The Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke call it," the blas phemy of the Spirit," or "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." In the Sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is called, "a prolapsing" or " falling away;" and in the Tenth chapter of the same Epistle, it is called, " contumely poured on the Spirit of grace," or "a doing despite to the Spirit of grace." I might add, from the Sixth chapter," the crucifying afresh of the Son of God," and "the putting of him to an open shame ;" and from the Tenth, “the treading under foot of the Son of God,” and “the profanation of the blood of the covenant;" unless they were capable of being referred to some other thing, which we shall afterwards discuss. In 1 John v, 16, it is designated as sin unto death." The sin which is described in Hebrews ii, 2-4, is denominated “a neglecting of the salvation which was first announced by Christ and his apostles," and confirmed by God with infallible testimonies. In Acts vii, 51, it is called "a resisting of the Holy Ghost."-We are permitted thus to employ these passages, because an inquiry is instituted into the genus of the sin. 66 a He, against whom the sin is committed, is styled by St. Matthew, Mark and Luke, "the Holy Spirit ;" and, in Hebrews x, He is called "the Spirit of grace:" By this addition of the epithet “of grace" to the Spirit, seems to be intimated, that the person of the Holy Spirit himself is not so much the object of consideration in this passage, as some gracious act of his. The same Evangelists make a distinction between this sin and that against "the Son of Man;" while in Hebrews vi & x, the same sin is said to redound to the ignominy of the Son of God and of his blood: Two declarations which must afterwards be reconciled; for each of them is true. But the men who commit this sin are described, in Hebrews vi, as "those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of that heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." In Hebrews ii, salvation is said to have been announced to them, and confirmed by indubitable testimonies. In Acts vi, it is attributed to them, that " they were not able to resist the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke," and that they “saw his face as that of an angel." From these particulars it seems possible to collect, by what cause they were impelled who committed this sin. It is moreover attributed to this sin by Matthew, Mark and Luke, that it is irremissible, or not to be forgiven; by St. John, that it is unto death. The same thing is affirmed in Hebrews vi, but, as it appears to me, it is in the cause: For it is said to be impossible, that he who has thus "fallen away should be renewed again unto repentance." In Hebrews x, in the application of the comparison, this sin is said to deserve a more severe punishment, than the despising of the law of Moses; and in the commencement of the same passage, the certainty of punishment is signified by these words, "He died without mercy," which seems also to be placed in the antapodosis, the repetition or summing up. In Hebrews ii, he who neglects this salvation is said "to receive a just recompense of reward." Besides, the cause why that sin is irremissible, unto death, and why the man who thus sins cannot be renewed unto repentance, seems to be rendered in Hebrews vi, in the following terms: "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame:" And in Hebrews x, in the following words: "Who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." For it does not seem to me that these expressions can be placed collaterally with falling away and doing despite to the Spirit of grace; but I think they must be placed in subordination among themselves. Lastly, in Hebrews ii & x, is instituted a comparison between this sin and the violation and the despising of the law of Moses; for this likewise is worthy of consideration, that we may correctly determine concerning the kind of sin. From this comparison it appears, that the sin about which those passages treat, is not committed against the law of Moses. But from the contexture of those things which precede, and from a comparison of those which follow, is to be taken the occasion through which Christ in the Evangelists, St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and St. John in his First Epistle, have made mention of this sin. Let us now commence an inquiry into the matters which come under consideration in this sin, following, as far as possible, the guidance of those passages which we have premised and prefixed to this our disquisition. But to me it appears possible, most commodiously, to circumscribe them within the following bounds:-Let us, in the first place, (1.) enter into a discussson on the Genus or Kind of this sin; (2.) its Object and Mode; (3.) Those who commit this sin; (4.) the Impelling Cause; (5.) the End of this sin; (6.) the Degrees of this sin; (7.) the peculiar Attribute of this sin, -its Irremissibility or unpardonableness, and its Cause.--To these we shall subjoin the three other questions, which you inen tion in your letter: (1.) Can this sin be known by the human judgment, and what are the marks? (2.) Are those who are commonly considered to have perpetrated this sin, to be held as being guilty of it or not? (3.) Does not this distinction between the sin against the Son of Man, and that against the Holy Spirit, contribute to the confirmation of the truth of the personality of the Holy Ghost? 1. WITH respect to the GENUS or Kind, it is a subject of much regret that a disquisition upon it is a matter of great difficulty. For it is produced from no other source than the too great fertility of sin, and its deduction and derivation into various species: Yet it is not necessary to refer all the distributions and distinctions of sin to this point; we must descend commodiously by those degrees which may bring us down to this kind of sin. In order to do this, we must commence with that which is the highest. Sin, therefore, is the transgression of the Divine Law, of whatever description that law may be: For we are treating upon a sin of this kind. A transgression of the law is either Special, against one or more of the precepts of the law; or it is Universal, against the whole and entire law, which is called a rejection and abrogation of the law, and a defection from it; and which is as much against what is commanded or forbidden in the law, as against Him who directly commanded it, through contempt for him. This