that he abstained from arrogating to himself an equality with the Su preme Being.

The knowledge and state of mind of our Lord's apostles respecting his Person, has been urged by Unitarians as an argument against the doctrine of his divinity. Dr. Smith, with the candour which distinguish es the whole of this work, admits that it has considerable weight. We cannot assent to his opinion. On a variety of occasions during his intercourse with his disciples, our Lord asserts his pre-existence, and gives plain intimations of his Deity; and more than once his disciples recognised and openly confessed their belief of this truth. That their apprehensions of the real nature of Christ, and of the end for which he came into the world, were, until his ascension, very indistinct and obscure, cannot be denied. The imperfection of their knowledge of these things affords one of the strongest corroborations of their testimony. But that it invalidates the evidence for our Lord's divinity we expressly deny. Intrinsically the objection founded on this circumstance may have some weight; but when opposed to the facts that our Lord did teach his own deity, and that the disciples during his personal ministry believed it, it appears to us to be utterly nugatory. There were obvious and strong reasons why, except on the occasions referred to, Christ should hide from them his divine glory: there were certainly none, why he should be continually dazzling their eyes with its transcendent brightness: and the circumstance which our opponents allege as a presumptive argument against the divinity of our Saviour, appears to us to establish this truth, by confirming the testimony of the apostles in general, and especially their testimony to our Lord's preexistence and divinity.

The second part of the second volume of the work under our review, will, we have no doubt, ap. pear the most interesting to ordinary readers. It contains the testimonies to the person of Christ from the Acts of the Apostles, and from the Epistles. We do not propose to give even an outline of these, having already exceeded our limits, and, most probably, wearied the attention of our readers. We earnestly recommend the whole work to their perusal, and particularly the concluding pages, in which Dr. Smith sums up with much conciseness and energy the evidence for the divinity and real humanity of Jesus Christ, and shows that both the old Socinianism and the modern Unitarianism are irreconcilable with the general tenor of the Christian revelation, and with many particular passages ascribing to Christ the unquestionable cha racters of Deity.

From the extracts which we have made, our readers will, we trust, be able to judge for themselves of the nature and plan of the work, and of the manner in which it has been executed. Our own opinion, on these points, has been already expressed. We regret that the author has mingled with a work of this kind so much personal controversy, and so much of his own private history, and that of his opponents. There are comparatively few of his readers, in the present day, who can take much interest in these disputes; and when the present generation has passed away, and the personal altercations of controversialists have been buried in oblivion, the pleasure and advan. tage with which Christians will peruse the "Scripture Testimony" will be considerably abated, by the statement of private quarrels affecting only the reputation of those immediately concerned in them. But these contentions are chiefly

confined to the notes; and, not withstanding the introduction of them, we have risen from the perusal of the whole work, with all its appendages, with the highest respect for the learning, and talents, and piety, of the author, and unfeigned gratitude to him for the ac cession which he has made to the department of Biblical criticism, and the confirmation which he has given, by the work before us, to one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith.

Far be it from us to indulge what Dr. Smith with propriety calls a spirit of dictation," or to denounce any individual or class of men as enemies to Christianity, who, sincerely believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, differ from us with regard to facts or doctrines which are not clearly revealed.

But we do not consider Unitarians in general as coming under this description; and our chief objection to the work before us is, that the author has not regarded them as enemies to Christianity, and treated them as such.

Unitarians deny the divinity of Christ. It is from the testimony of the Scriptures alone that that fact or doctrine can be ascertained. By the testimony of the Scriptures it must stand or fall. And is it conceivable that a doctrine of such importance should be obscurely or imperfectly revealed? Independently of its connection with the doctrine of atonement, it cannot be a matter of small moment whether we regard our Saviour as a mere man, or as God also. The general character of Christianity, our faith, our religious services and worship, our gratitude to the Saviour, and our obedience to him-all must correspond with the nature of the Person of Christ-all must be affected and regulated by it. If Christ be a mere man, to worship him as

God is the grossest profaneness: if he be "over all, God," to regard him as a creature is the most heinous impiety.

