De spiritu blasphemiae
1185DQuae in Evangelio leguntur de spiritu blasphemiae, obscura, ut dicis, et perplexa sunt valde. Expetis autem et exspectas audire ex me quid sentiam inde. Sed periculosa praesumptio de suo ingenio praesumere, quod praeclarissima ingenia non intactum, 1186Dsed indefinitum reliquerunt. Solius Domini est certe quando, et cui voluerit, ejusmodi revelare. Ut autem verum fatear, videtur mihi durum valde petitioni tuae omnino deesse. Super hoc igitur involucro si videtur aliquid, quaerendo, non diffiniendo loquamur. 1187ASunt qui se fatentur nescire quid sit spiritus blasphemiae. Audacter tamen affirmant quod hoc genus culpae omnino sit inexpiabile, adeo ut quisquis in hoc semel lapsus fuerit, de caetero omnino salvari non possit. Sunt autem et alii summae auctoritatis viri, qui nullum peccatum credunt inexpiabile, nisi quod impoenitentia facit irremediabile. Hinc est illa aestimatio putantium quod per impoenitentiam fit, peccatur in Spiritum sanctum, quia in eo specialiter agitur contra ipsum per quem omnis est remissio peccatorum. Sunt qui putant quod hoc sit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, de Dei misericordia desperare propter immanitatem scelerum. Sed qui ejusmodi est, si iterum ad veritatem redeat et veraciter poeniteat, quis ei veniam patere contradicat? 1187BAttende ergo quod hominibus desperatis sola impoenitentia claudit viam salutis. Habere autem animum obstinatum, sunt qui putant peccatum in Spiritum sanctum esse. Secundum eos autem idem est obstinatio quod summa animi obduratio, qui adeo obduratus sit ut de caetero poenitere non possit. Sed quid in se eis aufert locum indulgentiae, nisi pertinacia impoenitentiae? Quod ergo diximus de desperatis, dicamus et de obstinatis, quod impoenitentia claudit eis viam salutis. Sed et alii qui peccatum in Spiritum dicunt irremediabile malum, hac ratione id fieri affirmant, quia sic statim obdurantur, ut deinceps poenitere non valeant. Sed juxta hoc eo ipso omni remedio carent quod poenitere non valent. Attende ergo quod in hoc unum concurrit 1187Chorum omnium sententia, quod sola impoenitentia facit peccata insolubilia.
Notandum autem quod dicunt impoenitentes in Spiritum sanctum peccare, non tamen dicunt omnes impoenitentes spiritum blasphemiae habere. Juxta id autem quod in Scripturis sanctis specialiter attribuitur potentia Patri, sapientia Filio, bonitas vero Spiritui sancto: juxta hoc, inquam, dicunt quod peccare per infirmitatem sit peccare in Patrem; peccare vero per ignorantiam, sit peccare in Filium; per solam autem peccare malitiam, sit peccare in Spiritum sanctum. Et qui per infirmitatem vel ignorantiam peccant sicut aliquid excusationis habent in culpa, sic aliquid 1187Dremissionis accipiunt in poena. Sed qui per solam malitiam peccantes in Spiritum sanctum delinquunt, nil ejusmodi remissionis accipiunt, et non remittitur eis in hoc saeculo, nec in futuro. Si enim poenitent, debetur eis plena satisfactio; si non poenitent, plena damnatio. Sed quamvis per malitiam peccantes dicantur in Spiritum sanctum peccare, non tamen dici possunt hujusmodi omnes sicut nec omnes impoenitentes spiritum blasphemiae habere. Ex verbis sane Dominicis perpendere possumus quod hoc genus culpae sit prae omnibus detestabile. Quaeramus itaque diligentius quid sit illud peccati genus quod est prae omnibus detestabilius. Quaedam hominum peccata specialiter pertinent ad corruptelam propriam, sicut ebrietas et stupra; quaedam specialiter ad 1188Aproximi injuriam, sicut homicidia et furta; quaedam specialiter ad contumeliam divinam, quemadmodum blasphemia. Sed quis nesciat quod contumelia Creatoris sit detestabilior caeteris?
