The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-10 00:00:00

'be ulx.

LONDON:
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1840.

In resuming the subject of Mr. HETHERING

TON'S trial, we desire first to establish a distinction
between the contents of the Bible, and the sup*
pression of all objections to those contents by penal
prosecutions. The former may be of unbounded bene-
volence, the latter is undoubted tyranny. It can
only be, and has only been, by discussion that the
meaning of the Bible has become known. To for-
bid discussion, except it accord with the present
interpretation of the priests, is really to give into
their hands a monopoly of Revelation, and to make
them, if that be possible, the masters over eternal
life. Such a power cannot possibly be maintained,
and the law which attempts it, is not only tyrannical
but absurd. We confine our remarks to the means
of suppressing objections by penal prosecutions.
1 As we yesterday said the law only prevents dis-
cussion in cheap books and tracts, it does not pre.-
vent discussion in dear books. It is therefore par-
tial and unjust as well as tyrannical and absurd.

It was by discussion and criticisms at a very
early period that the Apocryphal books were sepa-
rated from those now received as genuine; and that
a number of gospels were discarded, and the pre-
sent four established as the history of CHRIST
and the sufficient rule of faith. The selection, with

all the translations, were the work of uninspired
men, and are their works not to be criticised, and if
they are found to be, or supposed to be, erroneous,
or mistranslations, are they not to be denounced ?
At various periods interpolations have been dis-
covered in the sacred books by learned men, and re-
jected. Is this generation to be deprived of the
power which belonged to their less enlightened an-
cestors ?

In " An Inquiry into the Origin of Christianity,"
published in London in the year 1838, by.o HAS. C.
HENNEL, a twelve-shilling book, which has never
been subjected to prosecution, though its conclu-
sions are as hostile to Christianity as any published
by Mr. HETHERINGTON, the author avows that
his researches " led him to a gradually increasing
conviction, that the true account of the life of
JESUS CHRIST, and of the spread of his religion,
would be found to contain no deviation from the
known laws of nature." In defence of free inquiry,
we will quote a passage from his preface :
The hypothesis that there is a mixture of truth and
fable in the four Gospels, has been admitted. in different
degrees, by many writers bearing the Christian name.
The same method of free investigation which led Priest-
ley and Belshara to throw doubt on the opening chapters
of Matthew and Luke, may allow other inquirers to
make further excisions from the Gospel history, The
reason given by these eminent critics for proceeding so far
may appear more solid than any which can be urged for
stopping where they did. The right of private judg-
ment in the separation of truth flow fiction being once
accorded, the precise limits which ought to be assigned
to the credible portion of the miraculous narratives, are
far from being obvious, and the ascertaining those
limits be',omes a matter of interesting research to all
who wish to know what they are to believe or disbelieve
on the subject of the Christian religion."

Mr. SMALLFIELD is allowed to publish these
charges against the Gospels, and the results of Mr.
HENNEL'S inquiries, however fatal they may be to
all the miraculous part of Christianity ; but Mr.
HETHERINGTON is found guilty of publishing a
blasphemous libel—for publishing some strong ob-
servations, not on Christianity, but on that Mo-
saic dispensation which Christianity has superseded.
We say that this is scandalous partiality in the ad-
ministration of the law, while the quotation shows
the deep interest we all have in examining and sifting
what Mr. HENNEL publicly describes as a mixture
of truth and fiction, and on which so much de-
pends. According to the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
and the Jury, Christianity is part and parcel of the
law, and to say aught against Christianity, or any
part of Christianity, is blasphemy ; so that to say
aught against what the unprosecuted Mr. HEN-
NEL calls fiction, is blasphemy. Such is the ab-
surdity of the undoubted tyranny of suppressing
by penalties all objections to the contents of the
Bible.

We may meet the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, too,
on his own ground, and tell him that the law itself
is not entitled to respect. If that be the case with
the whole law, a thing acknowledgcdly most imper-
fect, what respect can a part and parcel of the law,
as such, deserve ? It may have merits of its own,
but when every part of the law is questioned, when
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL has—as a Commissioner for
inquiring into the law, and as ATTORNEY-
GENERAL,bringing forward Bills to amend it—de-
monstrated, both by facts and argument, that many
parts of the law are absurd, it gives no sacredness to
Christianity to call it part and parcel of the law.
In this age men question, and most justly, every
part of the law, and why, therefore, should it be
blasphemy to question a particular part of it ?
We are ready to admit that this ought to be done
with decorum and with due respect to the feelings
of the people.. We are quite ready also to admit
that, as far as we have seen, the language of the
work prosecuted on Tuesday, is rude, vulgar, and