OF THE blasphemy Against the HOLY-GHOST.  
Printed in the year, 1646.   

Of the blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST.  
MAny have written of the sin against the Holy Ghost, who in defining or describing of it, follow onely their own zealous conceits, and not the Canon of holy Scripture: The more dreadful the sin is, the fearfuller we must be in the charging, or fixing of it upon any special Crime, or particular person. In the definition of a sin of so heinous a nature, direct and evident proof of Scripture is requisite. It is not enough to consider( as many do) what sins are most desperate, and deadly, and then to conclude, that such sins are sins against the H●ly Ghost: Thus indeed the schoolmen have done, who have made six differences of this sin, without any colour of ground, or warrant in Scripture for so doing: And Bellarmine is so liberal in bestowing this sin against the Holy Ghost upon such as he calls heretics, that his opinion is, That a man can scarce be a learned Protestant, without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost; Neither are the Papists the onely men that have been mistaken about this sin, but too many Divines of the Reformed Churches have started a side from the Scripture, and given us such intricate and contradictory definitions of this sin, as tend onely to the perplexing of the tender consciences of weak Christians. To make good this censure, I will briefly set down so much touching this sin, as I conceive is warranted by the Word of God, and humbly submit it to the Judgement of the Learned.  

The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was an evil speaking or slandering of the Miracles of our Saviour Christ, by those, who though they were convinced by the Miracles, to believe that such works could not be done but by the Power of God; yet they did maliciously say, they were wrought by the Power of the devil.  
In this description, these points are observable:  
First, I forbear to call it the sin, but name it the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: for though every blasphemy be a sin in the general, yet our Saviour Christ terms it onely the blasphemy, and the Evangelists do all agree, to give it onely the same term; and it is no where in all the Scripture called the sin against the Holy Ghost: and yet it appears, both in Saint matthew, and Saint Mark, that there was just occasion offered for our Saviour to have name it the sin against the Holy Ghost; where he compares, with the sin against the son of Man: but he forbears to call it any thing but, the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: Thereby no doubt, to teach us, that it consists onely in cursed speaking, or blaspheming. A serious consideration of this point, may teach us so much moderation, as to confine ourselves to that term which our Saviour in three Evangelists hath prescribed unto us. I cannot find, that any man that hath yet written of this Argument, hath made any observation, or noted this const●nt phrase and term used by the Evangelists, in pronouncing the dreadful sentence of our Saviour against Blasphemers of the Holy Ghost: I will therefore city all those Texts, where the Blaspheming against the Holy Ghost is name: matthew 12.31. All manner of sin and Blasphemy shalbe forgiven unto men, but the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  
Mark. 3. 28. All sins shal be forgiven the sons of men, and Blasphemies wherewith soever they blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.  
Luke 12.10. Whosoever shall speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but u●to him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.  
Secondly, a second observation is, that Blaspheming is a speaking against an ther, as both Saint matthew and Saint Luke expound the word; for in the original it is, a hurting or blasting the famed, or blaming of another; for, from the greek word Blaspheme, both the French, 
Blasme Biasimo  Italian, and our English, by contraction, have made our word Blame. 
Blame   
Thirdly, to pass from the name, to the thing itself, wee may observe by the coherence of the Texts, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was spoken by our blessed Saviour concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, for Saint Mark tells us in plain terms the reason was, because the Pharisees said, he had an unclean spirit: For, when they saw our Saviour cast out a devil, blind and dumb, to the amazement of the people, they said, he cast out the devil by beelzeebub, the Prince of Divels: This speech of the Pharisees, whereby they slandered his Miracles wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, is properly the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. How transcendent a Crime it was, to traduce that power by which our Saviour wrought his Miracles, may thus appear.  
