improve, the Christian inheritance which has come down to us from our fathers, and which it cost them such sacrifices to acquire? Have we forgotten the saying of our Saviour, that the damnation of Sodom, in the day of judgment, will be tolerable, when compared with the sufferings which will on that day be inflicted upon Capernaum, which had been exalted to heaven by being made the scene of his miracles, but which still persisted in its impenitence? In the Divine administration, then, the principle applies to nations, as well as to individuals, that their punishment will be severe in proportion to the advantages which they have neglected to improve, and the blessings which they have undervalued and despised. Nor let us deceive ourselves by supposing, that, if Christianity is permitted to decline among us, we can fold our arms in silence and be free from all personal responsibility. As a citizen of our community, no man can escape criminality, if he believes in the truth of Christianity, and still, without making resistance, sees its influence undermined and destroyed."

The Americans abroad, and "Dissenters upon principle" at home, are in general great admirers of the present Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and will doubtless therefore feel interested in the following account, given by his Lordship in his work on Colonial Policy, of the character of the first settlers in America. The statement bears strongly upon the present argu

ment.

"The first settlers of all the colonies were men of irreproachable characters. Many of them fled from persecution; others on account of an honourable poverty; and all of them with their expectations limited to the prospect of a bare subsistence in freedom and peace. All idea of wealth or pleasure was out of the question. The greater part of them viewed their emigration as a taking up of the Cross; and bounded their hopes of riches to the gifts of the Spirit, and their ambition to the desire of a kingdom beyond the grave. A set of men more conscientious in their doings, or simple in their manners, never founded any commonwealth. It is indeed," continues he, the peculiar glory of North America, that, with very few exceptions, its empire was originally founded in charity and peace."

Now that such men had no intention of abolishing the national recognition of Christianity, must be obvious: nor did they in fact do so, as we have already seen; on the contrary, it was embodied in the whole of the civil relations which they instituted: nor has it been legally set aside, though its operations have been greatly impeded, under the modern political changes of the country. If Dr. Adams were pleading for national religious establishments, instead of expressing his objection to them, he could not speak more strongly to our purpose than when he says:

“What has the infidel system given us in exchange for the Christian promises, hopes, virtues, consolations, and final inheritance, which it destroys? What has it done for those who have embraced it? And in case we embrace it, what effects may it be expected to produce on our national destinies, on our domestic tranquillity, on ourselves personally, and on all estates and orders of men? We can have no difficulty in answering these questions;—we have the oracular voice of the experience of the last half century. These will be the burden of its teachings, the fruit of its instructions. By excluding a Supreme Being, a superintending Providence, and a future state of rewards and punishments, as much as possible, from the minds of men, it will destroy all sense of moral responsibility: for the lively impression of an omnipresent Ruler of the Universe, and a strong sense of moral obligation, have, in the history of mankind, always accompanied each other; and whenever the former has been weakened, it has never failed to be followed by a corresponding moral declension. Now what is to preserve an habitual reverence for Almighty God in the public mind,

if the institution of public worship ever comes to be disregarded, if the Christian ministry shall be rendered odious in the eyes of the community, if the observance of Sunday shall be generally neglected, and if the Scriptures shall be brought into general discredit ? Yet with just such a state of things we are threatened. Let us not refuse to look at the real nature of the case. The fact is, that a man's sense of duty, his moral sensibility, is the conservative element of his character; and no man can receive so great an injury himself, or inflict so great a calamity on another, as the impairing or the destruction of this grand principle. Of all unpromising indications in a youth, is not insensibility to moral considerations the most decisive and unequivocal? When the sense of duty is extinguished in an individual, he becomes a burthen to himself and a nuisance to others, the sport of every wind of caprice and passion. From infecting individuals, a moral taint soon comes to infect a nation; which now becomes, in the natural order of a descending course, the theatre of every crime which can degrade individuals, disturb society, and brutalize mankind. In such a community, all the virtues which procure respect and esteem, and still more those which elevate and adorn society, must decline and perish. The security of society depends on the conviction which we habitually feel, that those among whom we dwell are governed in their conduct by humanity, justice, moderation, kindness, integrity, and good faith. When these main pillars of moral and social order are overthrown, general confidence between man and man must be exchanged for universal suspicion, every individual will be seized with apprehension and terror, the mild authority of law must cease its reign, and the dark and fearful passions of selfishness, lust, and revenge break forth with unbridled violence and fury. During the last halfcentury, where are the achievements of the infidel system to be seen, but in the ruin of hundreds of thousands of estimable families, unexampled distress of nations, general anarchy and convulsions, and in the devastation of much of the fairest portion of the earth? Encouragement of the infidel system among us will dissolve all the moral ties which unite men in the bonds of society: circumvention and fraud will come to be esteemed wisdom; the sacred mystery of plighted troth' will be laughed to scorn; wise forbearance will be accounted pusillanimity; an enlightened practical benevolence will be supplanted by a supreme regard to self-gratification and an insensibility to the welfare of other men; the disregard of Almighty God will be equalled only by a corresponding contempt of mankind; personal aggrandizement will be substituted for love of country; social order and public security will be subverted by treachery and violence. These, and all these, have been, and may again be, the fruits of the infidel system. "Finally, let us, in the strength of Almighty God, cling with fresh earnestness and new resolution to our religion, as to the last anchor of our hope and safety. It is not a vain thing for us: it is our life;' it is our only imperishable treasure. In it are comprised, at once, the great causes of peace, of virtue, of intelligence, of freedom, of good government, and of human improvement."

