3. Modern expositions of this sin. Some of these reproduce or nearly so the interpretations of the ancients. They may in the main be divided into three classes. The first class consists of those who, like Hammond, Tillotson, Wetstein, understand the sin in question to be the diabolical calumny of the Pharisees, in ascribing to the power of Satan the miracles which the Saviour by the Spirit given him without measure performed. Here was evidently the mighty power of God, but these men, maliciously, wantonly, and wickedly, as also presumptuously and blasphemously, pronounced the miracle just wrought before their eyes and in their presence to be an effect produced by the evil one. The connection instituted between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses of this third chapter of St. Mark by the word ὅτι, corresponding to the parallel διὰ τοῦτο of St. Matthew, and the imperfect ἔλεγον, equivalent to" they kept saying," are both in favor of this interpretation. Under this first class are several modifications, such as that which proceeds on the supposed distinction between "Son of man" and "Son of God," as though he said that whosoever spake a word against Jesus as the Son of man, having his divinity shrouded and veiled in his humanity, might obtain forgiveness; but blasphemy against him as the Son of God, evidencing his divinity by miracles, could not obtain forgiveness. Another modification understands our Lord's warning the Pharisees that they were fast approaching an unpardonable sin by wickedly rejecting the Son of man as a Saviour; that one step further—one other blasphemy, that of the Spirit who, if not then, might hereafter reveal this, or a coming, Saviour unto them, would deprive them of the means and agent and so of the hope of salvation, and consequently of pardon. Yet another modification is that of Grotius, following in the steps of Chrysostom, to the effect that it is easier for any or all sins to obtain forgiveness than that this calumny should be pardoned; and that it will be severely punished both in the present and coming age. The second class, to which Whitby, Doddridge, and Macknight belong, holds that the Pharisees, by their conduct on this particular occasion or at the time then present, were not guilty of the sin referred to, and in fact that the sin against the Holy Ghost could not be committed while Christ still abode on earth, and before his ascension; because the Spirit was not yet given. They hold, therefore, that after our Lord's resurrection and ascension, when he would send down the Holy Ghost to attest his mission, and when his supernatural gifts and miraculous operations would furnish incontestable proofs of almighty power, any such calumny or blasphemy uttered against the Spirit then would be unpardonable. The reason was plain, because the Son of man, while he was clothed in human flesh, and his divinity shrouded from human sight, and while his work on earth was not yet finished, might be slandered by persons unwittingly, or, according to the Scripture phrase, "ignorantly in unbelief;" but once the Holy Spirit had come down, and shed the light of heaven over the events of the Saviour's life from the cradle to the cross, and had illumined with glory unspeakable the scenes of Gethsemane and Calvary and Olivet, making plain to every willing mind the momentous import of all those marvellous transactions, the blasphemy of the Spirit could not then be in ignorance or for lack of sufficient demonstration; but presumptuous against light and against knowledge, from sheer malevolence and unaccountable malignity. The Pharisees were preparing for this—they were approaching the brink of this fearful abyss, and our Lord warns them back before it was possible for them to take the fatal plunge, and involve themselves in ruin without remedy. A third class of interpreters generalizes the sin in question in much the same way as we have seen Augustine do, and resolves it into continued resistance and obstinate opposition to the grace of the gospel, impenitently and unbelievingly persisted in till the end. This is the view which Dr. Chalmers elabourates with great eloquence and power in his sermon on "Sin against the Holy Ghost." In that sermon we read as follows:—"A man may shut against himself all the avenues of reconciliation. There is nothing mysterious in the kind of sin by which the Holy Spirit is tempted to abandon him to that state in which there can be no forgiveness and no return unto God. It is by a movement of conscience within him, that the man is made sensible of sin, that he is visited with the desire of reformation, that he is given to feel his need both of mercy to pardon, and of grace to help him; in a word, that he is drawn unto the Saviour, and brought into that intimate alliance with him by faith which brings down upon him both acceptance with the Father and all the power of a new and constraining impulse to the way of obedience. But this movement is a suggestion of the Spirit of God, and, if it be resisted by any man, the Spirit is resisted. The God who offers to draw him unto Christ is resisted. The man refuses to believe because his deeds are evil; and by every day of perseverance in these deeds, the voice which tells him of their guilt and urges him to abandon them is resisted; and thus the Spirit ceases to suggest, and the Father, from whom the Spirit proceedeth, ceases to draw, and the inward voice ceases to remonstrate—and all this because their authority has been so often put forth and so often turned away. This is the deadly offense which has reared an impassable wall against the return of the obstinately impenitent. This is the blasphemy to which no forgiveness can be granted, because, in its very nature, the man who has come this length feels no movement of conscience towards that ground on which alone forgiveness can be awarded to him, and where it is never refused even to the very worst and most malignant of human iniquities. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost. It is not peculiar to any one age. It does not lie in any one unfathomable mystery. It may be seen at this day in thousands and thousands more, who, by that most familiar and most frequently exemplified of all habits, a habit of resistance to a sense of duty, have at length stifled it altogether, and driven their, inward monitor away from them, and have sunk into a profound moral lethargy, and so will never obtain forgiveness—not because forgiveness is ever refused to any who repent and believe the gospel, but because they have made their faith and their repentance impracticable The whole mysteriousness of this sin against the Holy Ghost is thus done away. Grant him the office with which he is invested in the Word of God, even the office of instigating the conscience to all its reprovals of sin, and to all its admonitions of repentance; and then, if ever you witnessed the case of a man whose conscience had fallen into a profound and irrecoverable sleep, or, at least, had lost to such a degree its power of control over him, that he stood out against every engine which was set up to bring him to the faith and repentance of the New Testament,—behold in such a man a stoner against conscience to such a woeful extent that conscience had given up its direction of him; or, in other words, a sinner against the Holy Ghost to such an extent that he had let down the office of warning him away from that ground of danger and of guilt on which he stood so immovably posted." There are some modifications of this view which it may be well to notice. One is that which makes the sin against the Holy Ghost to be resistance to conscience as the voice of God in the soul—the voice which the Holy Spirit employs in testifying to truth and goodness, and in reprobating sin and recommending the Saviour. Another modification is that which makes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to consist in the expression of malignant unbelief of, and wilful apostasy from, the truth of God, and that, because it is the Holy Ghost which illumines the understanding and applies the truth to the heart of believers.
