nor Rev. Mr. C. wished the names they respectively gave to turn the scales of judgment in any man's mind. That would not be a Protestant wish. Yet both those names were properly offered, because men must respect the honest opinions of learned and thinking men. They have their weight, their importance, and their office, to command attention, and invite people to ponder a subject for themselves.

Partly for this purpose I shall offer a few names from my corner of the triangle, in my next chapter. But I may here offer one or two names in the question between my respected friends, which may command the attention of them both. And it is specially proper for me thus to offer names to gentlemen both right and both wrong in my opinion.

The first name is that of Augustus Tholuck. A few of your readers may need to be informed that he is the man who has done more than any other in Germany to secure a hearty love of the Scriptures, opposing at once the rationalism and the dead orthodoxy which are their equal foes. He is master of more languages than almost any other living man, especially of those which contribute to a right understanding of the inspired Word. Nor is he a mere bookworm, with more of uncommon than of common sense. He spends a large part of his time in walks and entertaining conversations with students in the University, and in visits and varied correspondence. He is one of the most eloquent pulpit orators of Germany. He is an admirable teacher and lecturer, fresh and suggestive, with none of the pedantry or false profundity of German scholarship.

He has written commentaries on the Gospel of John, the Epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Psalms. Most of these have been republished in English translations. Dr. Schaff tells us : "As a theological writer, Tholuck has devoted his best hours to biblical exegesis. Here he has achieved his most enduring merits."

Now Tholuck is both orthodox and Universalist. He was one of those who in the World's Evangelical Alliance opposed the article on future punishment. His attitude on this subject is indicated by the following conversation between him and Dr.

Sears of this country, held in London some years since. I take the account from Prof. Crosby's "Appeal to the American Tract Society," pp. 49, 50.

"Tholuck. I suppose my American brethren would consider me orthodox in general, except in my Universalism.

"S. Where did you find this doctrine — in the Bible, or in your philosophy?

"T. In both.

"S. What are the passages of Scripture on which you principally rely?

"T. My main passage is 1 Cor. xv. 28. . . . Also Rom. xi. 36.... Another passage is Phil. ii. 10. [His argument may be considered in the sequel.]

"S. Do you find no passages of Scripture which positively assert the everlasting punishment of the wicked?

66

"T. Yes: Matt. xxv. 46, and others like it.

"S. Can those passages which you think favor Universalism be understood in any other sense without violating the fundamental laws of interpretation?

"T. Yes, they can, but the construction would not be so easy and natural.

"S. Can the other passages, which speak of endless punishment, possibly bear any other construction?

"T. I do not see how they can.

"S. Well, what are you going to do with them?

"T. That is my only difficulty."...

But it

The remainder of the conversation I can not quote. sustains the following statement by Tholuck, made in 1837, of what he had said in 1834: "Dogmatically, i.e. as a theologian, I feel myself drawn toward this opinion [the Universalist]; but exegetically, i.e. as an interpreter, I do not know how to justify it." (Selections from German Literature, by Edwards and Park, p. 215.)

I will close with a passage from one of the best biblical scholars in this country, Dr. G. R. Noyes, Professor in Cambridge Divinity School. He is a Restorationist. In his review of Maurice's "Theological Essays," (Christian Examiner,

March, 1855, pp. 294, 295,) he says: "Even in the writings of Paul, who is very strong in denouncing punishment against the wicked, there are passages in which he speaks of the purposes of God, and of the riches of his grace, in such a manner as to make it difficult to believe that he contemplated the strictly eternal punishment of all who die in sin. We refer to the manner in which he speaks of the salvation of all Israel in Romans xi., and the putting down of all enemies to the kingdom of Christ in 1 Corinthians xv. 25-28. We can not, indeed, find an express declaration in the Scriptures of the final salvation of all men. Enemies may be put under one's feet by confinement in a place of punishment, as well as by being converted into friends. But the spirit of these passages, which makes so much to depend on the means which the wisdom and mercy of God have, as it were, in reserve, is not very favorable to the doctrine of the endless misery of all who are leaving the world with a sinful character, or who have left it since the creation of man. The thought of Paul logically carried out leads to a very different conclusion, and awakens the most cheering hopes." He adds in a note: "The impartial and sharp-sighted De Wette finds still more actually expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 28, than we can."

This passage is very good argument against the orthodox view. But the words I have italicized would reduce the Universalist view very nearly to an arcanum. These words are the more noteworthy as the writer was in so close neighborhood to verse 22, which Universalists regard as so fully stating their view. But in the view that all who live for ever will be holy we find a restitution of all things, and a universal dominion of Christ; and "the thought of Paul logically carried out" may prove no more than this.

CHAPTER IV.

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT.

In the words and by the work of Christ "Life and Immortality were brought to light." But that light, either for its original obscurity, or by its passage through the clouds and shadows of eighteen centuries, has come to have three widely different interpretations, of which one only can be true. How shall we select this and correct the errors of the remaining two?

Besides the examination of the Scriptures themselves, another method is perfectly legitimate. We may also inquire, What light was needed when Christ came? What light seemed to be immediately contributed by his coming? or, How did the early Christians understand his words? And again: What effect had philosophy when afterwards added to the gospel? In reply to these questions I propose to show

1. That Christ came at a time of general despondency and despair respecting all future life.

2. That the early Christians understood his words as assuring immortal life to be received by faith in him.

3. That the subsequently added doctrine of the soul's proper immortality was the common occasion, first of the orthodox and then of the restorationist view.

§ 1. There was deplorable need of light on the subject of immortality when Christ came.

Because man was made for immortality, there had ever been, both among Jews and Gentiles, many thoughts about it. There could have been no welcome of the coming light if there had been no thoughts—even anxious thoughts on the subject. But notwithstanding the natural thinking respecting

--

a future life, and even the strong desire for it, the opinions of men just before Christ came indicate a growing, often an utter, despair. Among the Hebrews, it has been questioned whether the Scriptures taught, or were designed to teach, any thing clear on the subject. Certain it is, that the Sadducees, denying all resurrection and spiritual existence, formed a most respectable party among the Jews, being sometimes represented in the Sanhedrim and in the priesthood. They to whom were intrusted the oracles of God, in which some "thought they had eternal life" (John v. 29), were in need of light.

Much more the Gentiles. If among the Jews, by various culture and intercourse with other peoples and influence from their opinions, there had been progress in the doctrine of an after life, on the other hand there was among the Greeks and the Romans a great and manifest decline of faith, The immortality of the soul was as old as Homer. It was older. Herodotus said that the Egyptians were "the first of mankind who defended the immortality of the soul." But the Hindoos, probably, had it quite as old, and the Persians not much younger. Yet, in the very form in which it was held by the Hindoos, and afterwards by the Pythagoreans and the Platonists, we discover the need of a revelation, and some cause of the doubts that followed. The Bhagavad Gita, which contained the essence of the Brahminical philosophy, asserted that the soul is not only immortal, but eternal. This was the doctrine of Pherecydes, the Assyrian, the hearing of which converted Pythagoras from a wrestler into a philosopher.

66

I need not follow the Greek philosophy on this subject through its forms and changes. The decline of faith which I assert is apparent in Socrates' time. He calls the soul's immortality an old doctrine, long ago shadowed forth by the founders of the mysteries," and appeals to antiquity in support of his own view of the spiritual, undying nature of the soul, against the scepticism of his age. "Can the soul," he asks, "which goes to the presence of a good and wise God (whither, if God will, my soul will shortly go)—can this soul of ours, when separated from the body, be immediately dispersed and destroyed, as most