106 
16 ibe Editor of the Monthl) Magazine. 
3 I R , 4 
S the chief purpofe of my verbal dif- 
cuffion,in the letter infertedin your 
Magazine, Decembet 1 ft, was to éxcite re- 
Hexion and inquiry, I was cordially grati- 
fied with the appearance of the candid 
and fenfible obfervations upon it, figned 
A..B. although they controverted {ome 
of my own notions. I think I could al- 
ledge fomething in reply ; but as we agree 
in condemning the uncharitable ufe made 
of terms rendered opprobrious by forced 
affociations, I readily leave our differences 
to be judged of by our readers. Pro- 
ceeding in a fimilar train of difquifition, 
I fhall beg leave to offer a few thoughts 
en another word of reproach, which is 
blafphemy. 
This word, which in the original meant 
evil fpeaking in general, has in our lan- 
guage been almoft appropriated to that 
kind of evil-fpeaking which confifts in 
impiety. In this fenfe it isa word of large 
and lax application; for as men’s religi- 
ous ideas differ widely, and one holds fa- 
ered what another holds profane; reci- 
procal charges of impiety in word and 
aét, cannot but continually arife whenever 
thefe matters are brought into conteft. 
if it were, indeed, the zzode in which at- 
tackson religious fubjeCts are made, and 
not the thiag itfelf, which conftituted 
blafphemy, a fober and well-mannered 
difputant might always avoid the charge; 
but I believe this, upon inquiry, will not 
appear to be the cafe. Jt feems impoffible 
to controvert that claim to fanctity in per- 
fons or doétrines, which is the bafis of 
particular religions, without giving that 
perception of impiety to their votaries, 
which ‘hall be thought to juftify the re- 
proach of blafphemy. How, for exam- 
ple, can the mildeft oppofer of Mahome- 
tifm, argue againft the pretended divine 
miffion ef its founder, w:thout manifeftly 
implying fuch a charge of impofture as 
fhali firike with horror the pious Mofful- 
man? It is aflerted that the reprefenta- 
tion of Voltaire’s Mahomet gave fuch of- 
fence to the Turkifh ambaflador at Paris, 
that an order was given for its fufpenfion. 
He is there, indeed, painted es a murderer, 
2s well.as an ambitious impoftor ; but the 
f-eedoms taken with his character, by 
fome of our controverfial divines, would 
doubtlefs be equally refented by a Turk 
er Arab, were he capable of reading their 
works. 
The Catholic doftrine of the real pre- 
abiurd and extravagant as we may 
it, is found to be that which has 
rmeft hold upon the minds of perfons 
3 
m 
“ed 
- QY 
xy lah) 
‘ 
+ 
Ox the Word Blafphemy. 
of the Romifh faith, dnd that to which 
the moft myfterious fanctity is annexed. » 
The ridicule with which a Proteftant can 
{carcely forbear treating it, is intolerable 
to a Catholic, who regards every thing 
appertaining to the facrifice of the mais 
with the deepeft awe and veneration. At 
the conference between the two Religions 
in France, held at Poifly, in the iixteenth 
century, Beza, the Proteftant advocate, 
{peaking of this dofirine, faid, “We 
affirm that the body of Jefus Chrilt is as 
diftant from bread and wire, as the high- 
eft heaven from the éarth.’” The exprei- 
fion was fomewhat inflated, but conveyed 
no more than a fimple denial of the facra- 
mental prefence ; yet it appeared fo fhock- 
ing to the Catholic prelates, that fome of 
them cried out Bla/phemavit, others rofe 
to be gone, and the king, who was pre- 
fent, was requeited either to filence Beza, 
or to fuffer the aflembly tobreak up. On 
the other hand, the Proteftants were as 
much f{candalized with the worfhip paid te 
the wafer, or breaden God, as they ter- 
med it, and as ready to charge with blaf- 
phemy the language of monks and friars 
in extolling the fanctity cf this fymbol. 
For it is to be obferved, that the accufa- 
tion of impiety is equally incurred on 
both fides, and that the derogatien to di- 
vinity is as great in raifing inferior crea- 
tures to a level with it, as in attacking its 
own fupremacy. Thus the Jewifh high- 
prieft loudly exclaimed d/a/phemy, when. 
Jefus announced himfelf as the Son of 
God; and many fanatics who have elaimed — 
a participation in the fame charaéter, have — 
been treated as blafphemers. It feemsim- 
poffible toengage inthe Trinitarian con- 
troverfy without being fubjected to the im- 
putation of impiety. Reafonings, how 
cautious foever, tending to undeify two 
perions in the Trinity, muft be looked upon 
as blafphemous by thole who are perfetily 
convincedof their right todivine honcurs ; 
while they who hold as facred the maxim, 
_ Let no inferior nature 
Ufurp, or fhare, the throne of its Creator, 
cannot avoid confidering fuch a multiplica- 
tion of the objects of worfhip as a kind of 
freafon againtt the prerogative of the One 
Supreme. Tho’ a believer in the truth of re- 
ligion will not admit the axiom of Hobbes, 
quoted in one of your late numbers; that 
“¢ fuperftition is a religion out of fafhion,"’ - 
and ‘ religion is a fuperftition in fafhion’’; 
yet it mutt be allowed that with regard to 
controverfial practice it~ is matter of 
fact. Who now feels fhocked at the bit- 
ter farcafms levelled at the whole fyftem 
of heathen theology. by feveral of the - 
early Fathers, which muft, at the time, 
have 