Now, if happily the majority of a community should agree in the above excellent sentiments, we see not how they could avoid endeavouring to carry their views into effect by publicly establishing the ordinances of religion, and making such provisions for that purpose as we have in every parish of Great Britain.

But the best authority respecting the actual state of legislation upon the subject of national religious establishments in the United States, is to be found in the decisions of the courts of law; and these certainly do not in the slightest degree countenance the principle, contended for in England, that a State, as such, has nothing to do with the sanctions of religion. We

will give two or three specimens of these decisions, and the arguments which led to them. They are dated since the Revolution; and, the law not having been subsequently altered, they shew the state of legislation at the present

moment.

In a case which occurred in 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania extensively reviewed the subject now under discussion, upon an indictment for blasphemy, founded on an Act of Assembly passed in 1700. The Court said, that " Even if Christianity were not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country; an insult on which would be indictable, as directly tending to disturb the public peace. Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania: not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men. The first legislative act in the colony was the recognition of the Christian religion and establishment of liberty of conscience. It is called the Great Law.'" After quoting it at length, the Court further says, Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws for a Christian country and a Christian people. Infidelity was then rare, and no infidels were among the first colonists. They fled from religious intolerance, to a country where all were allowed to worship according to their own understanding. Every one had the right of adopting for himself whatever opinion appeared to be the most rational, concerning all matters of religious belief; thus securing by law this inestimable freedom of conscience, one of the highest privileges and greatest interests of the human race. This is the Christianity of the common law, incorporated into the great law of Pennsylvania; and thus it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this State are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. On this the Constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws, which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist. Under the constitution, penalties against cursing and swearing have been exacted. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the Book, would cease to be indictable as perjury. The indictment must state the oath to be on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God." After reviewing a series of decisions made in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, the Court continues thus: "It has long been firmly settled, that blasphemy against the Deity generally, or an attack on the Christian religion indirectly, for the purpose of exposing its doctrines to ridicule and contempt, is indictable and punishable as a temporal offence. The principles and actual decisions are, that the publication, whether written or oral, must be malicious, and designed for that end and purpose." After stating that the law gave free permission for the serious and conscientious discussion of all theological and religious topics, the Court said, that a malicious and mischievous intention is in such a case the broad boundary between right and wrong; and that it is to be collected from the offensive levity, scurrilous and opprobrious language, and other circumstances, whether the act of the party was malicious; and since the law has no means of distinguishing between different degrees of evil tendency, if the matter published contains any such evil tendency, it is a public wrong. An offence against the public peace may consist either of an actual breach of the peace, or doing that which tends to provoke and excite others to do it. Within the latter description fall all acts and all attempts to produce disorder by written, printed, or oral communications; for the purpose of generally weakening those religious and moral restraints without the aid of which mere legislative provisions would prove ineffectual.

