1839

of Dr. Knapp, the chair which he still retains, he published his Commentary on the Gospel of John, which has passed through five editions in Germany, and been translated into our own language. Having suffered for a long time and very severely from disease, he was appointed in the spring of 1828, Chaplain of the Prussian Embassy at Rome. He accepted the appointment, and spent a year in Italy with decided benefit to his health. The intellectual pleasure as well as profit, which he must have received in the library of the Vatican, will be appreciated by all who consider the richness of that library in foreign manuscripts, and Tholuck's familiarity with foreign languages.

While a private teacher and a professor at Berlin, Tholuck had the title of Licentiate of Theology. When he removed to Halle, the University of Berlin conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Theology. When he accepted his chaplaincy, he applied for ordination at Merseburg, and received it without a previous examination. This examination is customarily omitted at the ordination of Doctors in Theology. In 1830, he was appointed CourtPreacher at Dresden. This invitation he declined, and immediately afterwards received from the Government the honorary title of Consistorialrath, Counsellor or Assessor of the Consistory. This is now his proper style of address. It is somewhat higher than the doctorate of divinity among us. Only one ecclesiastical honor, that of Oberconsistorialrath, is higher than this in Germany. Bibl. Rep. Vol. I. pp. 413, 414.

In 1829 he published a volume of sermons, which were preached at Berlin, Rome, London and Halle. This is, strictly speaking, his first volume of sermons, though that published in 1834, is marked the first, from its relation to the subsequent series. In 1830, soon after his return from Italy, he became involved in a very serious altercation with the Rationalists at Halle, a slight allusion to which is found in Bib. Rep., Vol. I. p. 29. The circumstances of the case are the following. Ludwig Von Gerlack, then associate Judge at Frankfort on the Oder, a contributor to Hengstenberg's Evangelical Church Journal, exposed in that periodical the impious manner in which Gesenius and Wegscheider, Professors at Halle, ridiculed certain portions of Scripture, and slandered the sacred penmen. He sustained his charges by quotations from notes taken by the students of the University. It was thought to be an outrage upon the rights

of the professors, and upon the character of the students, thus to publish abstracts of lectures, which were not intended for the public eye, and which could not be fairly exhibited in such a shape; and above all to publish them for the purpose" of accusing these esteemed and distinguished men of heterodoxy," and of exciting against them the hostile feeling of the Government. The professors resented, as an infringement of their privileges, the attempt to make them responsible to the public and obnoxious to the ministry, for the remarks which they might make at a private lecture; and the students not only sympathized with the professors, but felt that an imputation was cast upon their own honor.

Tholuck had not approved of Von Gerlack's article, had even attempted to dissaude him from the publication of it, yet he was suspected of having instigated the whole exposure. So great was the consequent excitement against him that his life was endangered, and he was obliged to have a military guard when he visited the Ministry. His opposers now say, with the coolness of true Rationalists, that " as he was known to be one of the leaders of that fanatical party, who support the Church Journal, and as he was then resident at Halle, it was natural that he should be suspected of an agency in this attack upon his colleagues, and that he should be thereby exposed to the first out-breaking of the merited indignation, which was felt by the youth, then pursuing their studies at Halle and feeling themselves calumniated in the offensive article. On a closer examination, however, it appeared that Tholuck was free from participating in that accusation of heterodoxy, and that he had not recommended the interposition of the Government against the Rationalist teachers. But as he agreed, in substance, with the dogmatic principles of the Evangelical party, the indignation and the literary attacks of the freethinking theologians were aimed against him in an especial manner. Among these attacks, by far the most severe was doubtless that which came from Charles Frederick Augustus Fritzsche, of Rostock; for while all others contended against Tholuck's dogmatic principles, this writer accused him of the rudest ignorance concerning the laws of language and of interpretation." "Fritzsche came forward with a work called ‘A Review of the merits of Mr. Tholuck as an Interpreter,' (Halle 1831). In this work he showed, by a long catalogue of examples from Tholuck's exegetical writings, that he committed every moment

mistakes, (to irritate Tholuck he called them blunders), of the gravest character against the canons of language and of interpretation; that he did not know how to place the accent aright, but offended in this respect against the forms of speech and against syntax; that he coined words in a mode which usage did not justify; that he gave definitions, which are not and cannot be sanctioned; that he fell into the most incredible errors in apprehending the meaning of the original, etc." "Against these criticisms, expressed in so cutting a manner, Tholuck endeavoured to defend himself in his 'Contributions to the Interpretation of the New Testament, together with a Review of the Criticism upon my Comm. on the Rom., by Dr. Fritzsche,' (Halle, 1832). He was far, however, from being successful in exculpating himself from all the errors charged against him; on the contrary he emboldened Fritzshce to publish a new work, Preliminaries, etc.," (Halle 1832), in which the same errors were forcibly particularized, and new errors added. Against this work Tholuck endeavored to defend himself again, in his 'One sober word more,' etc., (Halle 1832); but he could not entirely wash away the stain, which was fastened upon him." "This contest between Fritzsche and Tholuck was on subjects, purely philological. It is, however, to be regarded as an important part of the contest between Rationalism and Super-naturalism; inasmuch as the combatants belonged to the two opposing parties, and the spirit of party manifestly contributed to make the contest more bitter and violent, than it could have been made by mere philological differences. It derived interest, also, from its operation upon the general controversy between the two parties, for it had a close connexion with the literary character of one of the chief men among the super-naturalists, one upon whom the influence of those men in the province of letters essentially depended. Previously to this, Tholuck had been universally acknowledged to be a man of profound learning, particularly in the department of oriental literature; his exegetical labors had, therefore, no small influence in favor of his theological opinions; and he was the pride and the bulwark of his party." "Though it may be regarded by the rationalists as a fortunate event, that their most influential opponent was thus divested of his false show of learning, yet still this kind of literary warfare, this fault-finding (splitterrichterliche) dispute on words, these despicable reproaches for blunders in language, must be regarded as a proof of a base spirit in our

