the service at that time which Dr. Smith accomplished. Since then, in Great Britain, geology and Scripture have been very generally acknowledged not to be irreconcilably opposed to each other. We think it clear that the interpretation of Genesis, which was formerly generally accepted, but which has, ever since the Christian era, been from time to time questioned by expositors of high ability, may have been determined, unconsciously, by established, but erroneous views of cosmogony, by foregone conclusions derived from a now exploded science and philosophy. We need not dwell upon Dr. Smith's character as a controversialist. His great work, the Scripture Testimony, appears to us to contain a perfect argument. How poor is Hengstenberg's Christology compared to this! It is throughout a work of solid, wrought gold. It is a chain, every link of which is perfect. Nor is there any waste in it, either of argument, or learning, or words. All is there that could be desired, but condensed with most conscientious care. The work is concinnate as well as complete. And then the spirit, how tender, how Christian! Nothing finer can be imagined. How cautious and candid is the argument! how careful is the author as to the authority of every text he cites! how anxious on no account to overthrow a single point! There can be no doubt that Pye Smith's work alone has done more to stem and turn back the tide of Socinianism which was some years ago setting in on both sides of the Atlantic than all other works put together. Belshamite Unitarianism it fairly put to the rout, to be succeeded by Channingism, and then by the vague and dogmatic spiritualism of these later times. This must be met by other weapons. Some Unitarians have gratefully acknowledged this book to have been the means of bringing them to a saving faith in Christ, as unbelievers of another stamp have confessed their obligations for the same result to Dr. Smith's Scripture and Geology. We need not here add anything to what we have before said of that excellent supplement to the "Scripture Testimony," the Four Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ. As a theologian, Dr. Smith belonged to the old dogmatic school. His methods were, we might say, mathematical; propositions, lemmas, corollaries, figure largely in the pages of his First Lines of Theology. Something of the same is also seen in his Four Discourses. He had a strong predilection for logic and metaphysics. He often uses à priori arguments, and will draw out his logical chain. of inferences to a great length, without any misgiving as to the security of each several link. He was well read in the scholastic divines; had caught the spirit, in some degree, of their deductive method; and in the thirteenth century might have divided the theological empire with Aquinas. He was a logical and metaphysical Necessitarian, and a strict disciple of Jonathan Edwards, but in exegesis a Calvinist of the moderate school. He firmly maintained that it was the apostolic practice, and (by an absolute ergo, on the principles of Independent Church polity,) the duty of all Christian pastors and Churches, to celebrate the Lord's supper each Lord's day. For many years he enforced this practice in his own Church, till, finding he was often left alone to the service, he at length was compelled to conform to the usual rule of administering it once a month. He kept up the practice, however, in private, to the last. Perhaps, if Dr. Smith had gone back to the practice of the earliest and most illustrious apostolic Church, that at Jerusalem, he would have been convinced that they "broke bread" in the Lord's supper daily. Would he then have felt himself bound to administer daily? The sacrament of baptism he refused to administer unless one at least of the parents was a member of the Church, in this point agreeing rather with Scottish Independents and Presbyterians than with English Nonconformists. His views, as to the obligation of the Sabbath, were peculiar and rather unsettled. We think that they were at all times not very consistent, although, substantially, we have no doubt he was right. And it is delightful to find that while Dr. Smith had his own way of stating and arguing what he felt to be the obligation of keeping holy the Lord's day, he had no laxity of feeling or of conscience in regard to the obligation itself and the manner in which it should be kept. Mrs. Pye Smith, his second wife, who survives her husband, says: "Every one knows that a strictly conscientious regard to the sanctity of the Lord's day, formed a prominent habit in the personal and domestic life of the doctor; but all are not aware of the sacrifices he made in order to attain this sacred object. Regularly, invitations were sent to him, as F. R. S., to attend the soirées of the president of the Royal Society. To these the current of taste and of inclination would have carried him; but a higher impulse he was bound to obey. These brilliant assemblies were invariably arranged to take place on Saturday evenings." The doctor never went, because he would not even approach to anything like an infringement of the sanctity of the Lord's day. To him this was indeed the Lord's day-the name by which he loved to call it; it was eminently "a delight, holy of the Lord, and honourable," a day of congenial meditation and enjoyment, of holy rest and worship. He systematically abstained from all engagements which would have required him to travel on that day; and he addressed a beautiful letter to his private friend Dr. Cardwell, already named, Clerk of the Closet to Her Britannic Majesty, requesting him to lay before the queen a respectful and loyal representation of the feeling of the Christians of the country in regard to the Sunday performances of the band at Windsor. Because Dr. Sinith was a divine and a theological tutor, he did not, on that account. think himself compelled to abstain from the exercise of his rights as a citizen. On the contrary, he was a keen, though a truly Christian politician. His politics, our readers are aware, were in his youth sufficiently low, perhaps we must say extreme. Experience modified some of his views, but never changed their general bias and character. He was, to the end of his days, a Whig-Radical. Having property of his own in Yorkshire; and having, also, a vote for the county of Middlesex; being, moreover, for many years, trustee for landed property lying in two other counties, he had four county votes at his disposal. These he always