Several tracts, by the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton Coll. &c. Viz. I. Of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. II. Paraphrase on St. Matthew's Gospel. III. Of the power of the keys. IV. Of schism and schismaticks, (never before printed by the original copy.) V. Miscellanies

A TRACT concerning the SIN against the HOLY GHOST.

MAny have Writ∣ten of the Sin against the Ho∣ly Ghost, and in defining or des∣cribing of it, fol∣low their own zealous conceits, and not the Canon of Holy Scrip∣tures. The more dreadful the Sin is, the more fearful we must be, in charging it upon any spe∣cial crime, or particular person. In defining a sin of so heynous a nature, direct and evident proof

from Scripture is requisite. It is not enough to consider, (as many do) what sins are most desperate and deadly, and therefore to conclude such sins are against the Holy Ghost. Thus indeed the School∣men have done, who have made six differences of this sin, V. in fine. without any ground or warrant from Scripture for so do∣ing. And Bellarmine is so liberal in bestowing on such as he calls Hereticks, that his opinion is, that a Man can scarce be a learned Pro∣testant, without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. Neither are the Papists the only Men that are mistaken about this sin: but too many Divines of the Refor∣med Churches, have started aside from the Scripture, and have gi∣ven us such intricate and contra∣dictory

definitions of this sin, as tend only to the perplexing the tender Consciences of weak Chri∣stians. To make good this Cen∣sure, I will briefly set down so much touching this sin, as I con∣ceive is warranted by the Word of God, and humbly submit to the judgment of the Learned.

The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was an evil speak∣ing of, or slandering of the Mi∣racles which our Saviour did, by those, who though they were con∣vinced by the Miracles, to believe that such Works could not be done, but by the power of God, yet they did malitiously say, they were wrought by the power of the Devil.

In this Definition, these points are observable.

1. I forbear to call it the sin against the Holy Ghost, but the Blasphemy; for though every Blasphemy be a sin in general, yet our Saviour Christ, terms it the Blasphemy. And the Evan∣gelists do all agree, to give it the same term: and 'tis now here in ho∣ly Scripture called the sin against the Holy Ghost; and yet it appears both in St. Mathew and St. Mark, that there was just occasion offe∣red to our Saviour to call it so; where he compares it with the sin against the Son of Man; but he forbears to call it any thing, but the Blasphemy; thereby, no doubt, to teach us, it consisteth only in cursed speaking and Blas∣pheming. A serious conside∣ration of this point, may teach us so much moderation, as to

confine our selves to that term which our Saviour in the three Evangelists hath prescribed unto us. I cannot find that any Man that hath writ upon this Argu∣ment, hath made any observati∣on, or noted this phrase and term used by the Evangelists, in pro∣nouncing the dreadful sentence of our Saviour against the Blas∣phemy of the Holy Ghost, I will cite these Texts, where it is named, Math. 12. 31. Mark 3. 28▪ Luke▪ 12▪ 10.

2. A second Observation is, That Blasphemy is a speaking against another, as both St. Ma∣thew and St. Luke expound the word, for in the Original, it is a blasting the Fame, or blaming of another; for from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both the French

Nation and our English by con∣traction have made the word blame.

3. To pass from the Name to the Thing it self, we may observe by the coherence of the Texts, that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was spoken of by our Sa∣viour, concerning the Scribes and Pharisees. It was (saith St. Mark) because the Pharisees said, he had an unclean spirit, and that he cast our Devils by Belze∣bub, &c. This speech of the Pharisees, whereby they slande∣red his Miracles, wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, is properly the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. How transcen∣dent a crime it was, to traduce that power by which our Saviour wrought his Miracles, may ap∣pear,

from the end for which these Miracles were wrought; which was, to prove to the peo∣ple that saw them, that he was the Messias; which is evident from the places of Scripture, wherein he appealed to his works, 10 Joh. 37. 38. 14. Joh. 11. 11 Math. 4. 4. Joh. 29. These and other places shew, that the working of Miracles, was an act of the most glorious manifestation of the power of God, by which at the first view, the simplest peo∣ple were led by their outward sense, to the great mystery of inward Faith in Christ their Re∣deemer.

