To John Uytenbogaert, his most dear and peculiarly beloved brother in Christ, James Arminius wishes health and his welfare through Christ.
Most
Friendly Of Mankind:
As
You intend soon to preach before the members of your church on The Sin against
the Holy Ghost, you request that I will disclose to you my meditations and
musings on that subject, on which you had also previously asked my opinion; but
at that time, it was not in my power to comply with your request; for I had
formed no distinct conception in my mind respecting it, neither have my
sentiments upon it yet attained to any certain and full persuasion. But my
slight musings and meditations, I neither feel any desire of denying to you,
nor would it be my duty to withhold them from one to whom I have long ago
transferred the plenary fight of requiring and even commanding anything from
me. Nor will I suffer myself to be seduced from this desire of obeying you by
any false and rustic shame, though I know that my contemplations on this
question, are such as cannot satisfy you, since, in fact, they are not much
approved by myself. For, of what kind soever they may be, I am aware that they
deserve to obtain some excuse, as they are concerning that question, than which
scarcely any one of greater difficulty can be found in the whole Scripture, as
St. Augustine testifies when professedly treating upon this subject, (tom. 19,
fol. 9,) in his explication of Matt. 12:31-32. Besides, I hope and feel fully
persuaded, that you will so polish these, my rough notes, that I may afterwards
receive them from you not only with interest, but also others which will be
able entirely to complete my wishes.
But
I will not at present examine what St. Augustine has produced on the same
passage, when writing about this sin; nor what is found on this subject in the
writings of other authors, whether among the ancients or in our own times, lest
I should be unnecessarily prolix, especially as you are yourself extremely well
furnished with their works, and are ready to make the necessary inquiry into
their sentiments. I will transcribe for you my own meditations, not in that
order which is suitable to the nature of the thing itself, (for how is it
possible for me to do this, when it is not fully known by me?) but in the order
which it is possible for me to observe in the confusion of various
thoughts.
It
will not be useless, in the first place, to prefix to this investigation those
passages of Scripture in which mention is made of this sin, or in which it
seems at least to be made.
“Wherefore
I say unto you, 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 speaks against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but
whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither
in this world nor in the world to come. (Matt. 12:31-32.) “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.”
(Mark 3:28-29.) “and whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it
shall be forgiven him; but unto him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, it
shall not be forgiven.” (Luke 12:10.)
There are, besides, two passages in the epistle to the Hebrews, the
first of them in the sixth chapter, the other in the tenth, which it seems
possible to refer to this subject without any great detriment. “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 to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame? (Heb. 6:4-6.) “He that despised Moses’
law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer
punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under
foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he
was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of
grace?” (10:28,29.) To these may be
added a passage from St. John’s first epistle: “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?” (1 John 5:16.) Let the following passage also, from the
epistle to the Hebrews, be added, for the sake of explanation, not because it
is on exactly the same subject: “For if the word spoken by angels was
steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense
of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the
first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that
heard him, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with
divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Heb.
2:2-4.) To these, let another passage be
subjoined from the Acts of the Apostles: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in
heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost. As did your fathers, so you do.”
(Acts 7:51.) But about the same persons, it was said, in a preceding chapter, “And
they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spoke.”
(6:10.) “And all that sat in the council looking steadfastly on him, saw his
face as it had been the face of an angel.” (6:15.)
I
unite these passages for no other reason than that I may be able to contemplate
them all together at one glance, and may direct my thoughts according to
them.
And,
first, we must see the appellations which the sin receives about which we are
here treating.
The
Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke call it “the blasphemy of the Spirit,” or “the
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” In the sixth chapter of the epistle to the
Hebrews, it is called “a prolapsing” or “falling away,” and in the tenth
chapter of the same epistle, it is called “contumely poured on the Spirit of
grace,” or “a doing despite to the Spirit of grace.” I might add, from the
sixth chapter, “the crucifying afresh of the Son of God,” and “the putting of
him to an open shame;” and from the tenth, “the treading under foot of the Son
of God,” and “the profanation of the blood of the covenant,” unless they were
capable of being referred to some other thing, which we shall afterwards
discuss. In 1 John 5:16, it is designated as “a sin unto death.” The sin which
is described in Hebrews, 2:2-4, is denominated “a neglecting of the salvation
which was first announced by Christ and his apostles,” and confirmed by God with
infallible testimonies. In Acts 7:51, it is called “a resisting of the Holy
Ghost.” We are permitted thus to employ these passages, because an inquiry is
instituted into the genus of the sin.
