111 On the Expediency of suppressing Blasphemy. practice, which is thus the subject of condemnation with some, and of approval with others, does not receive the smallest countenance from the tenets of this religion itself, but is indeed condemned in the spirit of it; and, notwithstanding these prosecutions have perhaps, in some instances, tended to increase instead of diminish the evil, owing to the avidity with which the interdicted works have been sought after; yet, all this does not prove that the practice is in itself really evil; it being for the good of the state, ultimately considered, and for the protection of the rising generation, proximately and ostensibly, that such men are punished. We are told by such as condemn these prosecutions, that religion bears no relation to law, and, therefore, no attempts to bring it into disrepute can come within the recognition of the law. But this is asserting what is not quite correct. Christianity is "part and parcel" of the law of the land, whether its being made so be justifiable at all points or not; and consequently, the question becomes one respecting the propriety or right of making it such and it is an exceedingly difficult and delicate subject to determine what is, and what is not, proper for government to do, since the caprices of individuals can never be made the standard of right. We hear of few, in fact, but men of desperate republican principles, railing against Christianity; and the reason of their conduct is sufficiently obvious they are anxiously looking forward to see all existing governments demolished, and those purely democratical raised on their ruins; (which Heaven avert !) but they see that this can never be effected until the intimate connexion which subsists between states and their respective religions, be annihilated: and, therefore, they direct, first, their attention to this object, resting assured that all they desire will follow in its train; and their failure here, may be adduced to shew the policy of the union of church and state. Let me not be understood here as advocating the propriety of the union of church and state, I speak only of the policy of that union as an individual, I deprecate the alliance, knowing that Christianity needs no such adventitious assistance tosupport it. And as for the fact, that the attempts to suppress the publication of infidel works has only tended to increase the sale of them-this, abstractly considered, is not a matter of regret to true Christians; they never shun, but rather court investigation of their principles, and are not afraid of having their creed subjected to the most rigid 112 philosophic scrutiny; being well convinced, that the more it is fairly analyzed and examined, the more worthy it will be found of its Almighty Author. It is to the low, the scurrilous, the inflammatory, that we object. These are the means used by the opponents of Christianity, to subvert it; and indeed, almost exclusively so. Let the subject be treated in a calm and argumentative manner, and the result is not feared, because such a method can only be under. stood by the well-informed and thinking part of the community. In repelling such attacks as these, Christianity has always come off victorious, and covered her adversaries with confusion. But to contend advantageously with an enemy, we must use weapons of the same efficiency. Now, it so happens, that most frequently, weapons of such a nature are employed, as those who are capable of sustaining the conflict, disdain to make use of, and thus the enemy has all the field to himself. To raise an excitement of opposition in the minds of thinking men, our opponents find to be a difficult task; and consequently, they are not ashamed of descending to the capacities of the ignorant and vicious, who embrace any thing that seems to promise them full liberty for the gratification of their passions, and rush on to the accomplishment of any project, without hesitation or reason. It is, therefore, surprising that any man should argue for the propriety of suffering such base attempts to demoralize society, to go on without opposition. It is not because it is feared Christianity will sustain some deadly injury-that its foundations will be sapped, and its fair superstructure levelled with the dust; that the stronghold which it is tenaciously fixing on society will be loosened ;—it is not on these grounds, that we hear of these prosecutions:-no; the question is entirely political, and does not partake of a religious character at all-at least in reality, although it does apparently. The reason of the civil magistrate being fully justified in imprisoning persons convicted under the common law of blasphemy against the Christian religion, is entirely on the score of political expediency: because, if the principles of Deists and Atheists tend in their dissemination to dissolve the bonds of civil society, by nullifying the distinction between virtue and vice, and removing the belief of a state of future rewards and punishments for good or evil actions in this world, or recognizing them only on the ground of civil policy; then there will exist no moral, but only a physical restraint on criminal pursuits, which, as experience informs us, is totally inadequate to the accomplishment of the desired object. The dread of temporal and corporeal punishment is quite insufficient to curb the strong passions of human nature, and lay an embargo on the vicious propensities of the human heart; nothing but the firm and fixed belief of a state of awful retribution can produce this mighty effect. Throw off the restraint which men are under from a consideration of a judgment to come, and what would the world be a moral chaos. Let the long to be remembered and deeply to be lamented (with respect at least to the individuals immediately concerned) Revolution in France testify to the fact. Rejecting every semblance of Christianity, and believing death to be an eternal sleep, men cared not whether themselves and their former friends and neighbours existed; and the capital of that kingdom, particularly, was drenched with blood poured out by suicides, parri. cides, matricides, and universal murderers. And all this brought about by their contemptuous spurning of Christianity, and