Therefore, for those men that were eye-witnesses of those Mi∣racles which did make them know that Christ was a Teacher come

from God, to Blaspheme that power, by which these Miracles were wrought, and to say they were done by the help of the De∣vil, was the most spightful and malicious slander that could be invented; for thereby they at∣tempted, as much as in them lay, to destroy the very principles of Faith, and to prevent the very first propagation of the Gospel, to the universal mischief of all Mankind. And though these Pharisees were no Christians, and therefore could not fall away from faith, which they never had, yet they did know and believe that Christ was a Teacher come from God; for so our Saviour tells them, 7 Joh. 28. Ye both know me, and whence I am. They did not believe him as a Saviour,

but as a great Prophet from God; (as the Mahometans do at this very day) they trusted to be saved by their Law, and because he taught such things as did abrogate their Law, in which they so much gloried, they were so malicious to his Doctrine, which they did not believe, that they spoke evil of his Miracles which they did believe; least the people by ap∣proving his Miracles, should be∣lieve his Doctrine.

4. Observe, that its said to be Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because, by the Holy Ghost, the Miracles were wrought Math. 12 28. 1 Cor 12. 10.

5. The Blasphemy against the Son of Man was, when men considered Christ as a mere man, and did disgracefully tax his con∣versation,

by saying, behold a glutton, a bibber of Wine, a friend to Publicans and sinners. But the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was, when Men be∣holding Christs Miracles, did enviously ascribe them to the De∣vil, which they knew and believed to be done by Gods power.

6. The Texts formerly cited out of the three Evangelists, being all the places wherein the Blas∣phemy against the Holy Ghost is named; we cannot find by them, that we have any safe rule to conclude, that any but the Scribes and Pharisees, and their confederates, committed that sin. I dare not say, that Judas, Julian the Apostate, or Simon Magus, or those that stoned Stephen, were guilty thereof.

7. The Apostles have not in any of their Epistles once men∣tioned this Blasphemy, and yet they were most careful and fre∣quent in exhortations from all sorts of sin: It were much there∣fore if they should omit or forget such a fearful crime, without of∣ten and precise admonishing to beware of it. And though ne∣gative proofs from Scripture, are not demonstrative, yet the ge∣neral silence of the Apostles, may at least help to infer a pro∣bability, that the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is not committable by any Christian, which lived not in the time of our Saviour. As for those Texts in the sixth and tenth Chapter to the Hebrews, and in 1 John 5. 16. (which by late Divines are▪

expounded of the sin against the Holy Ghost) I do not find that the Ancient Fathers did so un∣derstand them, excepting only St. Austine, who so interprets that one place in St. John, that all men confess him to be in an error. There be three Texts in the Epistles, wherein although the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost be not named, yet, most think, it is intended and meant. And Bellarmine confuting St. Austin's opinion, who held, that final impenitency was the sin against the Holy Ghost) affirms, that it seems the three Texts in the Epistles, are spoken of that sin; and yet this great Cardinal forgetting what he had said in the same Chapter contradicts him∣self, and shews how that those

three places are not to be inter∣preted of that sin. I will cite the Texts, and then his inter∣pretation of them, according to the exposition of St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Hierom, and other Fathers, as he saith.

