ART. XI. LIST OF WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED.

THE

ECLECTIC REVIEW,

FOR JUNE, 1828.

Art. I. 1. Discourses on the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; Divine Influence, and its connexion with Instituted Means. With Notes and Illustrations. By William Orme. 12mo. pp. 276. Price 5s. London. 1828.

2. The Divinity and Offices of the Holy Spirit, viewed in Connexion with the Conversion of the Heathen World to Christianity. By Robert Newstead. 12mo. (Second Edit.) pp. 88. London. 1825. 3. Practical Views of the Dignity, Grace, and Operations of the Holy Spirit; being a Series of Discourses on the Fruits of the Spirit. By the Rev. Samuel Gilfillan, Comrie. 12mo. pp. 484. Price 6s. Edinburgh. 1826.

4. Sermons on the Nature and Offices of the Holy Ghost. mondson, A.M. and R. Treffry. 12mo. pp. 296. London. 1824.

By J. EdPrice 3s. 6d.

5. Divine Influence; or, the Operation of the Holy Spirit traced from the Creation of Man to the Consummation of all things. By the Rev. Thomas T. Biddulph, A.M. &c. 8vo. pp. 264. Bristol. 1824.

WE might, we believe, add to this list, the titles of several other recent publications relating to that fundamental article of the Christian faith, the doctrine of Divine Influence. It seems to have been felt, that this had been a point too little insisted upon of late years,-too obscurely held, too timidly adverted to; or when brought forward, it had been too often dissociated from its practical purpose and its bearings upon Christian duty. We cannot therefore but applaud the design which the respective Authors of these works have had in common, while treating the general subject under different specific bearings and points of view. We are glad also to notice, that the first two on our list are from the pens of influential and leading individuals in two of our Missionary Societies, and that VOL. XXIX. N.S. UU

the immediate design of their respective publications, is to illustrate the connexion between the promise of the Divine Agency and the faithful employment of the instrumentality which is the instituted means of accomplishing the Divine will. Mr. Douglas, it will be recollected, in his delightful volume on the Advancement of Society, gave a pledge which he has not yet redeemed, to make this the subject of a separate treatise. We hold him to his promise; but in the mean time, we rejoice that Mr. Orme has effectively contributed to supply his lack of service in this respect, by a judicious and able exposition of the Scripture doctrine, accompanied with practical strictures and observations highly deserving of general attention under the particular circumstances of the times.

The first two discourses in Mr. Orme's volume are devoted to an elaborate exposition of Matt. xii. 31. Besides illustrating the nature of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it has been his design, to shew, in these discourses, the admirable adaptation of the Gospel to the guilt and wretchedness of man; and in this point of view', he remarks, they are more inti❝mately connected with the following three, than the subject 'might seem to indicate.' The passage in question contains

.

an announcement made by the Heavenly Saviour, at once worthy of himself and of his mission of mercy, calculated to disarm his fellest enemies of their rage, and to encourage and comfort his friends. It is scarcely less unlimited than the freest and fullest invitations of that Gospel which is emphatically good tidings to all people, and from the enjoyment of whose salvation, no son or daughter of our race who believes, is excluded. Still, I am aware that the point which presses, is this: There appears to be a limitation to the forgiveness which the Gospel proffers; there seems an exception among those to whom its blessings are addressed.' p. 4.

What is that limitation? Some have told us, that the sin denounced as irremissible, is one which was peculiar to the days of our Lord's ministry,-which no one is now in danger of falling into, or can commit; while others would resolve it into simple impenitence, depriving it of all specific character. The Authors of the Sermons which stand fourth on our list, adopt the extensively received opinion, that the sin had actually been committed by the Pharisees, and consisted in wilfully and maliciously ascribing the miracles which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, to the agency of 'the devil. Although, it is added, none now can stand in precisely the same situation in which the Pharisees stood, to whom the text was addressed, yet, there may be the same 'malignant designs against Christ indulged, the same disposition to slander his character entertained, and the same insults

to his religion offered, in any age and in any country where his gospel is preached, as there were in Judea.' (p. 106.) Mr. Orme's view of the passage is different, and approaches very nearly to that taken by Whitby and Doddridge. He contends, that the sin of which the Pharisees were guilty, was blasphemy against the Son of Man', which, though inexpressibly criminal and detestable, is not pronounced unpardonable. There was a provision of mercy even for this offence.' The design of our Lord is conceived to have been, not to accuse the Pharisees of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but to warn them against it.

