with a malicious intent. To blaspheme God, therefore, does not consist merely in speaking evil of him, in clothing him with unworthy attributes, or in ascribing to him unworthy actions; but in doing this knowingly and maliciously. Hence there can be no blasphemy, by which I mean the sin of blasphemy properly so called, where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. The term blasphemy, as I have said, comprehends in its primary and largest sense every kind of evil speaking either against God or man. Custom, however, the sovereign arbiter in such cases, has restricted the application of this term, at the present day, to evil speaking against God. We do not say of a man, that he blasphemes his neighbor, but that he slanders or calumniates his neighbor. But what I wish particularly to impress upon the reader in this connexion is, that evil speaking even against God himself does not amount to what is understood in scripture by the sin of blasphemy, unless a man is guilty of it knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously.

Let us inquire, in the second place, what is meant by blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, as it ought to be rendered. Holy Spirit is used in different senses by the sacred writers. Sometimes it stands for God himself; sometimes for divine influences in general; sometimes for the power by which our Saviour and the first Christians wrought miracles; sometimes for the temper and disposition which the gospel is adapted to produce in believers. According to the best commentators it stands in the text for the power of

God manifested in the miracles of his messengers and prophets, and especially of his Son. Our Lord had just been exerting this power in curing a maniac, and the Pharisees had reviled it as being, not a divine, but a demoniacal power. This conduct on the part of the Pharisees our Lord rebukes with unexampled severity, on the ground that it amounted to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, therefore, as the phrase is used in the text, consists in maliciously and impiously reviling the visible manifestations of divine power.

We are next to inquire what is meant, when it is said, that this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. It is not consonant with our general apprehensions of the Deity, nor with the representations given of him in the New Testament, to suppose that the penitent in any case are excluded from the hope of pardon. Probably, therefore, the strong language in the text is to be regarded as a Hebrew form of expressing a comparison, of which several examples occur in scripture. The prophet Hosea represents God as saying, For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.' Now as this was said under the Jewish dispensation, it could not mean, of course, that sacrifices were not enjoined by God; but only that they were of less value in his sight, than mercy. Again, Matthew says, ' Till heaven and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all be fulfilled.' This positive affirmation Luke explains, precisely as I have proposed to explain the text, by throwing it into the form of a comparison. 'It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.”

Besides, we know that the language of our Saviour and the Apostles, especially when, as in the text, they spoke under great excitement, must not be pressed to the full extent of its meaning. A striking instance of this occurs in the unqualified assertion of Jesus himself: Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.' Now we know that soon afterwards, directly in the face of this threat, Peter denied Jesus before men three times, with oaths and curses; and yet on repentance he was not only forgiven, but continued in his apostleship. Once more, our Saviour affirms unreservedly, that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.' This language, I suppose, is never pressed to the full extent of its meaning; but every body, on the contrary, regards it as intimating merely the extreme difficulty, which was, particularly at the first promulgation of the gospel, in the way of a rich man's conversion. I hold that a similar construction should be put on the text, and then it will signify, that a contumacious reviling of visible manifestations of divine power, like that of which the Pharisees had just been guilty, was a sin of peculiar and manifold aggravations. All other sins might be repented of and pardoned; but this was one at the same time of so deep a die, and so inveterate a character, as to make it in the highest degree improbable, that those who were guilty of it, would ever repent and reform; and if they did not repent and reform, they would not, of course, be forgiven.

But what is meant, I may still be asked, by the em

phatic words, neither in this world, neither in the world to come ;' or as it ought to have been translated, 'neither in this age, nor in that which is come?? We must not think to explain the language of scripture by comparing it with similar phraseology occuring in modern books, and with the common modes of thinking and speaking at the present day. To understand difficult passages in the Bible, we must compare scripture with scripture, and with what are known to have been Jewish modes of thinking and speaking, at the time when the passages in question were penned. Now we learn from the scriptures, as well as from other sources, that the Jews, in the time of our Saviour, were accustomed to speak of the Mosaic dispensation, under which they were then living, as the present world, or more properly, the present age; and of the dispensation of the Messiah, which they were expecting, as the world to come, or more properly, the age to come. An example of this mode of expression occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where Christ is said to have been raised far above all principality and power, and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, (or age,) but also in that which is to come; that is, as many of the best commentators say, 'not only in the Jewish age, or under the dispensation of Moses, but also in the Christian age, or under the dispensation of the Messiah. Again, we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews of those who have tasted the good word of God, and the power of the world, (or age) to come; where, by the powers of the world, or age, to come, many of the best commentators understand the miracles wrought, and the other influences exerted in introducing the age of the Mes

siah, or the Christian age. Interpreting the language. of the New Testament, therefore, by Jewish and not by modern modes of thinking and speaking, we may pronounce it, to say the least, highly probable, that our Lord intended that the construction, which has just been explained, should be put on the clause under consideration. According to this construction he warned the Pharisees, that in maliciously and impiously reviling the visible manifestations of the divine power, they had committed an offence which had no promise of mercy under the Jewish dispensation, nor even under the milder and more benignant reign of Christianity.

It only remains for me briefly to explain why the peculiar form of blasphemy, of which the Pharisees were guilty, was of so unpardonable a nature. We are not to suppose for one moment, that the sincerely penitent, no matter what may have been their crimes, will be refused forgiveness. But there are some crimes which exclude all prospect of repentance, and the crime which the Pharisees had committed was undoubtedly one of this description. A succession of the most stupendous miracles had been wrought before their eyes. The winds had been stilled in their utmost fury; diseases of the most malignant and inveterate character had been healed by a word; the dead and buried had come back to life. All this had been done to induce the bigoted and scoffing Pharisee to lay aside his prejudices, and repent; but all this had failed. Was it harsh or precipitate, therefore, to say of their moral condition that it was hopeless? Suppose a parent to have exhausted every expedient his inge