Sabbath, A, among the Tuscarora Indians

987

Saussure's, Mde. de, Notice sur le Caractére et les Ecrits de Mde. de Staël 257

Select Literary Information

92, 196, 300, 395, 493, 597

Sismondi's Nouveaux Principes d'Economie Politique

305, 445
Smith's, Dr., Prudence and Piety recommended, a Sermon

389
Scripture Testimony to the Messiab Vol. I.

540

Some Account of the Life of Rachael, Lady Russell

341

'Taylor's, Mrs., Family Mansion, a Tale

348

Valpy's School Virgil -

80

THE

ECLECTIC REVIEW, ;

FOR JANUARY, 1820.

a

Art. 1. 1. The Duties of Christians towards Deists : a Sermon, preached at the Unitarian Chapel, Artillery Lane, Bishopsgate, on Occaşion of the recent Prosecution of Mr. Carlile for the Republication of Paine's Age of Reason. By W. J. Fox. Avo. pp. 48. Price

Is. 6d. London. 1819. 2. A Letter to the Attorney General on the Inexpediency, Sinfulness,

and Inefficacy of all Prosecutions for Blasphemy and Irreligion. By

Samuel Roberts. 8vo. Sheffield. 1819. HOW

OW are we to account for the very different expression of

public feeling wbich has been called forth by the conviction of Carlile, from what was the prevailing sentiment in reference to a similar prosecution, wbich terminated however in an opposite verdict, in the case of the King v. Hone? At the first view, there would seem to be either some partiality or some caprice in the decision which the public appear to have come to, with regard to these two individuals. Accustomed as we are to acquiesce in the verdict of a Jury, still there is room to inquire, how a verdict of guilty in the one case, and a record of acquittal in the other, should bave been received, at least by a very considerable proportion of the community, with equal approbation, when in both instances the same Administration directed the prosecution, and the alleged crime was the same. That the profaneness or impiety chargeable upon the respective offenders, differed in de. gree, will not explain why the ininor offence should be held undeserving of punishment. Neither will it be a satisfactory explanation, to refer to any difference in the conduct of the criminal on his trial, or in the temper of the Judge. Indeed, to suppose that the Jury who found Carlile guilty, were influenced by the ill-judged, the atrocious nature of his defence, would be to suspect them of having formed a verdict upon erroneous grounds, of having wandered from the indictment, and inade, not the fact for the nature of the offence, but the temper of the culprit sub· Vol. XIII. N.S.

B

a

sequently to the offence, the basis of their decision. Far be it from us, to blame the involuntary expression of horror which the blasphemies of the infatuated man produced. The exemplary patience, the invincible forbearance and moderation of the Court, contrasted most advantageously with the undignified spleen of a late judge on a preceding occasion, whose ill-suppressed eagerness to secure the conviction of the offender, tended but to defeat its own purpose. Still, the opposite nature of the verdicts, or at all events the opposite direction which public feeling has taken in unison with the verdicts in the two cases, remains to be accounted for; and we think, the only fair and satisfactory mode, is, to explain the result of the former trial by that of the latter. It has been now strikingly evinced that, among that class from whom our juries are selected, there exists no disposition to tolerate profaneness or impiety. In the case of Carlile, the Jury seemed almost impatient of the delay interposed by the forms of justice, in giving expression to their indignant feelings, and the audience received their verdict with unequivocal satisfaction. But the prosecution of Hone was regarded in a light wholly different it was known to have its origin in a wish to punish, in the character of a blasphemer, a man obnoxious to the Government principally on account of his political opinions; and the hypocrisy of the pretence set up for the prosecution was regarded as the more odious, inasmuch as individuals high in office in the very Administration which directed the proceedings, had with impunity indulged in a similar style of profane ribaldry. It was not that the profaneness of Hone's parodies, was regarded as morally venial, but that his intention in publishing them had evidently no relation to the imputed crime of irreligion. His object was, to bring into contempt, not the religion of his country, but the Administration; and this design, though even it had amounted to treason, could not be construed into blasphemy. It appeared also to be the general persuasion, that had these parodies, profane as they were, been of an opposite political tendency, the publisher of them would have met with as little disturbance from the Attorney General as either Mr. Gilray or Mr. Canning did from his predecessor in office. Further, considering Mr. Hone as innocent of evil intention so far as religion was concerned, (and with the evil of his intention in any other respect the Jury had no concern,) it could not but occur to every reflecting person, that were mere profaneness indictable at common law, it would behoove to punish that offence with equal severity, whether it were connected with political delinquency or not; whether the matter of parody or satire were the formularies of the Established Church, or the hymn books of Sectaries; whether the contempt and ridicule were levelled at the national rites, or attempted to be thrown upon the worship and religious sentiments of Dissenters. Pro

