ARTICLE II.

BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

By Rev. D. B. Coɛ, New York.

THE remarkable declaration of our Saviour respecting this sin, is recorded, with little variation, by the three evangelists, Matthew,. Mark, and Luke.-(Matt. 12: 31, 32; Mark 3: 28, 29; Luke 12: 10.) The commonly-received interpretation of these passages is embarrassed with many difficulties, and has led to much practical error and mischief. We propose, therefore, to call to notice, and to defend, another interpretation, which has had some respectable advocates, but which, it seems to us, is not duly considered and appreciated.

Most modern commentators suppose, that blasphemy of the Holy Ghost consists in ascribing the Saviour's miracles, which were wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, to satanic agency, and that blasphemy against the Son of Man, consisted in reviling Him for those acts which did not necessarily imply Divine interposition.

In opposition to this view, we maintain, that all the blasphemies uttered against the Saviour personally, were peculiarly against the "Son of Man," but that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is peculiar to the times subsequent to the promised advent of the Comforter, and to those persons who "do despite to the spirit of grace.

It is assumed by those who advocate the former view, that Christ designed to teach the Pharisees, with whom He was conversing, that their calumnies and revilings constituted the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This assumption is based upon the connection between the record of their blasphemies and this declaration of our Saviour. In Matthew this declaration is introduced by the formula, "Wherefore," (4 TOUTO). Mark, after recording the whole transaction, adds:-" Becaue they said he hath an unclean spirit." The connection, in both cases, clearly implies, that Christ considered the language of the Pharisees blasphemous, and that this blasphemy occasioned the remark under consideration; but how this proves that their blasphemy was against the "Holy Ghost," rather than against the "Son of Man," it is not easy to see.

If any argument is to be built upon this connection, it surely weighs against the interpretation in favor of which it is urged.

Bloomfield speaks of "the extreme harshness of supposing that what was said in immediate connection with the sin of the Pharisees, was meant not to be understood of that, but of another offence which bore an affinity to it." But two forms of blasphemy are spoken of, in comparison with each other, and the question is, in which of the two shall the sin of the Pharisees be sought? The connection is more intimate, and the transition more natural, if we suppose that the former member of the comparison refers to the sin which gave occasion for making the comparison. The blasphemy just uttered, occupies the Saviour's thoughts. He has just instituted an argument to exhibit the absurdity it involves; and now, in comparing the enormity of this sin, with that of blasphemy in another form, He would naturally introduce first in the comparison that already under consideration. The harshness, therefore, belongs solely to the other interpretation.

While, therefore, the connection in which this passage stands, does not require us to find the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in the language of the Pharisees, but rather discountenances this interpretation; there are other considerations which show that this view is entirely inadmissible.

1. The blasphemies of the Pharisees were designed to bring into contempt the personal character and claims of the Son of Man. For this purpose they attributed His miraculous works to satanic agency. They said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. How could they have pointed their malice more directly against the Son of Man? But it is said, that although these calumnies were aimed at Christ, and were designed to expose Him to public scorn; yet, as His miracles were wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, the sin of attributing them to Beelzebub was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. To this we reply, that this sin, as Christ asserted in a subsequent verse, was brought forth from "the evil treasure of their hearts," and must therefore have received its direction from the malice of their hearts against the Saviour. Constructive blasphemy is a crime with which Papists and polemics are wont to charge their opponents, but we are not aware that such charges are preferred in the Word of God; and if they were, it is hardly credible that a constructive sin, should be distinguished as alone beyond the reach of pardon. If blasphemy against the "Son of Man" was a possible crime, the Pharisees, in the case before us, must have committed it.

2. The Pharisees, in their blasphemies, not only had no reference to the Holy Ghost, but they were, in a great measure, at least, ignorant of His personality and offices. Since the Holy Ghost is one of the persons of the Godhead, there is a sense in which all sin is against Him. But Christ speaks of blasphemy as being uttered against each of two persons of the Trinity, in a sense in which it is not uttered against the others. Such blasphemy im

plies a knowledge of the peculiar relations and office of the person to whom it refers. Blasphemy against the "Son of Man," implied a knowledge of His personal claims, and was uttered in disparagement of them; and blasphemy against the "Holy Ghost," implies the same knowledge and design in reference to His peculiar work in the scheme of redemption. But when this sin was committed, the Holy Ghost had not yet commenced His peculiar work. The nature of His office and agency, had been but obscurely announced. It was subsequent to this time, that Christ predicted His mission, and defined His work, (John 16: 7-11.) It is probable, therefore, that the Pharisees had very little knowledge of the promised mission of the Comforter, and that they had no reference to Him.

To this argument Bloomfield replies, that though the Holy Ghost was not yet given to men, " to Christ it was given perpetually, and without measure." But if this fact rendered the blasphemy of the Pharisees, constructive blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; then, since this principle applies equally in all other cases, blasphemy against the Son of Man is impossible, and the distinction which our Saviour has made is without foundation.

