vances". Now, this cannot be done by the teachers of religion, without some misrepresentation of the moral attributes of the Lawgiver, whose character is thereby degraded, in the minds of the people. Yet there is, nowhere, the most distant insinuation given that, on any of these accounts, they were liable to the charge of blasphemy.

But no sooner did Jesus say to the paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven thee, than the Scribes laid hold of the expression. This man blasphemeth, said they : Who can forgive sins but God 53? Their plea was, it is an invasion of the prerogative of God. Grotius observes justly of this application of the term, Dicitur hic ẞhaopnuɛiv, non qui Deo maledicit, sed qui quod Dei est, sibi arrogat. Such, undoubtedly,

was their notion of the matter. But I do not see any warrant they had for thus extending the signification of the word. In the simple and primitive import of the name blasphemer, it could not be more perfectly defined in Latin, than by these three words, qui Deo maledicit; and, therefore, I cannot agree with the generality of expositors, who seem to think, that if Jesus had not been the Messiah, or authorized of God to declare to men the remission of their sins, the Scribes would have been right in their verdict. On the contrary, if one, unauthorized of Heaven, had said what our Lord is recorded to have said to the paralytic, he would not, in my opinion,

have been liable to that accusation: he would have been chargeable with great presumption, I acknowledge; and if he had been conscious that he had no authority, he would have been guilty of gross impiety; but every species of impiety is not blasphemy. Let us call things by their proper names. If any of us usurp a privilege that belongs, exclusively, to another man, or, if we pretend to have his authority, when we have it not, our conduct is very criminal; but nobody would confound this crime with calumny. No more can the other be termed blasphemy, especially when it results from misapprehension, and is unaccompanied with a malevolent intention, either to depreciate the character, or to defeat the purpose, of the Almighty. The false prophets,

name of God, and

who knowingly told lies in the pretended a commission from him, which they knew they had not, were liable to death; but they are nowhere said to blaspheme, that is, to revile, or to defame, their Maker. Much less could it be said of those who told untruths through mistake, and without any design of detracting from God.

This polemic application of the term blasphemy must, therefore, have originated in the schools of the rabbies, and appears to have been, in the time of our Lord and his Apostles, in general vogue with the Scribes. Nay, which is exceedingly repugnant to the original import of the name, they even applied it to expressions which did not refer to persons, but to things. Thus, the historian, in relating the

charge brought against Stephen, acquaints us ", that they set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: an application of the word, perhaps till then unexampled. But we need not wonder at this liberty, when we consider, that the perversion of the term answered for them a double purpose; first, it afforded them one easy expedient for rendering a person, whom they disliked, odious to the people, amongst whom the very suspicion of blasphemy excited great abhorrence; secondly, it increased their own jurisdiction. Blasphemy was a capital crime, the judgment whereof was in the sanhedrim, of whom the chief priests, and some of the Scribes, always made the principal part. The farther the import of the word was extended, the more cases it brought under their cognizance, and the more persons into their power. Hence it proceeded, that the word blasphemy, which originally meant a crime no less than maliciously reviling the Lord of the universe, was at length construed to imply the broaching of any tenet, or the expressing of any sentiment (with whatever view it was done), which did not quadrate with the reigning doctrine. For that doctrine, being presupposed to be the in-fallible will of God, whatever opposed it was said, by implication, to revile its Author. Such will ever be the case, when the principles of human policy are grafted upon religion.

54 Acts, vi. 13.

15. WHEN we consider this, and remark, at the same time, with what plainness our Lord condemned, in many particulars, both the maxims, and the practice, of the Pharisees, we cannot be surprised that, on more occasions than one, that vindictive and envious sect traduced him to the people, as a person chargeable with this infernal guilt. Once, indeed, some of them proceeded so far as to take up stones to stone him 55: for that was the punishment which the law had awarded against blasphemers. But he thought proper then to elude their malice, and, by the answer he gave to their unmerited reproach, evidently showed that their application of the term was unscriptural 56. Those who, on other occasions, watched our Lord to entrap him in his words, seem to have had it principally in view to extract either blasphemy or treason from what he said. By the first, they could expose him to the fury of the populace, or, perhaps, subject him to the Jewish rulers; and, by the second, render him obnoxious to the Roman procurator. What use they made of both articles at last, is known to every body. Nor let it be im. agined that, at his trial, the circumstance, apparently slight, of the high priest's rending his clothes, when he pronounced him a blasphemer, an example which must have been quickly followed by the whole sanhedrim, and all within hearing, was not a matter of the utmost consequence, for effecting their malicious pur.

55 John, x. 31. 33.

56 John, x. 34, 35, 36.

A

pose. We have reason to believe, that it contributed not a little, in working so wonderful a change in the multitude, and in bringing them to view the man with detestation, to whom so short while before they were almost ready to pay divine honours.

§ 16. But here it may be asked, 'Can we not then say, with truth, of any of the false teachers, 'who have arisen in the church, that they vented 'blasphemies?' To affirm that we cannot, would, I acknowledge, be to err in the opposite extreme. Justin Martyr says of Marcion ", that he taught many to blaspheme the Maker of the world. Now, it is impossible to deny the justice of this charge, if we admit the truth of what Irenæus 58, and others, affirm concerning that bold heresiarch, to wit, that he maintained, that the Author of our being, the God of Israel, who gave the law by Moses, and spoke by the Prophets, is one who perpetrates injuries, and delights in war, is fickle in his opinions, and inconsistent with himself. If this representation of Marcion's doctrine be just, who would not say that he reviled his Creator, and attempted to alienate from him the love and confidence of his creatures? The blasphemy of Rabshakeh was aimed only against the power of God; Marcion's, not so much against his power, as against his wisdom and his goodness. Both equally manifested an intention of subverting the faith and veneration of his worshippers. Now, it is

57 Apol. 2.

58 Lib. i. c. 29.