not to raise questions here as to the correctness of his application of the Scriptures he quotes in this connection to future punishment. This will be attended to when we reach that point of his argument in our review. Our present aim is to bring his subsequent description of this assumed punisment into one connected view with the representation of it given in his Introductory Remarks. If the Christian people of Charlestown, while going to and from their business, from day to day, and to and from the house of God on Sabbath morning, noon, and night, should hear the voices of wailing, and the screeches of anguish from the State Prison, and, on inquiry, find that the officers of the prison, lest the prisoners should relapse into insensibility to their unhappy state, were employing most of their time in jeering at their degradation, and stirring them up to a sense of their wretchedness by positive and outward inflictions, by racks, pincers, goads, nettles, scalds, and burns,-every feeling of humanity would be outraged, the whole city would be up in arms, and the whole State, as the news should spread, and hurl those fiends from their posts of dishonored power. But our friend represents that the infinite Jehovah will shut out millions of his dependent creatures, finally, from all beauty, light, and good; and, lest their habitual gloom and wretchedness should conduce to their insensibility, he will then employ his great power in positive inflictions of pain, and stirring up and exciting their anguish, that, through endless ages, they may roll and writhe in ceaseless living torment." (pp. 90, 91.)

We have only to add that the book, as containing a full and distinct elucidation of the argument, both natural and scriptural, for Universalism, makes a missionary work which it will do good to circulate.

2. Commentary on the Gospel of John. By Dr. Augustus Tholuck. Translated from the German. By Charles P. Krauth, D. D. Philadelphia Smith, English & Co. 1859. 8vo. pp. 440.

The appearance in English of a Commentary on John's Gospel, from the greatest of the German theologians, will be hailed with delight by all lovers of biblical literature. The peculiarities of John's Gospel, as compared with the synoptical Gospels, inexplicable to the unlearned, and the occasion of cavil with the skeptical, seem to require an explanation. Tholuck was moved to write his commentary with a special view to this necessity. He has a theory to the effect that John had a special purpose in writing the Gospel. The clue to this purpose he infers from the fact, that

the evangelist continually exhibits Jesus in conflict with the Jewish officials. And he affirms, "that from its very commencement, the gospel pursues this theme: The eternal conflict between the divine light and the corruption of men, exhibited in the opposition between the inimical Jewish party and the appearing of the Son of God, and protracted until the light is victorious." The occasional conflicts between statements in the gospel and certain Gentile heresies, Tholuck regards as incidental to the plan of the writer, not as entering into the plan. All the diversities of character, event, sentiment, and feeling which distinguish John's record from the other three, he regards as amply accounted for by the speciality of his object in making the record. The literary characteristics of John,-felt by every reader as most extraordinary, the date and place of his record, the arrangement, the genuineness on both external and internal grounds, the difficulties attending attempts to harmonize the record with the statements of the other evangelists,-all these matters are discussed in an introduction, embracing more than fifty pages. To the minister and the student, the value of this introduction is very great. It is seldom that so luminous and so instructive a chapter finds its way into biblical literature.

Of the commentary part, we are, as yet, unprepared to speak at any length. Our examination has been cursory and scattered. We find, however, an exuberance of suggestion, turn where we will; a glow of fervor, which betokens the presence of a profound piety; and learning so genuine, that it crops out of every -even the most trivial-explanation. We trust the work will speedily find its way to those for whom it has special adaptation -the sermon-writer, the theological student, the lover of biblical wisdom. The book is brought out in a style which will bear using the substantial preponderating over the fanciful. Strong paper, strong binding, and a clear type, are the requisite accompaniments of such a work.

3. Who is our God? the Son or the Father? A Review of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. By Thomas J. Sawyer, D. D. New York: Thatcher and Hutchinson. 1859. pp. 39.

The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, in giving his earnest dissent from the Unitarian phase of the theology of Rev. Theodore Parker, was betrayed into the use of the following language:

"Could Theodore Parker worship my God?-Christ Jesus is his name. All that there is of God to me is bound up in that A dim and shadowy effluence rises from Christ, and that I am taught to call the Father.. A yet more tenuous and invisible

name.

film of thought arises, and that is the Holy Spirit. But neither are to me aught tangible, restful, accessible. They are to be revealed to my knowledge hereafter, but now only to my faith. But Christ stands my manifest God. All I know is of him and in him."

Dr. Sawyer, in the pamphlet before us, considers the statements of Mr. Beecher in the light of the New Testament. At considerable length he amplifies the contrary doctrine, under the following heads:

"1. That GOD THE FATHER is the Supreme God, the maker of the heavens and the earth, and the proper object of worship to all created intelligences. 2. That Christ Jesus is the Son of God, the Sent of God, and under him the Teacher, Ruler, and Saviour of men. 3. That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God by which he blesses, enlightens, and sanctifies the soul. 4. That instead of the Father and the Holy Spirit rising like exhalations from Christ, both the Son and the Spirit come from the Father. From all which it follows that, whatever we may say of Christ and the Holy Ghost, whatever of divinity they may share, still the Father is supreme, the proper Godhead, and the only fountain of life and power."