He,
against whom the sin is committed, is styled by St. Matthew, Mark and Luke, “the
Holy Spirit;” and, in Hebrews 10, he is called the “Spirit of grace;” by this
addition of the epithet “of grace” to the Spirit, seems to be intimated that
the person of the Holy Spirit himself is not so much the object of consideration
in this passage, as some gracious act of his. The same Evangelists make a
distinction between this sin and that against “the Son of Man,” while in
Hebrews 6 and 10, the same sin is said to redound to the ignominy of the Son of
God and of his blood -- two declarations which must afterwards be reconciled,
for each of them is true.
But
when the men who commit this sin are described, in Hebrews 6, as “those who
were once enlightened, and have tasted of that 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,” in Hebrews 2, salvation is said to have been
announced to them, and confirmed by indubitable testimonies. In Acts 6, it is
attributed to them that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and Spirit by
which Stephen spoke,” and that they “saw his face as that of an angel.” From
these particulars, it seems proper to collect by what cause they were impelled
who committed this sin.
It
is, moreover, attributed to this sin by Matthew, Mark and Luke, that it is
irremissible, or not to be forgiven; by St. John that his unto death. The same
thing is affirmed in Hebrews 6, but, as it appears to me, it is in the cause;
for it is said to be impossible that he who has thus “fallen away should be
renewed again unto repentance.” In Hebrews 10, in the application of the
comparison, this sin is said to deserve a more severe punishment than the
despising of the law of Moses; and in the commencement of the same passage, the
certainty of punishment is signified by these words: “He died without mercy,”
which seems also to be placed in the antapodosis,
the repetition or summing up. In Hebrews 2, he who neglects this salvation is
said “to receive a just recompense of reward.”
Besides,
the cause why that sin is irremissible, unto death, and why the man who thus
sins cannot be renewed unto repentance, seems to be rendered in Hebrews 6, in
the following terms: “- seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame.” And in Hebrews 10, in the following
words: “- who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing.” For it
does not seem to me that these expressions can be placed collaterally with
falling away and doing despite to the Spirit of grace; but I think they must be
placed in subordination among themselves.
Lastly,
in Hebrews 2 and 10, is instituted a comparison between this sin and the
violation and the despising of the law of Moses; for this likewise is worthy of
consideration, that we may correctly determine concerning the kind of sin. From
this comparison of it appears that the sin about which those passages treat, is
not committed against the law of Moses.
But
from the contexture of those things which precede, and from a comparison of
those which follow, is to be taken the occasion through which Christ, in the
Evangelists, St. Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews, and St. John in his first
epistle, have made mention of this sin.
Let
us now commence an inquiry into the matters which come under consideration in
this sin, following, as far as possible, the guidance of those passages which
we have premised and prefixed to this our disquisition. But to me it appears possible,
most commodiously to circumscribe them within the following bounds: Let us, in
the first place, (1.) enter into a discussion on the genus or kind of this sin;
(2.) its object and mode; (3.) those who commit the sin; (4.) the impelling
cause; (5.) the end of this sin; (6.) the degrees of this sin; (7.) the
peculiar attribute of this sin -- its irremissibility or unpardonableness, and
its cause. To these we shall subjoin the three other questions, which you
mention in your letter. (1.) Can this sin be known by the human judgment, and
what are the marks? (2.) Are those who are commonly considered to have
perpetrated this sin, to be held as being guilty of it or not, (3.) Does not
this distinction between the sin against the Son of Man, and that against the
Holy Spirit, contribute to the confirmation of the truth of the personality of
the Holy Ghost?
1.
With respect to the genus or kind, it is a subject of much regret that a
disquisition upon it is a matter of great difficulty. For it is produced from no
other source than the too great fertility of sin, and its deduction and
derivation into various species; yet it is not necessary to refer all the
distributions and distinctions of sin to this point; we must descend
commodiously by those degrees which may bring us down to this kind of sin. In
order to do this, we must commence with that which is the highest. Sin,
therefore, is the transgression of the divine law, of whatever description that
law may be; for we are treating upon a sin of this kind. A transgression of the
law is either special, against one or more of the precepts of the law; or it is
universal, against the whole and entire law, which is called a rejection and
abrogation of the law, and a defection from it, and which is as much against
what is commanded or forbidden in the law, as against him who directly
commanded it, through contempt for Him. This kind of sin, I suppose, is
signified in the Old Testament by the phrase, to sin with a high or elevated
hand; for the moral law consists of a preface which is contained in these
words: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt,”
&c., and of an enumeration of the precepts. Either the preface itself is
rejected and God directly despised, or sin is committed against the precepts,
none of which can in fact be violated without bringing ignominy on the divine
Majesty and pouring contempt upon God. But every sin is not from a contempt for
God. David committed adultery, which may be reductively or consequently
referred to a contemning of God, and resolved into it; but he did not commit
that sin through a contempt for God.
