erence for the bible, they have not yet learned to bow to its decisions with an implicit assent; that they too often hear its voice and receive its light through the medium of a philosophy, which imposes on them false impressions. Yet on the whole we should rejoice, that they have made so much advance, rather than complain that they have made so little. When it is considered against what recklessness of scepticism the friends of religion in Germany have had to contend, the wonder is, that they hold the truth even with so much purity. May the degree of error, which yet cleaves to it, soon pass away in its turn; and thus may it be shown, that if something is still wanting to the entire soundness of the church of Christ there, it is the feebleness, not of incipient disease, but of that sort, which oppresses the body, after sickness has spent its violence upon it, and from the effects of which although convalescent, it cannot recover in

a moment!

We will now pass to a brief notice of the work, named at the head of this article. The commentary on John is not regarded by those, who are acquainted with the other works of Tholuck, as specially distinguished in comparison with them, for the originality of its views, or the extent of its learning. He shows indeed even here, that he is capable of such views, and has the resources of the most varied learning at his command. As a monument, however, of his scholarship and exegetical talent, it will not rank so high as several of his other productions. Some readers may not only experience a disappointment of this nature, but take exception perhaps to something like an occasional development of that turn for the mystical, which marks so strongly the German mind. An example of this occurs in the comment on Chap. 1: 11. "That inward light, which constitutes the living substratum of every human spirit, now appeared impersonated among men; but those who had not previously apprehended it within themselves, still continued ignorant of it, when it appeared before them in an outward personal manifestation." So also upon Chap. 18: 38. "When God ceases to give a testimony of himself in the moral and religious consciousness of man, how can man attain to a recognition of the objective existence of God and divine things? Thus with the contempt of a superficial man of the world towards every thing, which lies beyond the sphere of the finite, and

which requires the highest longing in man, the Procurator here cries out, "what is truth!" Pilate here represents an entire class of distinguished Romans, who in the contest between systems and between that of the religious structure of their own people, which was only partially illuminated by truth, poured cold contempt upon every effort to search into divine things; and this they did because they had extinguished the inward testimony of God in their ethico-religious consciousness by a shallow worldly life, and as a consequence, could not apply the true criterion of all philosophical and religious doctrines." Such sentences, however, bear but a small proportion to the whole body of the work, and cannot essentially affect its value.

It may be thought that in some places where Tholuck treats of the miracles of our Saviour, he does not always take his ground as a supernaturalist with sufficient openness and decision. We do not intend by any means, that he throws a vail over his opinions here, so that we are left in doubt as to what they really are. It is impossible for any one to be more explicit than he usually is in his acknowledgement of the divine power, with which Christ wrought "both signs and wonders." The attacks of the rationalists upon this key-stone in the evidences of christianity, are opposed by him, as a believer in revelation should oppose them.The extent of the stricture is, if in fact there be room for it at all, that in reference to one or two cases, which some might regard as miraculous, he adopts, or at least favours. natural methods of explanation, There is not room for extracts. We would refer to what is said in regard to the appearance of the dove at the baptism of our Lord, and in regard also to the circumstances of his first acquaintance with Nathaniel.

We assent to the remark of the translator, in the preface, that "a fervour and glow of Christian devotion," pervades all the writings of Tholuck. This is especially true of the commentary on John, if we compare it with the usual style of German commentary. If we compare it, however, with similar works in our own language, there is a great deficiency. The practical relations of truth are not exhibited with any degree of that directness, which is so characteristic of our English commentators, The reader is left altogether too much to merely such an application of the text, and the criticism upon it, as his own heart may VOL. III

58

prompt him to make. The fault of Tholuck, in this particular, is the common fault of his countrymen. Even those of them who enter into the views of the inspired writers most fully, fail to present them so as to develop and strengthen a sense of personal responsibility. They do not address themselves sufficiently to the heart and the conscience. They are occupied too much with the letter, or rather, they are not enough occupied with the spirit, of the sacred volume. If the Germans, without surrendering any of the accuracy for which they are distinguished, would approach nearer to the manner of Leighton, and Scott, and Doddridge, in the practical turn which these latter give to their expositions, we should then have, as the result of this combination of qualities so seldom united, a species of commentary more perfect than any which has often appeared.

