have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Cor. ii, 8.) He also says, concerning himself, "But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." (1 Tim. i, 13.) Christ, when hanging on the cross, and (as the Scriptures express it in Isaiah liii, 12) while making intercession for the transgressors, said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke xxiii, 34.) The Scriptures declare respecting the Holy Spirit, that He is capable not only of being grieved, (Ephes. iv, 30,) but likewise of being vexed, (Isai. lxiii, 10,) and of being quenched. (1 Thess. v, 19.) Whosoever they be who answer this description, and crucify Christ long acknowledged by them as the Son of God, and who tread under foot his blood,-that blood by which God hath redeemed the church unto Himself, which is the price of redemption, than which nothing is more precious, and by which alone the gratuitous covenant between God and men is confirmed and established ;-who against their consciences treat the Holy Spirit with the greatest contempt and disgrace, and who sin so grievously against Him, that no sin can equal this in heinousness; it follows, that to people of this class is [jure] justly and equitably denied their being renewed again to repentance,—unless we completely divest God of his Justice, and remove from his free will the administration of Divine Mercy. When we have done this, and have ascribed the dispensing of salvation to the infinity of the Divine Mercy or Goodness only, the very foundations of religion are then overturned, and by this means life eternal is assigned to all men universally and even to the Devils.

If any one supposes, that the affirmations which are made in Hebrews vi & x, belong only to those who, after their open profession of Christianity, shall relapse and fall away; let him know, that contumely and reproach are poured on "the Spirit of grace" by those who have never made a profession of Christianity; and that these words, "to renew them again unto repentance," and, "the blood through which he was sanctified," seem properly to belong [talibus] to those who have not made a profession; and that the remaining parts of the description belong to the entire order of those who sin against the Holy Ghost.

Having considered the preceding matters in this hasty and slight manner, let us now proceed to investigate those three questions which you proposed.

I. With regard to the FIRST, I think it may be known when any one has committed this sin; because if this had been impossible, John would not have forbidden us to pray for that man.

For we ought to pray for all those to whom, with even the least

.

semblance of probability, the mercy of God has been manifested, for whom the intercession of Christ has been prepared, and to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit has not been denied. The Ancient Church formed a similar judgment; when she not only accounted it improper to pray for Julian the Apostate, but also actually prayed against him. But, according to my judgment, an indication of the knowledge of this sin is afforded by acts on the part of those who commit it. The FIRST Act is that profession of the name of Christ which is neither forced nor affected, but voluntary: The SECOND is the rejection of Christ and the abandonment of all profession. If to these two acts be added, blasphemy, opposition, &c., the judgment concerning this sin is rendered still more evident.

From these remarks it is manifest, that the judgment of man can be formed only concerning those persons who have, at some time or other, made an open profession of Christianity, and have afterwards relapsed and fallen away. For it is impossible for us to know, except through [an act of] Divine Revelation, what effects the testification of the Holy Spirit has produced in the minds of those who reject Christ before they make an open profession of Him and his religion. This seems to be intimated by St. John, when he says, "If any man shall see his brother," that is, one who has made an open profession of faith in Christ, "sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life:" And it appears to be immediately repeated on the general principle, "There is a sin unto a death," which if a brother commits, "I do not say, that he shall pray for it." Let the whole history concerning Julian the Apostate be taken into consideration, and it will be rendered manifest that the judgment of the church in that age was founded on the two acts which we have enumerated, -the FORMER being the public profession of Christianity, and the LATTER the act of desertion, blasphemy and persecution.

II. The SECOND Question is, " Have Cain, Saul, Judas, Julian, Francis Spira, &c., perpetrated this crime?"

In regard to this, I say, without any prejudice to the judgment of those who hold other and perhaps more correct sentiments on the subject, it seems to me that CAIN did not perpetrate this crime. For this a probable reason may, I think, be rendered: For he did not sin against grace through hatred to it; but through a perverse jealousy for grace, and through envy against his brother, because Abel had obtained that grace which was denied to himself, he committed the crime of fratricide. Concerning the despair which is attributed to him, we know that

interpreters differ in their opinions; and though he may have despaired of the mercy of God, yet it cannot be concluded from this that he had committed the sin about which we are treating: For despair is also a consequence of other sins, and not always, I think, an attendant on this sin.

The sin of SAUL was against David as a type of Christ, whom he persecuted in opposition to his conscience; but he committed it with this intention,-that he might afterwards preserve the kingdom safe and unimpaired for himself and his posterity. But as it is another thing to sin against the type of Christ, than to sin against Christ himself, (for Saul was in all likelihood ignorant of David being such a type,) and as he did not entirely decline from the Jewish religion: it has to me the air of probability that Saul did not commit the sin against the Holy Ghost.