their ardent desire to blot out even its very name from the records of the earth. And be it remembered, these are the genuine effects of establishing the principles of infidelity and irreligion among the lower orders of society. So that it is the great mischief which is likely to accrue to the state by the promulgation of infidel principles, that induces the law to regard it so ominously. That class of the community which comprises its labourers and mechanics is far greater than any other, and these, by their very situation and dependent condition, are rendered less able than others to determine what is best adapted for them as members of the commonwealth. It is not expected that they should have very extended and enlightened views of what most contributes to the stability of society and good of the state, and, therefore, it is extremely dangerous to present to them a system which teaches to regard as false and absurd, what they have always been accustomed to regard as the very cement of society, and firmest prop of the constitu tion. Those individuals who are most strenuous in denying to the civil magistrate any right of interference in cases of blasphemy, insisting that the practice is unchristian as well as unwise, in as much as Jesus Christ has left it on record, that his kingdom is not of this world, but is a spiritual and heavenly one, and that his followers must, to the end of time, contend against the vices of mankind by mild and persuasive, instead .... of harsh and cruel means--these persons mistake the point altogether, and wage war against a phantom of their own creation. It is not the abstract truth of Christianity particularly, upon which the state looks with so jealous an eye in these proceedings, but rather upon its relative importance, because the stability of religion is so intimately blended with its stability and greatest interests; for if the religion of Great Britain were Mahometan, then whatever tended to bring the Koran into disrepute would be visited with as great severity as any thing having for its object the subversion of the doctrines of the Bible. The crimes of murder and theft are not punished by the civil authorities because they are forbidden in the moral law of the sacred writings, but because they are detrimental to the interests of society. So that we see it is not pro bono Christiano, but pro bono publico, that these gross and furious attacks on the established religion of the land, subject the assailants to deprivation of power to offend, by fine and imprisonment. And let it be borne in mind, that we do not wish to punish the individual either in his person or property, unless driven to it by his obstinacy and pertinacity; we only wish, by mild though effectual means, to prevent the spreading mischief. There is no hostility shewn to these men as individuals, but only to their principles. The law regards them in the same light as other offenders against its provisions, who are amenable to them if they commit an overt act, but not otherwise; and this system of prevention, if viewed in its proper light, will be seen to be a provision in strict accordance with every principle of rectitude, justice, and political expediency, by which the administrators of the laws of all wise governments ought to be actuated. Let no one hastily conclude from what has been said, that the same arguments will apply with equal force for the propriety of the suppression of iniquity among the governed, respecting any tyrannical or oppressive measures of the governors. The two cases are quite dissimilar. In one, the question is, whether a man has a natural right to unsettle the faith of the lower orders of society by an abusive and virulent attack upon it; -and in the other, the question is, whether a man has a right to seek from his country a redress of grievances. In referring particularly to the case of Mr. Taylor, it may be proper to remark, 115 On the Expediency of suppressing Blasphemy. 116 opposition as is concentrated in the passions and prejudices of human nature. Nothing short of the conviction that "it has God for its author," could rationally solve the difficulty. that this individual, contrary to the general | there is arrayed against it such formidable character of such, is one of considerable attainments one who has obtained his B. A. degree at the University of Cam. bridge, and has been a clergyman of the established church, the canonical robes of which he still wears. He appears to have paid considerable attention to biblical criticism; yet has come to the conclusion, that the evidence on which Christianity rests is insufficient and invalid. Now, whether his arrival at such a conclusion as this, is to be attributed to any real defect in the foundation on which our faith rests, or to an evil heart of unbeliefa state of mind opposed to the humbling conditions of the system-an impregnable carnal mind, which is enmity against God, -must be left with all those whom it may concern to determine. It should be remembered, that the mere presentation of evidence to the mind can never ensure conviction of its validity, if there be a previous disposition to treat it with contempt, or an utter carelessness whether it be true or not. If we would come to the investigation with a proper, a philosophic frame of mind, neither prejudiced against, nor unconcerned about it, there is an opportunity then for the evidence to exert its genuine influence upon us. The fact is, that men by nature are previously disposed to reject the doctrines of the gospel. It is, however, highly pleasing and satisfactory to contemplate, that while there have been instances of men famed for depth of learning, who, after all their investigation, have concluded against Christianity; yet, on the other hand, there have been multitudes of men, equally celebrated for learned research, who have come to an opposite conclusion; who have seen something in Christianity so extremely well adapted to the condition of man, and so characteristic of an Author of infinite knowledge, goodness, and purity, that they could not forbear concluding that it came from God. There are many circumstances and traits of character and feeling, which constitute a distinction between these two classes of inquirers, which will