learned community." Cons. Lex. Arts. Tholuck, and Rationalism and Super-naturalism; Vol. IV. pp. 626, 7, and Vol. III. pp. 693, 4.

That the animadversions of Fritzsche, and more recently of Strauss, upon Tholuck's literary character were not entirely unjust, is admitted by many of Tholuck's friends; and the influence of them is said to have been decidedly beneficial both to his habits of investigation, and his style of writing. But that these attacks were so ruinous to his reputation, as the preceding narrative of the Rationalists would indicate, is not pretended now even by his enemies. They are obliged to concede, that the censures heaped upon him were too unqualified and indiscriminate, that his inaccuracies were by no means so gross nor his faults of style so censurable as was pretended: see even the Cons. Lex. Vol. IV. p. 628. The replies of Tholuck, which are mentioned so disparagingly above, are said by many to be among his happiest efforts. They convict his reviewer of greater inaccuracies than were charged upon himself. His deportment, through the whole conflict, was truly christian and noble. He considered himself as attacked not by Fritzsche alone, but by the great body of the Rationalists. They instigated Fritzsche to his merciless criticism; men, of whom we should little suspect such dishonorable conduct, furnished him with materials for his censure; and his condemnatory works may be considered the joint effort of those most interested in Tholuck's downfall; and yet the effort was, as the candid now confess, unsuccessful. It may also be remarked that there were feelings of personal ill-will, which instigated Fritzsche to his encounter with Tholuck. He is of about the same age with his antagonist, like him is the author of several Commentaries on the sacred books, but instead of being, as his father was before him, in a Theological Professorship at Halle, he is Professor of Theology at Rostock, the smallest of the German Universities. He formerly held the same Professorship at Leipsic. The father, Christian Frederic Fritzsche, D. D., was a decided rationalist, and his spirit reappears in his son.

In 1830, Tholuck established a periodical paper, called the Literary Advertiser, for Christian Theology and General Intelligence. It is a single sheet, quarto, and was issued at the rate of eighty numbers a year. The greater part of its articles are said to be from his own pen. He is about to publish a collection of essays from this paper, in a separate volume; to which he designs to append some arti

cles never before given to the public. From this periodical there have been translated into English, an article on the present state of Theological Literature and Education in Italy, Bib. Repos. Vol. I. pp. 177-186, and II. pp. 394-405; an article on the Lexicography of the New Testament, Bib. Repos. Vol. I. pp. 552-568; an article on the Hypothesis of the Egyptian or Indian Origin of the name Jehovah, Bib. Repos. Vol. IV. pp. 89-108; and an article on the merits of Calvin as an Interpreter, Bib. Repos. Vol. II. pp. 541-568. The first two articles were translated by Prof. Robinson of New York, the last one by Prof. Woods of Bangor, and all of them were written by Prof. Tholuck. The establishment of the Literary Advertiser originated from no want of friendship for Hengstenberg; for Tholuck still contributes to the pages of the Church Journal, and Hengstenberg contributes to the Advertiser. The two editors are personal friends, though Tholuck is not so violent and caustic as Hengstenberg, but occupies a middle ground between him on the one side, and Neander on the other, being more tolerant than the former, less accommodating than the latter. His opposers, speaking of his relation to the two periodicals, say, not in all respects with perfect correctness, that "Tholuck in his dogmatical system is more liberal and stands more upon speculative ground, than that rigorous portion of the evangelical party which is represented in Hengstenberg. He does not sanction the dogmatic exclusiveness of the last named writer, and that fanatical system of persecution and impeachment for heterodoxy, which is founded on such exclusiveness. Since the catastrophe at Halle he seems to have freed himself from his earlier connection with the Church Journal, and has established a theological paper of his own; which preserves more of a scientific character than Hengstenberg's, and during the most violent party-contests, has preserved a commendable moderation." Con. Lex. Vol. IV. p. 627.

In 1833, Tholuck edited Calvin's Commentary on the New Testament, 6 Vols. 8vo. In the same year he also published his Commentary on Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Part of this Commentary, that on the 5th of Matt., was translated into English for the Edinburgh Bib. Cabinet, No. VI. and part also, that on the Lord's Prayer, was translated by Prof. Torrey of Burlington for the Bib. Repos. Vol. V. pp. 190-238, and Vol. VI. pp. 187-207. The following extract from a letter of Tholuck to Rev. R. Menzies, of