his government?" I answer, Yes; let him show his regard for the honour of God, by refraining from the use of unhallowed weapons in the defence of his cause, and by ceasing to visit offences against religion with temporal penalties. He who libels his neighbour may go to jail for it; he who libels God, will, unless he repent, suffer everlasting imprisonment in the dungeon of hell:-has the civil magistrate any thing to do with this? On this subject, there are two im portant questions to be considered; first, what is the design of civil government? Secondly, has Christianity made any alteration therein ? Christianity made any alteration in civil government? Has it invested the magistrate with powers which he did not before possess? Notwithstanding J. I.'s endeavour to persuade us to regard this as a "civil, or political, question," he must be aware that it is not so regarded by the law of England. Blackstone says, that blasphemy is "punishable by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of England." Now, I think, it may be easily shewn, that Christianity does not interfere, in the least, with civil government. It leaves it as it finds it, with this exception, that the mild and gentle influence of the gospel, by softening the rugged heart of man, has led to the amelioration of human laws, and destroyed much of the cruelty which formerly accompanied the exercise of power. But, waving this, and understanding that Christianity is " The Christianity is " part of the laws of England," we come immediately to the inquiry, "What injunctions does Christianity itself give, relative to its propagation and defence?" For if Christianity be the law of the land, that law must be agreeable to Christianity. As to the first, we shall generally agree. Civil government is a wise and beneficial institution, intended for the preservation of life, liberty, and property. It regards man as a social being, recognizes his rights, protects him from injury. But, with religion it has nothing to do. The magistrate is not to inquire, whether his subjects are of this, or of that religion, or of any religion at all; here he has no right of interference. So long as they maintain peace and good order, and refrain from injuring one another, they are to be regarded as good subjects, whatever be their religious opinions, or even though they have no religious opinions. If this statement be correct, and I apprehend that no Protestant Dis. senter will object to it, the question before us is not a "civil or political question;" it is purely religious, and must be treated accordingly. I anticipate an objection, derived from the peculiarities of the Mosaic economy. But are my opponents will ing to go all the lengths of their own argument? Are they content that blasphemers should be punished with death, according to the Jewish law? The second question is, has "What saith the scripture?" Let the advocates of prosecutions for infidelity, bring forth their “strong reasons," and summon all their biblical knowledge to the contest. Let them produce the passage in which the Lord Jesus Christ, and his apostles, have directed us to defend a spiritual religion by carnal weapons, to substitute a sword of steel for the sword of the Spirit, and to immure an adversary in a gloomy dungeon, rather than to endeavour, by a process of conclusive reasoning, to "shut him up unto the faith?" But it is needless to pursue the argument further; I will only refer to Luke ix. 49-56; John xviii. 36; 2 Tim. ii, 24-26. A truly Christian government will be guided by Christian principles, and will use no other mode of defence of those principles than Christianity itself warrants. Most cordially do I agree with our immortal Milton, that "to uphold religion otherwise than to defend the religious from outward violence, is no service to Christ, or his kingdom, but rather a disparagement, and degrades it from a divine and spiritual kingdom to a kingdom of this world, which he denies it to be, because it needs not force to confirm it." See his "Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes." Works, Vol. I. p. 552, folio edition. J. I. maintains, that, in "discountenancing and suppressing impiety and irreligion," there is a "legitimate exercise" of the magistrate's authority; that is, as a magistrate, he is bound to suppress impiety. The Roman Emperors thought so, and, therefore, persecuted persecuted the Christians, who, in their view, were impious atheists. We have been accustomed to consider those Christians as martyrs; according to J. I.'s reasoning, they were criminals. Our Missionaries, too, if this argument be valid, must not complain of bonds, imprisonment, or death, for ridiculing the heathen gods. Indeed, the consequences of J. I.'s theory will lead him much further than he seems to be aware. I have attempted to point out some of his mistakes, and, by so doing, to counteract the injurious tendency of his system. Southwark, Nov. 18, 1824. J. M. C. subject of morals, it may be neces sary, that the crime, which I have contended is cognizable by the civil magistrate, should be yet more plainly defined. In the book of Leviticus, chap. xxiv. verse 16, it is said, " And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed:" that is, as may be seen in verse 15, (O! the awful depravity of man!) "cursed his God!" which is twice in verse 16, called "blaspheming the name of the Lord!" In accordance with this description, I defined blasphemy, in my last paper, as being committed by those persons “who had denied the being, and had spoken in terms of