There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. The blasphemer is no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To con- stitute the crime, it is also necessary that this species of calumny be intentional. He must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavors to inspire others with the same irreverence toward the Deity, or, per- haps, 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 profana- tion of the name and attributes of God by common swearing is but too manifest an approach toward 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 ex- treme ; but there is a close connection 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 prov- idence is the last. — Watson, Theol. Diet. s. v.
As blasphemy by the old law (Exod. xx, 7 ; Lev. xix, 12; xxiv, 10; Deut. v, 11) was punished with death, so the laws of Justinian also directed that blas- phemers should be put to death. The Church ordered their excommunication. In the Church of Rome cases of notorious blasphemy are reserved. By the laws of England and of many of the United States, blasphemies of Gcd, as denying His being or providence, and all contumelious reproaches of the Lord Jesus Christ, pro- fane scoffing at the Holy Bible, or exposing it to con- tempt, are offences punishable by fine, imprisonment, etc. (Blackstone, Commentaries, bk. iv, ch. iv). By the statute of 9 and 10 William III, ch. 32, if any one shall deny either of the Persons of the Trinity to be God, or assert that there are more than one God, or deny Christianity to be true, for the first offence, is rendered incapable of any office; for the second, ad- judged incapable of suing, being executor or guardian, receiving any gift or legacy, and to be imprisoned for ! years. According to the law of Scotland, blasphemy is punished with death : these laws, however, in the present age, are not enforced ; and by the statute of ! 53 George III, ch. 160, the words in italics were omit- ted, the Legislature thinking, perhaps, that spiritual offences should be left to be punished by the Deity, and not by human statutes. — Buck, s. v.
The early Christians distinguished blasphemy as of three kinds: 1. The blasphemy of apostates and lap- si, whom the heathen persecutors had obliged not only to deny, but to curse Christ. 2. The blasphemy of heretics and other profane Christians. 3. The blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost. The first kind is re- ferred to in Pliny, who, in giving Trajan an account
BLASPHEMY
831
BLAU
of some Christians that apostatized in time of persecu- tion, says, "They all worshipped his image, and the image of the gods, and also cursed Christ." That this ■was the ordinary mode of renouncing the Christian re- ligion appears from the demand which the proconsul made to Polycarp, and Polycarp's reply. He bade him revile Christ, to whom Polycarp replied, "These eighty- six years I have served him, and he never did me any harm : how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" Heresy was sometimes reputed blasphemy, and was punished by the same penalty. — Buck, s. v.
III. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is variously understood. Some apply it to the sin of lapsing into idolatry ; others to a denial of the proper Godhead of Christ ; others to a denial of the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Others place this sin in a perverse and mali- cious ascribing of the works of the Holy Spirit to the power of the devil. Augustine resolves it into obstina- cy in opposing the methods of divine grace, and con- tinuing in this obduracy to the end of life. The pas- sages in the N. T. which speak of it are Matt, xii, 31, 32 ; Mark iii, 28, 29 ; Luke xii, 10. These passages are referred by many expositors to continued and ob- stinate resistance of the Gospel, which issues in final unbelief. This, they argue, is unpardonable, not be- cause the blood of Christ cannot cleanse from such a sin, nor because there is any thing in its own nature which separates it from all other sins, and places it beyond the reach of forgiveness, but simply because so long as a man continues to disbelieve he volunta- rily excludes himself from mercy. In this sense, ev- ery sin may be styled unpardonable, because forgive- ness is incompatible with an obstinate continuance in sin. One principal objection to this view is that it generalizes the sin, whereas the Scripture represents it as specific, and discountenances the idea that it is of frequent occurrence. The case referred to by Christ is this: He cured a dagmoniac who was blind and dumb. The Pharisees who stood by and witnessed the miracle, unable to deny the fact, ascribed it to the agenc}' of the devil. Not only did they resist the ev- idence of the miracle, but they were guilty of the wicked and gratuitous calumny that Christ was in league with the powers of darkness. It was not only a sin of thought, but one of open speech. It consisted in attributing to the power of Satan those unquestion- able miracles which Jesus performed by " the finger of God," and the power of the Holy Spirit; nor have we any safe ground for extending it to include all sorts of willing (as distinguished from wilful) offences, be- sides this one limited and special sin. In both the cases referred to, speaking against is mentioned as the sin. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man ;" " Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost." The Spirit dwells in Christ, and, therefore, such imputations were calumnies against the Holy Ghost. The sin betokened a state of mind which, by its awful criminality, excluded from all interest in Christ. There is no connection between this awful sin and those mentioned in Heb. vi, 4-8; x, 26-31. There may be dangerous approximations to such a sin. When men can ridicule and contemn religion and its ordinances ; when they can sport with the work of the Holy Ghost on the human heart; when they can per- sist in a wilful disbelief of the Holy Scriptures, and cast contemptuous slanders upon Christianity, which is " the ministration of the Spirit," thej' are approaching a fearful extremity of guilt, and certainly in danger of putting themselves beyond the reach of the arm of mercy. Some persons, when first awakened to discover the awful nature and aggravations of their own sins, have been apprehensive that thej- have fallen into this Sin, and in danger of giving themselves up to despair. This is a device of the devil to keep them from Christ. The very fear is a proof they are free from the awful crime. The often misunderstood expression, "It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world," etc., is a