Ambrose seemeth to come nearer the matter, though briefly, and to take this sin to be the sacrilegious blasphemy of infidels, by which they take and affirm the very gracious and powerful works of Christ to be the works of the devil, thereby likening Christ to Satan. For he saith, (To. 4. de Pœnit. c. 4,) that this is expressed of them who said Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub, "Quod Satanæ hæreditas in iis esset qui Satane compararent salvatorem omnium, et in regno diaboli constituerent gratiam Christi:" that is, "They are the inheritance of the devil, who compare the Saviour of all to the devil, and did place Christ's grace in the devil's kingdom.' And more fully (De Spirit. Sanct. lib. 1. c. 3.) Si quis corporis specie deceptus humani remissius aliquid sentit de Christi carne, quam dignum est, habet culpam; non est tamen exclusus a venia, quam fide possit adsciscere; si quis verò Spiritús Sancti dignitatem, majestatem et potestatem abnegat sempiternam, et putat non in Spiritu Dei ejici dæmonia, sed in Beelzebub, non potest ibi exoratio esse veniæ, ubi sacrilegii plenitudo est: that is, 'If any one, being deceived by the shape of his human body, shall have lower thoughts of the flesh of Christ than is meet, he is culpable; yet is he not excluded from pardon, which by faith he may attain. But if any one deny the eternal dignity, majesty, and power of the Holy Ghost, and thinketh that devils were not cast out by the Spirit of God, but by Beelzebub, there can be no obtaining of pardon, where there is the fulness of sacrilege.'

Chrysostom's exposition is much to the same purpose, that this sin against the Holy Ghost is the blaspheming of that divine power of the Spirit, which is apparent in miracles as distinct from the contempt of Christ, as appearing in his humanity.

Athanasius (if his) hath a discourse purposely of this sin, to show that it is the contempt and blasphemy against the divine power, in these miracles plainly, discovered, and the refusing of Christ notwithstanding such a testimony.

To the same purpose doth Isidor. Pelusiota expound it; that those sin against the Holy Ghost, that, seeing Christ's miracles, yet will not believe.

It is to small purpose to mention the mistakes of Origen and Theognostus herein, as Athanasius ubi sup. reporteth them of the mistake of the Novatians, as others report of them, that thought the denying of Christ, yea, every gross sin after baptism, was this sin against the Holy Ghost.

Hesychius, in Leviticus, takes it to be final unreformedness and desperation.

Basil. (Magn. in Ethic. def. 35,) takes him to be guilty of this sin, who, seeing the fruits of the Spirit every way correspondent to piety, ascribeth them not to the Spirit, but to a contrary power. And (Reg. 273) he stretcheth it too hard in the application, saying, that is the sin against the Holy Ghost, when men ascribe the fruits of the Holy Spirit to the enemy: as most do who call the godliness of true Christians by the name of vain glory; and their zeal by the name of anger, and the like (if this be Basil, and not Eustathius Sebastienus.) I will trouble you with no more of the ancients as to this point; only add, that I now see in them that the right exposition of this place was not so unknown then as I sometime thought, for all that difference among them, which Dan. Heinsius, Pelargus, Maldonate, and so many more do wonder at.

Our later expositors are somewhat more unanimous ; but whether so near to the truth as most of the ancients, or many at least, we shall further inquire.

The papists do ordinarily reckon up out of Austin six several sorts of sin against the Holy Ghost: Lyra (in Matt. xii.) comes up to our ordinary exposition of the protestant divines, that it is a sinning maliciously against the known truth and thinks that the pharisees knew Jesus to be the Christ, and would prove it from that: "This is the heir, come let us kill him." (Luke xix.)

Cajetan (in Matt. xii.) takes it to be the denial of the sanctifying Spirit, and the ascribing Christ's powerful works to the devil.

Maldonate (in Matt. xii.) having showed the mistakes of Philastrius, that makes every heresy to be this sin; and of Beda, that makes it to be the denial of remission by the Holy Ghost in the ordinances of Christ, in the church baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and many other mistakes herein, doth come near the matter himself; concluding that from the nature of this sin in the pharisees, here mentioned, the description of the sin against the Holy Ghost must be gathered and saith it is the ascribing of the manifest works of the Spirit to the devil. And he saith, that Pacianus, Anastasius, (Q. 68,) Hierome, Ambrose, Basil, speak to the same purpose as he about the nature of the . sin, though they all agree not about the point of irremissibility. Our own writers commonly agree that it is a set, malicious

opposing the known truth: yet some put more as necessary. Most of them make it to be,

1. Against the Holy Ghost enlightening them, and working on them, and moving them within, and not only or chiefly against the objective testimony of the Holy Ghost in his works without.

2. And to be ever against knowledge.

3. And of set malice.

4. Many join opposition as necessary to make it up too. 5. And some say, 'It is only the sin of those that are or have been of the church.' We shall consider of the truth of these anon.

Beza, (on 1 John v. 4, 6,) saith, 'It is an universal apostasy from God, whereby the known Majesty of God is of set malice opposed.'

Bucer, (in Marlorat.in loc.,) saith, 'That they whose conscience is convinced that it is the word of God which they oppose, and yet cease not to oppose it, do sin against the Holy Ghost, because they sin against his illumination.'

