WITH NOTES AND A SPECIAL DISSERTATION ON BLASPHEMY PROSECUTIONS IN GENERAL,

BY THE SECRETARY OF THE "ANTI-PERSECUTION UNION."

LONDON:

PUBLISHED FOR THE ANTI-PERSECUTION UNION BY

H. HETHERINGTON, 40, HOLYWELL STREET, STRAND, AND BY MATILDA ROALFE & CO., 105, NICOLSON STREET,

EDINBURGH.

1844.

A DISSERTATION

ON

BLASPHEMY PROSECUTIONS,

MY purpose is to offer a few observations touching Prosecutions for Blasphemy, which may induce some fresh exertions for their discontinuance. I undertake no work of supererogation, for the resistance offered to these proceedings bears but a feeble proportion to their atrocity. If but the tenth part of British society were sensible of their injustice, they would be excited to a degree of vigorous opposition, before which these disgraceful and injurious practices would immediately fall.

Want of wisdom in argument, is perhaps nowhere so conspicuous, as in the disproportion between what men set forth as desirable, and what they afterwards prove to be practicable. Many persons demand nothing less than the free expression of all opinions, regardless of the great practical experience requisite to treat so large a question. I confine myself to one branch-the free expression of Theological opinions, that I may not startle the reader by the magnitude of my demands, nor fail to satisfy him with the fullness of my reasonings. Upon no question has every one so great a right to pronounce an opinion, as on this-seeing that theology is made every man's business, from the cradle to the tomb; and it is said to concern him both in this world and in the next.

Religion is the great foe of liberty: the man who believes in a future life, and that its happiness depends on a particular faith, is necessarily and consistently a persecutor. I mention this, first, because it would be hopeless to attempt to shake the practices of these persons, without at the same time shaking their faith, and next, that I may do something to convince men what dangerous principles of reasoning religion introduces. Mr. John Taylor in his recent "Prize Essay on Church Establishments," remarks that, "the ill effects of persecution in this life, shrink into nothing when compared with the ill effects of a false creed in the world to come. The temporal sufferings of a single generation, are indeed a trifling price for the spiritual welfare of many generations thro' all eternity.-Whoever, therefore holds the doctrine of exclusive salvation in respect of any given creed, shews no more humanity in sparing dissenters from that creed, than he would in sparing robbers or murderers." It is almost unnecessary to add that every person at all conversant with blasphemy prosecutions has often experienced the ruth of this.

The Bible is too complaisant an authority to be referred to in behalf of humanity and reason. If we read the Rev. J. Gordon, the Unitarian, we find

in his "Protestantism," "did Paul, when he had to write of the contentions among Christian brethren-contentions which were directed against his own ministry-did he endeavour to put them down by apostolic authority? Nay, he humbled the more to give greater effect to the argument by which he persuaded, and the pathos with which he subdued his antagonists, expressly declaring that he had no dominion over their faith."

Which example would have great weight, if Paul had never contradicted what is here affirmed of him, but Paley, the Churchman, assures us that "the church has only to pronounce any of its opponents "vain talkers," which is done every day and something more- -"and St. Paul himself commands us to stop their mouths." The Bible is a fine book for feeding controversy, but a bad authority in matters of reason. The good and the bad, the enlightened view, and the illiberal, are equally justified on its facile pages.

Two classes of persons rank themselves as the supporters of prosecutions for blasphemy-those who think blasphemy wicked, and those who only esteem it dangerous. One party act from motives of religion, the other from motives of expediency. But though the expediency party countenance prosecutions when set on foot, they have never been so convinced of their utility, as to set them on foot themselves. They have rather tolerated, than originated them. The religious have always commenced them, bigots have always been their direct supporters. Where men of calculation and reason abound, as in London, prosecutions for blasphemy are very rare, but where religion is dominant, as in our provincial towns, and in Scotland, they rage with the greatest fury. The following few reflections, if addressed to the religious, might influence them more than our usual course of argument.

There is happily in the constitution of human nature a sense of justice, which is never entirely obliterated. All men perceive, more or less, that the well-being of society depends on it. So extensive is its influence, that the most callous of mankind occasionally own its power. A few plain in-; stances, therefore, in which prosecutions for blasphemy violate received maxims of justice, may not be thrown away.

The Christian mainly objects to the publication of Atheism, on the grounds that it is both injurious and offensive. It may be true, that the Atheist's opinions ought not to be published, because Christians consider them injurious, but then on the principle of fairness, the Christian ought not to publish his opinions if the Atheist deems them injurious. If equal justice is to prevail, and the Atheist is denied the right of freedom of expression, the Christian must be denied that right also. Undoubtedly the sentiments of the Atheist are offensive to Christian taste, but the sentiments of Christians are not less offensive to Atheist taste. If then on this ground, the Atheist interferes not with Christian liberty, common justice again declares that the Christian should not interfere with Atheist liberty. Therefore, whether Atheistical opinions are right or wrong, whether offensive or not, they must be allowed freedom of expression, or liberty of publication must be denied to Christian sentiments.

These are considerations which all just men admit, they involve principles which were implanted in the soil of humanity before it felt the blighting influence of creeds, and which will survive in better natures as the guide marks of life, when religion is no more.