other a concrete expression of the same view; the one is philosophical
and the other popular; the one is a cold statement and the other a
burning metaphor. To allow the one to circulate with impunity, and
to punish the other with twelve months' imprisonment, is to turn a
literary difference into a criminal offence.

Further, as Sir James Stephen has observed, it is absurd to talk
about bringing "the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion into
disbelief and contempt." One of these words is clearly superfluous.
Considering the extraordinary pretensions of the Bible and Christianity,
it is difficult to see how they could be brought into contempt more
effectually than by bringing them into disbelief.

But greater absurdities remain. Our Indictment averred that we had
published certain Blasphemous Libels "to the great displeasure of
Almighty God, to the scandal of the Christian religion and the
Holy Bible or Scriptures, and against the peace of our Lady the
Queen, her crown and dignity." Let us analyse this legal jargon.

How did our prosecutors learn that we displeased Almighty God?
In what manner did Sir Henry Tyler first become aware of the fact?
Was it, in the ancient fashion, revealed to him in a dream, or did
it come by direct inspiration? What was the exact language of the
aggrieved Deity? Did he give Sir Henry Tyler a power of attorney
to defend his character by instituting a prosecution for libel?
If so, where is the document, and who will prove the signature?
And did the original party to the suit intimate his readiness to
be subpoenaed as a witness at the trial? All these are very
important questions, but there is no likelihood of their ever
being answered.