The
law of God is now two-fold -- the one of works, the other of faith; or, the
precepts of the law are of two kinds: some, of the law properly so called, and
others of the gospel. But this sin about which we are treating is not of the
kind of those which are perpetrated against the law of God, whether it be a
special or universal transgression and an apostasy from the law. This is
evident from Hebrews 10:28-29; for this sin is there compared with the
violation or abrogation of the law of Moses, as a greater sin with a smaller
one. It is also evident from Hebrews 2:2-4. This sin is also called “a doing
despite unto the Spirit of grace,” which is not that of the law, but the Spirit
of Christ and of his gospel. It is easy to perceive the same thing in the
Evangelists; for, in St. Matthew’s gospel, Christ says, “but if I by the Spirit
of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (12:28.)
This sin, therefore, is committed against the Spirit who testifies that the
kingdom of God has arrived; and, on this account, it is not committed against
the law of God, but against the gospel of Jesus Christ. The same thing may be
rendered evident from Hebrews 6, in which the apostle treats about a falling
away from those gifts which are there enumerated, and which are the gifts of
the gospel of Christ. Christ is also said “to be crucified afresh and put to an
open shame “by this “falling away;” and, in Hebrews 10, he is said to be “trodden
under foot,” and “the blood of the covenant is said to be profaned.” All these
are sins committed, not against the law, but against the gospel of Christ.
From
these observations, it is evident, that those persons who assert that this sin
is committed against the acknowledged truth concerning God, and concerning His
will and works, have not taught concerning it with sufficient distinctness;
they ought to have subjoined “against the truth of the gospel.” But the
commands of the gospel are two -- that of faith in Christ, and that of
conversion to God. Concerning faith it is manifest. About conversion let us now
inquire; for as aversion from God is produced by sin, the law accuses him who
is thus averse or turned aside, and condemns him to cursing, without any hopes
of pardon; but the gospel requires conversion and promises pardon. Therefore,
conversion to God is an evangelical command, and not legal. But impenitence is
opposed to conversion to God; and this, when final, condemns a man through the
peremptory decree of God, that is, through that which is evangelical. This
final impenitence, however, cannot be called “the sin against the Holy Ghost,”
which is the subject on which we are now treating. For (1.) final impenitence
is common to all those who are to be condemned; while the sin against the Holy
Ghost attaches to certain persons, or, rather, to very few. (2.) Final
impenitence is not committed except at the closing period of life; but this sin
is perpetrated while he is still running the space of life. This is apparent
from 1 John 5:16: “There is a sin unto
death; I do not say that he shall pray for it.” (3.) Concerning him who commits
the sin unto death it is said that “it is impossible for him to be renewed
again to repentance;” but this would be a useless expression respecting one who
was finally impenitent; for it is well known that all hopes of pardon are
terminated by the short course of the present life. (4.) Respecting the sin
against the Holy Ghost, it is affirmed that “it shall not be forgiven, neither
in this world nor in that which is to come;” that is, it shall never be
forgiven. But it is unnecessary to make such an affirmation concerning final
impenitence.
This
sin, therefore, is a transgression of the precept which commands faith in Jesus
Christ. But as the doctrine concerning faith in Jesus Christ is not only
entire, but likewise consists of certain parts; from this may be assumed a
difference in the transgression, that one is universal, the other special. The
universal is that by which Christ is simply rejected and refused, and which may
receive the general appellation of “infidelity” or “unbelief.” The special is
that by which Christ is not universally rejected, but is merely not accepted as
he has been manifested in his word; and this is called “a heresy,” that term
being employed concerning those who, after having professed faith in Christ, do
not preserve his doctrines entire and unsullied, but corrupt them. But the sin
about which we are treating does not lie in this special transgression. It
belongs, therefore, to the universal transgression of this precept concerning
faith in Christ; and it is infidelity or unbelief. It is not all unbelief, of
which there are various kinds. (1.) The infidelity of those who have heard
nothing respecting Christ; but such persons do not commit the sin against the
Holy Ghost. (2.) That of those persons who have indeed heard of Christ, but
have not understood; (Matt. 13:19; ) neither does the sin against the Holy
Ghost attach to these men. (3.) The unbelief of those who have understood, but
who have not been certainly persuaded and convinced in their consciences respecting
the truth of the things understood; but these persons are not guilty of the sin
against the Holy Ghost. (4.) That of those men who, being convinced in their
consciences that Jesus is the Christ, by their infidelity still reject him;
and, according to my judgment, to this class of persons belongs the sin against
the Holy Ghost, about which we are now treating.
