5. But, after observing that this perversion of the word blasphemy results, for the most part, from the intemperate heat and violence with which polemic writers manage their religious contests, it is no more than doing justice to theologians and ecclesiastics (though it may look like a digression) to remark, that this evidence of undue acrimony is by no means peculiar to them. So uncontrollable is this propensity in men of violent passions, that even sceptics cannot pretend an entire exemption from it. Some allowances ought doubtless to be made for the rage of bigots, inflamed by contradiction, from the infinite consequence they always ascribe to their own religious dogmas; but when a reasoner, an inquirer into truth, and consequently a dispassionate and unprejudiced person, (and doubtless such a man Lord Bolingbroke chose to be accounted), falls into the same absurdity, adopts the furious language of fanaticism, and rails against those whose theory he combats, calling them impious blasphemers, to what allowance can we justly think him entitled? I know of none except our pity; to which indeed, a manner so much beneath the dignity of the philosopher, and unbecoming the patience and self-command implied in cool inquiry, seems to give him a reasonable claim. Since, however, with this defect of discernment, candour, and moderation, philosophers as well as zealots, infidels as well as fanatics, and men of the world as well as priests, are sometimes chargeable, it may not be unreasonable to bestow a few reflections on it.

6. First, to recur to analogy, and the reason of the thing: I believe there are few who have not sometimes had occasion to hear a man warmly, and with the very best intentions, commend another for an action which in reality merited not praise but blame. Yet no man would call the person who through simplicity acted this part a slanderer, whether the fact he related of his friend were true or false, since he seriously meant to raise esteem of him for an intention to depreciate is essential to the idea of slander. To praise injudiciously is one thing, to slander is another. The former, perhaps, will do as much hurt to the character which is the subject of it, as the latter; but the merit of human actions depends entirely on the motive. There is a maliciousness in the calumniatory, which no person who reflects is in danger of confounding with the unconscious blundering of a man whose praise detracts from the person whom he means to honor. The blasphemer is no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To constitute the crime, it is as necessary that this species of calumny be intentional as that the other be. He must be one therefore, who, by his impious talk, endeavors to inspire others with the same irreverence towards the Deity, or perhaps abhorrence of him, which he indulges in himself. And though, for the honor of human nature, it is to be hoped that very few arrive at this enormous guilt, it ought not to be dissembled,

that the habitual profanation of the name and attributes of God, by common swearing, is but too manifest an approach towards it. There is not an entire coincidence: The latter of these vices may be considered as resulting solely from the defect of what is good in principle and disposition; the former, from the acquisition of what is evil in the extreme; but there is a close connexion between them, and an insensible gradation from the one to the other. To accustom one's self to treat the Sovereign of the universe with irreverent familiarity is the first step; malignly to arraign his attributes, and revile his providence, is the last.

7. But it may be said, that an inquiry into the proper notion of Blaoqnuia, in the sacred writings, is purely a matter of criticism concerning the import of a word, whose signification must be ultimately determined by scriptural use. Our reasonings therefore are of no validity, unless they are supported by fact. True; but it ought to be considered, on the other hand, that as the word Blaoonuεiv, when men are the objects, is manifestly used for intentional abuse, the presumption is, that the signification is the same when God is the object. Nay, according to the rules of criticism, it is evidence sufficient, unless a positive proof could be brought that the word in this application undergoes a change of meaning. In the present instance, however, it is unnecessary to recur to the presumption, as positive testimony can be produced, that both the verb and noun have the same meaning in these different applications.

8. Let it be observed, then, that sometimes in the same sentence the word is applied in common both to divine and to human beings, which are specified as the objects, and construed with it; and sometimes the word, having been applied to one of these, is repeated in an application to the other; the sacred writers thereby showing, that the evil is the same in kind in both cases, and that the cases are discriminated solely by the dignity of the object. Thus our Lord says, (as in the common translation), “ All manner of blasphemy," nãoα ẞlaoqnuia, "shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven," Matt. 12: 31.* The difference in point of atrociousness is here exceedingly great, the one being represented as unpardonable, and the other as what may be pardoned; but this is exhibited as resulting purely from the infinite disparity of the objects. The application of the same name to the two crimes compared, gives us to understand the immense disproportion there is, in respect of guilt, between the same criminal behavior when aimed against our fellow-creatures, and when directed against the Author of our being. As the English word blasphemy is not of the same extent of signification with the Greek, and is not properly applied to any abuse vented against

* See the passage in this Translation, and the Note upon it.

man, it would have been better here to have chosen a common term, which would have admitted equally an application to either, such as reproach or detraction The expression of the evangelist Mark in the parallel place, (3: 28, 29), is to the same purpose. Again, in Acts 6: 11," We have heard him speak blasphemous words," ¿ńuara Blάoqnua, "against Moses and against God." Like to this is that passage in the Old Testament, where the false witnesses. who were suborned to testify against Naboth say, "Thou didst blaspheme God and the king," 1 Kings 21: 10. Though the word in the Septuagint is not Bhaoqnueiv, it is a term which in that version is sometimes used synonymously, as indeed are all the terms which in the original denote cursing, reviling, defaming.