My opinion is different respecting JUDAS ISCARIOT: For I think that he sinned against the Holy Ghost, and this by the two indications which we have previously laid down: (Page 750:) For as he lived three whole years in familiar converse with Christ, heard his discourses, saw his miracles, was himself sent forth with his fellow-disciples to preach the Gospel, and was so far enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to be capable of executing that office, and actually did perform its duties, and, having been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost, he himself performed miracles, cast out devils, healed the sick, and raised the dead in the name of Christ; it cannot remain a matter of uncertainty that he assuredly and undoubtedly acknowledged his Teacher, Jesus Christ, as the true Messiah and the Son of God. However, he not only deserted Him whom he had thus acknowledged, but also delivered Him up to his enemies, that sought to put Him to death; and he did this not through weakness or some excusable necessity, but merely out of malice and pure hatred of Christ. This is evident from the history of the Evangelists, who relate that, at the moment when the "very precious ointment" was poured on the head of Christ, Judas departed and went to the Chief Priests, and bargained with them concerning the reward of his treason: Which conduct was undoubtedly adopted by him to revenge himself upon Christ for the loss of the three hundred pence, for which the ointment might have been sold, and which were taken away from him, by Christ's permission. To this must be added, that the Scriptures reckon him among those against whom David, the type of Christ, formerly uttered the same petitions as those which St. Peter enumerates in that passage, (Acts i, 21,) as having had their accomplishment in Judas.

I entertain a similar opinion respecting JULIAN the Apostate, whom I consider to have completed every branch of this sin through consummate malice and the most bitter enmity against Christ. For he abandoned Christianity, poured infinite contumelies on Christ, and persecuted Christian people and the Christian Truth in various ways, nay, by every method which it was possible for him to devise. He also attributed the miracles of Christ, more to the Devil, than to the Son of God; for which reason the Church, in those early days, prayed against him, and her prayers were heard by God, and answered.

With respect to FRANCIS SPIRA, it would be with great reluctance that I should venture to pronounce him guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost: On the contrary, I incline to the opposite opinion respecting him, and in this I follow the judg ment of some learned men of the present age, who not only acquit him from the guilt of being charged with this sin, but who likewise do not even exclude him from the pardon of his sins.

For (1.) he did not deny Christ himself, but declined to make such a confession of Christ as the Papists disapproved. (2.) He did not avoid this Protestant confession through malice and hatred of the truth known by him, but through weakness and too intense a desire for a good which appeared to him in some degree nccessary: For he feared the forcible seizure and loss of his goods, without which he supposed it to be utterly impossible for him to gain a livelihood for himself and family. (3.) In the very agonies of his despair, he made frequent and honourable mention not only of Christ, but likewise of his Truth which he had professed. (4.) Being asked by those who stood around him if he wished God to grant him pardon for that offence and to impress the assurance of it upon his mind; he replied, that there was nothing of which he was more desirous, nay, that he wished it could be purchased even by the greatest torments: The purchase of it, however, he knew to be an impossibility,-that no one might suppose, that, by this his desire, he inflicted an injury on the blood of Christ. (5.) He diligently and seriously admonished those who visited him to apply themselves to the mortification of the flesh, to renounce the good things of the present life, and also to despise life itself if the cause of Christ and of Truth were to be forsaken; lest they, having followed his example, should rush into the same abyss of despair and condemnation. All these ticulars [in his case] served as inducements to many persons [in the Venetian States] to withdraw from the Papal Church, and to unite themselves with the Evangelical or Reformed Church; and

par

to some of those who had entered into this union, they served as reasons for persevering in their profession.

III. With respect to the THIRD Question, I answer, that this sin is not directly committed against the Holy Ghost himself, but that it is primarily, properly and immediately perpetrated against his gracious act. Yet this so redounds to the disgrace and contumely of the Holy Spirit himself, that He is said to be blasphemed and to be treated with ignominy by this sin; and that not accidentally, but per se, of itself. But I think, from this, by good consequence, may be deduced, that the Holy Spirit is not some property, virtue, or power in God, usually considered by us under the mode of quality; but that it is something living, intelligent, willing and acting, distinct from the Father and the Son; upon which men are accustomed to bestow the appellation of "a Person."

To me this seems possible to be proved by many arguments. (1.) Because He is distinguished in opposition to the Son; which ought not to be done, if He were a virtue or power not subsisting, communicated to Christ by the Father, by which He might perform miracles, as through a principle from which He has the dominion and power of his own act, and not through a principle which itself possesses such a dominion and power. (2.) Because it is said that men sin against the Holy Ghost, and blasphemy is said to be uttered against the Spirit, and He is treated with scorn and contempt. These phrases do not seem to me to indicate the in-being of the Holy Ghost within God and Christ, but the existence and subsistence of the Holy Spirit; especially as this sin is distinguished from the sin against the Son of Man, which ought not to be done if this sin had been perpetrated against an act of the power which exists within Christ and is employed by Him, and not against the act of the powerful and operating Holy Spirit himself: For as there are acts that appertain to Persons, (though they operate through some natural property of their own,) so are there also passions belonging to persons. If any man rejects the gracious invitation of God to repentance, that sin is said to be committed against an act of the Mercy of God; and, in this manner, he who has so sinned is said to sin against the Mercy of God: But so, that by this very act the sin is properly committed against God, who is Himself the Author of this gracious invitation according to his own gratuitous mercy. Neither could he who thus sins against the mercy of God be said not to sin against God, but against his mercy; as he who sins against the gracious act of the Holy Spirit, is said, in this pas VOL. II. Ссс