in reference to the doctrine of universal salvation, furnishes a strong collateral argument against the truth of it. The opposers, rather than the friends of this doctrine, may derive encouragement from the authority of his name. It is often said, that American Christians acquiesce in the belief of unending punishments under the influence of feeling and prejudice; but Tholuck's feeling and prejudice have been against this belief; he has hoped that it would be proved untrue, and has wished in vain to prove it so himself. The belief in the doctrine of eternal punishment among us has been often ascribed to fashion; not only, however, has it been fashionable to disbelieve it among the more popular German divines, but Tholuck says even of the evangelical theologians, "A good number of them cherish a hope of a final conversion of all men; though there will be, I dare say, but few, who allow themselves more than a hope, and who would venture positively to say, that such a restoration will take place." It is then in defiance of fashion, that he himself absolutely abandons this hope. The doctrine of eternal punishment is often said to be contrary to the Bible. But Dr. Tholuck, who has spent his life in the study of the Bible, declared even when he was struggling to disprove the doctrine, "that to be sure most of the Bible appears to assert an everlasting punishment of the wicked, and yet he could not but hope that this may be the result of a wrong interpretation." An interpreter, then, even while under the blinding influence of a desire to overthrow the orthodox belief, is compelled, if he be a fair interpreter, to acknowledge its harmony with the general current of the Scripture, and to confess his inability to accommodate the exegetical evidence in favour of it to the speculative inferences against it. A creed can be worthy of but little respect, if it cannot be supported from the Scriptures, by a skilful philologist when stimulated by strong desire to support it. And not only did Dr. Tholuck acknowledge that the Bible presented insurmountable obstacles to the positive belief of what he hoped might be true; but he also confessed that he did not feel warranted to declare from the pulpit what

he hoped, and that the popular belief in the final blessedness of all men would probably exert a deleterious influence. If a friend to a theory acknowledges that it is unfit to be preached, what shall its enemies say of it? And if this friend to the theory has, on mature reflection, abandoned it as altogether untenable, what shall we infer, save that the power of truth has prevailed over hope, and desire, prejudice and fashion, and has brought one of the most erudite theologians in the world to the defence of what he once doubted, but could never positively disbelieve?

Prof. Tholuck, it may be said, continues to favour, more than he should, the error of the Restorationists, by still retaining a hope, that some who die impenitent will be restored. But as he positively believes that some will be lost for ever, he virtually admits, that all the objections against the orthodox doctrine are inconclusive. If some are to be eternally punished, then eternal punishment is not, in itself, irreconcilable with the attributes of God, or the scheme of the mediatorial government, or the assertions of Scripture. That Tholuck's theories and conjectures on the subject of a second probation, and a possible delivery of some from their adjudged punishment, are not precisely what we wish they were, and hope they will be, is conceded. Still, we must repeat, in palliation of his unseemly error on this subject, the noble language which he himself employed in reference to a pernicious doctrine of the German literati: "Far be it from us to pronounce woes upon every one whom this fearful error holds captive. There is a power in the spirit of the age, which, although it does not release from all guilt, yet seizes, with a force difficult to resist, individuals as well as communities." The mind that has wrought out its own way into so much truth, against the spirit of such an age as this in Germany, is not to be inconsiderately censured for its occasional aberrations.*

The preceding information, in reference to Tholuck's views of universalism, has been derived from various sources, but principally from a statement by Rev. Prof. Sears of Newton, in the Christian Watchman of Jan. 19, 1838.

As a commentator, Tholuck has many excellences. This would be anticipated from the fact, that his reading has been so various, and his memory is so retentive; from his almost unequalled facility in acquiring language, and his peculiar intimacy with the Hebrew and its cognate tongues. He is able to write and converse in a great variety of languages, as the English, Italian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Persian, and others. He is, of course, qualified to illustrate the sacred texts by a multiplicity of references; and he quotes with peculiar pertinence and effect from the Oriental, and especially from the Rabbinical writings. For a single specimen, read his comment on John vii. 37-39, and Rom. v. 7. The classical quotations, too, in his commentaries, and especially in his Comm. on the Rom., are eminently valuable. His researches have been extended over so wide a surface, and he seizes such a multitude of important principles, that we ought not to look in his commentaries for that punctiliousness of accuracy, that close philosophical argumentation, which we may find in works of a narrower range. The merits of such a mind as his, are not to be determined by the number of his faults, but by the excess of his excellences above his faults.

