CHRISTIANITY. The religion established by Jesus Christ.
Christianity has been judicially declared to be a part of the common law of Penn sylvania ; Updegraph v. Com., 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 394; Guardians of the Poor v. Greene, 5 Sinn. (Pa.) 555; (cited in U. S. v. Laws, 163 U. S. 263, 16 Sup. Ct. 998, 41 L. Ed. 151); see Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Pa. 465, 3 Am. Rep. 558; of New York, People v. Rug gles, 8 Johns. 291, 5 Am. Dec. 335 ; of Con necticut, 2 Swift, System 321; of Delaware, State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 ; of Massa chusetts, 7 Dane, Abr. c. 219, a. 2, 19, See Com. v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 206. To write or speak contemptuously and mall ciously against it is an indictable offence; Odg. Lib. & Sl. 450; Cooper, Libel 59, 114. See 5 Jur. 529; People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 5 Am. Dec. 335; Com. v. Knee land, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 206. "This is a re ligious people, not Christianity with an es tablished church and tithes and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of con science to all men." U. S. v. Laws, 163 U. S. 263, 16 Sup. Ct. 998, 41 L. Ed. 151.
Archbishop Whately, in his preface to the Ele ments of Rhetoric, says, "It has been declared, by the highest legal authorities, that 'Christianity is part of the law of the ]and,' 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 mere circumstance that we have religion by law established does not of itself Imply the illegality of arguing against that religion." It seems difficult, says an accomplished writer (Townsend, St. Tr. vol.
p. 389), to render more intelligible a maxim which has perplexed so learned a critic. Christian ity 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 of fences against it. Blasphemies against pod and rell-• gion are properly cognizable by'the law of the land, as they disturb the 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 sanction for truth, without which no ques tion of property could be decided and no criminal brought to justice. Christianity is part of the com mon law, as its root and branch, its majesty and pillar—as much a component part of that law as the government and maintenance of social order. The inference of the learned archbishop seems scarcely accurate, that all who impugn this part of the law must be 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 true tests and criteria. Scoffing, flippant, railing comments, not serious arguments, are oonsidered 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 Justice
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., observed that kind of wicked, blasphemous words were not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, state, and government, and there fore 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, and to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in sub version of the law." Ventr. 293. To remove all possibility of further doubt, the English commis sioners on criminal law, in their sixth report, p. 83 (1841), have thus clearly explained their sense of the celebrated passage: "The meaning of the expres sion used by Lord Hale, that 'Christianity was par cel of the laws of England,' though often cited in subsequent cases, has, we think, been much misun derstood. It appears to us that the expression can only mean either that, as a great part of the secu rities of our legal system consist of judicial and official oaths sworn upon the Gospels, 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 gen eral jurisprudence, be subservient to the positive rules of Christianity. In this sense, Christianity may justly be 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 whatever sense the expression is to be understood, it does not appear to us to supply any reason in favor of the rule that arguments may not be used against it ; for It is not criminal to speak or write either against the common law of England, gen erally, 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 justification 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. & SI. § 338. See Vidal v, Girard, 2 How. (O. 8.) 127, 197, 11 L. Ed. 205; tpdegraph v. Com., 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 394; People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 5 Am. Dec. 335 ; Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 259; State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. (Del.) 653, 669; 21 Am. L. Reg. 201, 333, 537. See Cooley, Const. Lim.
Christianity is a part of the common law ; the existence of God has always been assumed in Eng lish Law. See .1. B. Thayer, Leg. Essays 325.