of grieving and of quenching the Spirit, yet these sins are not represented as unpardonable. Even believers in Christ, whose attainments in grace are neither few nor small, may resist and grieve the Holy Spirit of God, whereby they are sealed unto the day of redemption, whilst they entertain the very highest conceptions of the moral glory of his character, and would shudder at the very thought of uttering a single expression in disparagement of his holiness. Nay, it is remarkable to what extent even a man, who is still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, may go, without being charged with the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The case of Simon Magus, which is related in Acts viii. 18-22, is a remarkable one. He proposed to purchase with money the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now, we might have supposed that this would have come under the designation of the sin which is represented in this passage as unpardonable. Yet this cannot be, because St. Peter tells him to repent of his wickedness, and to pray to God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him. We should therefore, in short, be most careful, when we speak of the unpardonable sin which is here referred to, to use the exact language which our blessed Saviour employs in this passage-to speak of it as BLASPHEMY, or as verbal or spoken defamation.

Now, there have been several opinions expressed by commentators as to what the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost consists in, which it will be necessary briefly to notice before we enter upon a specific exposition of this passage. These opinions are as follows:

1. Some have described it as consisting in a wilful rejection of the Gospel. Undoubtedly those who speak against the Holy Ghost reject the gospel; but a rejection of the gospel may occur without its being accompanied with the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

2. Some describe it as consisting in a despair of the mercy of God. But this is very different from speaking against the Holy Ghost. Those who despair of God's mercy are in a very different state of mind from those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost: their sin is a sin of ignorance; they despair because they are not fully acquainted with the mercy of God. Whereas blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not a sin of ignorance.

3. Others have described this sin as consisting in ascribing the miracles of Christ to the power of Satan. This, however, has been founded on a misconception of what is said in Mark iii. 29, 30" But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit;" as this latter declaration -" because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" has been supposed to contain a statement or definition of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; whereas it merely specifies what was the occasion upon which Christ made the announcement that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness. The Pharisees had indeed said that Jesus cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils; but this was speaking, not against the Holy Ghost but against the Son of Man. In fact, in making this assertion, the Holy Ghost was not referred to, nor did it contain any recognition of his existence; and therefore it might have been uttered by persons who did not so much as know whether there be any Holy Ghost.

How then are we to explain the verses before us? We conceive that this can best be done by a review of the circumstances which gave rise to the declaration which they contain. Our blessed Saviour had performed a wonderful miracle in restoring a man who was deaf, dumb, and blind, and possessed of a devil, verse 22. The Pharisees, when they heard it, said that he cast out devils through Beelzebub the prince of the devils, verse 24. Upon this Jesus introduced an argument to show the absurdity of their allegations, verse 25-27, and then he makes the important announcement which is contained in verse 28, that it was only by the Spirit of God that he cast out devils. Now we should carefully observe that there is a great difference between alleging that Jesus wrought his miracles by the agency of Satan, and, on being forced to allow that it was by the Holy Ghost he performed them, then reviling and blaspheming the Holy Spirit himself. The former the Pharisees had done; they had alleged that Jesus was influenced by an unclean spirit: the latter they had not yet done; they had not asserted that the Spirit of God which was in him was an unclean spirit. The former was blasphemy against the Son of Man; the latter would have been blasphemy against the Holy

Ghost. The former is declared to be pardonable the latter to be unpardonable; and it was under the influence of compassionate mercy even towards his malignant revilers, that the Saviour added the declaration contained in these verses, in order to restrain them, and to prevent their adding the sin of speaking against the Holy Ghost to the sin which they had just committed, of speaking against the Son of Man. These verses, therefore, do not contain a censure, or a verdict of condemnation pronounced against them for what they had done, but a caution, given in mercy, to restrain and keep them back from the awful profanity into which they might have recklessly rushed, when a full and overwhelming proof was afforded that it was by the Spirit of God that Jesus cast out devils, in the clear and decisive attestation that was given to the claims of Christ by the Holy Ghost, whom he sent down upon the Apostles after his resurrection and ascension into Heaven, John vii. 39.