The first is Heb. 6. It is im∣possible, &c. The Apostle here speaks only of Repentance, which did go before Baptisme, for so Chrysostome and Ambrose, &c. expound it; which the Apostle intimates in these words. Which were once enlightened, that is, Baptized, for anciently, to be illuminated, signified to be Baptized. Secondly, in these words (to renew again) for we are properly renewed in Bap∣tisme. Thirdly, in these (cruci∣fying the Son of God afresh) for

when we are Baptized, we are conformed to the likeness of his death, 6 Rom. And as Christ was only once crucified, so also we are only once Baptized; and he that will be again Baptized, should again crucifie to himself Ghrist. Let me add this, that in the verses next before this Text, the Apostle speaks of the founda∣tion of Repentance, and the Doctrine of Baptisme. And in this Text, our new Translation followeth Beza (who hath vari∣ed from the Original, by putting the conditional Si, If, instead of the Copulative Et, And, and by adding the Causal Ut.) so that whereas Beza and our Translati∣on is, si prolabantur ut crucifigant, The Greek, and vulgar Latine is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prolapsi

sunt crucifigentes; for the word doth not signify to fall away, but to fall casually or negligent∣ly, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Galat 6. is trans∣lated fault, but not falling away.

The second Text is, Hebrews 10. 26. For if we sin willingly or wilfully, after we have receiv∣ed the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Answer, I say with Chry∣sostom, Ambrose, and other Fa∣thers; The sence is, we must not expect another Christ to dye for us, or that he that dyed once, should come again to dye for us.

The third Text, 1 Joh 5. 16. There is a sin unto death: I do not say ye shall pray for it; St. Hierom saith, that nothing else is here meant, but that a Prayer for a sin unto death, is very hard∣ly

or difficultly heard; and this seems to be the truest sense of this place: for St. John saith, in the verse immediately before, we know we have the Petitions we desire of him; therefore least we should think this to hold true in all Petitions even for others▪ he adds▪ if any Man see his Bro∣ther sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, &c. he shall ask, that is, let him ask with con∣fidence, for he shall obtain; but if it be a sin unto death, that is, a great sin, such an one as is not ordinarily pardoned, but puni∣shed with death: I do not say, ye shall pray for it, that is I dare not promise that you shall easily obtain, and therefore I do not say that you shall pray for it, that is, with that confidence of obtain∣ing;

for often in such cases, God doth nothear the Prayers of his Saints; as God saith, Jer. 7. 16. If these expositions upon the former Texts be sound, the Definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, cannot be grounded upon all or any of them: for as it is not name∣ed, so it is not meant in any of them; but if they seem to any to be unsound, let him bring better and more agreeable to the literal meaning and sence, cohe∣rence and scope of the Text, and I shall gladly learn. It seems a probable exposition of the first place, Heb. 6. that a learned Di∣vine, who produceth this Text for proof of his definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, doth confess against himself, that the Apostle in this place denieth a se∣cond

Baptisme, where he speak∣eth of Repentance, because they are mentioned together in the same place, and have some affi∣nity and correspondence. As for the second Text, Heb. 10. I must say, that if St. Paul in this place, meant the sin against the Holy Ghost, that then this were the only desperate Text in the whole Bible, for what Man is there that sins not willingly; for so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly sig∣nifies: Beza translates it ultro, the vulgar Latine, voluntariè, or willingly, not wilfully, or ob∣stinately. It is but a miserable shift, when St. Paul saith, if we sin willingly, for Mr Calvin to tell us, that the Text doth not mean every willing sin, but only a ma∣litious resisting of the Truth.

Could not St. Paul, as easily as Mr Calvin, have said, If we sin malitiously, as say, if we sin willingly? My comfort is, that if the Text be advisedly consi∣dered, there is no such thing as the sin against the Holy Ghost, or any other desperate conclusi∣on, to be found in the Text; the scope of the precedent verses do evidently expound the Apostles meaning to be this, to let the Jews know, that the case was not now with them, as it was under the Law; for under the Law they had daily sacrifice for sin, but now under the Gospel they had but one sacrifice, once for all; every Priest standeth dai∣ly ministring and offering often times the same sacrifice, but this Man after he had offered one

sacrifice, for ever sate down at the right hand of God, as it is, verse 11. of that Chapter, which may serve for a comment upon the Verse now in question. And it is worth our noting, that the Text doth not say, if we sin wil∣fully, there is no sacrifice for sin; this had been an hard saying in∣deed; but the words are, there remains no more sacrifice for sin: there is some comfortable diffe∣rence, I hope, between these two propositions; there is no sacrifice, and there remains no more sacra∣fice for sin: So that if we do not believe in that one sacrifice, as sufficient, but look every day for some new sacrifice for every new sin, we must expect no∣thing but judgment.