The end for which Miracles were wrought, was most evidently to prove, that Iesus was the messiah, that the multitude beholding with their eyes the works which he wrought, might thereby be lead to believe the doctrine which he taught; there be store of Texts to prove this: The works I do in my Fathers name, bear witness of me; If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; though you believe not me, believe the works, John 10. John 14. Believe me, that I am in the Father, or else believe me for the very works sake. When the Disciples of John asked, Art thou he? Iesus answered, go show John those things which you see and hear, the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, matthew 11. When the multitude beholded his Miracles, they mervailed, and said, It was never so seen in Israel; since the world began was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one born blind, John 9. A woman could say, Come see a man that  told me all things, Is this the Christ? John 4.29. So they that saw the Miracles of the Loaves, could say, Is this that Prophet which is to come? Nicodemus the Pharisee saith, Rabbi, no man can do those things that thou dost, except God be with him. These and other places show, that the working of Miracles was an act of the most glorious manifestation of the power and majesty of God, by which at the first even the simplest of men were lead by their outward sense, to that great mystery of inward Faith in Christ their Redeemer. Therefore, for those men who were eye-witnesses of such Miracles, as did make them know that Christ was a Teacher come from God, to blaspheme that Power by which those Miracles were wrought, and to say, they were done by the help of the devil, was the most despiteful and malicious slander that could be invented; for thereby they attempted, as much as in them lay, to destroy the very Principles of Faith, and to prevent the first propagation of the gospel, to the universal mischief of all man-kind: And though these Pharisees were no Christians, and therefore could not fall away from Faith, which they never had, yet they did know and believe, that Christ was a Teacher come from God; for so our Saviour tells them, John 7.28. Ye both know me, and whence I am. They did not believe in him as a Saviour, but as a great Prophet from God, as the mahometans do at this day: They trusted to be saved by their Law, and because he taught such things as did abrogate their Law, in which they so much gloried, they were so malicious to his Doctrine, which they did not believe, that they did speak evil of his Miracles, which they did believe; lest the people, by approving of his Miracles, should have Faith in his Doctrine.  
Fourthly, observe; It is said to be the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because by the power of the Spirit, or Holy Ghost, the Miracles were wrought: for our Saviour saith, matthew 10.28. If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God; and Saint Paul teacheth us, that the working of Miracles is by the same spirit, 1. Cor. 12.  
Fifthly, the blasphemy against the son of man was, when men considered Christ as a mere man, and did disgracefully tax his conversation, by saying, Behold a glutton, a bibber of Wine, a friend to Publicans and Sinners: but, The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was, when men beholding Christs Miracles, did enviously ascribe those works to the devil, which they did know and believe to be done by the Power of God.  
Sixthly, these Texts formerly recited out of the three Evangelists, being all the places wherein the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost is name; wee cannot find by them, that wee have any safe rule to conclude, that any but the Scribes and Pharisees, or their confederates, committed the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost: I dare not say, that Iudas, or those that stoned Stephen, or julian the Apostate, or Simon Magus, were any of them guilty of this detestable blasphemy.  
Seventhly, The Apostles have not in any of their Epistles once mentioned this blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost, and yet they were most careful and frequent in dehortations from all sorts of sin; it were much, they should forget, or omit such a fearful Crime, without often and most precise admonishing us to beware of it: And though negative proofs from Scripture are not demonstrative, yet the general silence of the Apostles may at least help to infer a probability, that the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost is not a sin committable by any Christian that lived not in the time of our Saviour.   

THere be three places or Texts in the Epistles, wherein although the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost be not name, yet most think it is intended and meant in each of those places: And Bellarmine( in confuting Saint Austins opinion, who held that final impenitency was the sin against the Holy-Ghost) affirms, that it seems the three Texts in the Epistles, are spoken of the sin against the Holy-Ghost; and yet this great cardinal forgetting what he hath said in the same Chapter, contradicteth himself, and shows how that these three places are not to be expounded of that sin. I will city the Texts, and then his interpretation of them, according to the exposition of Saint Ambrose, Saint Chrysostome, Saint jerom, and other Fathers, as he saith:  
The first Text is, Hebrewes 6.4. It is impossible for they who were once enlightened— if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the son of God afresh: The Apostle here speaks onely of repentance, which did go before baptism; for so Chrysostome, Ambrose, and other Fathers expound it: which the Apostle insinuates,  
First, in those words [ who were once enlightened] that is, Baptized; for anciently to be illuminated, signified to be Baptized.  
