state? Was the Protestant religion ever a part of the common law? We have seen that it was not. But if ever, it was clearly repealed, when South Carolina in her Constitution declared, that the free exercise of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, should for ever be allowed within her limits to all mankind. Mr. Adams refers to the speech of Whitelock, 2 State Trials, 275. The reference is unfortunate; in that very page we find the lord commissioner, Whitelock, mentioning a case where the bishop committed a man for heresy, "for denying that tithes were due to the parson." Does Mr. Adams acknowledge this to be law?

6

The reference to Emlyn's preface to the State Trials is equally unfortunate. The preface contains some judicious remarks-among them, the following concerning indictments for blasphemous libels: "It is customary to insert the words falsò et malitiosé scripsit, &c.' and indeed they are the very gist of the indictment, and absolutely necessary to constitute the offence; for as no words can be blasphemy, (viz. a reproachful reflection on God or religion,) which are true (for truth can be no reflection on the God of truth)-so no opinion, however erroneous, can merit that denomination, unless uttered with a malicious design of reviling God or religion. Yet how often have persons been found guilty on these indictments, without any proof of the falsehood of the positions, or of the malice of him who wrote them. Nay, sometimes there is a great deal of reason to think they were published from no other principle but a sincere love and regard for truth."

We come now to the decision in the case of the People vs. Ruggles, cited by Mr. Adams from 8th Johnson's Reports, 292. In that case, the Supreme Court of New York relied on the authorities already examined, and shown to be illegal. Their positions are utterly untenable. The decision was made in 1811; we have not the then Constitution of New York by us, but it is clear as the sun at mid-day, that the case is overruled by the 7th Art. 3d Sec. Constitution New York, adopted in 1821. The words of the section are: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this state to all mankind." We will not dwell longer on this point; but in taking our leave of it, we must advise Mr. Adams, who seems fond of quoting decisions, whenever he again assumes the part of a lawyer, to bear in mind what the books say, viz. "The Law and the opinion of the judge are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law."

It appears then that the assertion, that Christianity is a well established principle of the common law, is erroneous. It is a judicial forgery, a usurpation of legislative powers by the court, a bench-made, judge-enacted law, unsupported by proper legal

authority. They who wish to see this subject fully treated, will do well to peruse "Cooper's Law of Libel" particularly that portion of it which treats of ecclesiastical libels. It is replete with learning and argument; its style is clear, vigorous, and striking, although occasionally rough and abrupt; it is sometimes witty, and sometimes eloquent; it exhibits great power of condensation, notwithstanding it is frequently disfigured by repetitions; it is always fearless in the expression of opinions, and its legal argument is unanswerable.

Mr. Adams, having noticed the common law, proceeds to quote an act passed by South Carolina in 1712, prohibiting persons from travelling on Sunday, or employing their slaves at work on that day. But this law is obsolete. Persons are continually travelling on Sunday. The mail is carried and opened on Sunday. Passengers crowd the stages on Sunday. In fact, this act of 1712 is repealed by the Constitution of 1790. With regard to not employing slaves at work on Sunday, we would observe, that public opinion-which is stronger than the law-causes this to be observed. Independently of our own individual religious profession, which induces us to observe the Sabbath, we are satisfied that in a political point of view, the observance of the day is attended with beneficial effects. These have been frequently pointed out. It is a day of rest for those who have laboured hard throughout the rest of the previous week. As such, it invigorates both body and mind. The certain prospect of a holiday is exceedingly exhilarating. It diffuses cheerfulness over the heart. It gives the poor an opportunity to prepare for its enjoyment. It insures them a period of rest, which would otherwise depend on the caprice of the task-master. Sunday is indeed a day of jubilee and rest, of enjoyment and ease. Ordinary occupations are suspended: and if a cheerful heart be pleasant in the sight of God, to that day HE must look with peculiar delight! It is unnecessary to dwell on the advantages of Sunday as a period of rest for cattle-for horses, mules, oxen, &c.

These and other considerations, make it politic to have a fixed day of rest: and no reason can be given for preferring any other day to Sunday.

Mr. Adams seems to have a high relish for old laws on the subject of religion; and, we have no doubt, will pay equal reverence to those which regulate the conduct, and those which regulate the belief of individuals. There is an act intended to provide for the security of the province of South Carolina, and more especially of church-going people. It is to be found in pages 185 and 186, Grimke's Public Laws. It was enacted in 1743, made perpetual by revival act of 1783, and has never since been repealed. We commend it to Mr. Adams' notice. It enacts that "all male persons, under sixty years of age, who shall go on Sunday or Christ

mas-day, to any church or place of worship, without a gun or a good pair of horse-pistols in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gunpowder and ball; or who shall not carry the same into the church or other places of Divine worship, shall forfeit and pay the sum of 20s. current money." We trust that hereafter Mr. Adams will not neglect the duty prescribed by this act, and that every Sunday he will be seen with a gun on his shoulder, in conformity with the law.

