Nouveau Traité de la Rage; Observations Cliniques, re- IV. TALES OF A TRAVELLER. By Geoffrey Crayon V. BRODIE'S HISTORY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, from the Accession of Charles I., to the Restoration; with an introduction, tracing the Progress of Society, and the Constitution, from the Feudal Times, to the Opening of the History; and including a parti- cular Examination of Mr. Hume's Statements, relative to the Character of the English Government. VI. TENNANT'S TOUR THROUGH PARTS OF THE NETHERLANDS, HOLLAND, GERMANY, SWITZERLAND, SAVOY, AND FRANCE, in the year 1821-2. Including a description of the Rhine The Book of Fallacies: from unfinished Papers of Jeremy Tactique des Assemblées Législatives, suivie d'un Traité des Sophismes Politiques; ouvrages extraits des Manuscrits de M. Jerémie Bentham. Par E. Dumont. Diatribe contre L'Art Oratoire, &c. Par F. Bodin, THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW. JULY, 1824. ART. I. Prosecutions of Infidel Blasphemers briefly vindicated, in a Letter to D. Ricardo, esq. M.P. By the Rev. W. B. Whitehead, A. M. Vicar of Twiverton, Somerset. Bristol, 1823. On the recent Prosecutions of Persons vending Books against Christianity. An Address to Deists, by a Dissenter. London, 1823. "A BOUT this time there arose a set of men who denounced the prevalent system of religion as superstitious and idolatrous; who believed themselves destined to be its reformers, and aimed at reducing it to certain simple principles; who pursued this object with fearlessness and perseverance, although they had to encounter the opposition both of public opinion and of the constituted authorities; and many of whom, when tried for blasphemy, scrupled not to repeat, in the face of their judges, the obnoxious expressions for which they had been arraigned, and were about to suffer. They gloried in addressing themselves to the multitude; and the sympathy, which was excited by the proceedings against them, induced many to listen with a favourable ear to their opinions.' In looking over the manuscripts of a person lately deceased, a slip of paper dropped out, containing the above passage. There were no marks by which to ascertain whether it was original, or an extract; and much speculation was immediately excited among the persons present, about the parties to whom it referred. One said, without hesitation, that it described the first Christians; another contended for the authors of the Reformation from popery; a third held that it was a correct notice of Carlile and his deistical associates; and a fourth observed that it applied alike to all, and that so nearly allied, in one point of view, were glory and infamy, saintship and criminality, the Catholic Calendar and the Newgate Calendar, a niche in St. Peter's Church and a dungeon in Dorchester Gaol. It is assuredly no recommendation of the recent prosecutions of unbelievers in Christianity, that their occasion, their object, the manner in which they have been met, and the effects which they have produced, are capable of being described in terms which accurately narrate the conduct, sufferings, and success of those who are so deservedly the objects of veneration and gratitude. Christianity can be under no obligations to those who, while they profess to support her cause, enable her enemies to say, as she recounts the tale of her early struggles with persecution, mutato nomine, de te Fabula narratur. Yet if such prosecutions be necessary for the well-being of the community; if the prosperity of England require that some martyrs should be made by the religion for which so many have been made in former times; then, by all means, let them continue, and be multiplied, and let Christianity, which benefits the country in so many other ways, also benefit it by the sacrifice of its own character for mercy, toleration, and consistency. It is, however, well worth considering whether we be reduced to this dilemma. Does the welfare of a country indeed demand that attacks upon the prevalent religion of that country should constitute a legal offence? Of course we mean by "attacks," speaking or writing against it, and not molesting the persons, invading the property, or interrupting the worship, of its professors. The Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant, cannot answer this question in the affirmative; for even if he should go so far as to say of those who accomplished the subversion of Druidism, or the reformation from Popery, that they were criminal, although, out of their evil, Providence educed the good of making him a Christian and a Protestant, neither of which he could else have been; yet must he allow that the apostles preached and wrote against Judaism, as taught by the rulers of the Jews, and against that idolatry which was the established religion of the Roman empire. He cannot maintain that they were rightfully incarcerated; or that the suppression of their doctrine, had it been practicable, would have been a public benefit. The legislators of England cannot answer this question in the affirmative; for, by voting grants, or affording facilities to societies for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, to missionary societies of various descriptions, and to Bible societies (for what is the Bible but a continued denunciation of idolatry