those whom the book accuses. The anthor's production is, from first to last, an acrimonious philippic against, and misrepresentation of, "New School Presbyterians," as the modus operandi of a purpose, which he has had neither the modesty nor the wisdom to conceal. The Biblical Repertory fails to perceive "any acrimony of style or bitterness of spirit in this composition." We suppose there were none in the exhortations of the Romish inquisitors; but that all was very pious. For ourselves we love calumny and sectarianism neither more nor less, because wrapped in a holy envelope.

In offering the foregoing strictures upon the "Introductory Chapter," of Dr. Lord, and also the first, ninth, and tenth chapters, by Mr. Cheeseman, we desire to be distinctly understood as not meaning, even by the remotest implication, to apply them to "Old School" Presbyterians, as a body of Christian men. We are well aware that there are many kinds of "Old School" Presbyterians, as well as "New School;" that none of them are perfect; and that some of both classes seem much farther from this desirable state than others. We belong to that comparatively retired class of Presbyterians (we think it includes the great majority both of ministers and laymen in the two sections. of the Presbyterian church), who do not, and never did believe, that there were any "doctrinal differences" of so serious a character, as to demand the painful rupture which has occurred. We are prepared to admit that there were, and still are, "differences," greater or less according to the particular specimens of "Old and New School" men that shall be taken as the basis of comparison. The time never was, and perhaps, in this world, never will be, when all these "differences" shall cease to exist. In the language of the Biblical Repertory, we say, "The Confession, as framed by the Westminster divines, was an acknowledged compromise between two classes of theologians. When adopted by the Presbyterian Church in this country, it was with the distinct understanding that the mode of subscription did not imply strict uniformity of views. And from that time to this there has been an open and avowed diversity of opinion, on many points among those who adopted the Confession of Faith, without leading to the suspicion of insincerity or dishonesty."-vol. iii. These diversities, to a great extent, have related to "the decision of some point in mental or moral science." Hence it is that they "are in a great measure confined to professed theologians, clergymen, or laymen." Hence we should learn "to separate the human from the divine element in our theology; and to be careful not to clothe the figments of our our minds with the awful authority of God, and denounce our brethren for not believing him, when they do not agree with us."-Bib. Reper., vol. ii., new series. Not all differences, though real, are fundamental. We suppose that the members-ministers

and laymen, that constitute the "Old School" portion of the Presbyterian church, would be found to differ very considerably, upon a minute and detailed comparison of views. The same is true of the "New School"-true of any denomination that ever did, or ever will exist on the earth. A mere title, however much it may be coveted by some, or repudiated by others, makes no difference as to the facts. Men are men: and they have their ideas; and no system of ecclesiastical consolidation and congregation can destroy what is peculiar and specific in those ideas, or make that which is common any more common than God's grace has already made it. Christians of the same sect, and of different sects, though not liberal against the truth, need to look at this suoject with catholic minds and charitable hearts. Those who are polemical, who become leaders of a party in the church, who write books to magnify "differences," are in great danger of striving about "words to no profit." Leaders are of great service when they lead in the right direction, and of as little service when they lead in the wrong direction. They have the infirmities of men, and the dangers of position; and they need great grace to do good, and not harm. Believing, as we do, that the real differences between "Old and New School Presbyterians" should never have alienated and separated brethren from each other, we are compelled to believe that the manner in which those differences have been treated, perhaps by both parties, is capable of great improvement. The want of a proper spirit of moderation and Christian charity led to the division of the Synod of Philadelphia, resulting in the formation of the Synod of New York, in 1745. The two Synods continued separate till 1758, when they were united in one body, taking the name of the "Synod of New York and Philadelphia." In the plan of union agreed upon between the two Synods, they speak of "compromising those differences, which were agitated many years ago with too great warmth and animosity." They earnestly recommended to all under their care, "that instead of indulging a contentious disposition, they would love each other with a pure heart fervently, as brethren who profess subjection to the same Lord, adhere to the same faith, worship, and government, and entertain the same hope of glory."-Records of Presbyterian church, pp. 286, 288. These, we think, were their "sober second thoughts," creditable alike to their wisdom and piety.

Cherishing the views expressed in the above paragraph, we confess we have felt a sense of grief and sorrow, while reading Mr. Cheeseman's book. His purpose we have endeavored to expose; and if in our construction of that purpose we are mistaken, then we should despair of ever learning from a book the design of its writer. His argumentative skill, his fidelity in the statement of facts, his copious use of authorities to prove what are the doctrinal sentiments of the respective schools; these are matters for

