inspired Word of God. From this volume of inspiration has been drawn, by the wisest, the most learned and pious men, a form of public prayer and worship, which, also, the Legislature has received as being in exact harmony and consistency with the Scriptures, fairly and simply interpreted. The Defendants are charged with denying these Scriptures in many parts to be either canonical or true, and they have proceeded to alter them to suit an interpretation which, if right, goes to show that the State is in error, and that its learned and pious men are mistaken in their notions of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. They declare that the Scriptures themselves are incorrect both with regard to the matter and manner of their contents; and that, from deducing doctrines not to be found in them, the community is made polytheistical and idolatrous in its worship. It must be evident to you, Gentlemen, that by representing the National Faith and worship as corrupt, the object and

effect of the writings of the Defendants must be to alienate the people from belief in the accepted Scriptures, and also from conforming to the prescribed worship grounded upon them; a proceeding which the Law of the land will not permit, because it tends to unsettle and mislead the public mind, to weaken the sacred cause of religion, and to cut asunder all the ties which bind the people in social compact together. The Law of the land, certainly, cannot so bind the conscience as to compel an involuntary belief on such an awful and high subject as that of religion; but it has such a control over human action, as justly to command outward reverence and respect for that belief, and that form of worship, which the community at large regards and holds as sacred. However the conduct of the official advocate of the crown may be considered as savouring of intolerance and persecution, I, for one, cannot regret that he has thought fit to bring this high matter to the scrutiny of a British Jury, and a British Court of Justice; because, if what we have been taught to believe of the holy volume of Scripture has been false, the sooner we are made sensible of our error, and can retract from it, the better and safer it must be for us all while on the other hand, if those Scriptures have been cut down, and mutilated, and misinterpreted, by the Defendants, it is but common justice that their practices

U 4