went to give, at whatever cost or inconvenience, and would never receive a farthing toward his expenses. On one occasion he even addressed the electors from the hustings in support of Mr. Hume. He also felt it to be a duty to attend and speak at the anti-Corn Law League, at Manchester. And in 1849 he went, spite of the remonstrances of his friends, to take part in the Peace-Congress at Paris. We could not, in these things, have done just as Dr. Smith did, on any side; but we do not presume to condemn his principles or proceedings. As a preacher, Pye Smith, in early life, was, we may say, even popular. This, however, was not the case during the greater part of his career. His voice was weak; his style, though excellent, was rather suited to the theological lecture in a college than to a pulpit address; his matter was convincing and expository, but he never attempted declamation or impassioned appeal. In fine, his discourses lacked fire and force, and he was destitute of all rhetorical accessories and recommendations. As a teacher he was most fatherly and faithful, vigilant in sympathetic care and concern, and accustomed regularly to hold private conversations with the students. Of his diligence and ability as a teacher we need not speak. His lectures, except those on ecclesiastical history, were delivered extempore from such outlines as are now published in the First Lines. Of late years, the lecturer, wearying of his reiterated round, was apt to be too irregular and discursive. Till after the death of his first wife, both the students and his friends were excluded from his society in private; but from that time forward this was entirely reversed. The students had access to him at all times, and were often invited to his house; while his noble library was ever open to them. From this time, too, he delighted to keep up intercourse, both in private and by letter, with his numerous and ever-multiplying friends. He was largely generous and benevolent, giving away, it would seem, on an average, about onee-fifth of his income. At the same time he enriched his library with every new work of merit, theological, classical, and scientific, which appeared in English, German, or French. He had a fine collection of atlases and philosophical instruments. "He was an exemplary husband and a most tender father, and his children repaid his love with due affection and reverence. of very intimate friends he had few; though he had so many valuable acquaintances and correspondents. To all persons he was particularly courteous and accessible, and especially painstaking and kind in replying to letters from strangers asking information or a solution of difficulties. The amount of time he gave away to such applicants must have been enormous. The great social disability of his life was deafness, which, during his latter years, almost disqualified him for pastoral visitation and for miscellaneous society. Dr. Smith, we remark in conclusion, was a Christian of the very highest style. His faith was as firm as it was intelligent; and his spirit was as devout and prayerful as his understanding was strong and well-furnished. He was much with God in private. He sanctified all his undertakings by "the word of God and prayer." This was his solace in a most painful and protracted fight of domestic temptation and affliction; this enabled him to conduct many controversies in an unvarying spirit of Christian gentleness and candour; this preserved his soul from wavering in its fundamental Christian faith, or losing the fervour of its love, while he was weighing with nicest accuracy all arguments that were hostile to the doctrines of the Bible and of the cross; this gave him, in one word, a meekness, serenity, and hope which seem to have been scarcely ever interrupted. Let none venture on such perilous work as he was called upon to undertake without seeking first, and from first to last, a baptism of the same Spirit. So we bid farewell to the memory of the greatest master in theology that English Nonconformity has produced since the close of the seventeenth century. ART. IV. THE RELATIONS OF ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM TO CIVILIZATION. Les Nations Catholiques et les Nations Protestantes comparées sous le triple rapport du bien-être, des lumières et de la moralité. Par NAPOLEON ROUSSEL. Paris, 1855. : 2 vols. WHAT Would have been thought presumption a century ago-what, in fact, was punished with imprisonment in the Bastile-is now a sober truth, a subject for free and open discussion of Protestantism and Popery, which system has the best claims to the gratitude of society? Does modern civilization spring from the decretals? or is the Bible the safeguard of our institutions, our happiness, our prosperity both material and intellectual? When Voltaire published his Lettres sur les Anglais, he may be said to have both stated the problem and partly solved it; this is why we alluded just now to the "durance vile" which, under the ancien régime, acted as a check upon those who dreamed of reforms in Church and State. We are thankful to say that in some degree, at least, writers now may speak out their thoughts; and although the French press is still too closely under surveillance, we find no law in the code pénal preventing us from asserting and proving that popery is "the mystery of iniquity." Accordingly, pastor Roussel, well known on both sides of the Atlantic as a smart controversialist, and as a faithful minister of the gospel, has taken up the pen, and now comes before us with a couple of volumes, which we cannot better describe than by saying that they contain the key to the political history of the world in which we live. Some persons, whose anxiety for the imperishable cause of truth borders almost upon pusillanimity, have felt very much alarmed at the Ultramontane reaction which still keeps disturbing the various ranks of society. That the followers of Jesus are about to pass through some severe ordeal is extremely probable; but can we entertain a doubt as to the issue of the conflict? If the Jesuit party are now straining every nerve, and drawing upon all their resources, it is because they feel that their position is a desperate one; they rush on madly to the last contest with the terrible cry ringing in their ears, "Roma ruit!" M. Roussel is not the only author who has lately pronounced the funeral oration of the Roman Catholic nations; more than one observer has noticed the gradual but sure decay of those political |