3. There is nothing in the sin of the Pharisees which could give it such peculiar enormity, as is predicated of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. There is nothing recorded of the conduct or language of the Pharisees that indicates a greater degree of malice than was manifested on other occasions. Archbishop Secker pronounces the sin of the Pharisees, "the greatest and most wilful obstinacy in wrong that can be imagined." Dr. Chalmers, after showing that the sin against the Holy Ghost was not peculiar to the life-time of our Saviour, but is, on the other hand, emphatically the sin of those who live under the ministration of the Spirit; still admits, that in the case of the Pharisees, there was a spiteful malignity, a sullen, immovable hardness, which might raise an eternal barrier against that faith, and that repentance, and that obedience, through which alone forgiveness is extended to a guilty world." Although the conduct of the Pharisees evinced much "spiteful malignity," yet it must be admitted that there were mitigating circumstances in their case, which do not exist since the advent of the Comforter. Of this sort were the erroneous views prevailing among the Jews concerning Christ, which made Him a stumbling-block to them, and which were corrected only by His death and resurrection. But when many of the prophecies and traditions which they misunderstood, were explained by developments subsequent to the events in question; when the evidence of Christ's messiahship had been greatly increased by the crowning miracle of His resurrection (Rom. 1: 4), by the promised descent of the Spirit (Acts 5: 32), and by the wonderful fruits of His advent, then the rejection of this additional evidence, and this Divine

Agent would not only involve peculiar guilt, but would be in a peculiar sense against the Holy Ghost.

4. Christ's subsequent treatment of the Pharisees, is evidence that He did not consider them beyond the reach of pardon. He still followed them with warnings, entreaties, reproofs; still labored to convince them of His messiahship,-promising these very individuals another proof of it, (Matt. 12: 40). Even after they had accomplished all that their malice could suggest, and had nailed Him to the cross, He offered His dying prayer for their forgiveness. It is probable, moreover, that some of them, under the strivings of the Spirit, and the preaching of the apostles, were among the converts to Christ, and received that forgiveness of sin, which is denied to blasphemers of the Holy Ghost.

5. It was not the custom of our Saviour thus to pronounce beforehand the final doom of individual sinners. Though foreseeing the final impenitence and perdition of many whom He addressed, He did not see fit to announce it. He did indeed foretell the inevitable destruction of the city and temple, and the dispersion of the Jewish nation. He uttered fearful warnings, implying that those to whom He addressed them were in extreme danger. He said, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins," but when, unless it be in the case under consideration, did He single out individuals, and pronounce, unconditionally, their final sentence?

6. If the sin of the Pharisees was blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, then, though the language of Christ is in a general form, and in the future tense, it can have no bearing upon times subsequent to His death, because none can commit the sin who were not personal spectators of His miracles. So some maintain. Wesley says, "there is no more danger of committing the unpardonable sin, than of plucking the sun out of heaven." But, that they who have not only all the evidence of the truth of the gospel which the Jews possessed, but the proofs which have been constantly accumulating for eighteen hundred years; and, in addition, the teachings and strivings of the Holy Spirit, should be incapable of attaining to the same degree of guilt, it is hard to believe. If it be said that the same form of blasphemy of which the Pharisees were guilty, would be unpardonable now, then it follows that the salvation of modern Jews must be regarded as hopeless; for they, like their ancestors in the time of Christ, are accustomed to account for His miracles by attributing them to satanic agency. This is a consequence of the view we are opposing, to which Christians will be slow to assent.

These are some of the obvious objections to the common interpretation of our Saviour's language, respecting the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The other interpretation alluded to, avoids these difficulties. According to this view, Christ pronounces the sin of

the Pharisees to be blasphemy against the "Son of Man," and intimates that it may be forgiven; but in speaking of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, He points forward to the approaching advent of this Divine Agent, and forewarns His hearers that whoever shall blaspheme this heavenly Comforter, as they have blasphemed Him, shall never be forgiven.

In favor of this interpretation it may be said,

1. It gives to the language employed by Christ its ordinary import. According to the other view, the term "Son of Man," refers merely to the human nature of Christ, and the term Holy Ghost is equivalent to the phrase "Spirit of God," in verse 28, and refers to that Divine power by which His miracles were wrought. But it is not true that the phrase, "Son of Man," is employed to denote His humanity, in distinction from His divinity. It is used in reference to His whole complex being, while the term, "Holy Ghost," is usually applied to the third person of the Godhead, in His relation as Comforter and Sanctifier. Whitby asserts, that "there is a plain difference between the operations of the Spirit in miracles, and the agency of the Holy Ghost as Comforter and Sanctifier." In the former sense he was already given to Christ, (v. 28) and to His disciples; in the latter sense, He was not yet come, (John 7: 39). Our Saviour, therefore, in distinguishing between sins committed against Himself in His mediatorial office, and those committed against the Holy Ghost, must have referred to the treatment of that Divine Agent, after His personal mission should commence.

2. This interpretation furnishes a basis for the distinction which Christ makes between the two forms of sin. According to the common view of the passage, the peculiar guilt of the Pharisees consisted in the fact, that their blasphemous language had reference to His miraculous works. Their contempt for His humble birth, and obscure connections; their ridicule of His teachings; the bitter scorn and insults with which they followed Him through life; the fiendish malice and cruelty with which they conducted His mock trial; and the brutal indignities with which they aggravated His dying agonies, were all so unlike in spirit, and so inferior in turpitude, to this one act of attributing His miracles to Satan, as to justify the broad distinction announced by our Saviour. Now, wherein the incomparable enormity of this act consisted, we cannot discover, but that this and all other acts of contempt and scorn for our Saviour personally, should be regarded as far less heinous than such a spirit manifested under the clearer light of the Spirit's teaching, and against the more powerful restraints of the Spirit's striving, we can easily believe. And as the latter would frustrate the final effort for the sinner's salvation, there is a manifest ground for the assertion, "it shall not be forgiven him."