prejudice against the author’s anti-slavery had more to do with the onslaught than any deeply seated love of Orthodox Christianity.  To another class of readers, who have been wholly repelled from any interest in Jesus Christ, by whatever misfortune of temperament or training, the careful study of these “Thoughts” would be of incalculable value.  We suppose this class of readers, through the whole extent of our country, to be quite as large as the first class we have named.  To a third class, which is probably as large as both the others put together, who are neither repelled nor attracted by the received ecclesiastical statements regarding the Saviour, but are willing to pass, without any real inquiry or any firm opinion, his presence in the world, and his influence at this moment on every event in modern life, the book might also have an immense value, if it could be conceived that any thunder-clap could wake them from that selfish and comfortable indifference as to the central point of all the history, philosophy, life, and religion, in which they live.

We have no intention of entering into a discussion of the remarkable and very clear views presented in this volume.  We have only to say that the author does not do himself justice when he asserts that there is no system in its arrangement.  It is a systematic work, leading carefully along from point to point in the demonstration attempted.  One may read it through in an afternoon, and he will then have a very clear idea of what the author thinks, which does not always happen when one has read a book through.  If he be one of the class of readers for whom it was written, he will have, at the very least, a deeper interest in the study of the life of Jesus of Nazareth than he had when he began.  He will have read a reply to Dr. Strauss, Mr. Parker, Dr. Feuerbach, and Mr. Hittel, which, he will confess, is written in an appreciative and candid spirit, quite different from that of some of the ex-cathedra works of controversy, which have failed to annihilate these writers, although they have taken so arrogant a tone.  As we have said, we do not attempt to analyze the argument or the statement of which we thus speak.  We have only to say that it is positive, and not negative,—­constructive, and not destructive,—­reverent, and not flippant,—­courteous to opponents, and never denunciatory.  These are characteristics of a work of theology of which those can judge who do not affect to be technical theologians.  Had we to give our own views of the matters presented in so interesting a form, we should not, of course, attempt to condense our assent or our dissent with the author into these columns; but where we differed or where we agreed, we should gladly recognize his eagerness to be understood, his earnest hope to find the truth, and his sympathy with all persons seeking it,—­qualities which we have not always found in our study of theologians by profession.