readily suggest themselves to the minds of my readers. The progress of other systems which fall in with, and countenance the passions of mankind, is not at all to be wondered at: it would be a great wonder, indeed, if they did not spread far and wide, as Paganism and Mahometanism have done; but it is greatly to be wondered at, and affords an occasion of extraordinary astonishment, that the Gospel should make any way, when Mr. Taylor is certainly not a calm and dispassionate inquirer; if he had been, he may rest assured that he never would have been molested; but he delights in the display of a low unmanly wit, and is very fond of indulging in philippics-furious attacks-on which account public decorum is outraged, and his auditors insulted, although, having congenial feelings, they do not perceive the insult. But At his trial, the judge, Lord Tenterden, displayed a most exemplary share of calmness, patience, and moderation, united with firmness and decision. The Attorney General took, I think, a right view of the subject, not laying any stress on religious considerations, but a great one on the good order of civil society. He says, that "that which all governments have a right to exact, is, that the doctrine which is adopted and held sacred by the majority, shall at all times be treated with due respect and reverence:" and the quotation from Dr. Paley is extremely happy: "Christianity is but illdefended by refusing audience or toleration to the objections of unbelievers. whilst we would have freedom of inquiry restrained by no laws but those of decency, we are entitled to demand, on behalf of a religion which holds forth to mankind assurances of immortality, that its credit be assailed by no other weapons but those of sober discussion and legitimate reasoning-that the truth or falsehood of Christianity be never made a topic of raillery, a theme for the exercise of wit or eloquence, or a subject of contention for literary fame and victory-that the cause be tried upon its merits-that all applications to the fancy, passions, or prejudices of the reader, all attempts to preOccupy, ensnare, or perplex his judgment by art, influence, or impression whatsoever, extrinsic of the proper grounds or evidence upon which his assent ought to proceed, be rejected from a question which involves, in its determination, the hopes, the virtue, and the repose of millions." It will be remembered, that some time since, the society of which Mr. Taylor is at the head, published what they termed a "Manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society, addressed to all Protestants and members of Protestant congregations,"wherein they pretend to have "demonstrated" four principal propositions, the folly and absurdity of which have been exposed very often by different Christian writers. Mr. T. professes to have examined the arguments of these men, and to have refuted them to the satisfaction of his adherents. The defence which he made, occupied him three hours and a half to deliver, and, considering the circumstances of the case, is very temperate and decorous, with but one or two exceptions. It is rather argumentative than declamatory, displaying much judgment in its arrangement, and is expressed in language at once lucid, energetic, and persuasive. It is well worthy of a better object, than as a plea for the propagation of infidelity. To see such talents as this gentleman possesses prostituted to such a mischievous purpose, excites mixed feelings of regret and indignation. We will just glance at a few of the arguments contained in this defence. Mr. Taylor says, that the "gravamen of the charge against the philosophic instistutions which he has founded, is the apprehension of mischievous influence upon the minds of the young especially," and goes on to say that this fear is expressed by those "whose ascendancy over the human mind is achieved only in the nurseries of infancy, or chambers of decrepitude." This bold assertion demands a little consideration, as it appears to carry with it a show of plausibility. It is true that the obligations and duties of religion are presented to the mind at a very early age, but, so far from gaining an "ascendancy," it is often repulsed and rejected at an advanced period of life. The only advantage resulting from this is, the obtaining for religion a patient and serious attention. It is not until reason dawns, and the judgment ripens, that a conviction, either for or against its claims, can, under ordinary circumstances, possibly ensue. Every one must think and decide for himself; he cannot inherit the faith, as he does the property, of his father, without any mental exercise. He may inherit the profession, but not the reality. It is not the instilling general notions of the importance of religion into the youthful mind, that can obtain from that mind a decision in favour of it. The corrupt passions of human nature are too strong to be so easily vanquished. They will always prevail over bare hypothetical and vague notions, and are only to be brought into subjection by a laborious and painful process of the understanding. There may be exceptions to this statement; but where they occur, they are, I think, the result of a direct and especial influence of the divine Being, in carrying conviction to the tender, and sometimes adult mind, of the truth and importance of Christianity, without its being subjected to a comprehensive inquiry into the subject. But while this early inculcation of religious principle can do no harm, the opposite conduct is fraught with infinite mischief, because the mind is predisposed to adopt the views which it presents, which coincide so well with its own feelings, delighting the individual by destroying his responsibility, and therefore infidelity has an unfair advantage, and not Christianity. The "chambers of decrepitude," it must be confessed, are too often considered by some religionists, as affording fit opportu nities for establishing the " ascendancy of religion over the human mind;" but the individuals that thus err, (and I say it without being conscious of any unchristian feeling,) are either ignorant fanatics or priestly hirelings. Real converts there doubtless have been even at the "eleventh hour," but the general result of such