Therefore,
the genus or kind is a repulsion and rejection of Christ in opposition to
conscience. It is not a mere abnegation or disowning; for that is the part of
him who has previously made a profession. It is not an opposition or attack; for
that belongs to further progress, [in the sin], as we shall, afterwards
perceive. But it is worthy of observation, that in reality it is one and the
same thing, whether it be called “a refusal of Christ,” or “a rejection of the
truth concerning Christ,” provided a universal rejection be understood, and not
a particular rejection in one doctrine or more.
2.
Let us now come to the object. The object of this sin is said to be a person
against whom the offense is committed, whether that person be God, or the
offending mortal himself, or his neighbour. But we must take into our
consideration not only the object, but also its mode, which the schoolmen denominate
“the formal reason.” This mode, when added to the object, causes the latter to
be proper, adequate, and peculiar or suitable. A surface is an object of sight,
but it is one which is coloured. An offense is committed against God by
ingratitude, but it is against him as having merited better returns from us. We
also sin against God by disobedience and contempt, as against him commanding, forbidding,
promising, threatening, chastising, correcting, &c. Apostasy is committed
against God, but it is against him when acknowledged as God, and to whose Deity
and name he who falls away had devoted himself by oath. But, in this place, the
object of the sin about which we are treating is Jesus Christ, and he
immediately. This is the reason why I add the word “immediately,” because he
who rejects the Son, rejects also the Father. The mode of formal reason has
been manifested and proved, [to the man who commits this sin,] nay, it has been
known to be the Messiah and Redeemer of the world. This is evident from Hebrews
6:6, in which those who thus “fall away” are said to “crucify to themselves the
Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame.” It is also evident from
Hebrews 10:29, in which such persons are said to “tread under foot the Son of
God, and to count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing.” This is still
more apparent from the words of the Pharisees, who said, “He casts out devils
by Beelzebub, the prince of devils,” which are thus related by St. Mark: “For
they said, he has an impure spirit,” whether by these words they committed this
sin, or not; for they contain the occasion on which Christ began to speak about
the sin against the Holy Ghost. But because this mode agrees with the object
through some gracious act, which proceeds principally and immediately from the
Holy Spirit or the Spirit of grace; on this account this sin is called “the sin
against the Holy Ghost” or against “the Spirit of grace;” because the offense
is committed against that act of the Holy Spirit, either by despising the act,
or by treating him also with ignominy. But that act of the Spirit is the act of
testifying concerning Christ and the coming of his kingdom; an act not only
sufficient to prove that Jesus is the Christ; but also efficacious, and
assuredly convincing the mind and conscience of him to whom the testifying is
communicated concerning Christ; the operation and complete effect of which, in
the mind of man, are an assured knowledge and persuasion of this truth, that “Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God.” But of this sin the Holy Spirit is not the
object; for it is not directed against his person. This is apparent from the
end of the testifying and the object; for the end of this testifying is Christ.
But the object of this sin committed against the testifying, and the object of
the testifying itself, are one and the same. And the end of the testifying is,
not that the Holy Spirit, but that Jesus, be acknowledged and accepted for the
Son of God and for the Anointed of the Lord. This is declared by Christ in the following
words: “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God
come unto you.” It also conduces to the same purpose that, not the Spirit out
of Christ, but Christ himself in and through the Spirit, performed the miracles.
From this, it appears, that the performing of miracles serves to prove the
truth of the preaching of Christ concerning himself.
From
these remarks, I think, we may easily solve the difficulty which lies in the
words of Christ, who distinguishes this “sin against the Holy Ghost” from “the
sin against the Son of Man,” and who declares that the former is irremissible
or unpardonable, but that the latter is capable of forgiveness. For the sin
against the Son of Man, without this testifying of the Spirit, is remitted to
many men; and it appears from the whole of this discussion, that regard is not
had so much to the person against whom the sin is committed, as to the act of testifying
proceeding from the Holy Spirit, against whom the sin is perpetrated. With respect
to the act, therefore, it is said to be perpetrated against the Holy Ghost, not
against the Son of Man, but, with respect to the object, against the Son of
Man, but who is known from the act of testifying. Since, then, regard is had rather
to the act than to the object, in this respect this sin is called by Christ “the
sin against the Holy Ghost,” and is distinguished from the sin which is
committed against Christ without any consideration of this mode and formal reason.