impious irreverence of God;"or, "who had published such blasphemies." Our great lexicographer calls a blasphemer, "a wretch that speaks of God in impious and irreverent terms;" and defines blasphemy to be "an offering of some indignity unto God himself." BLACKSTONE, in his Commentaries, describes blasphemy against the Almighty as being committed" by denying his being or providence; or, by contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Christ :"-as, also, "by profane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule." To this statement, that profound lawyer, and constitutional writer, adds: "These are offences punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous punishment; for Christianity is part of the laws of England." For the purpose of proving, that the laws of England, in respect to blasphemy, are opposed to the laws of Christianity; and that I have acted the part of a "persecutor," Blasphemy NOT cognizable by the in attempting to shew that they are Civil Magistrate, AN INDEFENSIBLE POSITION. IN order that a proper judgment might be formed on this important perfectly compatible, is the object of J. M. C. in the paper to which this is a reply. As to the charge of persecution, I hope to be able to prove, that it rests on no evidence; and, therefore, I expect to obtain from every impartial reader a verdict of acquittal! But, had I undertaken, as J. M. C. has done, to prove, that the legal prosecution of blasphemers is opposed to the laws of God, and to the spirit of Christianity, I should feel that the rebuke once given to a king of Judah, who had made common cause with the enemies of God, applied to my conduct:-" Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chron. xix. 2. There are several things in the letter of J. M. C. which, being little more than mere assertions, without evidence for their support, that I shall leave to the impartial decision of the reader: viz. That "blasphemy is not of the same class of crimes, and is not so considered by the common and statute laws of the kingdom, as perjury or profane swearing"-that blasphemy is not an overt action;" i. e. not an open, public, apparent crime;-that "the magistrate should shew his regard for the honour of God, by refraining from the use of unhallowed weapons in the defence of his cause, and by ceasing to visit offences against religion with temporal penalties;"-and, that blasphemy "is not a civil or political question." In confirmation of the last of these positions, that the question, as to blasphemy," is not a civil or political question," J. M. C. remarks concerning those who are subject to the magistrate's authority; "So ong as they maintain peace and good order, and refrain from injuring one another, they are to be considered as good subjects, whatever be their religious opinions, or even though they have no religious opinions." I feel no objection to adopt this statement, and am free to acknowledge, that, if I cannot shew, by sufficient evidence, that uttering blasphemy in language, or publishing it in books, is subversive of "peace and good order," and that it is "injurious to the well-being of the community;" that my position is untenable, and I shall abandon the argument. I am fully of opinion, with Blackstone, that "all crimes ought to be estimated merely according to the mischiefs which they produce in civil society: and, of consequence, private vices, or breach of mere absolute duties, which man is bound to perform, considered only as an individual, are not, cannot be, the object of any municipal law; any farther than as, by their evil example, or other pernicious effects, they may prejudice the community, and thereby become a species of public crimes?" He then gives instances of the difference between "private vices," as drunkenness and lying, and the same sins, when attended with "public inconvenience;" and thus concludes: "The only difference is, that both public and pri vate vices are subject to the vengeance of eternal justice; and public vices are besides liable to the temporal punishments of human tribunals."* Now the simple question is, "Whether blasphemy, uttered, or published, be not prejudicial to the community; an evil example, producing pernicious effects: and, therefore, a public crime? Surely J. M. C. will not deny, that, if a man be legally convicted of having publicly "cursed his God," he has committed an open and apparent crime? nor, that it is equally with "the breach of the ninth commandment, an offence against man, as well as a direct offence against God!" Are there no other ways, I inquire, in which the com. * Chapter on Public Wrongs, Vol. IV. Pages 41-42. munity can be injuriously affected, besides in their " property," their "liberty," or their "life"? May not their principles be corrupted, and their reverence for their Creator be destroyed? May they not, by such profanity and impiety, be drawn into similar wicked courses; and thus be changed from good to bad members of the civil community? Does J. M. C. forget, that an apostle has said, "Evil communications corrupt good manners?" and will he undertake to prove, that blasphemy, because a crime which subjects persons "to everlasting punishment in the dungeon of hell," is not, also, as a public vice, "liable to the temporal punishment of a human tribunal?" I am a little suprised, that J. M. C. should make a quotation from MILTON, which relates solely to "liberty of conscience in religion," when, in the same work, that great man makes a marked distinction between that subject, and "blasphemy, or evil speaking against God maliciously." Would any one have imagined, that, in the very same Treatise, MILTON should have thus defended the prosecutions of blasphemers against those who thought his arguments, for unrestricted liberty of conscience, necessarily led to the result, that blasphemers must go unpunished? "I refer such," says Milton, "to that prudent and well-deliberated Act, August 9, 1650, where the Parliament defines Blasphemy against God, as far as it is a crime, belonging to civil judicature, plenius ac melius Crysippo & Crantore; in plain English, more warily, more judiciously, more orthodoxly than twice their number of divines have done, in many a prolix volume."