We do not therefore think that the Pharisees had committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost upon this occasion, but that Christ was looking forward to the period commencing from the day of Pentecost, when all the evidences of his Messiahship would be complete, and when the dispensation of the Holy Ghost would be set up-cautioning them, that though the sin which they had just committed, of reviling him, might be forgiven, yet that when the Spirit was fully given, if they should then continue obstinately to resist conviction, and should blaspheme and revile the Spirit of God, they would be incapable of forgiveness. But it may be necessary to illustrate the equity of the declaration which is contained in these verses. It consists of two assertions:-1. That speaking against the Son of Man might be pardoned: 2. That speaking against the Holy Ghost could not be pardoned.

1. It is asserted here that speaking against the Son of Man might be pardoned. In this, however, we conceive that we must consider Christ as referring to himself during the time of his humiliation in the flesh, when, notwithstanding his miracles, there was a cloud and a mystery about him, and when there were many stumbling-blocks continually presenting themselves to the minds of the Jews, which afforded what might be regarded, in the judgment of charity, as

plausible obstacles to their full admission of his claims. He was the son—that is, the reputed son of a carpenter, whilst they expected that the Messias would appear in some wonderful and mysterious way, John vii. 27. They expected Elias to come before the Redeemer, as one of the antecedent signs of his approach, Matth. xvii. 10. And even his disciples could not reconcile, during his lifetime, his declarations that he was to suffer, with his claims to be a king; and they expected that he would have restored the kingdom to Israel at the time of his first advent, Luke xxiv. 21. All these prejudices were strong and stubborn, and could only be met by a full exhibition of all the evidence by which the Saviour's claims were to be supported. But this fulness of evidence was not given until he rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down the Holy Ghost upon the apostles. Then were the prejudices and objections of the Jews, which were only plausible during the time of his humiliation, triumphantly refuted and overthrown, and all who still refused to acknowledge him were left completely without excuse.

Hence we may see the equity of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost being unpardonable. The sending down of the Holy Ghost was the last and greatest evidence which was afforded in support of the claims and prerogatives of the Saviour. It reconciled all the apparent inconsistencies between his circumstances and his pretensions, and reduced everything connected with the Saviour's history into harmony with his claims. The object of the Spirit's agency, too, was to give a knowledge of Christ; so that to blaspheme and revile the Holy Ghost must necessarily be unpardonable, as those who act in such a manner can manifestly gain no benefit from his work. They who accompany their rejection of mercy by a profane abuse of the great Being who offers mercy, must suffer the fatal and irretrievable consequences of their own reckless infatuation.

We should not, however, confound this sin, though it is, from its very nature, unpardonable, with others which are also represented in Scripture as shutting men out from salvation. There are several cases in which a sinner may render his salvation impossible. This may best be explained by a simple illustration. Let us suppose, for instance, that a man is afflicted with some severe disease, which does not, however, deprive him

1. He may take the remedy for a short time, and then leave it off;

2. He may take it in the first instance, and afterwards act in such a manner as to counteract its efficacy;

3. He may simply refuse to take it ;-or 4. He may refuse to take it, and accompany that refusal with a calumnious abuse of the physician who prescribes it to him.

Such is the case of man in a moral and spiritual sense,-afflicted with sinfulness and misery. The grace of God in the gospel is the one remedy provided for him. The Holy Ghost is the great physician that prescribes and applies that remedy; and if a man receives it, and perseveres in embracing it, his heart is purified by faith; holiness, which is the spiritual health of the soul, is produced as the result, and the man is saved with an everlasting salvation. But if he does not comply with the directions of the Holy Spirit, but rejects the one and only remedy which God has provided for sin, he must perish. But there are four supposable ways in which he may act:—

1. He may, by a profession of the gospel, have recourse to the remedy which it supplies, using it for a time, and afterwards apostatise from that profession. This appears to be the case of those who are described in Heb. vi. 4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open

shame."

