This general conclusion is borne out by Christ's strong language concerning sin, and especially that sin which cannot be forgiven (see Mt I'l''-, I\ik 3-', Lk 12"'). In spite of the long controversy whicli has taken place as to the mysterious sin against the Holy Ghost and the misunderstandings con- cerning it which have caused unspeakable spiritual anguish to tliousands, there seems little question that the only sill llnis piuniiiineed un]iaiil(iiialile is that of wilfiilnnd |H.i>i,-tenl .Miininu :.,uain-t light till light itself is turned indi .larhiie-,>-, — I he per- verting of truth at i(s veiy simice, w here the Holy Spirit Ilini.-elf in-,(iuets the conscience, and thus poisoiiiiiL' the Well, of the soul. Therefore, not in virtue of an arliitiaiy fiat of the Almighty, but by the necessity (if (he' case, such sin cannot be for- given. 'A lamp's death when, replete with oil, it chokes ; a stomach's when, surcharged with food, it starves.' Witli tiiis exjilanation liarmonizes the Saviour's prayer in Lk 23''^ ' Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do.' The sin of Christ's murderers, heinous indeed beyond expres- sion, was a sin against the Son of man, and — at least in the case of most of those implicated and so far as the full gravity of the offence was c(jncerned —it was not such a deliberate and complete per- version of conscience as to amount to a sin against the Holy Spirit. The reason why the unfurgiving cannot be forgiven is to be siniilaiiy understood. Hence the general doctrine is laid'down in the Gospels in unmistakable terms, tlia.t( hid the Katlier is ready to receive and pardon all sinners except those who shut tliemselves out from its possibility by wilfully cherisliing a spirit known to be evil, and deliberately hardening their own hearts against the grace whieli Avas ready to receive and renew them. See Unpardonable Sin.
2. It is clear that Christ's teaching concerning forgiveness was not exliausted by the iiioclaiiiation of the Father's ■\villiiiene- le i . '. , r, - ih ■ i.enileni.
recognized by all to he . Mt 9, Mk 2, and Lk .'') is i the healing of the paraly impressed itself strongly r given by all three Syne than usual and almost in
li liad evidently I it ion, since it is , -reater length e ^^ ords. It was one of the grounds of offence wliicli ultimately caused tlie death of Jesus, tliat, whilst lowly in demeanour. He put forth claims for Himself so lofty that to a reverent Jew He appeared often to
blasplieiiie. Jesus does not deny the fundamental assumption that none can forgive sins but Cod only. To a true believer in one God this is an axiom ; there is but one Governor and there can be but one Fount of pardon. Jesus did not thereupon disclaim the possession of a Divine prerogative. He put His own claims to an easily applied test, Whether is it easier to tell a sutterer that his sins are forgiven, or to heal him of an incurable malady ? In other words, any prophet may speak words of comfort or absolution, but one who shows the power of Ileal ing in order to establish his claim to pronounce forgi\cness is no ordinary messenger, hut jiroves Himself to be the Son of God with liower. 'i'lie ^\ hoh; incident evidently made a dee]i impression, for we are told that the people wondered, praised God, and acknowledged that unprecedented and superhuman power had been entrusted to a son of man.
The close connexion between the work that Christ did for the liodies of men and the power that He claimed over their souls in the forgive- ness of sin, is suggested in other narratives, though somewhat less clearly. The inference has been drawn from Jn 5" and the early tradition recorded in 8", that Jesus habitually pronounced remission of sin and gave power to amend the life in future, but the brief records in these cases liardly warrant such a conclusion.
The narrative of the woman who was a sinner, recorded in Lk V^^-s", Is full of instruction on the subject of forgiveness. The mission of Christ to save the outcast and the ahainloncd is here deli- cately and lieiiutifully shown, 'i'lie only doubtful pointof interpretatidii rel.iles (o the ground of for- giveness as described in v.^'. Many coniinentators, including the chief Roman (aih'olie aulhorities, make the forgiveness exteinle.l to the woman to depend upon the love she show I'd. anil at liist read- ing this might seem warranted l,\ the jijiiuse 'for she loved much.' IJut mi \aniinal mn t his is seen to be impossible. Fur (I) (he whole si.i|.e of the parable of the two delitois shows that Imgiveness precedes lovo ; (2) the latter part of v.-"" enforces the same lesson ; and so (.S) doe.s the ab.solution pronounced in v.''^. The only ambiguity lies in the pregnant use of 6Vi in v.^', and the meaning of the clause may be expressed by the paraphrase, ' This is the reason why I tell you that her many sins are forgiven — for (see) she has shown much love ; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.' Her repentance and acceptance had taken place before, her grateful love was manifested in return by the outpouring of the ointment ; and in v.^" Christ authoritatively confirms the assurance of her free and full pardon as One who had an abso- lute right to do so.