As to the third place, 1 Ioh.

5. 16. many would conclude, there is a sin for which we may not pray; First, because it is ir∣remissable, and this they think must needs be the sin against the Holy Ghost, meant by St. Iohn, Their best argument is, Iohn's not saying we should pray, is a saying we should not pray; his silence to them is prohibition. This is bad Grammar, and worse Logick. For we find, that St. Stephen prayed for them that sto∣ned him, and yet told them they resisted the Holy Ghost. And St. Peter exhorted Simon Magus to Repentance, and yet both he and those that stoned Stephen, are commonly reputed sinners against the Holy Ghost. St. Am∣brose is of that charitable opinion, that he thinks the sin against the

Holy Ghost may be pardoned by Repentance, because the people of the Iews, that had said of Christ, that he cast out Devils by Belzebub, afterwards at the preach∣ing of St. Peter, are said to be converted, Acts 2. St. Austine in a Retract concludes, we must despair of no Man, no not of the wickedest, as long as he liveth; and we safely pray for him, of whom we don't despair. For though it be expresly said, That the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, yet these words may justly receive a qualification, if we will but al∣low the same mitigation of these words, which all Men confess we must needs allow to the precedent words in the same verse, to which these have relation; where

it is said generally, all Sins, and all Blasphemies shall be forgiven, it cannot be meant of all sins al∣ways, and to all Men, for then no sin could be damnable, but the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is most false; and there∣fore the meaning must be, all sins shall be forgiven ordinarily, and for the most part; so on the contrary, Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not ordinarily, but hardly be forgiven. Even those who are most strict to main∣tain the Sin against the Holy Ghost, to be unpardonable, will yet acknowledge, that some times in Scripture, Impossibility is used to note a difficulty, and those things are spoken indefinitely to all, which belong but to a part only. Thus the difficulty of a

rich Mans entering into the King∣dome of Heaven, is presented to us by our Saviour, under the similitude of an impossibility.

Having dispatch'd these Texts of Scripture which do either name, or are thought to con∣cern, the sin against the Holy Ghost, it remains to examine those common Definitions of this sin which are now current; though different in the terms by which they define it; some call it a total or final falling away from faith, or a wilful Apostacy, or a malicious resisting of the truth; yet when they come to explain their meaning, the dif∣ference among them is not consi∣derable. I shall chiefly apply my self to Mr Calvin's definition, because his judgment hath gain∣ed

the greatest reputation among the multitude; as also, for that he himself promises such a true defi∣nition, as shall easily, by it self overthrow all the rest. In his Institut. Lib. 3. Chap. 3. he saith, they sin against the Holy Ghost, Qui divinae veritati (cujus fulgore sic perstringuntur ut ignorantiam causari nequeunt) tamen destinata malitia resistunt, in hoc tantum, ut resistant. Arminius also useth Mr Calvins words. The Rhe∣torical Parenthesis, which might well have been spared in a defi∣nition, being reduced to plain and brief terms; this definition of Calvin may be thus Englished, They sin against the Holy Ghost, who of determined malice, resist the known Truth of God, to the end only to resist. In this

Mr Calvin doth not define what the sin is, but who they are that commit it; whereas by the Rules of Logick, Concretes admit of no definition, but only Abstracts. But taking the definition as it is, it consists principally upon these three terms. First, Truth; Secondly, Known; Thirdly, Re∣sisted; or a resisting of the known Truth. The words being gene∣ral and doubtful, we will consi∣der them singly.