* With some difficulty, I, at length, procured a sight of this Act of Par A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesi astical Causes, Folio, p. 744. liament, so strongly commended by this strenuous assertor of rational liberty. It is thus entitled: "An Act against several Atheistical, Blasphemous, and Execrable Opinions, Derogatory to the Honor of God, and destructive to Human Society." A few extracts follow: "Finding, to their great grief and astonishment, that there are divers men and women, who have lately discovered themselves to be most monstrous in their opinions, and loose in all wicked and abominable practices;-not only to the notorious corrupting and disordering, but even to the dissolution of all human Society; who, rejecting the use of any gospel ordinances, do deny the necessity of Civil and Moral Righteousness among men.-To be most ready to testify their displeasure and abhorrence of such offenders, by a strict and effectual proceeding against them, who should abuse and turn into licentiousness, the liberty given in matters of conscience." The Act then enumerates various "execrable opinions," which are described as "Acts of denying and blaspheming God, or of swearing prophanely, or falsely, by the name of God;" and enacts, as the punishment for the first offence impri'sonment for six months; if the crime were repeated, banishment from the country; and, if they returned, without the permission of Parliament, to suffer as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy. Let it be observed, that this Act of the Long Parliament was not to punish persons for their opinions, though atheistical, but for acts of blasphemy, profaneness, and perjury; not for private vices; but for those vices when they became public crimes; not for the purpose of defending Christianity, but to exof God, and to preserve the wellpress their concern for the honour being of the community; their description of the crime being thus expressed" tending to the dishonour of God, the scandal of the Christian religion, and the professors thereof, and destructive to human society." As J. M. C. has attempted, though in vain, to impress Milton into his service; I shall be excused in giving some other quotations, from his works, to prove that his opinions have been misrepresented. In his "Speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing, addressed to the Parliament," he expressly sanctions the suppression of blasphemous publications; while he pleads most powerfully against a censorship of the press. "I deny not," says he," but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest judgment upon them, as malefactors: for books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve, as in a viol, the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous dragon's teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men." 66 But, lest I should be condemned of introducing license, while I oppose licensing, I refuse not the pains to be so much historical, as Milton knew how to draw the line between Liberty and Licentiousness; license and licensing: "That bawl for freedom, in their senseless mood, will serve to shew what hath been done by ancient and famous commonwealtlis, against this disorder, till the very time that this project of licensing crept out of the Inquisition, was catched up by our Prelates, and hath caught some of our Presbyters. "In Athens, where books and wits were ever busier than in any other part of Greece, I find but only two sorts of writings which the magistrates cared to take notice of; those either blasphemous and atheistical, or LIBELLOUS. Thus the books of Protagoras were, by the judges of Areopagus, condemned to be burnt, and himself banished the territory, for a discourse, begun with his confessing not to know, whether there were gods or not." Again, in Milton's "Observations upon the Articles of Peace with the Irish Rebels," he says, in reply to some taunts, that even blasphemers were protected in England: "Our protection, therefore, to men in civil matters unoffensive we cannot deny; their consciences we leave as not within our cognizance, to the proper cure of instruction praying for them. Nevertheless, if any be found among us declared atheists, malicious enemies of God and of Christ; the Parliament, I think, professes not to tolerate such, but, with all befiting endeavours to suppress them:-that we invite such as these, or encourage them, is a mere slander without proof." From fully approving the sentiments of this greatest of uninspired men, advanced by him, too, in several different treatises, and, when writing in defence of unrestricted religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of conscience, I shall continue to maintain, that "discountenancing impiety and irreligion, is a legitimate exercise of the magistrate's authority;" and that, "as a magistrate, he is bound to suppress |