Secondly, in those words [ to renew again] for wee are properly renewed in baptism.  
Thirdly, in those words [ crucifying the son of God afresh] for when we are baptized, wee are conformed to the likeness of his death, Rom. ●6. and as Christ was onely once crucified, so also wee are onely once baptized; and he that will be again baptized, should again crucify to himself Christ. Let me add this, that in the verses going next before this Text, the Apostles speaks of the Foundation of Repentance, and the Doctrine of baptisms; and in this Text, our new translation follows Beza, who hath varied from the original, by putting the conditional( si, if) in stead of the copulative( et, and) and by adding the causal ( ut:) so that whereas Beza and our translation is, Si prolabantur— ut qui crucifigant; If they fall away— seeing they crucify:  
The greek and vulgar latin is, 〈◇〉— 〈◇〉, Et prolapsi sunt— crucifigentes; And falling— Crucifying again.  
For the word doth not signify to fall away, but to fall casually, or negligently: so 〈◇〉, Gal. 6. is translated a fault, and not a falling away.  
The second Text is, Heb. 10.26. For if wee sin willingly, or wilfully, after wee have received the knowledge of the Truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sin. Answ. I say with Chrysostome, Ambrose, and other Fathers, the sense is, wee must not expect another Christ to die for us, or that he who hath once died, should come again to die for us.  
The third Text is, 1 John 5.16. There is a sin unto Death, I do not say ye shall pray for it: Saint jerome saith, that nothing else is here meant, but that a Prayer for a sin unto death, is very hardly or difficultly heard: and this seems to be the truest sense of this place; for Saint John saith immediately before, wee know that wee have the Petitions that wee desired of him: therefore least wee should think this to hold true in all Petitions whatsoever, which wee offer for others, he adds; If any man see his Brother sin a sin, which is not unto Death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: that is, let him ask with Confidence, for he shall obtain: but if it be a sin unto Death, th●t is, a great sin, such an one as is not ordinarily pardonned, but punished with Death, I do not say ye shall pray for it; that is, I do not prohibit you to pray, but I dare not promise that you shall easily obtain; therefore, I do not say ye shall pray, that is, with that confiden●e of obtaining: for often, in such cases, God doth not hear the Prayers of the Saints; as God saith, jer. 7.16. Pray not thou for this people, for I will not hear thee.  
If these expositions upon the former Tears be sound, the definition of the sin against the Holy-Ghost cannot be grounded upon all, or any of them; for, as it is not once name, so it cannot be intended in any of them: he that will find fault with these interpretations, it is reason he should bring better, and more agreeable to the literal sense and coherence and scope of Text, and such I should gladly learn.  
It seems the probability of the exposition of the first place, Heb. 6. is so great, that a learned Divine, who produceth this Text, for proof of his definition of the sin against the Holy-Ghost, doth confess against himself, that the Apostle in this place denieth a second baptism, when he speaks of Repentance, because they are mentioned together in the same place, and have some affinity and correspondence.  