Accordingly, the fact of our Saviour's divinity is revealed in the clearest possible manner; not in a few detached and insulated passages, but in every part of the sacred records. It is affirmed in terms the plainest and most intelligible: it is implied in the attributes and works which are ascribed to him, and in the offices with which he is invested, and the worship and homage which men are commanded to pay to him. Take away the divinity of Christ, and you loosen the whole fabric of Christianity; you reduce to unmeaning and extravagant declamation the praises which are ascribed to him for his voluntary humiliation : you render the confidence of his people in him a delusive and impious reliance, and the homage which they pay to him a solemn mockery of the great Creator.

It is no dogmatism, no overweening conceit of our own wisdom, no uncharitableness, to regard as infidels, men who refuse their assent to a doctrine thus clearly revealed, and thus closely interwoven with the whole system of Christian faith and Christian morals. Scepticism upon this point we call unbelief, and the reception of Unitarians as brethren-indifference. We love their souls, we pity their delusion, we would use our best endeavours to reclaim them from their errors; but whilst they deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, whilst they hesitate not to accuse the blessed Jesus of employing disingenuous artifices to accomplish his purposes, whilst they impute bad motives to the apostles in the writings which were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and have the effrontery to charge them with illo

gical reasoning, and forced analogies, and far-fetched allusions, we hold such men to be infidels. Their professions of regard for Christianity as of divine authority are of no avail, in opposition to this practical contempt of the sacred volume. Denying its inspiration, we have no common ground on which to argue with them concerning the Person of Christ. We cast from us their de clarations of esteem for us as brethren: we deem their willingness to argue from the Scriptures, as originating only in the vain desire of defeating their opponents on their own ground; and, if the convincing of Unitarians be the object, we think it an unprofitable and a hope less task to argue with them from the testimony of Scripture, until, with sincerity evinced by their conduct, they acknowledge the word of God to be the infallible rule of faith, and submit to it accordingly.

With these views of the sentiments and conduct of Unitarians, we are decidedly of opinion that Dr. Smith has dealt too gently with them. He is aware, that they deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and he has not failed to notice with just condemnation their impious insinuations and assertions, and their disingenuous and sophistical reasoning. Yet, with a simplicity which we should scarcely have expected, he appears throughout the whole work to write as if he hoped to convince them of their error, and to lead them to adopt sound and scriptural sentiments: nay, he writes as if the matter were still sub judice, (vide Introd. Script. Test.) as if the religious world were looking on, spectators of the contest between Drs. Wardlaw and Smith on the one hand, and Messrs. Yates, Belsham, &c. on the other, and delaying the confession of their own

faith in the divine Redeemer, until, after replies and duplies innumerable, they should be able to pronounce the one or the other party victorious. We think he would have acted far better, and more consistently with his knowledge of the infidelity of Unitarians, if, as a faithful servant of Christ, knowing his Master's will, and fully persuaded of it, he had "rebuked them sharply," charged them with denying the divine authority of the Scriptures, and refused to argue with them until they discovered greater reverence for the Bible, and more candour and ingenuousness in their interpretations and comments. All this he might have done without personality, or at least without acrimony, appealing to facts in proof of the charges which he preferred, and asserting nothing more with regard to the motives and dispositions of his opponents than facts plainly and irrefragably established.

We do not mean to say, that the work before us is not useful and important. We think that it is so in an eminent degree. It is useful, inasmuch as it sets before us the most damning proofs of the infidelity, the sophistry, and the impiety of Unitarians, and the weakness of the arguments by which they endeavour to undermine the faith of believers in the divinity of their Saviour: it is useful, as containing the most satisfactory replies to objections, which may have unsettled the faith of some, and as exhibiting the strength and number of the bulwarks, by which the doctrine concerning the Person of Messiah is surrounded. No unprejudiced man can read Dr. Smith's work, without being confirmed in the belief of the truth, or without perceiving that if there be one fact more clearly revealed than another, it is