I know there are among the fathers those who understand the appellation, “Son
of Man,” through a reduplication or reflection, to signify Jesus as he is the Son
of Man, and the epithet, “Son of God,” to signify Jesus as he is the Son of
God. They also consider, that, when a sin committed against Jesus as he is the
Son of Man, the offense is another and a less one than when he is sinned
against as the Son of God. But such a consideration has no place here; for the testifying
of the Holy Spirit conduces to this end -- that the person who is sometimes
denominated the Son of Man and sometimes the Son of God, be received as the
true and only Messiah. Yet if any man be desirous of referring this consideration
of some of the ancient fathers to the point under discussion, he will be able
to say that a sin is committed against the Son of Man when Jesus is not
recognized as the Son of God, but that a sin is committed against the Son of
God, when it has been already proved, by undoubted testimonies, that he is the
Son of God. The expressions in the Evangelist “Whosoever speaks a word against
the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him,” serve to favour this consideration,
as do also those in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “crucifying to themselves the
Son of God,” and they who have “trodden under foot the Son of God,” that is,
Jesus, whom, through “the enlightening” of the Holy Spirit, they had previously
accounted as “the Son of God.” For it is manifest from the Scriptures that it
was necessary to believe this attribute concerning Jesus of Nazareth, that he
was the Christ, the Son of God, the saviour and Redeemer of the world, &c.;
and as the object and the acts occupied about it have a mutual relation so that
from an adequate object we can determine concerning the act, and from an act we
can form a conclusion respecting the adequate object, it appears possible for
us to conclude, from the acts which the apostle enumerates in Hebrews 6, and
10, that those persons who had thus sinned against Jesus, not only acknowledged
him as the Son of God, but also sinned against him as against the Son of God
whom they had so acknowledged. For, no one is said to “crucify the Son of God
afresh,” and to “tread him under foot,” except that man who acknowledges him as
the Son of God, and who sins against him under that consideration. For instance,
the American Indians cannot be said to have “trodden under foot the gospel of
Christ,” when they trampled under their feet, and threw into the fire, the
small volume of the four gospels, which was shown to them by the Spaniards,
who, in a boasting manner, represented it to them as the true gospel.
3.
Let us now proceed to the description of the persons who commit this sin, that
is, such as they are defined to us according to the Scriptures. But, generally,
they are those who, through the testifying of the Holy Spirit in their minds
and consciences, are convinced of this truth -- that Jesus, the son of Mary, is
Christ the Sod of God. Yet these persons may differ among themselves, and in
reality do differ; for, after having been convinced of this truth, they either
immediately reject Christ, never tendering him their names to be enrolled among
his followers; or, having for a season embraced and professed Christ, they
decline from him and fall away. Of the first of these two classes were the Pharisees,
if, at the time when they said that” Christ cast out devils through Beelzebub,”
they were convinced in their consciences that such ejectment of the devils was
truly the work of the Holy Spirit, as Christ had laid down his argument, “If I
by the Spirit of God cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out?” Of
the second class, are those of whom mention is made in Hebrews 6 and 10. For
they who embrace Christ even with a temporary faith, do this through the
illumination of the Holy Spirit; because “no man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, except by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor. 12:3.)
To these persons has been granted some “taste of the heavenly gift, of
the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come;” for the testifying
of the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God, when impressed with
a full persuasion on the mind, can be followed by no other effect than the
excitement of joy and gladness in the heart of him who professes Christ, as
Christ himself declares, in Matthew 13:20, “But he that received the seed into
stony places, the same is he that hears the word, and anon with joy receives
it,” and as he also declares, in John 5:35, concerning those who “were willing
for a season to rejoice in the light of John the Baptist.” But on this subject
consult Calvin’s Institutes. (Lib. 3, cap. 2, sec. 11.) With regard to what is
added in Heb. 6:5, that the same persons “were made partakers of the Holy
Ghost,” this may be understood to relate to those extraordinary gifts of the
Holy Spirit which at that period flourished in the church. This is likewise
declared in Heb. 2:4: “God likewise bare
them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts
of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.”
