Mr. Buckle, by his article, has done me an injury.  It is an injury, irritating but not dangerous.  For the large assertions, which if they stated truths, would show that the religion of Christ is a miserable delusion, are unsupported by a tittle of proof:  and the general tone in regard to Christianity, though sufficiently hostile, and very eloquently expressed, appears to me uncommonly weak in logic.  But as Mr. Buckle’s views have been given to the world, with whatever weight may be derived from their publication in this magazine, it is no more than just and necessary that through the same channel there should be conveyed another contributor’s strong disavowal of them, and keen protest against them.  I do not intend to argue against Mr. Buckle’s opinions.  This is not the time or place for such an undertaking.  And Mr. Buckle, in his article, has not argued but dogmatically asserted, and then called hard names at those who may conscientiously differ from him.  Let me suggest to Mr. Buckle that such names can very easily be retorted.  Any man who would use them, very easily could.  Mr. Buckle says that any man who would punish by legal means the publication of blasphemous sentiments, should be regarded as a noxious animal.  It is quite easy for me to say, and possibly to prove, that the man who advocates the free publication of blasphemous sentiments, is a noxious animal.  So there we are placed on an equal footing; and what progress has been made in the argument of the question in debate?  Then Mr. Buckle very strongly disapproves a certain judgment of, as I believe, one of the best judges who ever sat on the English Bench:  I mean Mr. Justice Coleridge.  That judge on one occasion sentenced to imprisonment a poor, ignorant man, convicted of having written certain blasphemous words upon a gate.  I am prepared to justify every step that was taken in the prosecution and punishment of that individual.  That, however, is not the point at issue.  Even supposing that the magistrates who committed, and the judge who sentenced, that miserable wretch, had acted wrongly and unjustly, could not Mr. Buckle suppose that they had acled conscientiously?  What right had he to speak of Mr. Justice Coleridge as a ‘stony-hearted man?’ What right had he to say that the judge and the magistrates, in doing what they honestly believed to be right, were ‘criminals,’ who had ’committed a great crime?’ What right had he to say that their motives were ’the pride of their power and the wickedness of their hearts?’ What right had he to call one of the most admirable men in Britain ’this unjust and unrighteous judge?’ And where did Mr. Buckle ever see anything to match the statement, that Mr. Justice Coleridge grasped at the opportunity of persecuting a poor blasphemer in a remote county, where his own wickedness was likely to be overlooked, while he durst not have done as much in the face of the London press?  Who will believe that Mr. Justice Coleridge is distinguished for his ’cold heart and shallow understanding?’ But I feel much more comfortable now, when I have written upon this page that I, as one humble contributor to this Magazine, utterly repudiate Mr. Buckle’s sentiments with regard to Sir J. T. Coleridge, and heartily condemn the manner in which he has expressed them.