3 APRIL 1841, Page 13

WHAT IS BLASPHEMY?

Ma. GOULBURN opposed the third reading of the Jews Declara- tion Bill, on the ground that " a Jew could not enforce the law against blasphemy " ; and Sir ROBERT INGLIS declared that " a man imprisoned for blasphemy would be most unjustly punished if offices were given to Jews."

The Jews must be much changed from their forefathers if they can- not enforce the law against blasphemy ; for one of the false accusa- tions brought by them against Jesus Christ was, " He blasphemeth."

Sir ROBERT INGLIS'S indirect declaration, that all Jews are blas- phemers, indicates a curious construction put upon that epithet by Sir ROBERT. Jew and Christian worship the same God ; they habitually use the same religious poems (the Psalms) in their public worship ; they both acknowledge a Messiah, the former maintain- ing that he is to come, the latter that he has come. By blasphemy, Sir ROBERT means differing from him on a question of fact.

Blasphemy, in the mere common acceptation, means speaking irreverently of the Deity. To commit blasphemy, a man must be- lieve in the existence and attributes of the Deity of whom he speaks irreverently, and must speak in a spirit of levity or defiance. The Christian missionaries to the Heathen do not blaspheme, although the worshipers of the idols whose true character they expose think so. KNox, LUTHER, RIDLEY, did not blaspheme, al- though the adherents of the Church of Ttome thought and think so. What is called blasphemy by men who, like Sir ROBERT INGLIS, set up their own opinion as the standard of right and wrong, is not unfrequently the utterance of deep veneration and a sincere spirit. When we find legislators bewildered by such gross misconcep- tions of the real character of blasphemy—when we see how im- possible it is without knowing all the circumstances of the case to say positively that what is called an act of blasphemy may not in reality be one of deep religious conviction—it is high time to look a little closer into the laws regarding blasphemy, which those legislators have enacted or perpetuate. If Sir ROBERT INGLIS classes the Jews among blasphemers, it may be that he classes many other persons equally innocent among the blasphemers.

And while this inquiry is going on, it may be as well to inquire whether blasphemy is one of those offences of which the penal law can beneficially take cognizance. It would be impious to say that in punishing blasphemy we seek to avenge God. Punishing a man for blasphemy will not make him religious ; it will only deter him from being openly profane. And viewed as a matter of policy—as a means of preventing the profane from wantonly hurting the feel- ings of their pious neighbours—is there no method of attaining this end which is less liable than punishment for blasphemy to con- found the innocent with the guilty ?