As for the second Text, Heb. 10. I must confess, that if Saint Paul in this place meant the sin against the Holy-Ghost, that then this were the onely desperate Text in the whole Bible; for what man is there that si●nes not willingly? for so the word 〈◇〉 doth properly signify: Beza translates it ultro, the vulgar latin voluntary, voluntarily, or willingly, not wilfully and obstinately: It is but a miserable comfort, when Saint Paul saith, if wee sin willingly, for Master Calvin to tell us, that the Text doth not mean every willing sin, but onely a malicious resisting of the Truth: could not Saint Paul, as easily as Master Calvin, have said, if wee sin maliciously, as say, if wee sin willingly? My comfort is, that if the Text be advisedly considered, there is no such thing as the sin against the Holy-Ghost, or any other desperate conclusion to be found in the Text: the scope of the precedent verses, do evidently expound the Apostles meaning to be this; to let the Jews know, that the case was not now with them, as it was under the Law; for under the Law they had daily sacrifices for sins, but now, under the Gospel, they had but one sacrifice once for all: every Priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifice; but this man, after he had offered one Sacrifice, for ever sat down at the right hand of God, as it is in the eleventh verse of the same Chapter; which may serve for a Comment upon the verse now in question: and it is worth our noting, that the Text doth not say, if wee sin willingly, there is no Sacrifice; this had been a hard saying indeed: but the words are, there remaines no more Sacrifice: there is some comfortable difference, I hope, between these two propositions; there is no Sacrifice, and, there remaines no more Sacrifice: so that if wee do not believe in that one Sacrifice as sufficient, but look every day for a new Sacrifice for every new sin, wee must expect nothing but Iudgement.  
As to the third place, 1 John 5.16. Many would conclude, that there is a sin for which wee may not pray, because it is irremissible, and this they think must needs be the sin against the Holy-Ghost meant by Saint John: their best Argument is, that Iohns not saying that wee shall pray, is a saying, that wee shall not pray; his silence is to them a prohibition: But this is bad Grammar, and worse logic; for wee find that Saint Stephen prayed for them that stoned him, and yet  told them that they resisted the Holy-Ghost; and Saint Peter exhorted Simon Magus to repentance, and yet both he and those that stoned Stephen, are commonly reputed sinners against the Holy Ghost: Saint Ambrose is of that charitable judgement, that he thinks the sin against the Holy-Ghost may be pardonned by repentance; because the people of the Iewes, who had said of Christ, he casts out the devil by beelzeebub, the prince of devils; afterwards, at the preaching of Saint Peter, are said to be converted, in the second of the Acts. Saint Austine in his Retractations concludes, that wee must despair of no man, no not of the wickedest, as long as he lives, and wee way safely pray for him of whom wee do not despair: for though it be expressly said, that the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost shall not be forgiven; yet these words may justly receive a qualification, if wee will but allow the same mitigation of the sense of these words, which all men confess wee must needs allow to the precedent words in the same verse, to which these have relation; where it is said generally, All sins and all Blasphemies shall be forgiven to men: it cannot mea●e, that all sins, all ways, and to all men, for then no sin could be damnable, but the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost; which is most false: and therefore the sense must be, all sins shall be forgiven ordinarily, or for the most p●rt; so on the contrary, the blasphemy against the Holy-Ghost shall not ordinarily, or hardly be forgiven. Even those that are most strict, for to maintain the sin against the Holy-Ghost to be unpardonable, will yet aclowledge, that sometimes in Scripture an impossibility is used to note a difficulty, and those things are spoken indefinitely of all, which properly belong to a part onely: thus the difficulty of the rich mans entering into the kingdom of Heaven, is presented unto us by our Saviour, under the similitude of an impossibility.   

HAving dispatched these Texts of Scripture, which do either name, or are thought to concern the blasphemy, or sin against the Holy-Ghost; it remaines to examine all those common definitions of this sin, which are now currant: and though there be some difference among Divines in the terms, by which they define it; some calling it a total, or final falling from Faith, or a wilful apostasy, or a malicious resisting of the Truth: yet, when they all come to explain their meaning, the difference among them is not considerable.  
I shall therefore chiefly apply myself to examine Master Calvins definition, because his judgement hath gained the greatest reputation amongst the multitude: As for that, he himself promiseth such a true definition, which shall easily by itself overthrow all the rest: in his Institutions, lib. 3. cap. 3. he saith, They sin against the Holy-Ghost, Qui divinae veritatis( cujus fulgore sic perst●inguntur ut ignorantiam causari nequeant) tamen destinata malitia resistunt in hoc tantum ut resistant.  
The rhetorical Parenthesis( which might well have been spared in a definition) being reduced into plain and brief terms, this definition of Master Calvin may be thus in English: They sin against the Holy-ghost, ●ho of determined malice resist the known truth of God to the end onely to resist.  
