Wales, and Ireland. In his old age his friends provided a chaise drawn by two horses; and then the chaise became his reading-room. Unexpected interruptions in his travels, times of sickness, and winter seasons, would afford some respite to his unwearied activity and some additional and in-door opportunities of reading. Surely Mr. Wesley may be held up, even in this reading day, as an example. And with all our leisure and opportunity, what “son in the Gospel" has excelled him? rather, who has approached him, in the extent and variety of his reading?

To understand more completely our founder as a literary man, we must look not only at what he read, but at what he wrote and the style of his writings. Enough, however, for the present.

ART. VIII.—THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.

THE subject of this article is one of grave importance, and demands serious consideration. It forms a query in the minds of thousands. Some, full of fear and despondency, conclude they have committed the sin; they give up hope and live in utter despair of obtaining salvation. Others oscillate between doubt and despair. Not knowing the real nature of the sin, they dare not decide whether they are guilty of its commission. The food of happiness is taken from their hungry souls, or if they partake of it the nutritive element is wanting. These states of mind are not unfrequent in the religious world. They affect the young and old, the intelligent and uninstructed, the penitent seeker of salvation, and the acknowledged believer in Christ Jesus.

There are three questions which I wish to consider. I. What was the sin against the Holy Ghost in the Saviour's time, as spoken of by him? II. Can the sin against the Holy Ghost in that sense be committed in the present day? III. If not, is there now any sin against the Holy Ghost? If so, what is that sin?

I. What was the sin against the Holy Ghost in the Saviour's time as spoken of by him? Reference must be made to the passages in which the sin is mentioned. Three of the evangelists, out of the four, make mention of it. Matthew and Mark mention the particular circumstance which gave rise to the solemn language of Christ.

Luke simply throws in the statement without the circumstance. Matthew informs us that there "was brought unto him [Christ] one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." The Pharisees, when they heard of it, said, "This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Jesus Christ, upon hearing this, vindicated his miracle from such foul imputations, and declared that the miracle was wrought by the Spirit of God. Then, after a few more words of comment, he repeated the words: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matt. xii, 22-32. The language of Mark is: "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." Mark iii, 28-30. Luke gives the mind of Christ in these words: "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven." Luke xii, 10.

:

It will be scen from the above quotations that there is no difference expressed as to the unpardonableness of the sin against the Holy Ghost. Mark alone tells us the reason why he spoke of the sin against the Holy Ghost: "because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." Matthew does not use the same language, but it is obvious that the words of Christ concerning this sin arose out of the accusation of the Jews: "This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of devils." The evident meaning of the Saviour is, that the Jews were guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, which sin consisted in accusing him of possessing an unclean spirit, and imputing to that spirit the performance of the miracle which he had just wrought. This was dishonor, insult, blasphemy, to the Holy Ghost. It was a dethronement of the Holy Ghost, and an exaltation of the prince of the devils. It was an expulsion of the Holy Ghost from his own dominion, and a recognition of the monarch of hell as his substitute. It was taking the work of mercy and grace, which could only be accomplished by the Holy Ghost, and attributing it to the enemy of all righteousness, full of subtlety, malice, hatred, revenge, covetousness, and all abominations. this, I conceive the sin against the Holy Ghost to have consisted

in the time of Christ, as spoken of by him in the language quoted above.

There is another question in immediate connection with this, which deserves a passing notice. Is the sin against the Holy Ghost, spoken of by Christ, mentioned or alluded to in any other parts of the New Testament? I have not found that it is. There are three passages which, by some, may be considered as alluding to the sin. Heb. vi, 4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the 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, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." There is here no reference at all to the sin against the Holy Ghost. The impossibility of renewing again to repentance such as fall away from grace, is not said to rest upon the sin against the Holy Ghost, but upon the renunciation of Christ, "seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Here is the heinous sin of the persons here referred to. In the practice of this sin consists the impossibility of their salvation. They denounce and trample upon the only Saviour that can save them; their salvation while in this course of life is "impossible."

Heb. x, 26, 27: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." This is a parallel passage to the one just considered, and may in part admit of the same exegesis. It does not, however, make mention of or refer to the sin against the Holy Ghost. Its denotation appears to be, that an apostasy from the Christian religion leaves the subject of that apostasy without any hope of salvation, because there is left to him no more sacrifice for his sins than the one which by his apostasy he actually disavows and rejects.