faneness loses none of its essential turpitude, by being employed in the ridicule even of things deserving of reprehension; and the ridicule of sacred things can hardly fail of being profane. The temper of mind which some controvertists and satirists have exhibited, in treating of what they have been pleased to regard as improprieties in religionists of a different persuasion, has sometimes approached the last degree of profaneness. Surely, it requires but little hesitation to decide which is the greater criminal, the profane infidel, or the man who is orthodoxly profane. To determine, however, at what point, or under what circumstances, a crime so indefinite, yet, through all its modifications, still morally a crime, shall become a statutable offence, would require no ordinary talent for casuistry. This train of considerations may not have suggested itself to the minds of the Jury who acquitted Mr. Hone; but reflections of this nature have certainly tended to satisfy persons wholly free from the bias of party-spirit, as to the propriety of their decision.

In the case of Carlile, however, the recollection of his political delinquencies was almost suspended in the predominant sentiment of detestation of his impiety; and it seemed to be forgotten, while the wretched culprit was insulting the Majesty of Heaven, that he stood at the bar as an offender against the State. Those who doubted the propriety of the indictment, felt no pity for the criminal, who had so thoroughly deserved the vengeance of the laws by his sedition, that no wish could be entertained that he should be punished with lenity. The only anxiety on the part of those who disapproved of the ground taken for the prosecution, was that the spirit of the Constitution should not be violated in his conviction, or Christianity injured by the interference of the magistrate for its support. And if the Attorney General, aware of the objections against religion to which similar proceedings have given rise, felt it necessary to state, that Christianity stands in no need of prosecutions for its support,' and if the Court itself partook of the embarrassment occasioned by the delicate. and anomalous nature of the prosecution, individuals may surely be pardoned for not applauding the policy which dictated a measure of such doubtful issue, and certainly of disputable expediency.

The subject is one of the greatest interest in every point of view, as regards the fact of the prevalence of infidelity in our own country, the best means of counteracting the evil, and the legitimate province of the magistrate in reference to blasphemous opinions.

No doubt can be entertained as to the salutary result of the efforts which are being made in all directions to oppose the spread of infidel sentiments among the lower classes, through the medium of the press, by cheap reprints of the more popular treatises of an

argumentative nature in defence of Christianity. This measure, together with lectures of a similar nature from the pulpit, now that the minds of persons in general are under the excitation of some degree of alarm, cannot fail to be highly beneficial, if not as remedial of the evil actually done, yet, as fortifying the young and the uninformed against the horrid contamination. It is the direct and the legitimate plan of counteraction. And were it not for the thought of the multitudes who, it is to be feared, have drunk too deeply of the poison of infidelity to be within reach of any antidote, one would scarcely regret an occurrence that should have given this impulse to the exertions of Christians. Whatever brings the subject of religion more distinctly before the attention of the thoughtless, and awakens an interest in its truth, must be regarded as having upon the whole a beneficial tendency. And although there should not be a single instance of an individual reclaimed from infidelity by these means, much will be accomplished, if those who merely from education or habit profess them, selves Christians, and who form the mass of our congregations in church or chapel, shall to any extent have been rendered intelligent or devout believers.

But with regard to those among the lower classes who have already been proselyted to the doctrines of Paine, the question must continually have suggested itself to the mind of the apologist for Christianity, Will they read?-Can they reason? Does the gross, the besotted infidelity, or rather atheism of such persons, lie within the reach of argumentation? Is it merely for want of better information as to the evidences of Christianity, that they have been led to reject its authority? Are they even capable of being made to understand the proof of its reasonableness, or to appreciate the force of a priori considerations as to its necessity? When men of cultivated minds and of calm philosophic tempers, are found capable of resisting the full blaze of the moral evidence in favour of Christianity, is it to supposed that the attractions of truth, or the credentials of Revelation, will commend themselves, when thus exhibited, to the reason of the mob?'

We repeat it, that it is of the highest importance that the folly and impiety of such men as Paine, should receive a direct and specific answer, although it is in the nature of things impossible that the mere power of argument should work a cure upon the radical perversity of scepticism. There is no degree of moral evidence of which the subject admits, even supposing that evidence to be fully appreciated by the individual, which would preclude the possibility of doubt. Faith, indeed, ceases to be a moral action when it becomes involuntary, as it must be where there is absolutely no room for doubt. Men remain incredulous, through the obstinacy of ignorance, or through mere inertion of