Common sense, applying itself to the text which we have quoted, would at once declare that this, and this only, consti tuted the crime against which, in the Mosaic code, the punishment of death was denounced. But among the later Jews, other things were brought within the compass of this law ; and it was laid hold of as a means of opposing the in fluence of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and of giving the form of law to the per secution of himself and his followers. Thus to speak evilly or reproachfully of sacred things or places was construed into blasphemy. The charge against Stephen was that he "ceased not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law" (Acts vi. 13) ; and he was punished by stoning, the peculiar mode of patting to death prescribed, as we have seen, by the Jewish law for blasphemy. Our Lord himself was put to death as one convicted of this crime : " Again the high-priest asked and said unto him, Art then the Christ, the son of the blessed ? And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and emninic in the clouds of heaven. Then the high-priest rent his clothes and said, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy what think ye ? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death' (Mark xiv. 61-64). It was manifest that there was here nothing of violence or passion, nothing of any evil intention essential to constitute such a crime, no thing, indeed, but the declaration of that divine mission on which he had come into the world, and of which his miracles were intended to be the proof.
There are some instances of the use of the term in the New Testament, in which it is not easy to say whether the word is used hi its ordinary sense of hurtful, in jurious, and insulting speech, or in the I restricted, and what may be called the forensic sense. Thus when it is said of Christ or his apostles that they were blas phemed, it is doubtful whether the writers intended to speak of the act as one of more than ordinary reviling, or to charge the parties with being guilty of the offence of speaking insultingly and reproachfully to persons invested with a character of more than ordinary sacredness : and even in the passage about the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it appears most probable from the context that blasphemy is there used in the sense of ordinary re riling, though the object against which it was directed gave to such reviling the character of unusual atrocity.
Among the canonise, the definition of blasphemy is made to include the denying of God, or the asserting of anything to be God which is not God,—anything, in deed, in the words of the Summa An gelica," voce " Blasfemia," which implies " quandam derogationem excellentis bo nitatis alicnjus et prrecipue divine; " and this extruded application of the term has been received iu most Christian countries, and punishments have been affixed to the offence.
In our own country, by the common law, open blasphemy was punishable by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment. The kind of blas phemy which was thus cognizable is de aeribed by Blackstone to be "denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule" (Commentaries, b. iv. c. iv.). All these heads, except the first, seem to spring immediately from the original sense of the word blasphemy, as they are that hurtful and insulting speech which the word denotes. And we suspect that whenever the common law was called into operation to punish persons guilty of the first of these forms of blasphemy, it was only when the denial was accompanied with opprobrious words or gestures, which seem to be essential to complete the true crime of blasphemy. Errors in opinion, even on points which are of the very essence of religion, were referred in England in early times to the ecclesiastics, as falling under the denomination of heretical opinions, to be dealt with by them as other heresies were. There is nothing in the statute-book under the word blasphemy till we come to the reign of King William III. In that reign an act was passed, the title of which is "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness." We believe that the statute-book of no other nation can show such an extension and com prehension as is given in this statute to the word blasphemy, unless, indeed, a statute of the Scottish parliament, which was passed not long before, viz. the Act of 1695, c. 11. The only other Scottish act is of Charles the Second's reign. The
primitive and real meaning of blasphemy, and we may add of profaneness also, was entirely lost sight of, and the act was directed to the restraint of all free in vestigation of positions respecting things esteemed sacred. The more proper title would have been, Act to prevent the investigation of the grounds of belief in Divine revelation, and the nature of the tnings revealed ;" for that such is its ob ject is apparent throughout the whole of it : " Whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed and published many blasphemous and infamous opinions con trary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion, greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and may prove destructive to the peace and welfare of this kingdom ; wherefore for the more effectual suppressing of the said detestable crimes, be it enacted, that if any person or persons having been educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian religion within this realm, shall, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be God, or shall as sert or maintain that there are more gods than one, or shall deny the Christian re ligion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of divine authority," &c. These are the whole of the offences comprised in this act. The penalties are severe : disquali fications ; incapacity to act as executor or guardian, or to receive legacies ; three years' imprisonment. (Stat. 9 Will. III. c. 35.) 11 however, within four months after the first conviction, the offender will renounce his error in open court, he is for that time discharged from all disabilities. The writings alluded to in the preamble were not, in any proper sense of the term, blasphemous. They were, for the most part, we believe universally, the work of sober-minded and well-disposed men, who, however mistaken they might be, were let in the pursuit of truth, and seeking it in a direction in which it is especially of importance to mankind to find it. To prevent such inquiries by laws such as these is most unwise. There can be no solid conviction where there can be no inquiry. In a state where laws like this are acted on (happily, in this country, it is become a dead letter), Christianity can never have the seat she ought to have, not only in the affections, but in the rational and sober convictions of mankind. What we mean however at present to urge is, that the title of blasphemy in this statute is a palpable misnomer. The delivery either from the pulpit or the press of the results of reflection and inquiry applied to the divine authority of the Holy Scrip tures, or of any particular book included within that term, to the claim of Christi anity to be a divine institution, or to the claim of the doctrine of the Trinity to be received as part of Christianity, can never be regarded as blasphemy or profaneness, however in particular instances it may sometimes be accompanied by expressions which may bring the individual using them within the scope of a charge of blasphemy. Blackstone, in his chapter on offences against God and religion, does not treat of this statute in the section headed Blasphemy, but under Apostasy. Indeed, blasphemy, as Blackstone defines it, and profaneness, are still offences at common law, and may be prosecuted as such ; for the statute of William is merely cumulative, as it is termed, and the com mon law offence, the prosecution and the punishment, remain as they were before The statute. (R. v. Carlile, 3 B and A. 161.) We are surprised that such a statute could have been passed so near our own time ; still more that such a title should have been prefixed to it. As to its main provision it remains in force. But in 1813, the number of persons who openly avowed that they did not consider the doctrine of the Trinity as possessed of sufficient support from the words of Scripture, when truly interpreted, to de serve assent, having greatly increased, and large congregations of them being found in most of the principal towns, several clergymen also of undoubted re spectability, learning, and piety having seceded from the church on the ground that this doctrine as professed in the church was without sufficient authority, a bill was introduced into parliament to relieve such persons from the operation of this statute, and it passed without opposition. This act, which is commonly called Mr. Smith's Act, after the name of the late Mr. William Smith, then mem ber for the city of Norwich, by whom it was introduced, is stat. 53 George III. c. 160.