in all its forms?) they are lending their sanction to attacks upon the prevalent religions of half the nations of the earth. This is not done as a mode of annoying countries with which we are at war; as the forgery of assignats may have been rewarded, while that of Bank notes brought men to the gallows. It is considered a moral and philanthropic act; not a suborning of crime, or a violation of the law of nations. A British subject would be punished for firing into a Turkish vessel; but he is not punishable for attacking the captain and sailors with Bibles or Tracts, which, if they read and believe, will make them apostates from the faith of Mahomet, and blasphemers of the Koran. While on terms of amity with the Sublime Porte, the laws of England restrain us from despoiling them of their property, but not from despoiling them of their religion. Whoever believes that Christianity is of divine origin, and. consequently more benignant in its tendency than any other religion, must also believe it to be for the interest of a large majority of the inhabitants of the earth, that their present religious systems should be assailed and overturned, for that to be planted in their stead. Unless men had acted on this principle, the most absurd and debasing superstitions which have existed must have been perpetuated; and unless they continue to act upon it, those which now exist must be perpetuated. An eternal limit is fixed to the progress of the human mind, in reference to the most important subject upon which it can be exercised. All unchristian countries are condemned to remain unchristian," and the introduction of that which we esteem our own best blessing is declared worthy of punishment at their hands, as an invasion of their safety and their happiness. The existing religion of any country either is, or is not, susceptible of improvement. If the former, allowing it to be the province of the government to decide what is an improvement, and how it should be made, the freest discussion of its merits should be authorized as the best mode of furnishing materialsfor a reformation. Only thus can be ascertained what will, and what will not, abide the test of reason and utility, and where alteration, omission, or addition is expedient. And if the latter, if it be already absolutely perfect, still should the attempt to controvert it be lawful, for the result can only be a more general and vivid perception of its worth, and conse quently the strengthening and extension of its influence. External conformity with the requisitions of a religious system is the utmost that can ever be enforced; and, constituted as men are, it is all the uniformity that is ever likely to exist, except in the very lowest stage of mental cultivation. How much it costs to produce this uniformity, and what it is worth when produced, are points pretty well ascertained by history; and so ascertained as to render argument unnecessary. The question may then be narrowed to, whether Christianity be an exception to the general rule? Is it, upon the whole, for the good of the community that the denial of the truth of Christianity should be an offence against the law? Nothing can be more desirable, nothing could be more felicitous, than for every member of a civil community to be completely under the influence of Christian principles. If every one loved his neighbour as himself, and did unto others as he would that they should do unto him, and practised that universal benevolence which beholds a brother in every human being, whatever his colour, country, or religion, the result would undoubtedly be a sum of happiness immensely larger than any nation ever has realized, or perhaps ever will. But whatever Christianity may be in the New Testament, or may have been in its earlier days, this is not the practical Christianity of our age and country. The church of England, the most approved manufactory of believers, turns out few finished specimens of this pure workmanship. Our spiritual machinery produces, in general, a very inferior article; and still less can be expected from the power which is merely temporal. Penal laws can have very little efficacy for such a purpose. They may make the "outward sign" imperative, but they never can bestow the "inward grace." An act of parliament for the abolition of human depravity would have very little chance of being carried into, execution. This species at least of radical reform is remote and chimerical. It is useless to legislate for an object which the very nature of things renders unattainable. Whether we take the theological or the philosophical estimate of man, it is alike hopeless to speculate, even with the wisest employment of all the powers of church and state, on annihilating unbelief, and making every Christian a paragon of goodness. Legislation must proceed on the supposition that, do what it may, the country cannot be made completely Christian, however devoutly to be wished may be that consummation. The effective prohibition of a public denial of Christianity, and the prohibition if made at all is meant to be effective, is then morally certain to produce a quantum of hypocrisy commensurate with the infidelity which it coerces into outward conformity. How this hypocrisy should improve the national character, or increase our national prosperity, or in what way |