efforts have been, that the dying individual lays hold on religion as a drowning man catches at a straw. Mr. Taylor says his motives for his conduct are pure: if they are, which I am not disposed to deny, yet his understanding must be sadly at fault. He comments largely on the evidence adduced against him, and complains of the unlettered character of the witnesses, and their incompetency to report accurately his orations, asserting, that if the offensive passages were read with their context, their offensive character would disappear, because they were not delivered dogmatically but hypothetically. It is evident that the witnesses understood them in the former sense, and unless it can be shewn that the majority of the audience understood them in the latter, the allegation against the witnesses is invidious and unfounded. Mr. Taylor says that he never held up to ridicule any passage of Scripture, that had received the sanction of the learned world as to its genuineness and authenticity. I apprehend very little would be left standing, if every thing was taken away which has been made the subject of critical dispute. There is scarcely a single passage containing an important doctrine of our faith, which has not been called in question, or disputed in one way or other, by the Unitarian writers in their "New Version," of which the "Christian Evidence Society' make a great handle in their "Manifesto." It appears well adapted to subserve such a purpose. Again, it is intimated that his case is analogous to that of our missionaries, who go into foreign countries to subvert the established faith, and give them another; claiming no more from us than our missionaries claim from the inhabitants of the countries they visit a toleration to propagate his opinions. But instead of there being an analogy between the two, there is a wide difference. The missionary goes into countries sunk in the abyss of ignorance and superstition the infidel is in the midst of a country raised high above others in the arts, in science, and 'literature. The missionary, for the religion he takes away, has another to give in exchange but the infidel has nothing, literally nothing, to offer for the faith he wishes to deprive us of; or if it could be called something, it is what is worse than nothing. The missionary carries with him a system which, wherever it has spread, has raised mankind to the highest pitch of civilization, and opened a fertile and extensive field for the expansion of the intellectual powers of manthe infidel promulgates a system whose genuine influence has been, and is, to restore barbarism, and prostrate the human faculties. To conclude: I have in this paper endeavoured to point out the expediency of suppressing blasphemous discourses on the doctrines and character of Christianity. Such as are conducted evidently with no philanthropic design, but only to unsettle the faith of the lower orders of our countrymen; and have shewn what I consider to be the true light in which the law regards the question; yet I would have the offend- | ing individuals treated with all Christian temperance and charity. Let them be reasoned with, and exhorted to discontinue; and if they will persist, let them by imprisonment be kept from executing their mischievous intentions. The only proper field for the display of their prowess, is simply the evidences on which Christianity rests; and so long as they confine themselves by a discussion of a philosophic and historic character to this point, let them go on without opposition: but ridicule and lampoon are weapons only to be applied to what is absurd and ridiculous, such as certain manners and customs of society, where serious argument would be out of place and ineffectual. 4 EUPHRONIUS. The Arians could not be convinced by those who speak of a divinity of Christ distinct from the Deity; for this is to believe in the Saviour as another God. The sonship commencing at the incarnation, does not invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the same since the incarnation, as before the foundation of the world; and in this sense the second person of the Trinity, may, in the imperfection of language, be called Son, provided it is understood without a beginning, as St. Athanasius says, "none is afore or after other." The gross human imaginations on this subject, and consequent disputes, gave rise to Mahomet's "No God but God." Modern Arians proceed on the same ground ; and, for the same reason, the Swedenborgians assert that the believers in the Trinity believe in three Gods, thus judging by the imperfection of language, which uses the word persons; and it becomes the orthodox believers to clear themselves by professing an undivided worship of the One Triune Deity in Jesus Christ, God and Man; they will otherwise produce the deadly gradation to that deism, which is in reality atheism The Predestinarians are sadly puzzled by the divine ordination of contingencies, and instead of discovering fixed fate, their objections only serve to prove that every thing but God himself is contingent; and thus be is distinguished as self-existent. They will deny that God has a free-will or full power, if he cannot create freely, and confer freedom on his creation in a certain subordinate sense, according to the nature in which he has created it. The object of the controversy is, to extend the gospel, and remove the hinderances to the salvation of the immortal soul.m All agree "Believe on the Lord Jesús, and thou shalt be saved." To doubt the promise is to disbelieve, and thus the soul cannot bear any of the fruits of the Spirit, which are diverse in kind, with all the varieties: between joy and sorrow, visible or recondite, some of which fruit is, without fail, the growth of every believing heart, from the most active to the most passive; but still to each individual for himself there is but one elective promise, "Believe, and thou shalt be saved." This divine faith they will attribute to the Author and finisher of faith; although the Scripture in many placespito warn us from fastidious verbal criticism,tocalls it man's faith, without intending that man should say, I am saved by my own faith, and not by the divine power of believing in Christ, which is offered through grade. 'R. Y. |