2. He may, by a profession of the Gospel, have recourse to the remedy which it supplies, using it for a time, and afterwards act in such a manner as to counteract its efficacy. This appears to be the case of those who are described in Heb. x. 26-29" For

if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries."

3. He may simply refuse the mercy that is offered to him in the gospel. This appears to be the case which is referred to in Heb. xii. 25" See that ye refuse not him that speaketh, for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven;"—or

4. He may refuse the mercy that is offered to him in the gospel, and at the same time revile and calumniate and blaspheme the Holy Ghost;-and this is the case to which our blessed Saviour refers in the admonitory caution which he addressed to the Jews, as recorded in the verses before us. Thus we see that there are various ways in which a man may manifest his indisposition to submit to Christ as his Saviour, but all issue in the same general condemnation: not, however, on account of any arbitrary exception made by God, nor on account of any defect in his mercy or deficiency in the work of Christ, but because it is impossible, in the very nature of things, that a man can derive benefit from a remedy which he rejects or refuses. The worst case is that which is accompanied with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,-a case which will involve a man in the heaviest suffering hereafter.

It remains that we should explain the phrase at the end of the 32d verse "neither in this world, neither in the world to come." These expressions have been supposed to refer respectively to the Jewish and Christian dispensations. As if Christ had said, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven, either under the Jewish dispensation, during which no atonement was allowed for wilful and presumptuous sins, Numb. xv. 30, 31; xxxv. 31; Lev. xx. 10,— —or under the Christian dispensation, during which a fuller manifestation of forgiving mercy was expected. Probably, however, we should refer the phrase, "this world, to the age or dispensation which had been introduced by the first advent of Christ, and the phrase, "the world to come," to the millennial dispensation which shall be introduced by the second advent of the Saviour. During that glorious period the everlasting gospel shall

be preached to the nations which are represented in Zech. xiv. 16 as remaining on the earth after the Lord's coming, and the forgiveness of sins shall be proclaimed through the shedding of his blood, and the achieve ments and triumphs of the cross shall be far more extensive and glorious than during any previous age. Yet still this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall be then, as well as now, beyond the reach of God's forgiving grace; according to the parallel text in Mark iii. 29," he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness."

In conclusion Let this explanation of the subject administer instruction and consolation to those who are trembling under a fear of having committed this sin. Those who are apprehensive of having committed it, are just the very persons who could not have done so. For he who commits this offence glories in his shame, and becomes too hardened in his iniquity to entertain any such fears or apprehensions in his mind.

Christ's address to the Pharisees continued.

33. 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.

This verse contains the statement of a principle which may refer either to the Devil, to the Scribes and Pharisees, or to Christ himself. If it refer to the Devil, the argument which it contains is this, that as the works which Jesus wrought were benevolent and good, it was absurd to say that they were performed by the power of Satan, as an evil spirit would only manifest himself

in evil and destructive works. If it refer to the Scribes and Pharisees, its object is to show that their malicious speeches against the Saviour were proofs of an evil and cor

rupt heart. If it refer to Christ, it implies, that as the works which he performed were good, he must have been good himself, as a man's character and disposition should be judged of by the character of his actions.

34. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

The Saviour here applies the principle stated in the preceding verse to the case of the Scribes and Pharisees. He addresses them by the same title as that by which John the Baptist addressed them, ch. iii. 7, by the severe and expressive designation of a "generation of vipers," in order to exhibit in forcible terms their venemous and malignant disposition. This was not railing or angry invective; it was merely calling them by the name they deserved, which Jesus might well do, who knew what was in man; and the words he employed were not stronger than the occasion warranted and required. Their nature was so evil and corrupt, that they could not speak good things, for out of the abundance, or rather "the overflowing" of the heart, the mouth speaketh. The heart is the fountain out of which the thoughts are continually rising and overflowing, and manifesting themselves in words.

35. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

This verse is an extension of the principle contained in the latter clause of the preceding. The heart is here represented as

a treasure-house, because it is the seat and residence of all those feelings and affections which influence the character and conversation of a man. The treasure contained in a good man's heart is that love which the Holy Spirit imparts, which will manifest itself in words and actions corresponding with its own The treasure which pure and holy nature. is contained in an evil man's heart is pride, envy, malice, revenge, which possess as much activity as principles which are good and

excellent.

36. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

This is an important declaration, and one which shows how much strictness is required in those who profess to be the Lord's people. It is introduced by a preface which implies the authority and competency of Christ to make such a statement. He that was appointed of the Father to execute judgment

could best declare the principles on which that judgment should proceed. Some persons explain the expressions here rendered "idle words" as meaning such as are pernicious and calumnious; but the original phrase does not contain so strong a meaning. The meaning of the phrase is such words as are vain and unprofitable, which tend to no good. And the Saviour's object in this passage is to argue from the less to the greater; as if he had said, If men shall be called to give an account of idle words in the day of judgment, how much more shall they be judged for all wicked, calumnious, and reviling expressions, such as those which had been uttered by the Pharisees when they said that Christ had performed his miracles by the power of Satan. This text should not be overstrained, as if it was intended to forbid the innocent cheerfulness of social and friendly conversation. Words which are spoken in the hours of needful relaxation, for the promotion of mutual comfort and enjoyment, are not to be precipitately ranked amongst idle words. The mind of man is so constituted as to require the relief of occasional free and friendly converse. But the Christian will always endeavour to keep a watch upon the door of his lips, and to take care that his words shall be always suitable to his religious principles and profession, and will guard against everything that borders upon levity or frivolity in his conversation. The government of the tongue will ever be a matter of first importance to the real Christian, as it is evidently a matter of first importance in the estimation of Christ, if we may judge from the great number of precepts and cautions which are given in reference to it in the Scriptures. The best practical system upon this branch of Christian ethics would be a collection and compilation of all the texts of Scripture which have a reference to it, arranged in regular order, without note or comment upon them.

37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

This refers to the general tenor of a man's conversation. The state of his soul may be judged of by the habitual and pervading character of his language, as well as by his conduct, just as Peter's speech betrayed him, and was referred to as an argu

ment to prove that he was an associate of Jesus. And so in the day of judgment a man's words shall be produced as witnesses either for or against him. How seriously should this declaration lead us to attend most scrupulously to the regulation of our speech. There is a sense in which even our " idle words" are not idle: their moral effect is everlasting.

The Scribes and Pharisees demand a Sign

38. Then certain of the Scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master we would see a sign from thee.

There is no reason to suppose that these persons were different from those whom Christ had just been reproving; it is much more probable that they were the very same, as it is here said they "answered" him. They felt his address so keenly, that they desired to change the subject by calling in question his authority. This is the common resource of men who do not like to hear language which condemns them. They call him "Master" either in derision, or in order to give an air of plausibility to their demand. Although he had already given them proofs enough of his authority in the miracles which they had seen him perform, yet they eagerly seize upon the opportunity which his calling himself "the Son of man" (v. 32) afforded them, to demand a sign of his being so. His calling himself by this title brought to their recollection the words of Dan. vii. 13, in which the prophet speaks of the Son of man coming with the clouds of Heaven; and they inferred from this, that he who would lay claim to that title should afford some outward and splendid demonstration in support of those claims, and should then exhibit for their satisfaction what Christ afterwards speaks of as "The sign of the Son of man in Heaven." We must observe that there is a difference between what is here

called a "sign," and the miracles which Christ had already performed. The latter were proofs afforded by himself of a power and authority dwelling within him; the former implies some outward remarkable prodigy manifested in favour of his claims by a power dwelling in heaven, but exerted at his desire. In the parallel passage in Luke xi.