In this definition, Master Calvin doth not define what the sin is, but who they are that commit it; whereas by the Rules of logic, Concretes admit of no true definition, but onely Abstracts. But taking the definition as it is, it consists principally upon these three terms: First, Truth: Secondly, Known: Thirdly, Resisted, or a resisting of the known Truth. These words being general and doubtful terms, I shall consider them severally.  
First, If by the Truth of God, Master Calvin do understand the Word of God, or the whole Doctrine of God revealed in Scripture, then the sense of this term will be too large: For even the Pharisees that spake against the Holy-Ghost, did not resist the whole Truth of God in the Scripture, for they believed in the Law of Moses, and had confidence to be saved by observing of it; and in defence of that Law( as they thought) they did blaspheme the Holy-Ghost. Therefore properly by the Truth of God, Master Calvin must confine his meaning to the truth of the Gospel, or doctrine of Faith; for so both he himself and others expound themselves, by terming the sin against the Holy-Ghost, a falling away or turning away from faith, or apostasy.  
Secondly, by this word known, Master Calvin must mean believed; for faith is properly by believing, and not by knowing the truth.  
Thirdly, The word Resisting must mean unbelieving; For if the receiving the Truth be by belief, then resisting of it must be by unbelief: and indeed so Master Calvin explains himself in the same chapter, saying, There is no place for pardon where knowledge is joined with unbelief; Non esse veniae locum ubi scientia ad incredulitatem accessit. So then, by this definition, to resist the known Truth is all one, as if Master Calvin would have said, in proper and significant terms, for a man at once to unbelieve that which he doth believe: which two things it is impossible for any man to do together; and if they be not together, there can be no resistance.  
It is true, that for some reasons sometimes a man may be brought not to believe that which he formerly believed; but this cannot be in an instant, but successively unbelief comes in the place of belief: and this may not be called resisting; for that a●l resistance consists in a violence between two at the least: but where two succeed one another, and are never together, it cannot possibly be. I confess, a man may resist the truth, when it is either a truth in itself onely, or in the understanding of some other; but to resist the truth which is known, which is believed by the resister himself, is a direct contradiction: For the nature of truth is such, that if the understanding do apprehended it for true, it cannot but assent unto it; No man can force himself to believe what he lists, or when he lists: Sometimes a man knows not what to believe, but finds a suspension of his faith, or a trepidation of his understanding, not discerning which way to turn; this cannot bee called a resisting of the Kn●wne Truth, where the truth is not known, but doubted of.  
again, some truths there be, which although they bee assented unto by the understanding for truths, yet they are not desired as good: for truth is one degree nearer of affinity to the soul of man then goodness: The Pharis●es did apprehended the Miracles of our Saviour as true, but not as good, because they tended to the derogation of their Law, which they esteemed a better truth; and for this cause they blasphemed that truth, which in their hearts they believed to be true: For, the truth of words or speech is( as the schools say) nothing else but the sign of truth, and not truth itself; for truth itself is seated in the understanding, and not in speech. That truth which the understanding assents unto, the speech may affirm to bee false; there are many things believed in dead, which are denied in word; but such denial is not a resisting, but onely a making show of resistance of truth: For the resistance must be in the same place where the truth is: truth being seated in the understanding, the resistance must be placed there also; the understanding can resist no truth, but by unbelieving onely.  
If Master Calvin had intended a resisting of the truth onely in word, he had come one step nearer to the truth of the Scripture; but he was not so happy in the expression of his meaning: Nay, his terms of incredulity, apostasy, falling away, and the like, relate to a real, and not a verbal apostasy and unbelief.  