kind of sin, I suppose, is signified in the Old Testament by the phrase, to sin with a high or elevated hand: For the Moral Law consists of a Preface which is contained in these words, " I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt," &c.; and of an enumeration of the Precepts. Either the Preface itself is rejected and God directly despised, or sin is committed against the precepts; none of which can in fact be violated without bringing ignominy on the Divine Majesty and pouring contempt upon God. But every sin is not from a contempt for God. David committed adultery, which may be reductively or consequently referred to a contemning of God, and resolved into it: But he did not commit that sin through a contempt for God. The law of God is now two-fold, the one of Works, the other of Faith Or the precepts of the law are of two kinds; some, of the Law properly so called; and others of the Gospel. But this sin about which we are treating, is not of the kind of those which are perpetrated against the law of God; whether it be a special or universal transgression and an apostasy from the law. This is evident from Hebrews x, 28, 29; for this sin is there compared with the violation or abrogation of the law of Moses, as a greater sin with a smaller one. It is also evident from Hebrews ii, 2-4. This sin is also called "a doing despite unto the Spirit of grace," which is not that of the law, but the Spirit of Christ and of his Gospel. It is easy to perceive the same thing in the Evangelists: For, in St. Matthew's Gospel, Christ says, "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (xii, 28.) This sin, therefore, is committed against the Spirit who testifies that the kingdom of God has arrived; and, on this account, it is not committed against the law of God, but against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The same thing may be rendered evident from Hebrews vi, in which the apostle treats about & falling away from those gifts which are there enumerated, and which are the gifts of the Gospel of Christ. Christ is also said "to be crucified afresh and put to an open shame" by this "falling away;" and, in Hebrews x, He is said to be "trodden under foot," and "the blood of the covenant is said to be profaned." All these are sins committed, not against the law, but against the Gospel of Christ. From these observations it is evident, that those persons who assert that this sin is committed against the acknowledged truth concerning God, and concerning his will and works, have not taught concerning it with sufficient distinctness: They ought to have subjoined, "against the truth of the Gospel." But the commands of the Gospel are two, that of Faith in Christ, and that of Conversion to God. Concerning Faith it is manifest. About Conversion let us now inquire: For as aversion from God is produced by sin, the law accuses him who is thus averse or turned aside, and condemns him to cursing, without any hopes of pardon: But the Gospel requires conversion and promises pardon. Therefore, conversion to God is an evangelical command, and not legal. But impenitence is opposed to conversion to God; and this, when final, condemns a man through the peremptory decree of God, that is, through that which is evangelical. This final impenitence, however, cannot be called "the sin against the Holy Ghost," which is the subject on which we are now treating. For (1.) final impenitence is common to all those who are to be condemned; while the sin against the Holy Ghost attaches to certain persons, or, rather, to very few. (2.) Final impenitence is not committed except at the closing period of life; but this sin is perpetrated while he is still running the space of life: This is apparent from 1 John v, 16, "There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." (3.) Concerning him who commits the VOL. II. BBB sin unto death, it is said, that "it is impossible for him to be renewed again to repentance;" but this would be a useless expression respecting one who was finally impenitent: For it is well known, that all hopes of pardon are terminated by the short course of the present life. (4.) Respecting the sin against the Holy Ghost it is affirmed, that "it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in that which is to come;" that is, it shall never be forgiven. But it is unnecessary to make such an affirmation concerning final impenitence. This sin, therefore, is a transgression of the precept which commands faith in Jesus Christ. But as the doctrine concerning faith in Jesus Christ is not only entire, but likewise consists of certain parts; from this may be assumed a difference in the transgression, that one is Universal, the other Special. The UNIVERSAL is that by which Christ is simply rejected and refused, and which may receive the general appellation of "Infidelity" or "Unbelief." The SPECIAL is that by which Christ is not universally rejected, but is merely not accepted as He has been manifested in his word: And this is called "a heresy," that term being employed concerning those who, after having professed faith in Christ, do not preserve his doctrines entire and unsullied, but corrupt them. But the sin about which we are treating does not lie in this SPECIAL transgression. It belongs, therefore, to the UNIVERSAL transgression of this precept concerning faith in Christ; and it is infidelity or unbelief. It is not all unbelief, of which there are various kinds: (1.) The infidelity of those who have heard nothing respecting Christ: But such persons do not commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. (2.) That of those persons who have indeed heard of Christ, but have not understood: (Matt. xiii, 19:) Neither does the sin against the Holy Ghost attach to these men. (3.) The unbelief of those who have understood, but who have not been certainly persuaded and convinced in their consciences respecting the truth of the things understood: But these persons are not guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost. (4.) That of those men who, being convinced in their consciences that Jesus is the Christ, by their infidelity still reject Him: And, according to my judgment, to this class of persons belongs the sin against the Holy Ghost, about which we are now treating. Therefore, the Genus or Kind is a repulsion and rejection of Christ in opposition to conscience. It is not a mere abnegation or disowning; for that is the part of him who has previously made a profession. It is not an oppugnation or attack; for that |