Sed si quis blasphemet tormentis compulsus, vel per ignorantiam deceptus, quis neget tolerabilius quam si blasphemet malitia sola ductus? Malignitate ergo blasphemia prae caeteris est pessima. Est autem in hoc genere sceleratissimum, et in quo malitia crescit ad summum, quando quis in Dei vituperiis delectatur, et in eis gloriatur. Quid est blasphemia, nisi vituperatio divina? Ad hoc autem quisque aspirat quod valitudo affectat, multumque desiderat. Quid ergo aliud videtur spiritus blasphemiae quam affectatio et desiderium vituperationis divinae? Miratur 1188Bquis et forte non credit quod adhuc malitiae articulum humana corruptibilitas ascendere, imo descendere possit. Sed quem hujusmodi cogitatio pulsat, audiat quid de hujusmodi hominibus Dominus dicat: Nunc autem oderunt me et Patrem meum (Joan. XV). Pro certo quod quisque odit, hoc improbat, hoc vituperat, hoc et ab aliis odio haberi et vituperari desiderat. Hinc est quod qui ejusmodi erant, de Christo dicebant quod immundum spiritum habebat (Matth. III). Pro certo non ista dicebant quia verum esse credebant. Nam assidue videbant fieri ab eo quae nemo facere posset, nisi Deus esset cum illo. Ideo tamen dicebant, quia in eum quem odio habebant aliorum odia et vituperia concitare volebant. Attende ergo quam sint contrarii 1188Cspiritus isti, spiritus blasphemiae et spiritus Dei. Spiritus blasphemiae aspirat ad odium Dei; Spiritus sanctus inspirat amorem Dei. Nam charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis (Rom. V). Vides ergo quomodo spiritus blasphemiae Spiritui sancto adversatur, et semper in contrarium nititur. De hoc spiritu dicit Dominus quod non remittetur hominibus (Matth. XII). Ad idem respicit quod alias dicit: Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non habet remissionem in aeternum, sed reus erit aeterni delicti (Marc. III). Ex his Domini verbis, ut credo, assertionis suae argumentum trahunt, qui spiritum blasphemiae malum irremediabile omnino dicunt. Credo Augustinum ista 1188Dlegisse, tamen multo aliter quam istos sensisse. Quod Dominus per Prophetam ait: Convertam in profundum maris (Psal. LXVII). Augustinus, intelligit de hominibus desperatissimis. Alias autem dicit quod obstinatos Dominus doctores facit in eo quod mittit crystallum sicut buccellam (Psal. CXLVII). In libro Retractationum seipsum accusat vel potius excusat, quod de peccato in Spiritum sanctum quodam loco minus caute scripserat, quod tamen putando potius quam affirmando dixerat. Ibi aperte dicit quod de quocunque pessimo in hac vita constituto non est desperandum, quin potius pro ipso orandum, quoniam non impudenter pro eo oratur de quo non desperatur. Quid enim est dicere esse genus peccati de quo homo [non] possit veniam consequi? 1189Aquid, inquam, aliud est hoc dicere quam ejusmodi hominem docere ut desperet, et cum Cain dicat: Major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear? (Gen. III). Quis audeat ut dicat modum humanae malitiae, modum excedere misericordiae divinae? Dicit Psalmista de Domino: Quod copiosa apud eum redemptio (Psal. CXXIX). Sed quomodo, quaeso, copiosa erit, si est peccati genus quod nunquam in aliquo dissolvit? Ecce finis miseriae nostrae juxta quosdam invenitur, de quo nullus ad Dominum convertitur, contra illam sententiam qua dicitur: Reminiscentur et convertentur ad Dominum omnes fines terrae (Psal. XXI). Nonne satius esset humiliter fateri Dominica illa verba se parum intelligere quam sua expositione aliquos ad desperationem trahere? Nonne satius est in magni 1189Billius (magistrum Hugonem loquor) nostri temporis theologi sententiam pergere, quam aliquibus pontem misericordiae praecidere, et in desperationis profundum dejicere? Superius eam breviter praelibavimus, nunc juxta ejus tenorem in explanandarum considerationem pergamus.