In support of this view of the subject, let it be observed, that no distinct appearance of the Holy Spirit took place on the occasion to which the declaration of Christ immediately and properly refers. He is not mentioned in all the context. He was not invoked by Jesus when he wrought the miracle; it was not performed with any specific reference to his agency; and even when Jesus speaks in allusion to the power by which it was performed, it is subsequently to the miracle and to the blasphemy of the Pharisees..... While he lived here, it was properly the dispensation of the Son of Man; the earthly ministry of the heavenly Saviour. Hence, offences committed against our Lord during this period of the Divine economy, were not regarded in the same light in which the same offences were afterwards viewed. His work had not then been completed; the full revelation of his character and designs had not been given; the completion of the evidence establishing his high and uncompromising claims, had not been brought forward. Another dispensation of mercy was yet to take place; another exhibition of his high pretensions was to be made; a higher species of evidence than casting out devils, was yet to be afforded. Hence, a greater degree of guilt might yet be contracted; and therefore, while blaspheming the Son of Man might be forgiven, blaspheming the Holy Spirit should not be forgiven.' p. 15-18.

Mr. Orme further argues in support of this view, that to these very men, many of whom must have been guilty of the crime charged on them by our Lord, were the apostles commissioned to make the first overtures of pardon and favour.' This, however, we cannot admit as a safe statement. The apostles were, indeed, to begin at Jerusalem'; and among the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost, there were doubtless many who had joined in the awful imprecation— His blood be upon us.' But that there were many who had been guilty of ascribing our Lord's miracles to Satanic agency, we cannot suppose. The people were "amazed" at the miracles," and said, Is not this the Son of David?" And it was apparently with a view to counteract the impression that these had made upon the minds of the spectators, that the Pharisees

and the "scribes from Jerusalem" had recourse to the despe rate expedient of calumniating, not Our Lord's personal character, but the Divine power which rested upon him, and by which he did the works to which he appealed as the witness of the Father to his mission. "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." (John x. 37.-See also ch. iv. 36, 7.) The Pharisees attempted to set aside the evidence supplied by these works, by malignantly referring them to the power of the prince of the demons. This was attributing to Satan the very acts of God, and giving to another the glory due to the Divine Being alone. It was, in other words, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, who was the Author of the works. We have no proof that the hardened state of mind from which alone such conduct could emanate, was ever followed by that repentance which must precede forgiveness. The awful warning must, we conceive, have been intended to guard the people at large against being swayed by the malignant representations of the Pharisees, rather than to warn the offenders themselves. While, therefore, Our Lord condescends to expose the absurdity of the charge brought forward by his calumniators, he points out the awful nature of their crime, which hath never forgiveness; "because they said, he hath an unclean spirit.” (Mark iii. SO.)

This sin, and the state of mind essentially connected with it, we cannot but regard as very different from the offence of 'contradicting the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and blaspheming his last and crowning dispensation of mercy',-with which Mr. Orme seems to identify it. For those Jews who persisted in refusing the Gospel, on the preaching of the Apostles, we admit, there remained no remedy; but the same may be said now, of all impenitent persons. Mr. Orme himself expressly distinguishes between the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and the rejection of the Gospel. Their eternal conse quences', he remarks, may be the same; but they are different offences in themselves.' He describes the former as 'the direct and open reviling of the Gospel, from malevolence ' against its Author and a desire to obstruct the progress of his 'glory.'

The Divine law of blasphemy supposes the existence of malice towards God, and that this feeling is displayed in the language of calumny and abuse, or in conduct corresponding to it. It implies, not only that the Holy Ghost in his dispensation of mercy is rejected, but that it is rejected, knowing something of its high character and claims, and that it is rejected from hatred of its moral and sublime design. On the part of the individual to whom this offence is brought home, there has been the perpetration of violence to the