First, If by the truth Mr Cal∣vin understands the Word of God, or the whole Doctrine re∣vealed in the Scriptures, then the sense of this Term will be too large: for even the Pharisees which spoke against the Holy Ghost, did not resist the whole Truth of God in the Scripture,

for they believed in the Law of Moses, and had confidence to be saved by the keeping of it. And in defence of that Law, (as they thought) they did Blaspheme the Holy Ghost. Therefore pro∣perly by the Truth of God, Mr Calvin must confine his meaning to the Truth of the Gospel or Doctrine of Faith, for so both he himself and others expound themselves, by terming the sin against the Holy Ghost, a falling away, or turning away from Faith, or Apostacy.

Secondly, By this word Known, Mr Calvin must mean belief, for Faith is properly by believing, not knowing the truth.

Thirdly, The Word, Resist∣ing, must mean unbelieving: for if receiving of the Truth be by

belief, then Resisting of the Truth must be•••• unbelief. And indeed Mr. Calvin explains him∣self in the same Chapter, say∣ing, there is no place for pardon where knowledge is joyned with unbelief, Non esse veniae locum, &c. So then by this definition, to resist the known Truth, is all one, as if Mr Calvin had said in proper terms, for a Man at once to unbelieve that which he doth believe; which two things it is impossible to do together? and if they be not together, there can be no resistance. It is true, that for some reasons, a Man may be brought, not to believe that which he formerly believed. This cannotbe in an instant, but successively unbelief comes in the place of belief. And this

may not be called a resisting, for that all resistance consists in a violence between two at the least; but where two succeed one another, and are never to∣gether, it cannot possibly be. I confess a Man may resist the Truth, when it is a Truth, in it self only, or in the understanding of some other; but to resist the Truth which is known, and believed by the re∣sister himself, is a direct contra∣diction; for the nature of Truth is such, that if the understand∣ing apprehend it for Truth, it cannot but assent unto it. No Man can force himself to believe what he lists, or when he lists. Sometimes a Man knows not what to believe, but finds a sus∣pension of his Faith, or trepida∣tion

of his understanding, not knowing which way to turn. This cannot be called a resisting of the Truth, when the Truth is not known, but doubted of. Again, some Truths there be, though they be assented to by the understanding for Truths, yet they are not desired as good; for truth is one degree nearer the Soul of Man than goodness. The Pharisees did apprehend the Mi∣racles of our Saviour as true, but not as good; because they ten∣ded to the derogation of their Law, which they esteemed a bet∣ter Truth. And for this cause, they Blasphemed that Truth, which in their hearts they belie∣ved for Truth. For the truth of words, or speech, is, (as the Schools say) nothing else but the

sign of truth, not truth it self; for truth it self is seated in the understanding, and not in the speech. That Truth which the understanding assents to, the speech may affirm to be false; there are many things believed in deed, which are denied in word: but such a denial is not resisting, but only making shew of resisting, the Truth; for re∣sistance must be in the same place where Truth is; Truth being seated in the understanding, re∣sistance must be placed there al∣so; the understanding can resist no Truth, but by unbelieving of it. If Mr Calvin had intended of the Truth only in word, he had come one step nearer to the Truth of Scripture, but he was not so happy in the expression of

his meaning: nay his terms of Incredulity, Apostacy, falling away, &c. relate to a real, not verbal, Apostacy, and Un∣belief. It remains then to my un∣derstanding, that Mr Calvin makes the resistance of the Truth to be a not believing of what we do believe; which being a con∣tradiction, he defines the Sin against the Holy Ghost, to be such a Sin, as no Man possibly can commit. And yet in the other extream, in expounding his own definition, he makes it such a Sin, as no Man living but commits; for by his Doctrine, (as I take it) any Sin may be the Sin against the Holy Ghost. His words are these, Quorum convi∣cta est conscientia verbum Dei esse quod repudiant & impugnant, im∣pugnare