Secundum evangelistam Matthaeum audis dicentem Dominum: Omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus, spiritus autem blasphemiae non remittetur; et quicunque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis remittetur ei; qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro (Matth. XXI). Prius generalem sententiam ponit, postea excipienda excipit. Ponit remissibilia, 1189Cexcipit irremissibilia. Spiritus, inquit, blasphemiae non remittitur eo quod hoc malum in se nil habeat excusationis, nihil meretur accipere excusatoriae remissionis. Quod de hoc malo dixit, hoc idem adjungit de quolibet verbo in Spiritum sanctum prolato: Quicunque, inquit, dixerit verbum contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, nec in futuro. Quid hic dicturi sunt qui omnem vel semel in Spiritum blasphemantem aeternae damnationi addicunt! Nunquid dicturi sunt, quod omnis, qui qualecunque verbum contra Spiritum sanctum dixerit in aeternum peribit? Quod si abhorrent hoc dicere, exponant nobis quomodo oporteat intelligere quod dicitur de verbo contra Spiritum sanctum prolato, quia non remittetur in 1189Dhoc saeculo, vel in futuro. Nam, si dicturi sunt hoc malum esse expiabile, juxta aliquid tamen irremissibile, videant ne idem dici possit de spiritu blasphemiae. Aliud est enim peccatum esse inexpiabile, atque aliud juxta hoc quod hic accipitur esse irremissibile. Peccatum diaboli inexpiabile est, quod nullo remedio expurgari potest; illud autem hominis peccatum non incongrue irremissibile dici poterit, cui nulla poenae relaxatio sit, quae in peccatis actualiter similibus fieri contingit. Ecce unam eamdemque blasphemiam unus facit ex coactione, alius ex aliqua deceptione, tertius ex sola malignitate. Ecce in tribus culpa, quantum ad actionem, per omnia similis. In duobus tamen accipit aliquid remissionis, quoniam habet aliquid excusationis. In tertio 1190Anullam accipit ejusmodi remissionem, quoniam nullam habebit excusationem. Primus, ex his peccat in Patrem, secundus in Filium, tertius (illi cui non remittitur) peccat in Spiritum sanctum, hoc est quod Dominus dicit secundum evangelistam Marcum: Qui blasphemaverit, inquit, in Spiritum sanctum non habet remissionem in aeternum (Marc. III). Quod dicitur remissio dari vel non dari secundum mutuum respectum accipientium, vel non accipientium, pro eodem opere debet intelligi. Nam de districtiss ma pro eadem blasphemia aliquid remittitur blasphemantibus in Patrem et Filium, nihil vero blasphemantibus in Spiritum sanctum. Bene ergo dicitur de eo qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum quod non habet remissionem in aeternum. Quoniam si poenitet, nihil 1190Bei de plenitudine districtissimae expiationis; si non poenitet, nihil ei remittitur de plenitudine districtissimae damnationis. Quod merito hoc fiat consequenter adjungitur, cum dicat: Sed est reus aeterni delicti. Quod dicit idem valet ac si apertius diceret: Idcirco remissionem non habet, sed nec habere debet, quia non est reus ejusmodi delicti cui debeat aliquid remitti. Sed est reus delicti omnium pessimi, quoniam reus aeterni delicti, et talis cui non debeat aliqua determinate remissionis relaxatio fieri sicut superius docuimus, hoc est in Spiritum sanctum blasphemare, ex sola malignitate verbum blasphemiae proferre. Sed talis blasphemia nunquam potest fieri delictum sine detestabili et exsecrabili odio Dei, procul dubio Dei odium delictum est aeternum. 1190CAeternum delictum dici quod nunquam excidit, quod in perpetuum esse contingit. Pro certo sicut nunquam excidit amor Dei, sic nunquam excidit odium Dei: Charitas, inquit Apostolus, nunquam excidit (I Cor. XXIII). Quod ab Apostolo de Dei amore dictum est, de Dei etiam odio dici potest. Et, sicut Dei amor recte dici potest meritum aeternum, sic et odium Dei merito dicitur delictum aeternum. Quod dicitur de charitate quia nunquam excidit, non est intelligendum quod semel habita amitti non possit sed quod, contra fidei et spei proprietatem in aeternum esse non desistit. Sic sunt quaedam mala quae locum habent solummodo in hac vita, sicut adulteria et furta, quaedam vero et in hac vita simul 1190Det futura. Nam qui cum Dei odio ex hac vita discedit, sub eodem morbo in aeternum tabescit, et qui in aeternum odit, in aeternum delinquit, et sine cessatione delinquendo meretur quod sine cessatione patiatur. Qui igitur reus est divini odii, reus est aeterni delicti. Sed, sicut superius est demonstratum, blasphemia quae est in Spiritum sanctum nunquam est praeter Dei odium. Merito ergo dicitur de blasphemo hujusmodi quod sit reus aeterni delicti. Quidam autem ad id quod Dominus dicit, addunt de suo quod Dominus non dicit. Dominus dicit quod sit reus aeterni delicti; isti dicunt quod sit aeternaliter reus aeterni delicti. Qui enim dicit ejusmodi hominem nulla ratione posse veniam promereri, nonne dicit eum aeternaliter reum esse aeterni delicti? 1191ASed forte hoc isti ex eo colligunt quod ex Dominica voce audiunt. Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum non habet remissionem in aeternum. Sed nunquid non idem dictum est ab eodem Domino de verbo contra Spiritum sanctum dicto? Qui dixerit, inquit, verbum contra Spiritum sanctum non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Quot, quaeso, homines poterunt inveniri qui audeant ut dicant nunquam verbum aliquod contra Spiritum sanctum dixisse. Nunquid caeteri omnes desperandi sunt qui hoc dicere non praesumunt? Nunquid de semetipsis desperare debent qui hoc dicere non audent? Sed si per hujusmodi doctrinam bos vel asinus in puteum desperationis cadat, timeo ne animalium Dominus animalium hominum pretium de manu 1191Bdoctoris, imo dejectoris requirat.
Sunt autem quidam temporaliter rei temporalis et transitorii delicti, et sunt quidam aeternaliter rei temporalis et transitorii delicti. Item sunt alii aeterni delicti aeternaliter rei. Cur non sint et alii aeterni delicti temporaliter rei? Adulterium in tempore actualiter fit et transit, et adulterantem reum constituit, sed temporaliter reum si veraciter poenituerit, aeternaliter autem si poenitere noluerit. Qui cum Dei odio de hac vita transit, aeterni delicti aeternaliter reus erit. Sic et delictum quod, juxta quod diximus, potest dici aeternum, veraciter poenitentem nonnisi ad tempus constituit reum. Siquidem possunt esse aeternaliter rei temporalis delicti juxta divinam justitiam, cur non aliqui credantur 1191Cesse ad tempus rei aeterni delicti juxta divinam misericordiam? Miserationes ejus super omnia opera ejus. Ejus siquidem miserationibus nihil est mirabilius, et eo ipso super omnia opera ejus. Consideremus adhuc quid Marcus de suo adjungat ad ea quae Dominus dixerat: Quoniam dicebant, inquit, Spiritum immundum habet (Marc. III). In his verbis videtur evangelista rationem reddere; unde contingit Dominum de pessimo genere blasphemandi ista disserere. 1192AOstendit ergo evangelista quod idcirco Dominus eos doceret de blasphemia quae remissionem non habet, quoniam dicebant quod spiritum immundum haberet. Absque omni ambiguo ista Christi contumelia erat detestabilis blasphemia. Sed istud, quaeso, blasphemiae verbum fuit contra ipsum hominis Filium, an contra Spiritum sanctum? Sed si dicitur contra Filium hominis esse, erit verbum remissibile; si contra Spiritum sanctum, erit irremissibile. Sed si dicitur remissibile verbum, nihil ad eam blasphemiam quae non habet remissionem in aeternum, et juxta hoc quod evangelista subjungit, nihil respondet ad Dominica verba quae praemisit. Compellit itaque cohaerentia dictorum credere Christi calumniatores blasphemasse in Spiritum sanctum. Quid 1192Bergo dicemus? Nunquid in illum peccabant quem non vituperabant, et in illum non blasphemabant quem verbis suis profanabant? Quis ad ista idoneus? Auctoritate itaque simul et ex ratione possumus aperte colligere Christi profanatores non per ignorantiam, sed per solam malitiam tam nequiter blasphemasse. Intelligebant absque omni ambiguo neminem posse talia signa facere nisi Deus esset cum illo. Quoniam ergo per solam malitiam blasphemabant, in eum cui bonitas specialiter attribui solet, peccabant, et eo ipso quantum ad id genus peccati acerbissimae poenae alleviatione et remissione indigni erant. Nam, si per ignorantiam peccassent et in ipsum qui Dei sapientia est deliquissent, in puniendo 1192Cpeccato remissius ageretur cum ipsis, et in eo reciperent aliquid remissionis. Ex his Domini verbis manifeste colligitur quod quaedam quae omnibus personis communia sunt, quibusdam personis non sine magno mysterio appropriantur. Multa sunt adhuc circa haec Dominica verba diligenti investigatione digna. Verum hoc melius atque consultius profundioribus ingeniis relinquimus. Super eo quod a me quaesisti dixi quod potui. Si insipiens factus sum, tu me coegisti.
On the Spirit of Blasphemy
1185DWhat is read in the Gospel concerning the spirit of blasphemy is obscure, as you say, and exceedingly perplexing. Yet you seek and await to hear from me what I think about it. But it is a perilous presumption to presume upon one's own talent in a matter that the most illustrious talents have left, 1186Dnot untouched, but undefined. It belongs assuredly to the Lord alone to reveal things of this kind when, and to whom, he will. But to confess the truth, it seems to me very hard to fail your request altogether. Concerning this wrapping, then, if anything appears, let us speak by inquiring, not by defining. 1187AThere are those who confess that they do not know what the spirit of blasphemy is. Yet they boldly affirm that this kind of fault is altogether inexpiable, so much so that whoever has once fallen into it can thereafter in no way be saved. But there are also others, men of the highest authority, who believe no sin to be inexpiable save that which impenitence makes irremediable. Hence comes that estimation of those who think that, through impenitence, sin is committed against the Holy Spirit, because therein there is action specifically against him through whom is all remission of sins. There are those who think that this is the sin against the Holy Spirit: to despair of God's mercy on account of the enormity of one's crimes. But whoever is such — if he return again to the truth and truly repent — who would gainsay that pardon lies open to him? 1187BAttend, therefore, that for men in despair impenitence alone shuts the way of salvation. And there are those who think that to have an obstinate mind is the sin against the Holy Spirit. According to them, obstinacy is the same as the utmost hardening of mind — one so hardened that he can thereafter not repent. But what takes from them the place of pardon in itself, except the pertinacity of impenitence? What, then, we have said of the despairing, let us say also of the obstinate: that impenitence shuts to them the way of salvation. But others too, who call the sin against the Spirit an irremediable evil, affirm that it comes about for this reason: that they are straightway so hardened that thereafter they cannot repent. But according to this they lack all remedy for the very reason that they cannot repent. Attend, therefore, that in this one point 1187Cthe opinion of all these concurs: that impenitence alone makes sins insoluble.
It is to be noted, however, that though they say the impenitent sin against the Holy Spirit, yet they do not say that all the impenitent have the spirit of blasphemy. But according to that which in the holy Scriptures is specifically attributed — power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, but goodness to the Holy Spirit — according to this, I say, they say that to sin through weakness is to sin against the Father; but to sin through ignorance is to sin against the Son; while to sin through malice alone is to sin against the Holy Spirit. And those who sin through weakness or ignorance, as they have something of excuse in the fault, so they receive something 1187Dof remission in the penalty. But those who, sinning through malice alone, offend against the Holy Spirit, receive nothing of such remission, and it is not remitted to them in this world, nor in the world to come. For if they repent, full satisfaction is owed them; if they repent not, full damnation. But although those who sin through malice are said to sin against the Holy Spirit, yet not all such can be said — any more than all the impenitent — to have the spirit of blasphemy. From the Lord's words indeed we can weigh that this kind of fault is, above all others, detestable. Let us therefore inquire more diligently what that kind of sin is which is above all others the more detestable. Certain sins of men pertain specifically to one's own corruption, such as drunkenness and debaucheries; certain ones specifically to 1188Ainjury of one's neighbor, such as murders and thefts; certain ones specifically to insult against God, such as blasphemy. But who does not know that insult against the Creator is more detestable than the rest?
But if someone blaspheme compelled by torments, or deceived through ignorance, who would deny that it is more tolerable than if he blaspheme led by malice alone? By malignity, then, blasphemy is worst of all. But there is in this kind a most wicked thing, in which malice grows to its height: when one delights in reproaches of God, and glories in them. What is blasphemy but the reviling of God? Now to this each one aspires which his vigor strives after, and greatly desires. What else, then, does the spirit of blasphemy seem to be than the affectation and desire of reviling God? 1188BSomeone wonders, and perhaps does not believe, that human corruptibility can yet ascend — nay, descend — to such a point of malice. But let him whom a thought of this kind assails hear what the Lord says of men of this kind: But now they have hated both me and my Father (Joan. XV). Assuredly, what each one hates, this he disapproves, this he reviles, this he desires to be held in hatred and reviled by others also. Hence it is that those who were of this kind said of Christ that he had an unclean spirit (Matth. III). Assuredly they did not say these things because they believed them to be true. For they continually saw done by him things that no one could do unless God were with him. Yet they said it for this reason: because against him whom they held in hatred they wished to stir up the hatreds and revilings of others. Attend, therefore, how contrary 1188Cthese spirits are, the spirit of blasphemy and the Spirit of God. The spirit of blasphemy aspires to the hatred of God; the Holy Spirit inspires the love of God. For the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom. V). You see, then, how the spirit of blasphemy is opposed to the Holy Spirit, and ever strives to the contrary. Of this spirit the Lord says that it shall not be forgiven to men (Matth. XII). To the same effect looks that which he says elsewhere: He who shall have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for ever, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin (Marc. III). From these words of the Lord, as I believe, they draw the argument of their assertion who say the spirit of blasphemy to be altogether an irremediable evil. I believe that Augustine 1188Dread these things, yet understood them far otherwise than these do. As to what the Lord says through the Prophet: I will turn them into the depth of the sea (Psal. LXVII), Augustine understands it of men in utter despair. But elsewhere he says that the Lord makes the obstinate into teachers in that he sends his crystal like morsels (Psal. CXLVII). In the book of the Retractations he accuses, or rather excuses, himself, that in a certain place he had written less cautiously concerning the sin against the Holy Spirit — which nevertheless he had said by way of supposing rather than of affirming. There he openly says that of no one, however wicked, established in this life, is one to despair; nay rather, one is to pray for him, since not shamelessly is one prayed for of whom one does not despair. For what is it to say that there is a kind of sin for which a man may [not] obtain pardon? 1189Awhat, I say, else is this to say than to teach a man of this kind to despair, and with Cain to say: My iniquity is greater than that I should deserve pardon? (Gen. III). Who would dare to say that the measure of human malice exceeds the measure of divine mercy? The Psalmist says of the Lord: That with him is plentiful redemption (Psal. CXXIX). But how, I ask, will it be plentiful, if there is a kind of sin that he never looses in anyone? Behold, according to certain men, the end of our misery is found from which no one is turned to the Lord — against that sentence in which it is said: All the ends of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord (Psal. XXI). Would it not be better humbly to confess that one understands those words of the Lord but little, than by one's own exposition to drag some to despair? Is it not better to proceed to the 1189Bopinion of that great theologian of our time — I mean master Hugh — than to cut off from some the bridge of mercy, and cast them into the depth of despair? Above we have briefly touched upon it; now, according to its tenor, let us proceed to the consideration of the things to be explained.