The excellencies, which so fully counterbalance these, or any other defects which might be pointed out, it is unnecessary to specify. The work is before the public; and will vindicate its claim to a high place in the esteem of the friends of sacred learning. Mr. Kaufman has judged correctly, in supposing that a translation of it would be acceptable to the religious community. In making it accessible to English readers, he has entitled himself to their thanks and patronage. The manner in which he has performed the duty does credit to his taste and scholarship. Had he, in some instances, paid more regard to the demands of our own language, and adhered less closely to the original, it would have been an improvement. It was, probably, through inadvertence, that part of the extract from Theod. Mopsuest, on the eighty-seventh page, is obviously mistranslated. The last sentence, "For it were better to say that John testified, saying," &c. should be rendered, "For it were superfluous to say, that John testified, saying, that he beheld the spirit, if all who were present were also witnesses of the vision." Both the Greek and the context require this translation. Upon page 287, we have the word "resuscitation," employed in a sense which neither usage, nor the nature of the case, will warrant. It signifies, properly, restoration, not from actual death, but from a state of insensibility, a state of apparent extinction of life. Hence, to call the rising of Lazarus, from the grave, a "resuscitation," suggests an idea utterly foreign both to the truth,

and the intention of the writer. It would imply, that the brother of Mary and Martha had not been actually dead, but was so only in appearance; and thus, in fact, that there was no real miracle in the case !* The mistake is, that the term in question is taken as synonymous with resurrection, to which it does not correspond. There are some minor inaccuracies, which the eye of the translator has, no doubt, ere this detected, and which will disappear in a second edition of the book.

In bringing this article to a close, we deem it not inappropriate to allude to a topic which is brought fairly before us by the work which we have been considering. From the frequency with which Tholuck refers, in this commentary, to the works of the early Christian writers, we can judge both of the extent to which the Germans prosecute this species of learning, and of the estimation in which they hold it. How entirely neglected, among us, is this whole field of investigation! It is a region into which the most enterprising students here but seldom venture. If they glean, from a hasty attention to ecclesiastical history, knowledge enough to recount the names of some of the leading Christian fathers, and the titles, perhaps, of a few of their works, it is, for the most part, the extent of their acquaintance with this portion of the literature of the church. The candidate for the ministry, who, in his preparatory course, has done so much as to read, in the original, one of the apologies of Justin Martyr, or one of the epistles of Cyprian, or a homily of Chrysostom, has earned for himself, a distinction which few can aspire to share with him. It is certainly to the discredit of sacred learning in this country, that the standard of theological attainments is in this respect so low.f Not to mention any of the more solid benefits which one might thus secure, who can conceive of an object of more rational curiosity, than to

"Resuscitated" is used in the same manner, p. 79.

+ These writers have claims upon the classical, as well as the theological student. "The Christian fathers, without being precisely philosophers, were the boldest thinkers and best writers of the time. We find them fearlessly criticising the substance of this (Cicero's republic) and the other valuable treatises of the classical authors; approving what they considered worthy to be approved, and condemning the rest without scruple, while the Pagan writers of the same period only dwelt, with a barren and indiscriminate admiration, upon the structure of the language." North American Review, Vol. 7, No. 4.

desire to know how those men thought, and reasoned, and wrote, who almost sat at the very feet of the Apostles, and who, at all events, had very near access to the first sources of Christianity?* We cannot but hope, that the testimony of so competent a judge as Tholuck, to the value of the early Latin and Greek fathers, may contribute to rescue them from their present unmerited neglect in this country, and attract to them some degree of that attention which they will so amply repay.

ART. VIII. AN ENQUIRY INTO SOME OF THE CAUSES OF DISEASE among the Clergy.

By CHARLES A. LEE, M.D., New York.

THE frequency of ill health among clergymen, is a matter of general remark. A few years in the ministry is sufficient, at the present day, to break down the strongest constitutions; and the most vigorous physical powers, yield under the required routine of duties. Increasing numbers are yearly becoming invalids, or fall beneath the weight of their labours, when, perhaps, just entering on fields of extensive usefulness. The ministry, which was once considered, and truly so, as favourable to longevity, is now more fatal to life and health than almost any trade or profession that can be named. Throughout New England. until within a few years, the clergy generally attained to a vigorous old age, and went down to the grave “like a shock of corn fully ripe ;" now, they are often cut off like the green blade, whose heart has been eaten, or its root severed, by some hidden worm. Then our hardy fathers knew not dyspepsy or bronchitis even by name. Ennui, prostration, and debility entered not into their vocabulary. They ate well, digested well, slept well, and spoke well; all the functions of life moved on harmoniously, and the re

It would seem, however, that this is a department of learning which needs to be, not introduced de novo, but simply revived among us. Cotton Mather's Magnalia, for instance, and the works of other divines who were contemporary with him, show, that there was a time when attention to these studies was considered a very important part of ministerial preparation.