1 John v, 16: “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." There is no allusion here to the sin against the Holy Ghost. I see nothing in the passage which would lead the mind to infer that St. John referred to the sin. He says, "There is a sin unto death," but does not state what it is. He does not explain in any other part of the chapter or epistle. There is, therefore, no ground for the supposition that he alludes to this particular sin. My object in quoting these texts was not to give a legitimate ex

planation of them, but simply to show that they do not signify the sin against the Holy Ghost, in the sense declared by our Lord in the Gospels.

II. Can the sin against the Holy Ghost, as expressed by the Saviour, be committed in the present day? This is the second question for consideration.

1. In the exact sense in which the Jews committed it, no person can be guilty of this sin in the present age of the world. The Saviour is not now upon the earth in his incarnation. He does not go about doing good among men. His goodness and power are not manifest in the manner they were in the land of the Jews. The deaf and dumb, possessed of a devil, are not brought to him that he might, in the sight of the people, cast out the evil spirit. There is, therefore, no opportunity for any man to say of him, upon seeing or hearing of him casting out a devil, "This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." The possibility of this is not in the power of any existing being.

2. But could not a person, upon the authority of the evangelists, as mere historians, believe that Jesus Christ actually lived as they relate, and wrought miracles, but that they were accomplished through Satanic agency? and would not this be the sin against the Holy Ghost of which the Jews were guilty? It would not be the sume sin, because the persons, the time, and place differ; also for the reasons above stated. Whether it would be a sin against the Holy Ghost at all, I will not attempt to divine. But granting that it would, I imagine it exceeding difficult, if not impossible in the nature of things, for such a sin to be committed. The faith which would receive the Gospels only as historical narratives, as it would receive any ancient record of facts, would preclude the commission of such a sin. There is no evidence whatsoever in the Gospels, that the basest of men could take, on which to accuse Christ of working his miracles by an evil spirit. The very opposite is the case. No man, in the use of his proper senses, could believe from the evangelic history, that Jesus was a Satanic agent for the accomplishment of his diabolical purposes. The nature of the things he said and did, as well as the life he led, as recorded by the evangelists, show him to have been a being of whom Satan, according to his very nature, kingdom, and operations, could not approve, not to say employ as his agent. But if a man should reject the Gospels and Christianity, what then? He could not be guilty of the sin, inasmuch as by this rejection he would deny the miracle and the person in toto, consequently the commission of the sin would be impracticable. The Jews admitted the miracle, but attributed it to Satanic power within

him; he neither believes that the person existed as the history states, nor that the miracles were wrought, therefore he is not guilty of the sin as the Jews were.

III. If the sin against the Holy Ghost, in the sense spoken of by the Saviour, cannot be committed in the present day, is there any sin at all against the Holy Ghost now? and if so, what is that sin? This question shall now have attention.

1. That there is a sin against the Holy Ghost will, I think, appear evident from his character as a person and as Divine. He possesses personal properties and affections. He possesses attributes and performs works which constitute him Divine, and associate him with the Father and Son as co-equal; constituting the mysterious truth of the eternal Trinity. This fact implies that he is as capable of being the object of sin as either the Father or the Son.

2. But what is the nature of the sin against the Holy Ghost, which a man may commit in the present age of the world? The answer to this question must arise out of the character of the Holy Ghost, his work with men, and relationship to them. In regard to his character, that does not differ from the Father or the Son; that is, he is, like them, Divine in all the attributes of his nature. In this respect a sin committed against the Holy Ghost does not differ from a sin committed against the Father or Son, seeing he is one with them, undivided and equal.

It is the work of the Holy Ghost with man, and his relationship to him, that gives to sin committed against him its solemn peculiarity, and distinguishes it from sin committed against either God the Father or God the Son. In the salvation of man, each person in the Godhead has his respective relation to man, and work with him. God the Father is represented as the sovereign of man, dispensing to him pardon, and all the blessings of the Gospel redemption. God the Son is represented as the Saviour of man, through whom all these blessings have been purchased, and are communicated unto him. God the Holy Ghost is represented as the agent with man, by whom he is brought to seek these blessings bestowed by the Father through the Son. I say, in the salvation of man there is this distinction made in the work which each person in the Godhead sustains in that salvation, while, in the eternal and unchangeable essence of their Divinity, they are one undivided God.

A mere cursory view of the New Testament will establish these statements beyond a doubt. "For through him [Christ] we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. ii, 18. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh