added to the infinite merit of Christ formed a rich treasure which served as the basis of indulgences, a source to be drawn upon for the relief of the still ensnared members of Christ's body, the Church.

When this idea of a treasury of merit was established as a doctrine of the Church it was but an easy step to the sale of indulgences for money. This deposit of superabundant good works, it was held by the Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, "the Pope, as holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven, could unlock and dispense for the benefit of the faithful, so as to pay the debt of the temporal punishment of their sins, which they might still owe to God."1

In the early stages of the English Reformation the doctrine of supererogation found some favor. The principle was affirmed in the book entitled The Institution of a Christian Man, issued in 1537: "I believe that whatsoever spiritual gift or treasure is given by God unto any part or member of this mystical body of Christ, although the same be given particularly unto this member, and not unto another, yet the fruit and merit thereof shall, by reason of that incomprehensible union and bond of charity which is between them, redound necessarily unto the profit, edifying, and increase in Christ's body of all other members particularly." The Council of Trent decreed nothing on the subject, but the Tridentine Catechism is in accord with the quotation.

At the time of the Reformation, however, the practice of the sale of indulgences had grown to such an extent as to become a dreadful scandal, and was one of the great abominations that led to the Reform movement. In this way the doctrine of supererogation was brought under the condemnation of the Reformers.

1 Gibson on the Articles, p. 434.

ARTICLE XII

OF SIN AFTER JUSTIFICATION

Not every sin willingly committed after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after justification. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and, by the grace of God, rise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as long as they live here; or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

I. THE ORIGIN

The resemblance this Article bears to the twelfth of the Augsburg Confession indicates the latter as its source. The same truths are emphasized and the same errors condemned in both. As formulated by the English Reformers in 1553, it bore the title, "Of Sin against the Holy Ghost." In 1562 this title was changed to "Of Sin after Baptism." In adopting it Wesley gave it the title, "Of Sin after Justification."

II. THE AIM

It is aimed against the Montanists, Novatians, Anabaptists, and others who denied the efficacy of repentance in certain cases and against those who contended that none could be guilty of sin after justification.

The Montanists arose in the second century; they denied restoration to communion and Church fellowship to those who had fallen into crime.

The Novatians, a sect of the third century, denied that such as had fallen into grievous sin, especially those who had apostatized in time of persecution, should be readmitted to the Church, though they gave evidence of sincere repentance and conversion.1

Origen, in the third century, advanced the opinion that persons who had once embraced the gospel, been baptized and then denied the faith, could not be readmitted to repentance nor obtain pardon of sin. This view was rejected by Athanasius and others. Some Church fathers modified its severity by ruling that it must be understood according to the style of the times, by which "unpardonable signifies such to which by the discipline and custom of the Church pardon may not be administered. They are called 'unpardonable' not because God alone would not pardon them, but because God alone could."2

The Anabaptists revived these errors at the time of the Reformation. This sect is mentioned by name in the original Latin Augsburg Confession, and it annoyed and perplexed the English Reformers with its teachings. In the reign of Henry VIII a statute was enacted by which "They are excluded from the king's pardon who hold that sinners after baptism cannot be restored by repentance."

The last sentence in the Article would also apply to the Antinomians, who claim the believer cannot sin because he is "regenerate and within the covenant of grace." This error appeared in apostolic times, lingered through the centuries, and was fully developed by the writings of Agricola in the sixteenth century. It appeared again in the seventeenth century as an offshoot of high Calvinism. It was met in this form by the early Methodists. Wesley

1 See Eusebius, Church History, book vi; Dupin, History of the Church, vol. ii, p. 47; Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Cent. III, part ii, chap. v, sec. 17.

2Jeremy Taylor.

and Fletcher were its most powerful opponents. Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism are among the most forceful polemical writings of the age.

III. THE EXPOSITION

Not every sin willingly committed after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after justification.

The phrase "sin against the Holy Ghost" is not found in the Holy Scriptures. The sin condemned in the gospel is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." All blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable sin, but there may be other sins against the Holy Ghost which are remissible. "Wherefore 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 the world to come" (Matt. 12. 31, 32).

Upon this passage Wesley says: "How immense is the number in every nation, throughout the Christian world, of those who have been more or less distressed on account of this scripture! . . . How is it possible that anyone who reads his Bible can one hour remain in doubt concerning it, when our Lord himself has so clearly told us what that blasphemy is? 'He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; because they said, He hath an unclean spirit' (Mark 3. 29, 30). This, then, and this alone, is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: the saying, he had an unclean spirit; the affirming that Christ wrought his miracles by the power of

an evil spirit; or, more particularly, that 'he cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils.'" "When the person obstinately attributed those works to the devil, which he had the fullest evidence could be wrought only by the Spirit of God: that this and nothing else is the sin against the Holy Spirit is evident from the connection in this place; and more particularly from Mark 3. 28-30."2

This is substantially the view held by Methodist divines as to the nature of this particular sin. The evangelist's own comment upon it should settle all controversy: "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." The sin of the Pharisees was one of thought: "Jesus knew their thoughts" (Matt. 12. 25) and the intense hatred that inspired them, and was able to give exact measurement of their guilt. It was a sin of open speech: "They said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matt. 12. 24). The claim of Jesus was that he "cast out devils by the Spirit of God," and that this complete mastery of evil spirits was an indication that "the kingdom of God" had come to them; but their speech represented Christ as in league with the powers of darkness, and the miracle wrought as the work of "the prince of the devils."

There are some variations in views respecting the liability of men to the commission of this sin in later generations. Wesley says, "Never more be afraid of committing the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost! You are in no more danger of doing this than of pulling the sun out of the firmament."s This sin cannot now be committed under the same aggravating circumstances, by eyewitnesses of the miracles of Christ, as Jesus is no longer upon the earth. But it is well that men should

1 Works, vol. ii, p. 246.

Adam Clarke, in loco.

Works, vol. ii, p. 246.