This paper stated that 'three persons were ready to give evidence on the matter.' And yet the witness says he knew nothing of it till the policeman came for him. He says they were 'chaffing' about my remarks in the office--that is, joking upon them. It does not say much for his seriousness--reporting these 'horrid sentiments' at night, and the next morning '_chaffing_' about them. If it was an aggravation of my crime to have chosen an innocent subject, what would the learned counsel have said if I had chosen a guilty one? It has been sworn by the witnesses that I said I did not believe there was such a _thing_ as a God, and an attempt has been made to make you believe that I used the term 'thing' contemptuously, but the witness admits that I did not use it in a contemptuous sense. The same word occurs in some lines by Thomas Moore:-- Man, in the sunshine of the world's new spring, Shall walk transparent like some holy thing. I must have used the word 'thing' in some such sense as it is used in these lines. It is laid down by the Common Law, that a person denying the existence of a God is a blasphemer. It has not been shown that I did this. I merely stated my disbelief--and disbelief is not included by the law. There is a great difference between denial and disbelief. If I had said distinctly 'there is no God,' it would have been stating that I was quite sure of it. I could not have said that, because I am not sure of it. I saw reasons for disbelief, but did not assert denial. Disbelief is all I profess. Those dogmatise who affirm, rather than those who deny a proposition. Mr. Southwell put this point in its proper light:-- 'If God had never been affirmed, he could not have been denied. It is a rule of logic, and a very sensible rule, that the _onus probandi,_ that is the burthen or weight of proving, rests on those who affirm a proposition. Priests have affirmed the existence of a God, but who will maintain that they have complied with the rule of logic?'* We can only, I think, arrive at a conviction of the existence of a God by the following modes:-- 1. By the medium of _innate ideas_, which we are said by some divines to possess, and which intuitively lead us to entertain the idea of a God. 2. By the _senses_, the sole media by which all _knowledge_ is acquired. 3. By _conjecture_.--This is employed by those who suppose there must be a God from their inability otherwise to account for the existence of the universe, and are not willing to allow it to be inexplicable. 4. By _analogy_.--Comparison is the basis of this argument. Analogy is the foundation of natural theology. 5. By _revelation_.--In this country the Bible is said to contain the revelation of a God. Of these it may be remarked:--