According to the evangelist Matthew you hear the Lord saying: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven; and whoever shall have said a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who shall have said it against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (Matth. XXI). First he sets down the general sentence, then he excepts the things to be excepted. He sets down the things remissible, 1189Che excepts the things irremissible. The blasphemy, he says, of the Spirit is not forgiven, because this evil, having in itself nothing of excuse, deserves to receive nothing of excusatory remission. What he said of this evil, the same he adds concerning any word uttered against the Holy Spirit: Whoever, he says, shall have said a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. What here are they to say who consign every man that blasphemes even once against the Spirit to eternal damnation! Are they to say that everyone who shall have said any word whatever against the Holy Spirit shall perish for ever? But if they shrink from saying this, let them expound to us how one ought to understand what is said of a word uttered against the Holy Spirit, that it shall not be forgiven in 1189Dthis world, or in the world to come. For if they are to say that this evil is expiable, yet in some respect irremissible, let them see whether the same may be said of the spirit of blasphemy. For it is one thing for a sin to be inexpiable, and another, in the sense here taken, to be irremissible. The sin of the devil is inexpiable, which can be purged by no remedy; but that sin of man may not incongruously be called irremissible for which there is no relaxation of the penalty such as comes to pass in sins that are actually similar. Behold, one and the same blasphemy one man commits from compulsion, another from some deception, a third from malignity alone. Behold, in the three the fault, as to the action, is in every way alike. In two of them, nevertheless, it receives something of remission, because it has something of excuse. In the third 1190Ait receives no such remission, because it will have no excuse. The first of these sins against the Father, the second against the Son, the third (he to whom it is not forgiven) sins against the Holy Spirit; this is what the Lord says according to the evangelist Mark: He who shall have blasphemed, he says, against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for ever (Marc. III). That remission is said to be given or not given according to the mutual regard of those receiving or not receiving it, ought to be understood of the same deed. For, concerning the most strict expiation, something is remitted for the same blasphemy to those who blaspheme against the Father and the Son, but nothing to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Well, then, is it said of him who shall have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit that he has no forgiveness for ever. For if he repent, nothing 1190Bis remitted to him of the fullness of the most strict expiation; if he repent not, nothing is remitted to him of the fullness of the most strict damnation. That this rightly comes to pass is consequently added, when he says: But he shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. What he says is as much as if he had said more openly: Therefore he has no forgiveness, nor even ought to have it, because he is not guilty of the kind of offense to which something ought to be remitted. But he is guilty of the worst offense of all, since he is guilty of an everlasting sin, and such that no determinate relaxation of remission ought to be made for him, as we have taught above — that is, to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, to utter a word of blasphemy from malignity alone. But such blasphemy can never be an offense without a detestable and execrable hatred of God; and beyond doubt the hatred of God is an everlasting offense. 1190CAn everlasting offense is called that which never falls away, which is bound to be for ever. Assuredly, as the love of God never falls away, so the hatred of God never falls away: Charity, says the Apostle, never falls away (I Cor. XXIII). What was said by the Apostle of the love of God can be said also of the hatred of God. And, as the love of God can rightly be called an everlasting merit, so the hatred of God is rightly called an everlasting offense. What is said of charity, that it never falls away, is not to be understood as though, once had, it cannot be lost, but that, contrary to the property of faith and hope, it does not cease to be for ever. So there are certain evils that have place only in this life, such as adulteries and thefts, and certain ones both in this life at once 1190Dand in the world to come. For he who departs from this life with hatred of God wastes away under the same disease for ever, and he who hates for ever offends for ever, and by offending without ceasing deserves to suffer without ceasing. He, therefore, who is guilty of hatred of God is guilty of an everlasting offense. But, as was shown above, the blasphemy which is against the Holy Spirit is never apart from hatred of God. Rightly, then, is it said of a blasphemer of this kind that he is guilty of an everlasting offense. But certain men add to what the Lord says something of their own which the Lord does not say. The Lord says that he is guilty of an everlasting offense; these men say that he is eternally guilty of an everlasting offense. For he who says that a man of this kind can by no reason merit pardon, does he not say that he is eternally guilty of an everlasting offense? 