9. Further, with the account given above of the nature of blasphemy, the style of Scripture perfectly agrees. No errors concerning the divine perfections can be grosser than those of polytheists and idolaters, such as the ancient Pagans. Errors on this, if on any subject, are surely fundamental. Yet those errors are never in holy writ brought under the denomination of blasphemy; nor are those who maintain them ever styled blasphemers. Nay, among those who are no idolaters, but acknowledge the unity and spirituality of the divine nature, (as did all the Jewish sects), it is not suf ficient to constitute this crime, that a man's opinions be, in their consequences, derogatory from the Divine Majesty, if they be not perceived to be so by him who holds them, and broached on purpose to diminish men's veneration of God. The opinions of the Sadducees appear in effect to have detracted from the justice, the goodness, and even the power of the Deity, as their tendency was but but too manifestly to diminish in men the fear of God, and consequently to weaken their obligations to obey him. Yet neither our Saviour, nor any of the inspired writers, calls them blasphemous, as those opinions did not appear to themselves to detract, nor were advanced with the intention of detracting, from the honor of God. Our Lord only said to the Sadducees, "Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," Matt. 22: 19. Nay, it does not appear that even their adversaries the Pharisees, though the first who seem to have perverted the word, (as shall be remarked afterwards), and though immoderately attached to their own tenets, ever reproached them as blasphemers on account of their erroneous opinions. Nor is indeed the epithet blasphemous, or any synonymous term, ever coupled in Scripture (as is common in modern use) with doctrines, thoughts, opinions: It is never applied but to words and speeches. A blasphemous opinion, or blasphemous doctrine, are phrases which (how familiar soever to us) are as unsuitable to the scriptural idiom, as a railing opinion, or slanderous doctrine, is to ours.

10. But to proceed from what is not, to what is called blasphe

my in Scripture:-The first divine law published against it, "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord" (or Jehovah, as it is in the Hebrew)" shall be put to death," Lev. 24: 15, 16, when considered along with the incident that occasioned it, suggests a very atrocious offence in words, no less than abuse or imprecations vented against the Deity. For, in what way soever the crime of the man there mentioned be interpreted, whether as committed against the true God, the God of Israel, or against any of the false gods whom his Egyptian father worshipped, the law in the words now quoted is sufficiently explicit; and the circumstances of the story plainly show, that the words which he had used were derogatory from the Godhead, and shocking to the hearers.

And if we add to this the only other memorable instance in sacred history, namely, that of Rabshakeh, it will lead us to conclude, that it is solely a malignant attempt, in words, to lessen men's reverence of the true God, and, by vilifying his perfections, to prevent their placing confidence in him, which is called in Scripture blasphemy, when the word is employed to denote a sin committed directly against God. This was manifestly the attempt of Rabshakeh when he said, "Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord," (the word is Jehovah), "saying, Jehovah will surely deliver us. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?" 2 Kings 18: 30, 33-35.

11. Blasphemy, I acknowledge, like every other species of defamation, may proceed from ignorance combined with rashness and presumption; but it invariably implies (which is not implied in mere error) an expression of contempt or detestation, and a desire of producing the same passions in others. As this conduct, however, is more heinous in the knowing than in the ignorant, there are degrees of guilt even in blasphemy. God's name is said to be blasphemed among the heathen, through the scandalous conduct of his worshippers. And when Nathan said to David, 2 Sam. 12: 14, "By this deed thou hast given occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme," his design was evidently to charge on that monarch a considerable share of the guilt of those blasphemies to which his heinous transgression, in the matter of Uriah, would give rise among their idolatrous neighbors: for here, as in other cases, the flagrant iniquity of the servant rarely fails to bring reproach on the master, and on the service. It is, without doubt, a most flagitious kind of blasphemy whereof those men are guilty, who, instead of being brought to repentance by the plagues wherewith God visits them

for their sins, are fired with a monstrous kind of revenge against their Maker, which they vent in vain curses and impious reproaches. Thus, in the Apocalypse, we are informed of those who "blasphemed the God of heaven, because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds," Rev. 16:11.

12. It will perhaps be objected, that even the inspired penmen of the New Testament sometimes use the word with greater latitude than has here been given it. The Jews are said, by the sacred historian," to have spoken against the things preached by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming," Acts 13: 45. And it is said of others of the same nation, "When they opposed themselves and blasphemed," chap. 18: 6. Now, as zeal for God and religion was the constant pretext of the Jews for vindicating their opposition to Christianity, it cannot be imagined that they would have thrown out any thing like direct blasphemy or reproaches against God. It may therefore be plausibly urged, that it must have been (if we may borrow a term from the law) such constructive blasphemy, as when we call fundamental errors in things divine by that odious name. But the answer is easy. It has been shown already, that the Greek word implies no more than to revile, defame, or give abusive language. As the term is general, and equally applicable, whether God be the object of abuse or man, it ought never to be rendered blaspheme, unless when the context manifestly restrains it to the former application. There is this advantage, if the case were dubious, in preserving the general term, that if God be meant as the object of their reproaches, still the version is just. In the story of the son of the Israelitish woman, Lev. 24: 11, 14, terms 66 cursing God," and "blaspheming him," are used synonymously; and in regard to Rabshakeh's blasphemy, the phrases, to reproach the living God or Jehovah, and to blaspheme him, are both used in the same way, 2 Kings 19: 4, 16, 22, 23; but, on the other hand, if the writer meant abuse levelled against men, to render it blaspheme is a real mistranslation, inasmuch as, by representing the Divine Majesty as the object, which the English word blaspheme always does, the sense is totally altered.

Our translators have on other occasions been so sensible of this, that in none of the places marked in the margin* have they used blaspheme, or any of its conjugates; but, instead of it, the words rail, revile, report slanderously, speak evil, defame, though the word in the original is the same; nay, in some places, where Jesus Christ is the object, they translate it in the same manner. There can be no doubt that, in the two passages quoted from the Acts, the

* Rom. 3: 8. 14: 6. 1 Cor. 4: 13. 10: 30. Eph. 4:31. 1 Tim. 6: 4. Tit. 3: 2. 1 Pet. 4: 4, 14. 2 Pet. 2: 10, 11. Jude 9: 10.