It remaines then to my understanding, that Master Calvin makes the resisting of the Truth to be a not believing of that which wee do believe: which being a contradiction, he defines the sin against the Holy-Ghost to be such a sin, as no man possibly can commit. And yet on the other extreme, in expounding his own definition, he makes it such a sin as no man living but commits; for by his Doctrine( as I take it) any sin may be the sin against the Holy-Ghost; his words are these: Quorum convicta esse conscientia, verbum Dei esse quod repudiant, et impugnant, impugnare tamen non desinunt, illi in, spiritum blasphemari dicuntur; They are said to blaspheme the Spirit, whose consciences are convinced that it is the Word of God, which they forsake and impugn, and yet cease not to impugn it.  
What man is there, that doth not daily in some point or other forsake the Word of God, and ceases not to impugn it, and is convinced thereof in his conscience? I know Master Calvin was far from thinking, that Saint Paul did sin against the Holy-Ghost; yet Saint Paul was convinced it seems in his conscience, that it was the word of God which he did fight against, and yet ceased not to fight against it, when he saith: he delighted in the Law of God, yet another Law warring against the Law of his mind, brought him into captivity to the Law of sin. What dangerous inferences weak consciences may draw upon themselves out of this unbridled and unlimited proposition of Master Calvins, let others judge?  
There is just cause, I presume, to except against Master Calvin, and all others who in this concur with him, to omit the term of blasphemy in their definition, for that it is perpetually observed in the speech of our Saviour concerning this sin by the Evangelists with one consent: but for the word blasphemy, he hath brought into the definition the word resist for a genus of this sin, but by what authority, I know not; I cannot find it, or the equivalent to it, in any of those places which are thought to touch this sin: I find onely falling away mentioned Heb. 6. which phrase is used by Master Calvin for resisting, whereas falling away, and resisting, are no more like then fighting and running away, which are little less then contraries.  
The last point I will touch in M. Calvins definition is that, where he saith, the sinners against the Holy-Ghost resist, to the end onely to resist, and yet withall he tells us, they resist out of a determined malice: if their resistance proceed from malice, then the end for which they resist, is the satisfaction of their malice. The Pharisees, who are condemned by our Saviour for this Crime, had another end, besides bare resisting; the defence of the Law of Moses, was the end for which they Blasphemed, and not any pleasure they could take in the sole and simplo act of resisting,   

WEE find three old opinions concerning the sin against the Holy-Ghost, but they were long since exploded, I will but onely name them.  
First, Saint Origen thought all sins committed after baptism, to be sins against the Holy-Ghost: his reason w●s onely a witty conceit of his own; that God the Father is in all things, ●●e son is onely in all reasonable creatures, the Holy Ghost is onely in all regenerate men therefore when men sin against that Divine Person that is in them, if they be heathens, they sin against God the Father, or the son; if they be Christians, they sin against the Holy-Ghost. The Novatian heretics agreed with Origen in opinion; for they denied remission of sins to any that fell, thinking all falls of Christians to be the sin against the Holy-Ghost: but this opinion is false; For else all sins were unpardonable to Christians: yet wee find Saint Paul remit the sin of the incestuous Corinthian; also our Saviour chargeth the Pharisees with this sin, who were no Christians.  
Secondly, Saint Austin though final impenitency to be the sin against the Holy Ghost; but final impenitency is no blasphemy, but onely a general circumstance that may accompany any sin. Besides, our Saviour intends, that this sin may be found in this life; for he saith, it shall not be forgiven in this life, and the Pharisees were alive when they were accused of it.  
Thirdly, P. Lombard, and T. Aquinas, thought sins of malice to be the sin against the Holy-Ghost, and sins of infirmity against the Father, and sins of ignorance against the son. This opinion is false, because the sin against the Holy-Ghost must be a sin of some certain blasphemy; but malice is no certain sin, but a general, and it is not always a blasphemy.  
The six differences the schoolmen make of the sin against the Holy-Ghost, are: First, Envying of our Brothers grace: Secondly, Impugning the known Truth: Thirdly, Desperation, Fourthly, Presumption: Fifthly, Obstinacy: Sixthly, final impenitency.  
In this Determination, of the point of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the inquiry made into Master Calvins and others new definition of it; I hope I have delivered nothing contrary to the Doctrine of the Articles of the Church of England.   
FINIS.