HOLY
414
HOLT
faith in the sense used by Matt., xvii, 19: that which
works wonders; so it is, as it were, a condition and a
part of the two gifts mentioned with it. (3) Four
charismata that served to edify, exhort, and encourage
the faithful, and to confound tlie unbelievers: pro-
phetia, discrelin spirituum, genera linguaruin, interpre-
tatio sermonum. These four seem to fall logically into
two groups; for prophecy, which is essentially an
inspired pronoiuicement on different religious subjects,
the declaration of the future being only of secondary
import, finds its complement and, as it were, its check
in the gift of discerning spirits; and what, as a rule,
would be the use of glossolalia — the gift of speaking
with tongues — if the gift of interpreting them were
wanting? (4) Lastly there remain the charismata
that seem to have as object the administration of
temporal affairs, and works of charity: gubernatioties,
opitulationes, distributiones. Judging by the context,
these gifts, though conferred and useiful for the direc-
tion and comfort of one's neighbour, were in no way
necessarily found in all ecclesiastical superiors.
The charismata, being extraordinary favours and not requisite for the sanctification of the individual, were not bestowed indiscriminately on all Christians. How- ever, in the Apostolic Age, they were comparatively common, especially in the communities of Jerusalem, Rome, and Corinth. The reason of this is apparent: in the infant Churches the charismata were extremely useful, and even morally necessary, to strengthen the faith of believers, to confound the infidels, to make them reflect, and to coimterbalance the false miracles with which they sometimes prevailed. 8t. Paul was careful (I Cor., xii, xiii, xiv) to restrict authoritatively the use of these charismata within the ends for which they were bestowed, antl thus insist upon their sub- ordination to the power of the hierarchy. Cf. Batif- fol, "L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme " (Paris, 1909), 36. (See Charismata.)
VII. Fruits of the Holy Ghost. — Some writers extend this term to all the supernatural virtues, or rather to the acts of all these virtues, inasmuch as they are the results of the mysterious workings of the Holy Ghost in our souls by means of His grace. But, with St. Thomas, I-II, Q. l.xx, a. 2, the word is ordinarily restricted to mean only those supernatural works that are done joyfully and with peace of soul. This is the sense in which most authorities applv the term to the list mentioned by St. Paul (Gal., v, 22, 23) : " But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, be- nignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, mod- esty, continency, chastity. " Moreover, there is no doubt that this list of twelve — three of the twelve are omitted in several Greek and Latin manuscripts — is not to be taken in a strictly limited sense, but, accord- ing to the rules of Scriptural language, as capable of being extended to include all acts of a similar charac- ter. That is why the .A.ngelic Doctor says: "Every virtuous act which man performs with pleasure is a fruit." The fruits of the Holy Ghost are not habits, permanent qualities, but acts. They cannot, there- fore, be confounded with the virtues and the gifts, from which they are distinguished as the effect is from its cause, or the .stream from its source. The charity, patience, mildness, etc., of which the Apostle speaks in this passage, are not then the virtues themselves, but rather their acts or operations; for, however per- fect the virtues may be, they cannot be considered as the ultimate effects of grace, being themselves intended, inasmuch as they are active principles, to produce something else, i. e. their acts. Further, in order that the.se acts may fully justify their meta- phorical name of fruits, they must belong to that class which are performed with ea.sc and pleasure; in other words, the difficulty involved in performing them must disappear in presence of the delight and satisfaction resulting from the good accomplished.
VIII. Sins against the Holy Ghost. — The sin or
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned in
Matt., xii, 22-32; Mark, iii, 22-30; Luke, xii, 10—
cf. xi, 14-23; and Christ everywhere declares that
it shall not be pardoned. In what does it consist?
If we examine all the passages alluded to, there can
be little doubt as to the reply. Let us take, for in-
stance, the account given by St. Matthew, which is
more complete than that of the other Synoptics.
There had been brought to Christ "one possessed with
a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that
he spoke and saw". While the crowd is wondering,
and asking: "Is not this the Son of David?", the
Pharisees, yielding to their wonted jealousy, and
shutting their eyes to the light of evidence, say:
"This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzelmb
the prince of the devils. " Jesus then proves to them
the absurdity, and, consequently, the malice of their
explanation; He shows them that it is by "the Spirit
of God " that He casts out devils, and then He con-
cludes: "Therefore I say to you: Every sin and
blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy
of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever
shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the
Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, nor in the world to come." So, to sin
against the Holy Ghost is to confovuid Him with the
spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Di-
vine character of works manifestly Divine. This is
the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin in
question; for, after reciting the words of the Master:
" But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost
shall never have forgiveness ", he adds at once: "Be-
cause they .said: He hath an unclean spirit." With
this sin of pure downright malice, Jesus contrasts the
sin "against the Son of man", that is the sin com-
mitted against Himself as man, the wrong done to His
humanity in judging Him l)y His humble and lowly
appearance. This fault, unlike the former, might be
excused as the result of man's ignorance and mis-
understanding.
But the Fathers of the Church, commenting on the Gospel texts we are treating of, did not confine them- selves to the meaning given above. Whether it be that they wished to group together all objectively analogous cases, or whether they hesitated and wav- ered when confronted with this point of doctrine, which St. Augustine declares (Serni. ii de verbis Domini, c. v) one of the most difficult in Scripture, they have proposed different interpretations or ex- planations. St. Thomas, whom we may safely follow, gives a very good summary of ojiinions in II-II, Q. xiv. He says that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was and may be explained in three ways. Sometimes, and in its most literal signification, it has been taken to mean the uttering of an insult against the Divine Spirit, applying the appellation eit her to t he Holy Ghost alone or to all Three Divine Persons. This was the sin of the Pharisees, who spoke at first against " the Son of man", criticizing the works and human ways of Jesus, accusing Him of loving good cheer and wine, of associating with the pubhcans, and who, later on, with undoulited bad faith, traduced His Divine works, the miracles which He wrought by virtue of His own Divinity. Ontheotherhand, St. Augustine frequently explains blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be final impenitence, perseverance till death in mortal sin. This impenitence is against the Holy Ghost, in the sense that it frustrates and is aKsolutely opposed to the remission of sins, and this remission is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, the mutual love of the Father and the Son. In this view, Jesus, in Matt., xii, and Mark, iii, did not really accu.se the Pharisees of blaspheming the Holy Gho.st, He only warned them against the danger they were in of doing .«o. I'^inally, .several Fathers, and, after them, many .scholastic theologians, apply the expression to all sins directly opposed to
