in some form more or less distinct, more or less definite. Doubtless, it is not necessary for every mind that it should be drawn out in detail, in all the minuteness we find in scientific theology; yet the more clearly, distinctly, and definitely its several propositions are drawn out and stated, the more perfect will be our apprehension of it, and the less likely shall we be to mistake it, or fall into errors opposed to it. Even the Apostles' Creed, with which the author closes his volume, and which he professes to believe, is a formula of faith, a formal statement of Christian truth, to the intellect. And how will you teach Christian truth, except by means of formal statements? What else is every sermon that is preached, every book that is written, with a view to induce men to believe and practise the Christian religion? No teaching, no instruction, is possible, without formal statements to the understanding. Do you propose to abolish all teaching, all science, all intercommunion of thought, and leave every man to the solitary workings of his own mind? What will you do with children? Will you abolish all primary and secondary schools, all academies, colleges, seminaries, and universities, all preaching, all catechizing, all talking, all reading, all literature? If not, you must and will have teaching of some sort, and then formal statements, formulas of doctrine, addressed to the intellect. Or do you propose to follow the cant of the day, to declaim against all intellectual education, and say you will have only moral education, the education of the feelings, of the moral and religious affections and sentiments? But how will you contrive, without addressing the intellect, to impart this education? Will you do it in perfect silence, or will you now and then open your mouth? If you open your mouth, you must say something, make some formal statement, true or false. You cannot speak to the feelings, you cannot even move them, except through the intellect. Then, in what will your moral education consist? Is it to be conformable or not conformable to the truth? How, without the exercise of intellect, will you know which is truth, which is falsehood, and determine what is the education conformable to the one or the other? A moral act is the act of a free agent, done for the sake of the end which the law of God commands us to seek. How, without teaching your pupils this end, the means and conditions of fulfilling it, will you give them a moral education? Is that a moral education that leaves the pupil ignorant of the precepts of morality? Were you to reduce your system to practice, how long would

you be in reducing your community below the condition of the most degraded savage tribe?

Then, again, does the Doctor act wisely in sneering at logic, and making himself merry with what he calls "logicking "? Does it never happen that the truth is assailed, and needs to be defended? that falsehood is promulgated, and needs to be refuted? How is one or the other to be done without logic, logicking, if the author pleases? The author requires us to live Christian truth; he, then, must hold that there is a difference between truth and falsehood, that the former is good, and the latter is bad. Will he, then, deny that it is necessary to distinguish between them, to defend the truth if assailed, and repel the falsehood if it attempts to usurp the throne of truth? Nay, is not the author himself "logicking" against logic, from the beginning of his book to the end? Does he not bring out views of his own, and seek to give us logical reasons for accepting them? and does he not point out what he holds to be errors, and endeavour to show us why they are errors? Has he, then, the face to turn round and deny the very instrument he has used, the very authority to which he appeals? Does he persuade himself that it is a sufficient answer to say, that he admits his inconsistency, but then all deep thinkers, all profound minds, are inconsistent in their statements, and cannot, owing to the imperfection of language, state the truths they behold, without violating the logical understanding?

But we have exhausted our space, and can proceed no farther. We did intend to consider the application which Dr. Bushnell makes of his principles to the explanation of the sacred mysteries of our religion, but it is not necessary. What we have said is sufficient for the full understanding of his theory, and how he applies it is a matter of little importance. We do not suppose that Dr. Bushnell is naturally a very weak mau, nor, compared with the common run of Protestant ministers, a very bad man; but he is, undoubtedly, a very ignorant man, and unacquainted with the theology of his own denomination. He has, doubtless, read some, thought a little, felt much, and imagined more; but he lacks mental discipline and scientific culture. He appears to have lighted, in the course of his experience, upon certain speculations, to have caught up certain half or quarter ideas, which, being novelties to him, he has presumed to be novelties to all the world. These he appears to have dwelt upon till his head has become a little turned, and he fancies that he is, as it were, a seer and a prophet. To those

who have passed through a state similar to that he is now in, and have late in life done what they could to supply the defect of early discipline, he is an object of tender interest, and they pity him at the same time that they laugh at the antics he plays, and the capers he cuts. He may, perhaps, some day, grow sober, lower his estimate of his own supereminent greatness, blush at his folly, and marvel at his delusions. He seems to us, after all, a man on whom the truth will not always fall powerless. He shows the marks of his Calvinistic breeding, it is true, but he has comparatively little of that cold, dry, hard, wiry, sly, crafty disposition, so characteristic of Calvinistic ministers; and seems to retain at bottom even something of the simplicity of the child, and the frankness of the youth. He seems really to have a little earnestness, which is not precisely fanaticism; and we shall not be surprised if we hear, one of these days, that he has abandoned system-making, has given up his trade of reformer, has bowed in sorrow and humility at the foot of the cross, and been received into the society of those whose glory it is to glory only in a crucified Redeemer. He is now mentally and morally in a chaotic state; who knows but the spirit of God may yet breathe over the chaos, and cause order to spring out of confusion, and light to arise out of darkness? Our brethren should pray for his conversion.