Musculus (in loc.) thinks it is baptised, illuminated persons, who knowingly, maliciously, and against conscience, do resist the truth. And he thinks that the pharisees did it against conscience.

Calvin, (in loc.) thinks so too: and saith, 'Such do sin against the Spirit dwelling in them; turning the work of God manifested to them by the Spirit to his dishonour, maliciously following Satan their captain.'

Piscator (in loc.) saith, 'It is he that denieth the truth manifested to him by the Holy Ghost, and hateth and persecuteth it.' Pelargus thus describeth it, (in loc.,) It is a voluntary and malicious renouncing the truth of the Gospel evidently known, joined with a tyrannical, sophistical, or hypocritical opposition, or with an Epicurean contempt of God, with an incurable contumely of the heavenly truth, and an incurable desperation.'

Deodate (in loc.) expoundeth it of him who hath been driven by the extreme wickedness and impiety of his heart to utter words of blasphemy and outrage against God and his truth, of which he hath had the seal of persuasion and knowledge in his heart by God's Spirit: which is the chief sin of the devil and the damned, and the very height of the wicked's malice.

Stella (on Luke xi.) doth join with them in supposing that the pharisees did not indeed think that Christ's works were done

by Beelzebub; but only would have persuaded others so against their own knowledge.

Cartwright, Harm. (in loc.) saith, "That sin is not found among papists, Jews, or Turks, but such only as profess the Gospel, or at least are approvers of the Gospel and word of God." Better saith Pareus (in loc.): "It is their sin, who being convinced of Christ's doctrine and divine works, do yet ascribe them to the devil." If you would see their judgments yet more fully, almost every common-place book will show it you.

The Lutheran divines do go somewhat further, and make the sin against the Holy Ghost to be not only such a wilful resisting of known truth, but also an excusing of the Spirit of grace out of our hearts, and so they think the truly sanctified may fall into it. Yea, they are conceited that by this way they have the advantage which we have not, for reconciling this text, Matt. xii., with Heb. vi. and x., this saying that all sin except that against the Holy Ghost shall be forgiven, and that in Heb. making apostasy incurable: whereby they, but ungroundedly, I think, do conceive that we who deny the apostasy of any saints, must deny also the existence of the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is taken by many to be the same. Whereas, they make them both possible; and, indeed, there are some who hold the falling away of some saints, who think they may be again restored; and some who think they must and will be restored; and some who hold, indeed, that some of them may totally fall from grace, but that such can never be restored, they being the very persons meant in Heb. vi., and their sin, though not only theirs, being that against the Holy Ghost. I only name these as mistaken expositions of this text.

Illyricus makes this sin to be a persevering opposing of known truth, and persevering impenitency, whereto he also addeth, sinning against conscience, which he saith, driveth out the Spirit and depriveth a man of his adoption. Twenty more of the Lutherans might be mentioned, that go that way, but it would be but a trouble to the reader, and therefore I pass that by.

Before I tell you what I take to be the sin against the Holy Ghost, I shall but briefly consider of the rest of the propounded questions, and tell you somewhat of others' sense of them, and then resolve of them altogether: for I take it in so weighty a point, to be too bold and unmeet when I purposely explain such a text, to tell you my own thoughts only, without premising the judgment of others.

The second question is: What is it to blaspheme, or speak against the Son of Man? It is agreed by the most, that the sense of these words is this: He that shall speak contemptuously or reproachfully of Christ as a mere man, supposing him to be no more; and 2. That is so persuaded only because of his visible humanity and the common frailties which he is pleased to submit to, or from something which might easily, to a rash judgment, have an appearence of the sinful infirmity also of man; as his eating and drinking with publicans and sinners, &c.; this man shall have pardon.

3. The third question is: What is meant by the affirmation, "That all such sin shall be forgiven?" And it is commonly agreed on, that it is not the meaning of it, that all such individual sins shall be actually forgiven to all men; but as some say, 'They are more easily and ordinarily forgiven :' as others say, 'They are forgiven to the penitent, and only they:' which dependeth on the next.

Quest. 4. What is meant by this negative; "That the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven in this life or in that to come.'

Answ. It is the difficulty of this, that hath made the first question so difficult; what this sin is. Two opinions are very ordinary here: some think that the meaning is, "They shall be more hardly and more rarely forgiven that blaspheme the Holy Ghost, but that it was never the mind of Christ to conclude in proper sense that it should never be forgiven.' Of this opinion was Chrysost., in loc., who saith, that This sin is pardonable and pardoned to many, but that it is less pardonable and venial than other sins, because it is against a fuller discovery of the truth; Christ they knew not while he appeared to them as a man, but the Spirit they might see in his works.’

Theophilact followeth him in this exposition, saying, that 'He that seeth Christ among publicans and sinners, and so blasphemeth him, though he repent not, yet shall not be called to account, that is, shall not be condemned, so be it, he have a general repentance of sin; but he that saith Christ's miracles are done by Beelzebub, shall not be forgiven unless he repent, that is, particularly, of this sin.'

Ambrose makes Simon Magus in a sort guilty of this blasphemy, and yet to have hope of pardon by Peter given him.

Augustin makes all the blasphemy pardonable, which others take this sin to consist of, and saith, that 'Gentiles, Jews, and