We have thus, at the risk of being tedious, in most instances laid before our readers the very words of the several provisions in most of our constitutions, on the subject of religion. It is the only fair way of examining the question now before us—a question of vital importance-a question between liberty and tyranny, between the rights of conscience on the one hand, and intolerance, bigotry, and superstition on the other. The argument on the common law will apply to most of the states-so that while we have apparently been confining ourselves to the law of South Carolina, we have in truth been discussing the general law of the country. We have seen that the connexion of Christianity with civil government has been, for fifteen centuries, invariably productive of the most flagrant abuses and the grossest corruptions. We have shown that there is, and there can be no middle ground between perfect liberty of conscience and despotism-since to give government power to protect Christianity for instance, is to give it power to declare what is Christianity, and what is necessary for its protection-in other words to give it unlimited power. We have shown also that opinion, faith, belief, are involuntary; that no human power can rightly interfere with them; that the object of civil government should be the regulation and promotion of human happiness here on earth; and that it should confine itself to the conduct of individuals, and regulate the duty of man towards man; but should not interfere with the relation between man and God. We have shown that most of the states, in framing their constitutions, have been influenced by these considerations; that in our country, Christianity has no connexion with the law of the land, or our political institutions; but that although a vast majority of the people of the United States are Christians, they have refused to give the general government power to make any laws on the subject, and have guaranteed to every man liberty of conscience, without discrimination or preference of any sect.

Christianity requires no aid from force or persecution. She asks not to be guarded by fines and forfeitures. She stands secure in the armour of truth and reason. She seeks not to establish her principles by political aid and legal enactments. She seeks mildly and peaceably to establish them in the hearts of the people.

ART. V. Sketches, by MRS. SIGOURNEY. 12mo. pp. 216. Philadelphia: Key & Biddle: 1834.

"It may be asked," says the editor of a late Review, "are IT American writers to be treated thus rigidly? Will not some allowance be made for them because they are American? Is it not incumbent on every one animated with a proper feeling of patriotism, to cherish every literary effort of a fellow-countryman, especially if he happen to be one who occupies a prominent position in the public esteem, his reputation being then a part of the reputation of the country itself? These questions there is no hesitation to answer in the negative. They imply a wholly inadequate impression of the condition and present prospects of American literature; they tacitly assume it to be in an infant state, instead of having already advanced into at least the first stage of a vigorous manhood; and they betray an exaggerated estimate of the influence of criticism. American literature is no longer a sickly and sorry bantling, that must be kept alive by being ever held on the knee and fed with the milk of encouragement, or the pap of flattery. It can now support itself without a prop, and is capable of digesting even the strong meat of reproof, occasionally administered to it by a reviewer, without any danger of sinking under the operation."

The sentiments contained in this short extract, though not perhaps free from error, are we think well adapted to the present state of American literature. That the great body of our authors, even including those who hold the highest rank in the estimation of their countrymen and of foreigners, stand in need rather of severe and impartial criticism, than of blind and undistinguishing flattery, is a truth, important as regards our further literary advancement, but by many disbelieved or disregarded. The time has gone by, if indeed such a time there ever was, when shame crimsoned the cheek of the American at the reproach and ridicule which transatlantic nations cast upon his intellectual labours; but our rapid advance in the paths of learning has not yet brought us to that state of perfection which would render criticism unavailing, and require us to lavish upon every production expressions of unbounded applause, without the trouble of exercising a discriminating judgment. Many persons seem to suppose, that because the works which issue from our press are often read with avidity and with approbation in other countries, even in those where, but a short time ago, it seemed to be the common interest to decry all American publications as infantile and unworthy of an enlightened age, we have therefore attained all that is desirable, and that we need no longer make use of means

adapted to promote further improvement. We do not say that such an opinion is ever expressed in the words which we have employed, or that any one, if the question were asked, whether, in this age of universal and rapid progression, our literature alone be not susceptible of greater improvement; whether it alone has, to all appearance, gained its highest elevation and utmost extent, would answer in the affirmative; but what then is the meaning of those who talk of the proud maturity, the full and vigorous strength of this literature? What signification can be attached to such expressions, reiterated as they are by so many tongues, if not that the greatest attainable degree of literary excellence has been already reached? But since this mistake is so palpable, and since it may be considered as owing to confusion of ideas, or to the misuse of words, rather than as the offspring of a deliberate judgment, we leave it, after these remarks, and pass on to the consideration of a second error in regard to this subject, of greater moment than the first, since it is more widely diffused, and, at the same time, does not want its open and strenuous advocates. It is this error which is particularly combated in the remarks which we have quoted above, though perhaps not so much at large as the extent of its influence demands.

The great majority, indeed we may say all of those who have formed any deliberate and settled opinions respecting the present character and future prospects of American literature, must be agreed, that in this, as in every other field of labour, there is room for extensive improvement; but all are not agreed in regard to the means best adapted to foster the spirit of improvement, to promote a more full and manly development of mind. Many persons, while they willingly admit, that unsparing censure of the worthless productions of mere pretenders to literary fame, or of the accidental failures and eclipses of an acknowledged but unequal genius; that sober and enlightened praise, bestowed where justly merited; in short, that impartial and discriminating criticism have done much for the promotion and advancement of intellectual enterprise in other countries, where learning has flourished for a longer period, and where the press sends forth a greater flood of publications than in our own; yet at the same time ask, in the language which we have quoted, "Are American writers to be treated thus rigidly?" Would it not be advisable to use less severity in judging of their productions, and even to withhold deserved reproof, for fear of damping literary ardour and enterprise? Or, in other words, are there not cases in which lenity is to be preferred to strict justice? To these inquiries is added still another, founded upon the feeling, that as countrymen we ought to look upon ourselves as members of a sort of masonic brotherhood, bound to support each other in every endeavour, whether laudable or the contrary. It is demanded, "Is it not incumbent on every one,