The same erudition, enthusiasm, and glow of piety which make Dr. Tholuck interesting as a commentator, make him still more so as a lecturer. Though he is associated with such men as Wegscheider and Gesenius, his lectures were attended, in 1834, more fully than those of either of his colleagues, and they are often more attractive than any, except those of Gesenius. Nor are they merely attractive. They excite the apprehension even in those who resist their argument, that, after all, the "fanaticism" of Tholuck may be right reason. "It is a common remark," says Prof. Sears, "that if a young man do not wish to become a pietist, let him avoid Tholuck's lecture-room." "Of the theological students at Halle, scarcely one is to be found, who comes to the university with personal piety. Of the five hundred who are now studying theology here, perhaps there are sixty serious young men, and about thirty hopefully pious; and these

are the fruits of Tholuck's labours. Two of these said to him a few days ago, that they never read the Gospel of John, till they heard theological lectures upon it !" For the number of pious students four years previous to this, see Bib. Repos. vol. I. p. 426.

It was to notice Prof. Tholuck as a preacher, that the following sketch was more particularly designed.

One of the most obvious peculiarities of his sermons appears in their plan. The introduction always, and the proposition often, precedes the announcement of the text. This, however, is no peculiarity of Tholuck, in comparison with other German preachers. It is their custom not only to have the introduction precede the text, but sometimes to have it founded upon a separate passage of Scripture, and occasionally in the delivery of the discourse, to have a hymn sung by the choir, between the introduction and the body of the sermon. The "division" of Tholuck's discourses is generally definite and precise, sometimes beautiful; almost always simple in its nature, but often artificial in its mode of expression. It is expressed so as to be remembered, and often according to the lower principles of mnemonics. Hence the paronomasia and antithesis which are employed in the various 'topics' of his division. In two of his sermons, he expresses his division thus: first, Worin, secondly, Warum; in two others, thus, first the Aufang, secondly, the Fortgang, and thirdly, the Ausgang. See vol. I. p. 34, and II. p. 40, vol. II. p. 63, and IV. p. 28. His most objectionable form of expressing a division is found in vol. II. p. 124, in his sermon on Acts i. 1-14. The quickening thoughts to which this narration leads us, are the following:

1. Die Stätte seines Scheidens, die stätte seines Leidens; 2. Verhüllet ist sein Anfang, verhüllet ist sein Ausgang; 3. Der Schluss von seinen Wegen ist für die seinen Segen; 4. Er ist von uns geschieden und ist uns doch geblieben; 5. Erbleibt verhüllt den Seinen, bis er wird klar erscheinen. Tholuck would perhaps apologize for such a device, by appealing to the alphabetical Psalms, to the genealogical table in the first of Matthew, and to the impression made by such an arrangement upon the memory,

especially that of children. But it seems to be one of the instances in which his oriental cast of thought needs to be chastened.

Another characteristic of Tholuck's sermons is, the absence of all display of learning, of abstruse thought, and long continued argument. His freedom from literary ostentation is the more commendable, as he has so vast an amount of literature which he might display. If the classically laden discourses of Jeremy Taylor were written, at least many of them, for the family and domestics at Golden Grove, we may well admire that Tholuck has written with such modest plainness for the audience of a German university. That he should give us likewise so little of the obscure and abstruse, is the more praiseworthy, as transcendentalism like his often leads its possessor above the comprehension of the uninitiated. His discourses, however, are by no means destitute of thought and argument, as is shown from such specimens as the first, third, and fourth in this volume. That they are less solid and consecutive than many English and American discourses, results from his principles of sermonizing. The Germans being excessively attached to music, devote a greater proportion of the hour of worship to this exercise, than we do. The devotional service of their churches occupies a longer time than that of ours. Consequently the sermon must be brief, and its brevity forbids protracted argumentation. The minds of the hearers too are unfitted, in Tholuck's opinion, for a severe reasoning process, and are more in need of spiritual than of intellectual appeals. The argument of a sermon, he says, should never be scholastic, but should be founded on the moral feelings; and in the house of God, the heart, rather than the intellect, should lead the way into the truth.

It must of course be conceded, that different customs of society demand different modes of pulpit address; yet when we consider, that the Sabbath is the great day, and in many cases the only day, for popular instruction on the doctrines of religion, it seems to be an obvious necessity, that sermons should be rich in instructive matter; by all means not too abstruse, by no means too