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 Anfang, 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 1: 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. Er bleibt 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 commen. dable, 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 simple. Is not the elevated theological character of some portions of Great Britain and the United States a comment on the utility of the didactic and argumentative style of preaching, common in those regions?

Another characteristic of Tholuck's sermons is, the elevation and richness of religious sentiment which they display. His standard of christian character is much more like that of Paul in such chapters as the eighth of Romans, than is common among British and American divines. He loves to exhibit and dilate upon the vast difference between a renewed and an unrenewed man. His religious feelings, too, as exhibited in his sermons are deep, full, overflowing. He evidently has thought for himself, and as a consequence has felt for himself. Hence the originality of his emotions; his freedom

from stereotyped trains of feeling, and his new, fresh, warm sentiment, gushing forth from a full heart. He everywhere shows that he has drunk deep at the sacred fountain; that he has sympathized and held intimate communion with the old Prophets, and imbued his soul with the spirit of Paul.

Tholuck's sermons are also characterized by liveliness and exuberance of fancy. He is a poet in his prose. His imagination knows no bounds. He resembles in this respect the poets of antiquity; he takes his descriptions from real life, not at second hand from the pictures of others. The advantages to be derived from reading his sermons are similar to those derivable from the ancient, and from all other original authors. His style, as well as his mind, exhibits the fertility of the Orientals; and every word seems to be pregnant with life. That there is often a gorgeousness of fancy, an excess of figurative allusion, an indulgence in paronomasia and other conceits, we must admit; and where is the oriental writer who has not the same characteristics? And where is the poet of great fertility of imagination, who does not sometimes appear exuberant? Tholuck has genius in the popular sense of that term, and therefore his faults are those of genius, positive rather than negative. With the pliant, exhaustless, and emphatically living German language for his instrument, we do not wonder that his fancy often revels, like that of an Asiatic.

Tholuck's sermons are characterized by vigor and boldness. His quickness of thought, his rapidity of transition often give an air of abruptness to his style, and sometimes an obscurity; but they also save it from tameness, and that feeble, torpid correctness, which is the innocence of a compiler, rather than the virtue of a thinking man. The energetic boldness of his style is equal to that of his sentiment. When we read his discourses, we are to remember that they were preached in the very citadel of rationalism, to young men who were cherishing that peculiar independence, and unmanagable self-esteem characteristic of a university life; to candidates for the ministry, who had no sober view of the nature of their office, but looked down with contempt upon the religion of the heart; to an audience, the vast majority of whom were not only violent in their prejudices against the preacher's doctrine, but still more so against his religious feeling. The theological students at the German universities are sometimes required to attend divine service on the

Sabbath; and sometimes, like the law and medical students, are allowed to consult their own inclinations on the subject. The majority of the professors, theological as well as others, are seldom seen in the house of God. Tholuck usually attracts throngs of the Rationalists to hear him, and the boldness of his sermons cannot be properly appreciated, unless it be remembered, that they were written for infidels who were expecting soon to occupy the pulpit; to that class of infidels, who are peculiarly unsusceptible of religious influence; to men who were enjoying the daily instructions of Gesenius and "the standard-bearer of Rationalism," Wegscheider. But, notwithstanding the imperviousness of his auditory to religious impression, Tholuck is by no means like one that beats the air. By his boldness of appeal he often produces great excitement of feeling. There is one sermon in particular, that in Vol. I. pp. 147-160, which elicited peculiar violence of resentment, and may be now alluded to, as an exhibition of Tholuck's moral courage.

The sermon is entitled "The Horrible Exchange." It is founded on Matt. 27: 15-26. Its object is to compare the guilt of those who believe in the mere humanity of Christ, with the guilt of those who cried, release Barabbas and crucify Jesus.'. To hearers, who look up to him with the expressive eye of astonishment, indignation, or conscious guilt, he announces his design to describe first, the horrible exchange that unbelieving Israel made, when, instead of Jesus the Son of God they chose Jesus Barabbas; and secondly, the horrible exchange that the unbelieving world now make, when, instead of considering Jesus the Son of God and man, they choose to consider him as the mere child of man. After depicting the barbarous conduct of Israel in preferring the criminal to the Messiah, he proceeds to show that the denial of Christ's divine nature is a virtual charge of haughtiness, presumption and blasphemy against him; that it represents him as a robber of the divine glory, in his aspiring to receive divine homage; as a malefactor, who himself needed expiation and whose cross could be nothing better than a scaffold, on which he died for his own iniquities. He follows the pretended Saviour to the final judgment, and describes the manner in which he must be condemned for his treasonable claims. He then adds a pungent reproof to the candidates for the sacred office, who thus impeach the virtue of Jesus, and closes with a solemn prayer, that their hearts may not accuse them, in the holiest hours of their life, for paying worship to a peccable child of man.

The Stud. und Krit. Vol. VIII. 243-4, while it sanctions the logical process of the sermon, condemns the revolting terms, in which it depicts the consequences of the humanitarian theory; and decides, that the argument is pressed to a greater extent, and in a bolder way, than the religious sensibilities of an audience will justify. Fervid and bold, however, as the discourses of Tholuck are, they are distinguished, in a still higher degree, by tenderness and childlike simplicity. It has been said of him, that "he has read every thing;" it may also be said of him, that he feels everything. One of his characteristic expressions is, "When God smites, the smitten man should receive the blow not as the stone would, but as the man would, or rather as the trustful child of God. Is the cup bitter? man should have sensibility to taste the bitterness, but he should also taste the sweet drops in the cup, which are the love of his Father in heaven." The delicacy of sentiment, the gentleness of manner, the childlike sweetness and sincerity, which characterize the preaching of Tholuck, are conspicuous in the second, fourth, and fifth sermons of this volume, and also in the notes, pp. 176, 7. 181, 2. 191, 4, 5, 8.

There is another peculiarity of our author's sermons, which deserves attention; their variety of thought and expression. Possessing great constitutional excitability, he feels an enthusiasm on a great variety of subjects; and as his themes vary in their nature, the variations in his style are correspondent. Being appropriate to his subject, his style is almost as free from monotony, as truth itself is free. There is sometimes the softness of an infant, and sometimes the impetuosity of a war-horse; now withering rebuke, and now almost lover-like fondness; here gorgeousness of fancy; there refinement of analysis; great keenness of perception intermingled with ease and calmness of sentiment. From one sermon, a reader might form an opinion that its author was too much inclined to extravagance of declamation; from another, to severity of personal reproof; from a third, to the narrative style; from a fourth, to the expository and paraphrastic. It were indeed wonderful, if amid such multifarious variety of matter and expression, there were not some offences against chasteness and prosaic accuracy. His German is not the most classical; and, as a writer as well as a man, he must be ranked among the sensitive rather than the calculating.

In his manner of delivery, Tholuck is animated but not boisterous; neat but not fastidious. He writes his sermons, but does not read