In these persons, that abnegation or renouncing of Christ occurs which,
in Hebrews 6, is denominated “a falling away,” that is, from the truth which they
have acknowledged, and from the confession of the name of Christ which they
have made. About this renunciation of himself, Christ treats in a general
manner in Luke 12:9, subjoining to that passage a special mode in the
particular deed which we are now discussing, and says, “Whosoever shall speak a
word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but unto him that blasphemes
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.” To this genus of
renunciation belongs the deed of Peter; but it is distinct, and differs greatly
from this species, as will be very apparent in the next member that comes under
our consideration. Therefore, the sin against the Holy Ghost is distinguished
according to the mode of efficient causes, of which we have already adduced a distinction.
4.
It follows that we now institute an inquiry into the cause of this sin. The
cause of all sin is commonly represented to be either ignorance, weakness, or
malice. Ignorance, not negative, but privative of the knowledge which ought to
be within, and, therefore, ignorance of the law. Weakness, too infirm to resist
vehement passion and temptation, and the seductions which impel men to sin.
Malice, by which any one knowingly and willingly, being enticed indeed by some temptation,
but which can be easily resisted by the will, and which the will is able
readily to overcome, is induced to sin. Though ignorance and infirmity are not
directly and immediately the causes of sin, yet they are causes through the
mode of prohibiting absence -- ignorance, through the mode of the absence of
right knowledge and reason, which might be able to hinder from sin by
instructing the will -- infirmity, through the mode of the absence of strength
and capability, which might hinder from sin by confirming and invigorating the
will. If, therefore, we be desirous accurately to examine this matter, the will
is the proper, adequate and immediate cause of sin, and has two motives and incentives
to commit sin, the one internal, the other external. The internal, which lies
in man himself, is the love of himself and a concupiscence or lusting after
temporal things, or of the blessings which are visible. The external motive is
an object moving the appetite or desire; such objects are honours, riches,
pleasures, life, health and soundness, friends, country, and similar things,
the contraries to which the man hates and execrates, and is afraid of them, if
he imagine them to be impending over him. But these motives do not move the
will so efficaciously that the will is necessarily moved; for, in this case,
the will would be excusable from sin; but they move the will through the mode
of suasion and enticement. But now, when, through love of himself and the
desire of some apparent good, (in which is included an avoiding or hatred of an
apparent evil,) man is solicited or enticed to some act, which is indeed forbidden,
but which he does not know to be sinful, then the will, following the appetite
and erroneous reason, is said to sin through ignorance. But when, through the
same motives, he is tempted to an act which he knows to be sin, then the will, following
the appetite, sins indeed knowingly; but whether such sin is committed through
infirmity or through malice, ought to be decided chiefly from the necessity of
that good which the man is pursuing, and from the deep heinousness of the evil
which he avoids. On this point, a judgment must also be formed from the
vehemence of the appetite or passion, as well as from the inclination towards
the person who seems desirous to hinder the completion or fulfilling of the desire,
(a circumstance which does not on every occasion occur, but which for a certain
reason I thought must be added in this place,) where a discrimination of the
mode by which he endeavours to hinder, comes under consideration, whether it be
good, lawful, and commanded, or whether it be evil, unlawful and
forbidden.
Let
us now apply these remarks to our purpose. Paul persecuted the church of
Christ, but he did it ignorantly, being inflamed with too great a zeal and
desire for the law, as many of the Jews also crucified Christ, being ignorant that
he was the Lord of glory; otherwise they would have refrained from such a
nefarious crime. By those men, therefore, the sin about which we are treating
was not committed. Peter denied Christ his Lord, whom he knew to be the true
Messiah and the Anointed of the Lord, and his knowledge of this was obtained
through an immediate revelation from the Father; but his conduct proceeded from
a desire of life and a fear of death -- feelings which may attack even the
bravest of mankind. he did it, therefore, through infirmity. Through fear of
banishment, prescription, condemnation to the mines or to perpetual
imprisonment, some persons have shrunk back from a confession of the name of Christ;
and they must be considered as having thus sinned through infirmity. In order
to recover the dignity of the sword, the official girdle, &c., which the
emperor had threatened to take away from them unless they abjured Christ, some
of the early Christians retained all their honours at the expense of denying
Christ; yet still even these must be said to have sinned through infirmity.
Some individual, having been vehemently tormented, afflicted, injured and stripped
of his goods by a Christian prince, or by Christian people, breaks forth into
passionate expressions of blasphemy against God and Christ; yet he must be
considered as having acted thus through anger and dreadful commotion of spirit.