tamen non desistant, ill•• in spiritum blasphemari dicuntur. What Man is there that doth not daily, in some Point or other, for sake the word of God, and cea∣ses not to impugne it, and is convinced thereof in his Con∣science: I know Mr Calvin was far from thinking, that St. Paul, did Sin against the Holy Ghost, and yet St. Paul it seems was convinced in his Conscience, that it was the Word of God he fought against, and yet ceased not to fight against it, when he saith, he delighted in the Law of God, yet another Law war∣ring against the Law of his mind, brought him into Captivity of the Law of Sin. What dange∣rous consequences weak Con∣sciences may draw to themselves,

out of this unbridled, unlimited proposition of Mr Calvins, let others judge. There is a just cause I. presume to except against Mr Galvin, and all others, who in this concurr with him, to omit the term of Blasphemy in their de∣finitions; for this is perpetually observed by our Saviour in his speech concerning this Sin, by the Evangelists with one consent: but instead of the word Blasphe∣my, he hath brought in the word, resist, for a Genus of this Sin; but by what Authority I know not; I cannot find it, or the equivalent to it, in any of these places, which are thought to touch this Sin I find only falling away mentioned, Heb. 6. which phrase is used by Mr Cal∣vin, for resisting; whereas fal∣ling

away, and resisting, are no more alike, than fighting and run∣ing away, which are little less than contraries. The last point I shall touch in Mr Calvins de∣finition, is, where he saith, the Sinners against the Holy Ghost resist, to the end only that they may resist; and yet withall he tells, they resist out of a deter∣minate malice. If they resist out of malice, then the end for which they resist, is for the satis∣faction of their malice. The Pharisees here condemned by our Saviour, had an other end than bare resisting. The defence of the Law of Moses, was the end for which they Blasphemed, and not any pleasure they could have in the bare and simple act of resistance. We find three old

opinions, concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost, but they were long since exploded; I will but only name them. Ori∣gen thought, all Sins committed after Baptisme, were Sins against the Holy Ghost: his reason was only a witless conceit of his own, That God the Father was in all things, the Son only in all rea∣sonable Creatures, the Holy Ghost in all regenerate Men. Therefore when Men Sin against the Divine Person, which is in them, if they be Heathen, they Sin against God the Father, or Son; if they be Christians, they Sin against God the Holy Gost; but this opinion is false. The Novatian Hereticks agreed with Origen in opinion, for they denied remis∣sion of Sins to any that fell, think∣ing

all falls of Christians to be Sins against the Holy Ghost; but this opinion is false; else all Sins were unpardonable to Christians. Yet we find St. Paul, to remit the Sins of the incestuous Corinthian.

Our Saviour also chargeth the Pharisees with this, who were no Christians. St. Austin thought final impenitency to be the Sin against the Holy Ghost; but final impe∣nitency is no Blasphemy, but only a general circumstance, that may accompany any Sin: besides, our Saviour intends, that this Sin may be found in this life. And the Pharisees were alive when they were accused of it Pet. Lumbard, and Tho. Aquinas, thought Sins of Malice, to be Sins against the Ho∣ly Ghost, and Sins of infirmity against the Father, and Sins of ig∣norance

against the Son. This opi∣nion is false, because the Sin a∣gainst the Holy Ghost, must be a Sin of some certain Blasphemy, but malice is no certain Sin, but a General, and 'tis not always a Blasphemy.

The six differences the School∣men make of the Sin against the Holy Ghost, are these;

1. Envying of our Brothers Graces; 2. Impugning of the Known Truth; 3. Desperation; 4. Obstinacy; 5. Presumption; 6. Final Impenitency.

In this determination of the point of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the inquiry made into Mr Calvins and others new definition; I hope I have deli∣vered nothing contrary to the Ar∣ticles of the Church of England.

FINIS.