Fox apologizes for, any merit: "Because thou hast seen me, """ thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen and "yet have believed."-" O fools, and slow of heart to believe "all that the prophets have spoken.""

But our readers will perceive that neither of the publications before us, throw any light upon the difficult question which formed part of our inquiry in a former article, namely, What is the legitimate province of the magistrate in reference to blasphemous opinions? In that article, it will be in their recollection, that we gave no opinion with respect to the right of the State to 'punish blasphemy,' and it was for this reason; the term right, is at once equivocal and invidious. The State, that is to say the Legislature, has an uncontrolable right to pass what laws it deems expedient for the welfare of the people, and the people are bound by those laws, provided they interfere with no higher obligation; but whether its enactments are expedient or not, is another matter, which is open to consideration. The right of the Government to punish Carlile, could not be rationally questioned, particularly as he was acting in defiance of a previous decision of the Judicial Bench, and could neither plead ignorance of the law, nor any right of conscience, in mitigation of his delinquency. Those persons, we remarked, who doubted the propriety of the indictment, felt no pity for the criminal; for he 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, we added, was, lest the spirit of the Constitution should be violated in his conviction, or Christianity injured by the interference of the magistrate for its support. It was to the inexpediency of such prosecutions in general, upon the specific ground of their tendency to prejudice the minds of infidels against Christianity itself, that our remarks, so far as they bore on the cases of Hone and Carlile, were strictly confined.

The sentiments we there expressed, had no pretensions to novelty. In an early number of the former series of the Eclectic Review, the Reviewer of Ritchie's Life of Hume, had stated far more forcibly the obvious reasons which lie against the exertion of temporal force, whether in an ecclesiastical or a purely 'secular form, or any proceedings tending to this exertion, against the propagators of erroneous speculations.' We shall, perhaps, be excused for transcribing them here.

1. The exertion of force for the suppression or punishment of error, proceeds on a principle which is itself the most impious of all errors: it assumes the infallibility of the power that makes it.

2. Though the power, whether an individual or a corporation of persons exercising such authority, were an infallible judge of truth, VOL. XIII. N.S.

4 A

there can be no proof derived from the Christian institutes, that the Governor of the world has invested the temporal authority with any right of interference or punishment, one step beyond the offences which immediately violate the good order of the body politic.

3. As the exercise of power is not authorized by Christianity; so neither can it be justified by any practical experience of its being adapted to produce its intended effect. The experience of ages testifies its inefficacy. The re-action of the human mind against what has been felt as persecution, has commonly produced a more obstinate adherence to the obnoxious opinions, which have thenceforth been propagated with more daring zeal, or with more sedulous cunning, so that their extermination would be effected only by exterminating their believers.

4. If this power is to be exercised at all, there are no definable limits to its exercise, since there can be no indisputable rules for deciding what error is too small, or what punishment is too great. It will be impossible to ascertain the proportions of turpitude and pernicious tendency in the various forms and degrees of error: and among the adherents to any given system of opinions, there will not be wanting some who can foresee the most dreadful consequences necessarily resulting from the rejection of even the minutest of its articles, and who therefore, if invested with power, and unrestrained by policy, would enact fines, imprisonment, exile, or death against the slightest deviation from the appointed creed.

5. If we could even admit the possibility of such an exercise of human power being just in the abstract, it is impossible to find or imagine any man, or corporation of men, so sublimely virtuous, as to exercise it with an exclusive, disinterested regard to its object. In all cases that ever yet occurred, worldly advantage, or the spirit of party, or some other mean principle, has mingled in those proceedings of temporal power against heretics and unbelievers, which have been professedly dictated by a pure love of truth,