We have said less of Mr. Allen's book than we intended. We shall be obliged to make it the subject of some remarks hereafter. Mr. Allen is a less hopeful subject than Dr. Bushnell; but he is young, and we will not as yet despair of him.

ART. V. - The Law of the Press. Speech of Count de Montalembert, in the French Legislative Assembly, July

21, 1849.

In an article on European Events, in this Review for July, 1848, written before we had received the news of the memorable Socialist insurrection in June of that year, which it took four days of hard fighting to suppress, and which resulted in the victory of the party of order under General Cavaignac, we made the following remarks, which we beg leave to recall to the attention of our readers.

"What is likely to be the result of the recent events in Europe? France is now decidedly a republic. Will she be able to establish and maintain the authority of the state and the freedom of the subject? This is a matter about which we do not wish to speculate. We have found nothing in our historical reading which leads us to augur her success. The historical precedents are all against her. But we cannot pretend to fathom the designs of Almighty God, to whom belong the ordering of all events and the determination of their issues. Whether he has designed the revolution in mercy or in judgment to the nations, we can know only as he himself is pleased to make it manifest; but whichever it be, it is ours to be silent and adore, for his judgments are as adorable as his mercies. That the French people will find it an easy task to reconstitute the state, which the revolution of February dissolved, and reëstablish and maintain order, the indispensable condition of liberty, we presume nobody with a grain of political philosophy or experience will pretend. The ideas and passions, the schemes and wishes, which have destroyed the old government, and reduced French society to its original elements, are opposed to all government, and if not abandoned, must be as fatal to the republic as they have been to the monarchy. The revolutionary party is in pursuit of Utopia, and has no stopping-place within the limits of practicable government. It must be arrested, or it will subvert the new institutions before they get fairly into operation. But to attempt to arrest them by physical force, by measures of repression, will only renew between them and the new government the very relations which rendered the old government impotent for good, and its longer existence impracticable. Under Providence, then, the solution of the problem must turn on the fact, whether the radicals, represented by such men as Ledru-Rollin, that second edition of Danton, Louis Blanc, Blanqui, Albert, and company, are a large, or only a small, minority of the French nation, and on the courage, firmness, and energy of the party opposed to them. If they are only a small minority, confined principally to a few localities, and the friends of order show them from the outset that their opposition is disregarded, and their advice will not be asked, they may be held in subjection till the new government is so firmly established as to render their attempts to subvert it impotent and ridiculous. But if they are a large majority,-absolutely so, by their numbers, or effectively so, by their organization and concentration, or by the uncertainty, hesitation, fears, and anxieties of their opponents, they will have little difficulty in defeating all attempts to reconstitute the state, and in prolonging the reign of anarchy. How the case actually stands in France we have no certain means of knowing, and cannot pretend to decide.

"The majority of the National Assembly appear to be well dis

posed, and to entertain moderate views; but they evidently lack experience, and have marked out to themselves no clear and definite line of policy. They are apparently trusting for their success to the chapter of accidents. Their determination is, indeed, to give France a republican government; but they are evidently afraid that the sincerity of their attachment to republicanism will be suspected. This renders them uneasy, deprives them of that calmness, sobriety, and independence, that naturalness and at-home feeling, so essential to their success, and gives the radical minority an immense advantage over them. The radicals have no fears of this sort. Strong in the fact that they represent the revolution, embody its spirit, and obey its tendencies, they march with a bold and confident step in the path of destruction. In settled times, when the revolutionary spirit has not penetrated the body of the people, when the subversion of an old government is looked upon as an exceptional measure, to be justified only on the ground of invincible necessity, the party adopting moderate counsels and cherishing a conciliatory spirit is sure to rally around it the great body of the nation. But when the principle of revolution aspires to obtain a legal recognition, and is held by the great body of the people to be the proper basis of the state,· when all old ideas are confounded, and the general wish is to erect the social fabric, not only after a new fashion, but on a new and untried foundation, - extreme counsels are most likely to prevail, and the party in favor of carrying out the revolution is pretty sure to succeed. We shall, therefore, by no means be disappointed, if Ledru-Rollin turns out to be a stronger man than Lamartine. The Mountain triumphed over the Girondists, the Sans-culottes over the Respectables, in the former revolution, and why shall they not do the same in this? They assuredly will, unless the moderate party take their ground at once, declare boldly that the revolution must be arrested, and that a contrary set of maxims from those which prepared and effected it must now be adopted and acted on. The state cannot be constituted on the revolutionary principle, nor recognize the right of the people to abolish the government; for every state must have as its basis the right of the state to command, and the duty of the citizen to obey. Whether the moderate party have the courage to face the revolution in the moment of its victory, and recognize a solid basis for authority, the event must determine. We fear, however, that, captivated by fine phrases about fraternity, they will attempt to conciliate the revolutionary party by compromise, and thus destroy themselves, and prepare the triumph of disorder or of despotism."- New Series, Vol. II. No. III. pp. 399–401.

At the time when this was written, Lamartine was the great man of the revolution, and Ledru-Rollin was apparently without