Knox, of Bunyan and Edwards, of Fuller and Chalmers. And it may be true; but if so, the lessons of history are worthless; for no reason can be given for thinking that Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards drew less comfort from the Gospel than does Horace Bushnell, or that they apprehended less distinctly the doctrines which gave them comfort.

The spirit of Dr. Bushnell, as revealed in this book, is bold and earnest. He writes like one who has an important message to deliver, and is resolved to do it effectually. He speaks out the faith that is in him without fear or favor, vehemently, indeed, yet shrewdly, and the tone of his work will not only attract, but also convince, many who would not be reached by a less confident faith, or a less ardent zeal. To this spirit we cannot object. Boldness and zeal in defending truth are always admirable, and it is a difficult task to criticise them even when they animate the defenders of error. But "The Vicarious Sacrifice does not teach error simply. Noble sentiments and Christian views abound in the work. It sets forth with captivating freshness and power the nature of true benevolence, and deepens our sense of its marvellous working in the mind of God. It asserts boldly and truly, if not always on the basis of correct interpretation, the equal love

of the Father and the Holy Spirit with the Son to our fallen race. It proclaims the deity of Christ with triumphant voice, though possibly from the stand-point of Sabellius. It asserts the deep depravity of man and his moral helplessness, giving due emphasis to God's grace in working a change in his spiritual state. It stirs, inspires, and elevates the soul by some of its utterances, and makes one feel the grandeur of life.

In expression the work is also remarkable. The language, always forcible and sometimes beautiful, is in many passages sublime, rising majestically with the thought and rolling on like waves of the ocean. Yet, with all its great qualities, the style of this treatise is not, in our opinion, well adapted to secure the proper ends of theological discussion. It is too intense, too impassioned; not sufficiently exact and judicial. A style like that of Mansel, or Mozley, or McCosh, calm, clear, and logical, would have added much to the value of the work. We do not say that the author could have written after this manner, but we believe that this manner is far preferable to his for such a discussion, and that, if he could not attain it, he is wanting in certain mental and spiritual qualities very necessary to a Christian philosopher. The style of Dr. Bushnell, in "The Vicarious Sacrifice," is essentially that of a reformer. He writes fervidly, powerfully, as

if to carry a point by enlisting the feelings of his reader; not accurately, calmly, weighing his thoughts and words in a balance, as if the truth might be trusted to stand by its own strength and shine by its own light. This may be simply the result of a fervid mental and moral state at the time of writing, and we partly believe it is; yet there are instances of a resort to caricature in setting forth the views of other men which weaken, though they do not destroy, this explanation. The thought has more than once been suggested, that the writer is not always borne along by the deep current and flow of logical conviction, but is sometimes moving heaven and earth to carry a point with his reader. Yet this thought, we are willing to believe, is not confirmed by the work as whole. But we turn from this line of criticism to the doctrinal contents of the work.

II. THE NATURE OF THE MORAL LAW.

It is very important to ascertain, if possible, the central or radical principle of right. If there is such a principle underlying all forms of duty, it must give unity and coherence to the moral law in detail, and a knowledge of it must precede a scientific treatment of ethics. Dr. Bushnell speaks on this point as follows: "In the positive statute,

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself, there was really something fundamental; it was in fact the law of laws." (255.) Again: "The necessary and absolute law of right is very nearly answered by the relational law of love; so that any realm of being compacted in right will as certainly be unified in love, doing and suffering, each for each, just what the most self-immolating, dearest love requires." At first, then, Dr. Bushnell pronounces the absolute law of right to be nearly equivalent to the relational law of love, and obedience to the one to be always conjoined with obedience to the other. But as he goes on, and his mind becomes heated or clarified by the discussion, he becomes more positive. "Righteousness, translated into a word of the affections, is love, and love, translated back into a word of the conscience, is righteousness."1 Again: "The eternal law of right

conception of the law of love."

ples, right and love, appear to

each other." (306.)

is only another "The two princi

exactly measure

According to Dr. Bushnell, then, the sum total of duty is love. But what does he mean by love? This question must be answered before we can have an

1 Several of these passages were transcribed from the first edition of the work without marking the pages; the writer has not that edition at hand, and is therefore unable to supply the references.

Does he mean by it

exact view of his doctrine. a benevolence which is without discrimination, having no regard to natural worth or capacity, but merely seeking the happiness of its object? Or does he mean by it a benevolence which, while having regard to natural worth, has no respect to moral character, being equally strong whether its object is holy or sinful, an angel or a fiend? Or does he mean by it an affection which is graduated by the worth of its object, which is stronger to the good than to the evil, and strongest to Him who is greatest and best? To these questions he has given no distinct reply.

But we cannot suppose that he uses the term “love” in the first sense specified, that is, to denote a benevolence which has no regard to natural worth or capacity; for, in that case, God might be said to love a worm as much as a man. This view of love severs it from reason and makes it a mere instinct. For it is plain that a benevolence under law to reason must desire the happiness of different beings, when other things are equal, in proportion to their capacity for enjoyment. The happiness of two beings of the same order must be twice as valuable as that of one, and just as valuable as that of a single being whose capacity is equal to that of both. If it be said, that parental love is not. graduated by the natural