future consideration. Had we no means of judging besides that furnished by Mr. C., we should suppose that the two Schools were as wide apart as the poles-that they hardly held anything in common, not even the grace of Christian honesty. How diametrically opposed, however, is his picture to the plain facts! The translation, by certificate, of church members from one section to the other of the Presbyterian church, is a matter of daily occurrence. The exchange of pulpits is a very common practice among the ministers of these respective branches of our once united church. We have known repeated instances, in which candidates for the ministry have been licensed to preach the gospel in one School, and ordained in the other, without the slightest change of theological sentiments. These facts testify loudly, very loudly, against the clamorous cry of heresy, Papacy, Unitarianism, Pelagianism, &c., in vociferating which a few brethren spend so much of their time and breath. The fact is, the great majority of both Schools, ministers and laymen, act, and always have acted, except in the heat of controversy, as if there was not a word of truth in all this noise. That there are some "differences" we have already confessed; but that they are not incompatible with an honest subscription to the same standards, and the saving power of Christianity in the heart, is what both parties (with a few exceptions), practically confess, in a great variety of ways. If theologians would learn to distinguish the divine from the human element in their doctrinal tenets, and assign to each its proper place; if they would learn that their interpretation of a creed, as individuals, has just as much authority, and no more, as the reasons they can furnish to establish its correctness; if they would learn not to impute to others sentiments they do not hold; if they would treat each other's opinions with perfect candor in the sight of God, keeping their hearts free from the spirit of party; they would, without any laxness of doctrine, disturb the piety of the church less, do less harın, and much more good in this ruined world. We hope, in the progress of human thought and sound piety, the day will come when sectarianism, and differences in the church of Christ will have fewer bigots and narrow minds to vaunt their inglorious excellence. We close this article by expressing a deep-seated disapprobation of Mr. Cheeseman's performance.

(To be continued.)

ARTICLE II.

BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

By REV. D. B. Coɛ, New York.

THE remarkable declaration of our Saviour respecting this sin, is recorded, with little variation, by the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.-(Matt. 12: 31, 32; Mark 3: 28, 29; Luke 12: 10.) The commonly-received interpretation of these passages is embarrassed with many difficulties, and has led to much practical error and mischief. We propose, therefore, to call to notice, and to defend, another interpretation, which has had some respectable advocates, but which, it seems to us, is not duly considered and appreciated.

Most modern commentators suppose, that blasphemy of the Holy Ghost consists in ascribing the Saviour's miracles, which were wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, to satanic agency, and that blasphemy against the Son of Man, consisted in reviling Him for those acts which did not necessarily imply Divine interposition.

In opposition to this view, we maintain, that all the blasphemies uttered against the Saviour personally, were peculiarly against the "Son of Man," but that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is peculiar to the times subsequent to the promised advent of the Comforter, and to those persons who "do despite to the spirit of grace."

It is assumed by those who advocate the former view, that Christ designed to teach the Pharisees, with whom He was conversing, that their calumnies and revilings constituted the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This assumption is based upon the connection between the record of their blasphemies and this declaration of our Saviour. In Matthew this declaration is introduced by the formula, "Wherefore," (4 Touro). Mark, after recording the whole transaction, adds:" Becaue they said he hath an unclean spirit." The connection, in both cases, clearly implies, that Christ considered the language of the Pharisees blasphemous, and that this blasphemy occasioned the remark under consideration; but how this proves that their blasphemy was against the "Holy Ghost," rather than against the "Son of Man," it is not easy to see.

If any argument is to be built upon this connection, it surely weighs against the interpretation in favor of which it is urged.

Bloomfield speaks of "the extreme harshness of supposing that what was said in immediate connection with the sin of the Pharisees, was meant not to be understood of that, but of another offence which bore an affinity to it." But two forms of blasphemy are spoken of, in comparison with each other, and the question is, in which of the two shall the sin of the Pharisees be sought? The connection is more intimate, and the transition more natural, if we suppose that the former member of the comparison refers to the sin which gave occasion for making the comparison. The blasphemy just uttered, occupies the Saviour's thoughts. He has just instituted an argument to exhibit the absurdity it involves; and now, in comparing the enormity of this sin, with that of blasphemy in another form, He would naturally introduce first in the comparison that already under consideration. The harshness, therefore, belongs solely to the other interpretation.

While, therefore, the connection in which this passage stands, does not require us to find the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in the language of the Pharisees, but rather discountenances this interpretation; there are other considerations which show that this view is entirely inadmissible.

1. The blasphemies of the Pharisees were designed to bring into contempt the personal character and claims of the Son of Man. For this purpose they attributed His miraculous works to satanic agency. They said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. How could they have pointed their malice more directly against the Son of Man? But it is said, that although these calumnies were aimed at Christ, and were designed to expose Him to public scorn; yet, as His miracles were wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, the sin of attributing them to Beelzebub was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. To this we reply, that this sin, as Christ asserted in a subsequent verse, was brought forth from "the evil treasure of their hearts," and must therefore have received its direction from the malice of their hearts against the Saviour. Constructive blasphemy is a crime with which Papists and polemics are wont to charge their opponents, but we are not aware that such charges are preferred in the Word of God; and if they were, it is hardly credible that a constructive sin, should be distinguished as alone beyond the reach of pardon. If blasphemy against the "Son of Man" was a possible crime, the Pharisees, in the case before us, must have committed it.

2. The Pharisees, in their blasphemies, not only had no reference to the Holy Ghost, but they were, in a great measure, at least, ignorant of His personality and offices. Since the Holy Ghost is one of the persons of the Godhead, there is a sense in which all sin is against Him. But Christ speaks of blasphemy as being uttered against each of two persons of the Trinity, in a sense in which it is not uttered against the others. Such blasphemy im