opinion, when entertained in the shape of a subordinate and incidental theory, is as different in its influence from that same opinion, when entertained in the shape of an essential and conspicuous doctrine, as the alcohol in bread is different in its effect from the alcohol in brandy. A man's physical system may be, on the whole, sound, though it be not free from some local disease in a foot or finger; but his state is essentially different, when disease has infected the whole body, and finds no stamina in the system to counteract it. In the fourth place, Tholuck never adopted a "positive" belief in the doctrine of the final blessedness of all men. It was a tendency of mind to such a belief, a wish, a hope that it might be confirmed by fact, rather than the "positive" belief itself.

But in the fifth place, the inclination of Tholuck's mind toward the obnoxious doctrine, he defended not on exegetical so much as on dogmatical grounds. Under date of Dec. 22, 1837, he states in reference to expressions which he had made three years previous, "If I remember right, my expressions at the time (1834), were these dogmatically, i. e. as a theologian I feel myself drawn toward this opinion (i. e. the doctrine of ultimate universal salvation); but exegetically, i. e. as an interpreter, I do not know how to justify it." As a speculative theologian, he was inclined to draw an inference in favor of the final restoration of all men, from the love and mercy of God; and also, from the peculiar philosophical objections which he has, in common with his evangelical countrymen, against a perpetual division, dissension, Zwiespalt, in the moral universe. When his mind was directed to these speculative principles, he expressed a strong attraction toward the obnoxious doctrine. So too, when his mind was directed to such passages of Scripture as Acts 3: 21. Rom. 5: 18, 11: 36. 1 Cor. 15: 22-28. Col. 1: 16. Phil. 2: 20. Heb. 2: 10. 10: 13, 14, he sometimes expressed a still stronger leaning toward the doctrine. These passages, like a magnet, would draw him toward a belief, from which, however, he would be soon drawn back again by other passages, attracting in a different way. Accordingly he said, even at that time, that to the texts above suggested, "other important passages stand in direct opposition; those which speak of eternal punishment, Matt. 25: 41, 46. 1 Thess. 5: 3. Jude 7-those which speak of the sin against the Holy Ghost, Matt. 12: 22;-those which speak of Judas, Matt. 26: 24; those which say that Christ did not die for all but for many, Matt. 26: 28, and 20: 28." Thus troubled by the apparent opposition between two

classes of arguments, thus drawn by the two opposing forces, first one way and then the other, Tholuck often, in view of a single class of reasons, made expressions which, considered apart from expressions made in view of the opposite class, would give a wrong idea of his belief as a whole. The arguments, prominent in his mind at one moment, elicited expressions of confidence, which would be essentially qualified by expressions, made at another moment, when different arguments were more intently examined. Many of the illustrations, employed to reconcile Paul and James on the subject of faith, may be employed to reconcile Tholuck with himself on the subject of punishment. The remark of Prof. Sears, in reference to Tholuck's mental character, seems to intimate the true mode of making this reconciliation. The remark is, simply, that Tholuck's mind is not like that of Locke, or Edwards, or Robert Hall, is not distinguished for systematic order, or exact balance, or philosophical discipline. The phraseology of such a man, in a particular mental state is not therefore to be interpreted, as the phraseology would be of a more deliberate and cautious philosopher, like Dr. Reid or Dugald Stewart. Accordingly we find, that when Tholuck has intended to express his opinion as a whole, the leaning of his mind in view of the two classes of evidence, both at the same time equally prominent in his mind, he has, at such times, given preference to the exegetical argument, above the dogmatical; and to the positive declarations of Scripture, above those which are susceptible of a qualified sense. Thus, after a comprehensive view of both sides, he said four years ago, "Therefore we must conclude as follows: the perfectly good, good in the christian sense, will be eternally happy. The perfectly sinful, those who to eternity never receive Christ, will be eternally unhappy. But the question remains, will any eternally reject Christ? If we consider the freedom of the will, and consider that it is the curse of sin to become more and more hardened, we cannot deny the possibility. Although, therefore, God has an infinity of methods of affecting the sinner, as many as the sun has rays, Rom. 11: 32, 33, still men can always resist; and Matt. 12: 32 expressly declares, that there will be those, who will be forever unsusceptible of the Spirit and of forgiveness. Indeed this passage, more than any other, may show (dürfte darthun), that some will be eternally hardened."

In the sixth place, the more recent developments of Tholuck's

mind discover an increased repugnance to the doctrine of universal salvation, Writing from Halle, Dec. 22, 1837, and stating that he had, in 1834, expressed a hope of the final salvation of all men, he says, "I confessed at the time that I did not know how to reconcile (this hope) with the clear passages in Scripture, which made me reluctant even at that time, to embrace that opinion as an unquestionable truth. Mature reflection, however, on the sin against the Holy Ghost has made me since abandon the idea of the final restoration of all men; for what Christ says concerning it seems too clearly to imply a degree of opposition against holy truth, which leads to eternal unhappiness."

L

In the seventh place, the process of Tholuck's mind, 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 punishment 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 favor 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, and 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 favor, 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 forever, 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, irreconcileable 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 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.1

The preceding information, in reference to Tholuck's views of univer'salism, 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 text 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 7: 37-39, and Rom. 5: 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 labors. 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.