But if the persons in the preceding instances were to add, to this their sin,
hatred against Christ Himself and his doctrine, according to my judgment they
would not be far from committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. To express and
conclude the whole in one word, I affirm that this sin against the Holy Ghost
is properly committed through malice. I understand, here, malice of two kinds:
The one, by which no resistance is offered to concupiscence or desire, when
that can easily be done, without much inconvenience; the other, by which Christ
himself is hated, either because he endeavours, by his precepts, to hinder the
completion or fulfillment of the unlawful desire; or because the enjoyment of
such illicit desire is not permitted, on account of his cause and name. Both
kinds of this malice were in those Jews with whom Christ had the transaction
which is mentioned in Matthew 12. But they do not seem then to have been fully
convinced in their consciences, that Jesus was the Christ and the promised Messiah.
Let us add, therefore, to the other parts of the definition of this sin, that
it is committed through malice and hatred against Christ, or through hatred of
Christ and of the truth concerning him. This hatred I think is included in the
words employed by the apostle in Hebrews 6 & 10; for such persons are there
said “to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open
shame, to tread under foot the Son of God, to count the blood of the covenant
an unholy thing, and to do despite unto the Spirit of grace.” I suppose, by
these words, are signified, not the results which happen to those who, beyond
expectation, fall away or decline from Christ through their sin; but the acts
which, of themselves, and by their own nature are allied to their sin, and
which have an affinity with, and are consequences from, the same sin, not
without the fixed purpose of those by whom it is committed.
5.
To this cause, we will commodiously subjoin an end; for they correspond, for
the most part, between themselves, and in a certain respect agree with each
other. The end, therefore, is twofold. The one is the obtaining and the enjoyment
of an apparent good which has been desired; the other is the completion of
hatred, and the rejection of Christ and of his acknowledged truth, which Calvin
has enunciated in these words:” -- for this purpose, that they may resist.” By
this very circumstance, is signified the malice of the man who thus sins,
which, not content with obtaining the apparent good through the act of sin, is delighted
even with the very act of sin as with its end or intention. This is a certain
sign, that the will of this man has not been impelled by inclination or passion
to perpetrate this crime, but that it has freely followed the inclination, and
has added of its own this other thing -- hatred against Christ, from which,
this hatred may be said to be entirely voluntary, and, therefore, arising from
malice. For as appetite or desire is attributed to the concupiscible faculty,
infirmity to the irascible, and ignorance to the reason or mind, so is malice
attributed to the will.
But
from these things, considered in this manner, it seems the sin against the Holy
Ghost may be thus defined: “The sin against the Holy Ghost is the rejection and
refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ, who,
through the testifying of the Holy Spirit, has been assuredly acknowledged for
the Son of God, (or, which is the same thing, the rejection and refusing of the
acknowledged universal truth of the gospel,) against conscience and committed
for this purpose -- that the sinner may fulfill and gratify his desire of the
apparent good which is by no means necessary, and may reject Christ.”
6.
Let us subjoin these observations concerning the devotees of this sin. The
following degrees of this sin, it seems to me possible to lay down in a
commodious manner: The First is the rejection and refusal of Christ
acknowledged, or of the acknowledged truth of the gospel. This degree is
universal and primary; and it holds good under every circumstance, whether he
who rejects and refuses Christ have for a season professed himself to be a
disciple of Christ, or not -- a point which we have already discussed under the
third head. The second degree is blasphemy against Christ the Son of God, and
against the acknowledged truth of the gospel. The third is the assaulting and
persecution of Christ, either in his own person or in those of his members, or
the extirpation of the truth acknowledged. A fourth degree may be added, from the
difference between the object, and the act by which that object is demonstrated
and manifested; and this is blasphemy against the Spirit himself, or against
the act of the Holy Spirit. For. he who calls Christ “a wine bibber,” “a friend
of publicans and sinners,” “a seducer and false prophet,” while he owns him to
be the Son of God, sins in a different manner From him who says, that those
miraculous operations of the Holy Spirit were performed by Beelzebub and were diabolical.
7.
We have now arrived at the seventh division, which relates to the adjunct or
attribute peculiar to this sin, that is, its being irremissible or
unpardonable, and the cause why it is thus incapable of being forgiven. This
sin is called “the sin unto death,” not in the sense in which all sins merit death
eternal, and that are, notwithstanding, remitted to many persons, as they have
believed in Christ and are converted to God, but because no one who has
committed this sin against the Holy Ghost, or who shall hereafter commit it, has
at any time had the felicity, nor will he have it, of escaping death eternal.