4. Remarks on the foregoing theories. In our observations on the foregoing theories we do not deem it prudent dogmatically to determine which of them is the correct one. In a ease where such diversities of opinion have prevailed, even among the ablest scholars and the most eloquent theologians, it is better that every one should be persuaded in his own mind. We may, however, be permitted to state that view which has recommended itself most to our mind, and some grounds for the preference to which we think it entitled. The view held by the first class above mentioned appears to us on the whole the most tenable, for
5. Perilous approximations to this sin. That marry have been unduly exercised and harassed by fancied guiltiness of this sin, is certain; that some have despaired or become melancholy on this account, is credible; that many have been driven to insanity by it we can scarcely believe. To any who are troubled with anxious thoughts about the matter we may say that, according to the theories of the first and second classes, they could not have committed the same sin in kind—as they did not, like the Pharisees, see the miracles wrought by our Lord, nor did they witness the supernatural operations of the Spirit after his descent at Pentecost—whatever the degree of their sin may have been; while, with respect to the third, the sin being that of continued resistance, they have only to abandon their dogged opposition, the abandonment of which their very anxiety proves to have become already an accomplished fact. To all, of whatever class of opinion, who are apprehensive—earnestly apprehensive and afraid of having committed this sin—their very uneasiness on that score is proof of their guiltlessness of the fancied crime, for these very upbraidings of conscience prove incompatibility with commission of this sin. At the same time, there are approximations to this sin which we should most carefully guard against. A rejection of the truth of Scripture wilfully persisted in; or trifling with the operations of the Holy Spirit in the heart; or ridicule of religion and opposition to its ordinances in general; or hostility to Christianity in particular; or contempt, malevolence, and slander directed against God and the things of God, or against the Church and people of God; or mockery of sacred things; or blasphemous suggestions harboured and indulged in—each of these involves an awfulness of criminality and a fearfulness of guilt that betoken a considerable similarity or close approximation to the heinousness of the unpardonable sin. We do not affirm that any of these is actually that sin, but only such an approach to the verge of the precipice as is sufficient to startle men to a sense of danger, and drive them back before they venture a step further. Alford, who makes the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be a state of wilful, determined opposition to the present power of the Holy Ghost, in which state or at least approaching very near to which the act of the Pharisees proved them to be, compares, among other Scriptures, Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26, Hebrews 10:27. But the purport of the last-cited Scripture is that, in case the sacrifice of Christ is rejected, there is no other sacrifice available, all others having been done away, and consequently no other means of escape from the wrath of God; while the former passage refers to apostasy so aggravated as to render restoration impossible, because the persons guilty of it felt away in spite of the clearest possible evidence to the truth of the Christian faith. Another Scripture frequently compared with that before us is 1 John 5:16. The there mentioned as tending unto ( εἰς) death is regarded by some to be the act of denying Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, or the state of apostasy indicated by that act; others hold it to be apostasy from Christianity, combined with diabolical enmity, and that in the face of extraordinary evidence; but it appears to be a specific act of sin, of the commission of which the evidence is clear and convincing, distinct and precise—such an act of apostasy as blasphemes the Holy Ghost by ascribing his operations to Satanic power. This sin unto death is certainly the nearest approach to the unpardonable sin, if it be not, as many hold it to be, identical with it. Of the three different readings, κρίσεως, κολάσεως, and ἁμαρτήματος, the last is the best supported; while the expression "an eternal sin" signifies either a sin that is not pardoned or a sin of which the punishment is not remitted. The connection of the aphoristic expression which immediately follows in St. Matthew, viz. "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit," is briefly but correctly pointed out in the remark of Chrysostom, "Since they did not reprove the works, but calumniated him that did them, he shows that this accusation was contrary to the natural sequence of affairs."—J.J.G.