1191ABut perhaps these men gather this from that which they hear from the Lord's voice: He who shall have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for ever. But is not the same thing said by the same Lord of a word spoken against the Holy Spirit? He who shall have said, he says, a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. How many men, I ask, will be found who would dare to say that they have never said any word against the Holy Spirit? Are all the rest to be despaired of who do not presume to say this? Ought they to despair of themselves who dare not say this? But if by teaching of this kind an ox or an ass fall into the pit of despair, I fear lest the Lord of animals require the price of the animal-men from the hand of the 1191Bteacher — nay, of the caster-down.
But there are certain men temporally guilty of a temporal and transitory offense, and there are certain men eternally guilty of a temporal and transitory offense. Likewise there are others eternally guilty of an everlasting offense. Why should there not also be others temporally guilty of an everlasting offense? Adultery is actually committed in time and passes away, and constitutes the adulterer guilty, but temporally guilty if he shall have truly repented, but eternally so if he refuse to repent. He who passes from this life with hatred of God will be eternally guilty of an everlasting offense. So too the offense which, in the sense we have said, can be called everlasting, constitutes the one who truly repents guilty only for a time. Since indeed there can be men eternally guilty of a temporal offense according to divine justice, why should not some be believed 1191Cto be guilty for a time of an everlasting offense according to divine mercy? His tender mercies are over all his works. For nothing is more wonderful than his tender mercies, and for that very reason they are over all his works. Let us consider still further what Mark adds of his own to those things which the Lord had said: Because they said, he says, He has an unclean spirit (Marc. III). In these words the evangelist seems to render the reason whence it came about that the Lord discoursed these things concerning the worst kind of blaspheming. 1192AThe evangelist shows, then, that the Lord taught them concerning the blasphemy which has no remission for this reason: because they said that he had an unclean spirit. Without any ambiguity that insult to Christ was a detestable blasphemy. But that word of blasphemy, I ask, was it against the very Son of man, or against the Holy Spirit? But if it is said to be against the Son of man, it will be a remissible word; if against the Holy Spirit, it will be irremissible. But if it is called a remissible word, it has nothing to do with that blasphemy which has no forgiveness for ever, and, according to what the evangelist subjoins, it answers nothing to the Lord's words which he set before. The coherence of the sayings therefore compels us to believe that the calumniators of Christ blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. What 1192Bthen shall we say? Did they sin against him whom they did not revile, and not blaspheme against him whom they profaned by their words? Who is fit for these things? By authority, therefore, and at the same time from reason, we can plainly gather that the profaners of Christ blasphemed so wickedly not through ignorance, but through malice alone. They understood, without any ambiguity, that no one could work such signs unless God were with him. Since, therefore, they blasphemed through malice alone, they sinned against him to whom goodness is wont specifically to be attributed, and for that very reason, as to that kind of sin, they were unworthy of the alleviation and remission of the most bitter penalty. For, had they sinned through ignorance and offended against him who is the wisdom of God, in punishing the 1192Csin it would have been dealt with them more leniently, and in it they would have received something of remission. From these words of the Lord it is manifestly gathered that certain things which are common to all the persons are appropriated to certain persons not without great mystery. Many things concerning these words of the Lord are still worthy of diligent investigation. But this we leave, better and more advisedly, to profounder talents. Concerning that which you asked of me I have said what I could. If I have become foolish, you have compelled me.