It is called “irremissible,” not in the same manner as that in which unbelief
and final impenitence are unpardonable, through this decree of God: “He that
believeth not on the Son of God, is condemned,” and “Unless you repent and be
converted, you shall all likewise perish,” &c. For these are conditions,
without which sin is forgiven to no man. But it is called “unpardonable” in
this sense, that, when it has once been perpetrated, the sinner never obtains
remission from God, and never can obtain it, through the definitive and
peremptory statute and decree of God, even though the offender should live many
ages afterwards. But the proximate and immediate cause why this sin is
unpardonable, seems to me to be comprehended in these words of the apostle in
the epistle to the Hebrews: “It is impossible for those who shall thus fall
away, to be renewed again unto repentance.” The efficacy of this cause proceeds
from the perpetual and immutable decree of God concerning the nonforgiveness of
sins without repentance. But the mind cannot rest here; for it is further
asked, “Why is it impossible for those who thus sin to be renewed again unto repentance?”
The solution of this question, as it seems to me, must be taken partly from the
causes of this “renewing again unto repentance,” and partly from the
heinousness of this sin, as described by the apostle in Hebrews 6 and 10. From
a collation of these passages, it will be manifest why those who thus sin “cannot
be renewed again to repentance.”
(1.)
Let us treat on the causes of this renewing again. Renewing again to repentance
seems to proceed from the mercy or grace of God in Christ, on account of the
intercession of Christ, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit
of grace. But this mercy of God, intercession of Christ, and operation of the
Holy Spirit, are not infinite, that is, they do not operate according to the
infinite omnipotence of God and Christ, and of his Spirit; but they are
circumscribed by a certain mode of the equity and will of God, of Christ, and
of the Spirit of God. This is apparent from particular passages of Scripture.
Concerning the mercy of God, “God has mercy on whom he will have mercy; and
whom he will, he hardens.” Concerning the intercession of Christ, “I pray not
for the world.” Concerning the operation of the Holy Spirit, “whom the world
cannot receive.”
(2.)
Let us now consider the heinousness of this sin from the description of this
apostle, who says, Those who thus sin, “crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame; they tread under foot the Son of God,
count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and do despite unto the Spirit
of grace.” But I account these acts to be so black and diabolical, that we must
affirm, the mercy of God in Christ is circumscribed by no bounds whatsoever,
the intercession of Christ is concluded within no space, and the Spirit of
grace can be hindered by no malice, if God does not deny his mercy to such
persons, if Christ intercedes for them, and if the Spirit of Grace is not
deterred from them so as not to exert upon them his gracious efficacy. Take
into consideration the difference of the sin which is committed against the law
of God, and that against the gospel and the grace of God in Christ; and reflect
how much more heinous it is to reject the remedy of the disease than to fall
into the disease itself! To remove from his hearers their despair of pardon,
St. Peter says to them, after having been convicted of the sin which they had
committed against Christ, “Now, brethren, I know that through ignorance you did
it.” (Acts 3:17.) St. Paul says to the Corinthians, “For had they known it,
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor. 2:8.) He also says, concerning himself, “but I
obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” (1 Tim. 1:13.)
Christ, when hanging on the Cross, and as the Scriptures express it in Isaiah 53:12,
while making intercession for the transgressors, said, “Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34.) The Scriptures declare, respecting
the Holy Spirit, that he is capable not only of being grieved, (Ephes. 4:30,)
but likewise of being vexed, (Isa. 63:10,)
and of being quenched. (1 Thess. 5:19.) 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 justly and equitably denied their being renewed again
to repentance, unless we completely divest God of 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 6 and 10,
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 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 testifying 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 death,” which, if a brother commit, 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 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. 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 1:2, ) 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 judgment 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 necessary; 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 offense 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 damnation. All these
particulars [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 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. (l.) 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 inbeing 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 passage, (Matt. 12:31-32)
to sin, not against the Son of Man, against the Holy Spirit.
IV.
To these three questions might be added a FOURTH: “Can the mere thinking upon
the perpetration of this sin, and the serious deliberation about its
commission, come under the denomination of the sin itself, and receive such an appellation,
in the same way as he is called a murderer who is angry with his brother, and
as that man is said to have committed adultery in his heart who has looked upon
the wife of his neighbour to lust after her?”
I
reply, that this does not seem to me to be the sin itself; for, as long as this
deliberation continues, so long flourishes in that man the efficacy of the Holy
Spirit employed to hinder that sin, until he finally and absolutely concludes
about the commission of this sin, having spurned and rejected the resistance
offered by the Holy Spirit. Such a conclusion is followed by the sin in that
very moment, with regard to the refusing and rejection of Christ, not with regard
to the other devotees enumerated, which the man produces at his own
opportunities, even if his malice and hatred of Christ did not cease to impel
him to the completion of those degrees.
Amsterdam
March 3, 1599.