The pamphlet throughout bears the impress of its author's well disciplined mind; and it meets every point raised with Scripture, learning, and logic. We regret that we do not have more productions from the same accomplished pen.

4. The Limits of Religious Thought Examined in Eight Lectures delivered before the University of Oxford. By Henry Longueville Mansel, B. D. Boston. Gould & Lincoln. 1859.

This is a most extraordinary book, alike for the singularity of its object and the ability with which it has been composed. In the narrow space of a notice, the nature of its contents will not permit a very distinct statement, nor can its leading positions be criticised. Perhaps we may give a clue to its general character, by saying, that it aims to show the incompetency of reason to decide against the mysteries of evangelical theology. It is admitted that the unrestricted use of reason brings it in conflict with such doctrines as the trinity, the incarnation, the imputation of sin, the atonement, endless punishment, and concomitant dogmas. Mr. Mansel, however, aims to show, that reason, in its unrestricted use, is not less against itself, than against the theological points named. He quotes, as a motto, the statement of Sir William Hamilton: "No difficulty emerges in theology, which had not previously emerged in philosophy." Reason is

thus thrown into a dilemma. If it persists in assailing theology, on the score of irrationality, its method of assault is turned upon itself; for its own issues, when pursued beyond a certain point, are seen to be contradictory. Mr. Mansel claims to ask no favor for theology that philosophers are not compelled to ask for reason. In other words, the same necessity that fixes limits to philosophical thought, justifies an attempt to establish “the limits of religious thought."

Mr. Mansel, however, does not pursue simply the apologetic vein. He makes a masterly assault upon rational theology, and attempts to show that its issues are unsatisfactory, as being pushedbeyond the limits of thought. It will be seen from this that he belongs to the school of Hamilton. Indeed, he makes direct acknowledgment to Hamilton's philosophy of the Unconditioned, as furnishing the ground-work of his treatise on "The Limits of Religious Thought." Since the death of Hamilton, Mansel has been considered the most erudite and logical of British thinkers. Probably no other man is so competent to give a theological direction to the best speculative thought of the age.

We have no disposition to find fault with Mr. Mansel, simply on the ground that we reject most of the theological doctrines which he has labored to screen from the assaults of reason. For, he does not make the defined incompetency of reason an affirmative argument in favor of those doctrines. These may be true or false. Revelation only can determine these points; but, if revealed, (and he thinks they are, as we think they are not,) they are not to be set aside because certain exercises of reason pronounce against them. The question, indeed, arises, Are the points wherein reason, by venturing beyond its sphere, acts a suicidal part-are these points identical with those wherein it pronounces against the evangelical theology? Mr. Mansel attempts to show that they are thus identical. We will only say, that we have not been convinced that he has made good his position.

As to the general effect of his book, we will say that it is somewhat disheartening to those who would lay intelligible foundations for their faith. It is not pleasant to find oneself so terribly hemmed in by limitations-so constantly driven back from a perceived inference, by the allegation that reason has already reached the full length of its tether. And the probability is, that reason will be too obstinate to submit to so arbitrary a curb; and will run the risk of suicide, rather than forego its ancient prerogative of having its own way to the last. The book will not convince so much as it will amaze. Doubtless it will be somewhat effective as a warning against rash speculation

in theology; and hence induce more care and deliberation in taking dogmatic positions, on questions so serious and so subtle as those which pertain to the domain of religious faith.

5. What is the Christian Religion? and What constitutes a Revival of It? A Sermon. By Rev. E. W. Reynolds. New York: Thatcher & Hutchinson. 1859. pp. 29.

The usually just saying, that sermons are profitable to hear, but not to read, does not apply to the one named above. We seldom read the same number of pages with such unqualified satisfaction as we have experienced in reading the pamphlet before us. The sermon is full of thought; its arrangement is admirable; and its point practical in a high degree. In reply to the question: What is the Christian Religion? the author makes the just distinction between the religious sentiment and true religion. The religious sentiment is inherent in man; and is identical in all men. But it may have a true or false manifestation; and hence it becomes true or false, good or bad, according to the form which it takes in practical life. This distinction prepares the way for theictical Works of James Gates Percival, with a Biographilogical statement what Christianity distinctively is cal Sketch. In two volumes. Boston Ticknor & Fields.

1859.

The most noticeable feature of this collection of poems is the accompanying biographical sketch of the poet. The poetry of Percival is perhaps as familiar to American readers as that of any native author, after Bryant and Longfellow; but the particulars of his life will be new to the majority of readers. And a strange life was his-a mixture of romance, melancholy and poverty-a continuous struggle with misfortune, not at all lightened by native cheerfulness of disposition. His learning was extensive and varied; was wonderfully exact and minute in several of the sciences, particularly in geology; embraced nearly all the European languages, the most difficult of which he studied with the most enthusiasm. He was not social, and often repelled by an appearance of haughtiness, which, however, was only an appearance. He was impetuous in every thing. His poetry was thrown off-never was elaborated, and was seldom revised. He was a master of the pure Saxon, and could make it flow as few have ever been able to do. Had his outward fortune been more favorable, he might have secured a larger, but probably not a better monument of his intellectual greatness, than we now have in these beautiful volumes. The binding in blue, with gold edging and a fine portrait, gives the poems an appropriate setting.