No society can tolerate a wilful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, any more than it would to break down its laws; a general, malicious, and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. This is the line of indication where crime commences, and the offence becomes the subject of penal visitation. The species of offence may be classed under the following heads:-1. Denying the being and providence of God: 2. Contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ; profane and malevolent scoffing at the Scriptures, or exposing any part of them to contempt and ridicule: 3. Certain immoralities tending to subvert all religion and morality, which are the foundations of all governments. Without these restraints, no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad, to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being the friends to liberty who support this doctrine; and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunner of anarchy, and finally of despotism. No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. Christianity is part of the common law of this State. It is not proclaimed by the commanding voice of any human superior, but expressed in the calm and mild accents of customary law. Its foundations are broad, and strong, and deep; they are laid in the authority, the interest, the affections of the people. Waving all questions of hereafter, it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary and only stable support of all human laws. It is impossible to administer the laws, without taking the religion which the defendant in error has scoffed at, that Scripture which he has reviled, as their basis: to lay aside these, is at least to weaken the confidence in human veracity, so essential to the purposes of society, and without which no question of property could be decided, and no criminal brought to justice: an oath in the common form, on a discredited book, would be a most idle ceremony. No preference is given by law to any particular religious persuasion. Protection is given to all by our laws. It is only the malicious reviler of Christianity who is punished. While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbours and of the country. These two privileges are directly opposed. It is open, public vilification of the religion of the country that is punished-not to force conscience by punishment, but to preserve the peace of the country by an outward respect to the religion of the country, and not as a restraint upon the liberty of conscience; but licentiousness endangering the public peace, when tending to corrupt society, is considered as a breach of the peace, and punishable by indictment. Every immoral act is not indictable; but when it is destructive of morality generally, it is, because it weakens the bonds by which society is held together, and government is nothing more than public order. This is the Christianity which is the law of our land, and I do not think it will be an invasion of any man's right of private judgment, or of the most extended privilege of propagating his sentiments with regard to religion, in the manner which he thinks most conclusive. If, from a regard to decency and the good order of society, profane swearing, breach of the Sabbath, and blasphemy, are punishable by civil magistrates, these are not punished as sins or offences against God, but crimes injurious to, and having a malignant influence on, society; for it is certain that by these practices no one pretends to prove any supposed truths, detect any supposed error, or advance any sentiment whatever."

Such is the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The subject was further discussed in the Supreme Court of New-York in 1811,

in a trial for blasphemy. In delivering the opinion of the Court, the Chief Justice said, "The authorities shew that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches and profane ridicule of Christ, or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offences punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings. The consequences may be less extensively pernicious in the one case than in the other; but in both instances the reviling is still an offence, because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offences have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the church. There is nothing in our manners and institutions which has prevented the application or the necessity of this point of the common law. We stand equally in need now as formerly, of all that moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the Author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful. It would go to confound all distinction between things sacred and profane; for, to use the words of one of the greatest oracles of human wisdom (Lord Bacon), 'Profane scoffing doth by little and little deface the reverence for religion:' and who adds, in another place, Two principal causes have I ever known of Atheism,— curious controversies, and profane scoffing.' The very idea of jurisprudence, with the ancient lawgivers and philosophers, embraced the religion of the country: Jurisprudentia est divinarum atque humanarum rerum notitia. And though the Constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognisance of those offences against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment, or to any particular form of government, but are punishable, because they strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties. The legislative exposition of the Constitution is conformable to this view of it. Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. The Statute for preventing Immorality consecrates the first day of the week as holy time, and considers the violation of it immoral. The Act concerning Oaths, re-organizes the common-law mode of administering an oath, by laying the hand on and kissing the Gospels. Surely, then, we are bound to conclude, that wicked and malicious words, writings, and actions, which go to vilify those Gospels, continue, as at common law, to be an offence against the public peace and safety. They are inconsistent with the reverence due to the administration of an oath; and, among other evil consequences, they tend to lessen in the public mind its religious sanction." In this decision all the Justices concurred.

In the Convention of New-York, assembled in 1821 to revise the Constitution of that State, this decision of the Supreme Court was condemned with unsparing severity by General Root, who said that he wished for freedom of conscience; and that if judges undertake to support religion by the arm of the law, it will be brought into abhorrence and contempt. In defending the decision of the Court, Chief Justice Kent said, "Such blasphemy was an outrage upon public decorum, and, if sanctioned by our tribunals, would shock the moral sense of the country, and degrade our character as a Christian people. The authors of our Constitution never meant to extirpate Christianity, more than they meant to extirpate public decency. It is in a degree recognised by the Statute for the Observance of the Lord's.