willingly offend, and could not possibly convince. But there are individuals of another description, better informed on the points at issue, and capable, at any rate, of understanding the grounds of an abstract opinion which they are unable to controvert, who yet can be base enough to take advantage of the ignorance and prejudice prevailing among the class we have alluded to, for the purpose of raising an injurious clamour against persons holding sentiments differing from their own. To them, it should seem to be still more fruitless to address the language of remonstrance. We cannot, however, in justice to ourselves, take leave of the present subject without adverting to the perfidious behaviour of the Conductors of a Journal making the bighest pretensions to a religious character, in reference to the first article in our January Number. That the Christian Observer should take a very opposite view of the whole question, we must have anticipated from the political character of the Journal itself; and from us, on all points, it is welcome to differ. Argument we can meet with argument; and with those of their readers who condescend to look into our pages also, we have no fear of not standing well on the score of good intention, how inferior soever in depth of judgement, in extent of information, in eloquence, in every thing but fairness and honesty, we may be to our assailants. But the Conductors of the Christian Observer are well aware that the Eclectic Review has long since been put into the Index Expurgatorius of their party; that it is rarely seen by the majority of their readers; that no ordinary pains and importunity, and even artifice, are employed to keep the abhorred Journal out of certain circles, the most ludicrous dread of its tendency being affected in some instances; in others, its being given up, has been peremptorily and unconditionally insisted upon. When we say they know this, we mean that the individuals upon whom by name we could fix these charges, are within the circle of their familiar acquaintance, and that it is next to impossible but they should know what we state, to be the fact. In pursuance of this same policy, they have themselves attempted to identify the Eclectic Review with the Montbly Repository, and the Old Monthly Magazine, as apologists for Carlile. We shall transcribe the passage we allude to, *

*• That the Monthly Magazine and Monthly Repository would be sincere advocates in this cause, was of course to be expected : it was only labouring in their vocation : but that the Eclectic Review, professing its high tone of piety and its zeal for the extension of Scriptural truth, should have put forth such an article on the subject as appears in its last Number, was more than I had anticipated. I certainly thought, that every good man, of every name, was rejoiced to find that our laws had the power of restraining such abuses of the press, as those which had called forth such general indignation against

and then leave our readers to jadge of the obvious intent of such a reference, as well as of the motives which must have dictated it. What the Eclectic Reviewers had advanced on the subject, they carefully abstain from explaining, because without absolute falsehood, they could not have made it answer their purpose. To have stated that the greater part of the article in question, is occupied with an exposure of the essential culpability of scepticism, and with an examination of the force of human testimony as the instituted means of combating it, and that religious prosecutions are deprecated on the simple ground of their inexpediency as tending to prejudice the minds of infidels against Christianity, would have been at once to furnish their readers with the means of detecting the baseness of the insinuation. And if they had not felt pretty secure that the article alluded to had not been, and certainly, after their account of it, would not be consulted by the purchasers of the Christian Observer, they would scarcely have ventured a charge which, if proved to be false, must reflect tenfold discredit upon themselves. But we admit that it was a tempting opportunity of throwing odium on the Journal itself and on the character of its Conductors; for they were morally certain that it must succeed, and that henceforth a pious horror would be awakened by the very mention of the name of its Proprietor. This feeling has been ascertained to exist in the minds of respectable individuals who never read a number, perhaps not a page of the Eclectic Review, and have no knowledge of the individuals implicated in the guilt of conducting it, except what they have derived from similar misrepresentations. We hope we shall be excused for entering thus plainly into these disgusting details, in order to enable our readers fully to appreciate the object of this last faithless and nefarious attack. For our own parts, we are fully prepared to pursue" through evil report," as well as "through good re"port," the course on which we have entered, in the full assurance that the degree of consideration in which our opinions shall continue to be held, must ultimately depend only upon ourselves. The services which the Eclectic Review has rendered in the cause of Scriptural Truth, although of small account with the bigoted partisan, may possibly endure a comparison with those of men who, in their zeal against blasphemy, treat with such utter disregard the ninth precept of the Decalogue.

the high priest of the pseudo "Temple of Reason." But it seems either that I was mistaken, or that Eclectic Reviewers are not all good men; an alternative, however, which I by no means wish to follow from the remarks which I have felt it my duty to make upon this subject. I can concede much where I cannot prove a criminal intention.' [Fidei Defensor.] Ch. Obs. Jan. 1

Gentlemen and Publishers who have works in the press, will oblige the Conductors of the ECLECTIC REVIEW, by sending information (post paid) of the subject, extent, and probable price of such works; which they may depend upon being communicated to the public, if consistent with its plan.

ART. XI. SELECT LITERARY INFORMATION.