may learn thereby to prefer things to words, not words to things, and to seek for nothing else in the speaker, but for his intention, to convey which only the words are used. For what real difference is there whether it is said, “Blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven;” or “he that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.” Except perhaps that the same thing is declared more plainly in this last than in the other form; and so one Evangelist does not overthrow, but explains the other. Now “blasphemy of the Spirit” is an unevident2366 expression; because it is not directly said what spirit; for every spirit is not the Holy Spirit. Thus it might be called “blasphemy of the spirit,” when a man blasphemes with the spirit; as that may be called “prayer of the spirit,” when one prays with the spirit. Whence the Apostle says, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also.”2367 But when it is said, “he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost,” these ambi- guities are removed. So the expression, “hath never forgiveness, but shall be held guilty of an eternal offence;” what is it, but what according to Matthew is expressed, “it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”? The very same idea is expressed in different words and different forms of speech. And what is in Matthew, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost,” that we might not understand it of anything but blasphemy, others have more clearly expressed, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.” Yet the same thing is said by all; nor did any one of them depart from the intention of the Speaker, for the sake of understanding which only are words spoken, and written, and read, and heard. 14. But one may say, See I have admitted and understood that where the word “blas- 323 phemy” is used, and neither all, nor some certain blasphemy expressed, it may be understood either of all, or of some certain blasphemy, but not necessarily of all; but again if it be not understood of some, that that which is said would be untrue: so again if it is not said every or some certain word, it is not necessary that every word should be understood, but unless some word be understood, in no way can what is said be true. But when we read, “He that shall blaspheme,” how can I understand any certain blasphemy, when the word “blasphemy” is not used, or any certain word, when the word “word” is not used, but it seems to be said as it were generally, “He that shall blaspheme.” To this objection2368 I reply thus. If it were said in this passage also, “He that shall blaspheme with any kind of blasphemy whatever against the Holy Ghost,” there would be no reason why we should think that some particular blasphemy was to be sought for, when we ought rather to understand all blasphemy; but because all blasphemy could not be meant, lest the hope of forgiveness in case of their amendment should be taken away from heathens, and Jews, and heretics, and all kinds of 2366 Clause dictum. 2367 1 Cor. xiv. 15. 2368 Contradictioni. 681 On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xii. 32, ‘Whosoever shall speak a word…