My brethren, Jacob's fear unquestionably pro ceeded from the presence of God, from the singularity of the vision, and the peculiar novelty of the discovery, which struck his imagination. But let us further extend our thoughts. Yes, the gate of heaven is terrible, and the house of God is dreadful! and his favours should impress solemnity on the heart. Distinguished favours give occasion to distinguished crimes, and from places the most exalted have occurred the greatest falls. St. Paul, in the words of my text, places each of the Hebrews, whom he addressed, in the situation of Jacob. He exhibits a portrait of the prodigies achieved in their favour, since their conversion to Christianity; the miracles which had struck their senses; the knowledge which had irradiated their minds; and the impressions which had been made on their hearts. opens to them the gate of heaven; but, at the same time, requires that they should exclaim, How dreadful is this place! From this profusion of grace, he draws motives for salutary fear. It is impossible, says he, 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.

He

St. Paul, after having pronounced these terrific words, adds; Beloved, we are persuaded better things of you. Happy apostle, who, while pronouncing the sentence of celestial vengeance, could flatter himself that it would not fall on any of his audience. But, my brethren shall we say, Beloved we are persuaded better things of you. The disposition is worthy of our wish. May it be the effect of this discourse, and the fruit of our ministry!

To have been enlightened....to have tasted the heavenly gift....to have been partakers of the Holy Ghost....to have tasted the good word of God, and felt the powers of the world to come....and to fall

away in defiance of so much grace....such are the odious traits employed by the apostle to degrade a crime, the nature of which we shall now define. The awful characteristics in the portrait, and the su peradded conclusion, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance, fully apprize us, that he here speaks of the foulest of all offences; and, at the same time, gives us a limited notion of its nature.

Some have thought, that the surest way to obtain a just idea of the sin, was to represent it by every atrocious circumstance. They have collected all the characteristics, which could add aggravation to the crime: they have said, that a man who has known the truth, who has despised, hated, and opposed it, neither through fear of punishment, nor hope of re ward, offered by tyrants to apostacy, but from a principle of malice, is the identical person of whom the apostle speaks and that in this monstrous association of light, conviction, opposition, and unconquerable abhorrence of the truth, this awful crime consists.

Others, proceeding further, have searched ancient and modern history for persons, in whom those characteristics associate; that, superadding example to description, they might exhibit a complete portrait of the sin, the nature of which we shall endeavour to define. In the course of this sermon, we shall endeavour to draw, from their method, whatever may most contribute to your instruction. But, first of all, we deem it our duty to make some previous observations, and to derive the light from its source. In the discussion of a sin, solitary in its nature, the Scriptures having excluded none from salvation, but those who are guilty of this offence, it is of the last importance to review all those passages, which, it is presumed, have reference to the crime: we must inquire in what they differ, and in what they agree, drawing, from this association of light, that instruction, which cannot be derived from any other source.

The task will not exceed our limits, there being only four texts, in which, it is presumed, the Scriptures speak of this sin. We shall begin with the words of St. Matthew: 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 speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come. This text, which Augustine deems the most difficult in the Scriptures, will become intelligible, if we examine the occasion, and weigh the words.

The occasion is obvious to understand. Jesus had just cured a demoniac. The Pharisees had attested the fact, and could not deny its divine authority: their eyes decided in favour of Jesus Christ. But they had recourse to an extraordinary method of de faming his character. Unable to destroy the force of the miracle, they maintained that it proceeded from an impure source, and that it was by the power of the devil Jesus Christ healed this afflicted class of men. This was the occasion on which he pronounced the words we have recited.

The import of the expressions is equally easy to comprehend. Who is the Son of man? And who is the Holy Ghost? And what is it to speak against the one and the other? The Son of man is Jesus Christ revealed in human form. Without staying here to refutę a mistake of the learned Grotius, who pretends, because the article does not precede the word, it is not to be understood of our Saviour, but of men in gene. ral. To confirm the sense here attached to the term, we shall only observe, that St. Luke (chap. xii. 8.) after calling our Saviour the Son of man, immediately adds, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; where it evidently follows, that by the Son of man, Jesus Christ

must be understood. And though the expression may elsewhere have other significations, they have no.connection with our subject.

By the Holy Ghost, must be understood the third person in the adorable Trinity; considered not only as God, but as Author of the miracles achieved for the confirmation of the gospel. Hence, to speak against the Son of man, was to outrage the Lord Jesus; to render his doctrine suspected; to call his mission in question; and particularly to be offended at the humiliations which surrounded it on earth. Such was their conduct who said, Is not this the carpenter's son? Can there any good thing come out of "Nazareth? A gluttonous man, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.

To speak against the Holy Ghost, was maliciously to reject a doctrine; when he who delivered it, confirmed the truth of it by so distinguished and evident a miracle as healing a demoniac; and to as cribe those miracles to the devil, which, they were assured, had God alone for their author. Here, I conceive, is all the light we can derive from the text. And as many persons determine the sense of a text, not so much by the letter as the reputation of the interpreter, we must apprize them, that we have derived this explanation, not only from the writings of our most celebrated commentators who have espoused it, but also from the works of the most celebrated of the fathers....I mean Chrysostom. The following is the substance of his paraphrase on the text in St. Matthew...." You have called me a deceiver, and an enemy of God; I forgive this reproach. Having some cause to stumble at the flesh with which I am clothed, you might not know who I am. But can you be ignorant that the casting out of demons, is the work of the Holy Ghost? For this cause, he who says, that I do these miracles by Beelzebub, shall not obtain remission."

Such is the comment of Chrysostom, to whom we add the remark of an author, worthy of superior con

fidence; it is St. Mark, who subjoins these words : Because the Pharisees said he hath an unclean spirit. Hence it is inferred that the Pharisees, by ascribing the miracles of the Holy Ghost to an unclean spirit, were guilty of the identical sin against the Holy Ghost, of which Jesus Christ had spoken; as to me is evidently proved.

The second text we shall explain, occurs in the fifth chapter of the first Epistle of St. John. 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 ye shall pray for it. On this question there are, as we usually say, as many opinions as parties.

Consult the doctors of the Roman church, and they will establish, on these words, the frivolous distinction between venial and mortal sins; a conjecture both false, and directly opposed to those from whom it proceeds. Because, if this sense be true, the moment a man commits a mortal sin, prayer must cease with regard to him; and he who commits a venial sin, will still need the prayers of saints, to avoid a death he has not deserved: this is not only indefensible, but what the Catholics themselves would not presume to maintain.

Waiving the various glosses of the Novatians, and other commentators, do you ask what is the idea we should attach to these words of the apostle, and what is the sin of which he here speaks? We repeat what we have already intimated, that it is difficult to explain. However, on investigating the views of the apostle throughout the chapter, we discover the sense of this text. His design was, to embolden the young converts in the profession of the religion they had so happily embraced. With this view, he here recapitulates the proofs which establish its truth: There are three that bear witness on earth, the water, and the spirit, and the blood. It is the innocence of the primitive christians, which is called the water; the mira