CHRISTIANITY. religion esta blished by Jesus Christ.
Christ' anity has been judicially declared to be a part of the common law of Penneylva nia, 11 Serg. & R. Penn. 394 ; 5 Binn. Penn. 555; of New Yor•,. 8 Johns. N. Y. 291 ; of Connecticut, 2 Swift, System, 321; of Mas-, sachusetts, 7 Dane,. Abr. c. 219, a. 2, 19., See 20 Pick. Mass. 206. To write or speak contemptuously and maliciously against it is an indictable offence. Cooper, Libel, 59, 114. See 5 Jur. 529 ; 8 Johns. N. Y. 290; 20 Pick. Mass. 206; 2 Lew. Cr. Cas. 237. Archbishop. Whately, in his preface to the Ele ments of Rhetoric, "It has been declared, by the highest legal authorities, that Christianity is part of the law of the land;' and, consequently, any one who impugns it is liable to prosecution. What is the precise meaning of the above legal maxim I do not profess to determine, having never met with any one who could explain it to me; but evidently the 'Here circumstance that we have reli gion by law established dues not of itself imply the illegality of arguing against that It seems difficult, says late accomplished writer ((Townsend, St. Tr. vol. ii. p. 389), to render more intelligible a which has perplexed so learned a critic. Christianity was pronounced to be part of the common law, in contradistinction to the ecclesiastical law, for the purpose of proving that the temporal courts, as well as the courts spiritual, had jurisdiction over offences against it. Blas phemies against God and religion are properly cognizable by the law of the land, as they disturb tire foundations on which the peace and good order of society rest, root up the principle of positive laws and penal restraints, and remove' the chief sanc tions for truth, without which no question of pro. perry could be decided and no criminal brought to justice. Christianity is part of the common law, as its root and branch, its mainstay and pillar,—as much a component part of that law as the govern ment and maintenance of social order. The infer ence of the learned arohbishop seems scarcely ac curate, that all who impugn this pert of the law must he prosecuted. It does not follow, because Christianity is part of the law of England, that every one who impugns it is liable to prosecution. The manner of and motives for the assault are the true tests and criteria. Scoffing, flippant, railing eommeats, not serious arguments, are considered offences at common law, and justly punished, be cause they shock the pious no less than deprave the ignorant and young. The meaning of Chief-dustiee Hale cannot be expressed more plainly than in his own words. An information was exhibited against
one Taylor, for uttering blasphemous expressions too horrible to repeat. Hale, C. J., observe n that "such kind of wicked, blasphemous words were not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the Iaws, state, and government, and therefore punishable in the court of King's Bench. For, to say religion is a cheat, is to subvert all those obligations whereby civil society is preserved; that Christianity is part of the laws of England, Snd to neproaek the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law." Ventr.293. To remove all possibility of further doubt, the English com missioners on criminal law, in their sixth report, p. 83 (1641), have thus clearly explained their sense of the celebrated passage :—" The moaning of the expression used by Lord Hale, that 'Christian ity was parcel of the laws of England,' though often cited in subsequent cases, has, we think, been much misunderstood.. It appeda to us that the expression can only mean either that, as a great part of the securities of our legal system consist of judicial and official oaths sworn upon the Gos pels, Christianity is closely interwoven with our municipal law, or that the laws of England, like all municipal laws of a Christian country, must,, upon' principles of general jurisprudence, lie sub servient to the positive rules of Christianity. In this sense, Christianity may justly he said to be incorporated with the law of England, so as to form parcel of it; and it was probably in this sense that Lord' Hale intended the expression should be understood. At all events, in what ever sense the expression is to be understa d, it does not appear to ua to supply any reason in favor of the rule that arguments may not he used against it; for it is not criminal to speak or write either against the common law of England gene rally, or against particular portions of it, provided it be not done in such a manner as to endanger the public peace by exciting forcible resistance; so that the statement that Christianity is parcel of the law of England, which has been so often urged in justiffeation of laws against blasphemy, however true it may be as a general proposition, certainly furnishes no additional argument for the propriety of such laws." If blasphemy mean a railing accu sation, then it is, and ought to be, forbidden,. Heard, Lib. & Sland. 338. See 2 How. 127; 197-201; 11 Serg. & R. Penn. 394; 8 Johns. N. Y. 290; 10 Ark. 259; 2 Harr. Del. 553, 569.