Слике страница
PDF
ePub

mentary on John "in an English dress." But it is not too m to say, that the man who undertakes to translate a German tebi gian into English, ought to have at his command a pretty abi vocabulary of good English words, and ought to understand sentences are put together. "Irrespective of the fact," = What is the meaning of irrespective? Such English sends a the dictionary. If Mr. Kaufman will take his dictionary grammar, and try to "parse" irrespective, he will probably that it is, in the school-boy phrase, a word farther than beb studied.' "Theological domain,"--what is that? We ca deed guess at Mr. Kaufman's meaning. We presume he ce that Tholuck is an able writer, and furthermore, that at pre no book is more needed in theology than a good commentary the gospels. But if that is what he means, why did he not says A few lines below, we find this sentence.

In commenting on St. John particularly-the Plato of the instr circle-it requires a mind of a peculiar order.'

No man who understands English, will use the verb as an impersonal verb. But we proceed with the quotation.

This mind Tholuck possesses :-a happy combination of deep meditative thought with a christian heart; a quick apprehens glowing imagination, an accurate acquaintance with language a nice perception of its force, together with a clear insight into the ual nature of man. These characteristic excellencies are more s exhibited in the work before us; and with these traits of excel there is no man more interesting than our author upon the theatre Ed Germany, nor indeed upon the literary arena of any nation. E stands forth pre-eminent among the learned ones of that learned per ple; he yields to none in versatility of mind, in depth and compass a thought, or in variety of knowledge. The principal languages of 20 dern Europe he speaks with ease and fluency, as well as the Lath and Greek; with the oriental dialects he is familiar, and is, moreover, extensively read in the poetry and philosophy both of the east and west. His contributions to the theological and philosophical literature of his country have been very important, having written and edited a number of works rich in learning and deep in thought. Some of these, treating of oriental philosophy and theosophy, have met with the approba tion of the Baron De Sacy, the most illustrious Arabic scholar in Exrope. But a luster is thrown over all these attainments by his dep and earnest piety.' pp. 4, 5.

Deep! deep! deep! Dr. Tholuck is a learned man, a man of genius, a man of unquestionable and fervent piety, a man pre-eminently qualified to serve the church of God by his expositions of the holy scriptures; but to make him so unfathomably deep, is to create prejudices against him, and to warn off those readers who

disposed to insist, that whatever is rational must be intelligible. > take leave to say therefore, that so far as we have examined writings, there is far less in them of the unintelligible, the mysal, the puerile, than might be expected by one who knew only ch specimens of transcendentalism as are furnished by some 10 on this side of the Atlantic attempt to be "deep," "deep," and k about a higher philosophy and a higher consciousness, and that sort of thing. It is possible, that our translator may have d some peculiar meaning in these reiterated assertions of his auor's depth. We have been studying that sentence above, in ich it is said in illustration of the importance of Tholuck's conbutions to German literature, that they, the contributions aforeid, have "written and edited a number of works rich in learning, id deep in thought." May it not be, that Mr. K's admiration of s author's profundity is grounded on this remarkable fact? If a an's contributions are so important as to have written and edited orks deep in thought, what must the man himself be? No woner, that deep answers to deep in the vain attempt to describe the alities of such a man. Let us proceed to the next paragraph.

Perhaps the strongest objection which can be urged against such ommentators as Tholuck and Olshausen, is the fact that they give too uch prominence to the spiritual aspect of religion and of our nature, > the almost total exclusion or suppression of the material and outward. hey seem to forget that we are beings of a compound character, posessing our souls in material, sensuous bodies; and that the institutions f christianity are adapted to the latter as well as to the former. They eem to forget that the feelings and sentiments of the soul are ofttimes reated or colored by the peculiar outward circumstances under which it has been reared; and that as a consequence, the religion which is designed for man in his present state, must have external rites and ordihances as well as inward feelings and hopes. Hence they seem to place too low in their estimation every thing of an external character; forgetful, meanwhile, of the intimate relationship which subsists between the inward and the outward, and of the almost absolute and controlling influence which the latter exerts over the former. These remarks might be fully exemplified by adducing what is said on the Ministry, on Baptism, on the Lord's Supper, and on the nature of external ordinances generally.' pp. 4, 5.

It is to be regretted, that "these remarks" were not "exemplified;" for then the reader might have made a guess at their meaning. If the meaning is, that Tholuck's commentaries are written on the idea, that man is a disembodied spirit, or that christianity has not, or need not have external rites and ordinances, we have only to say, that the remarks are all "fudge." If, on the other hand, Mr. Kaufman means to ascribe it to Tholuck, as a fault, that in a commentary on John, he has not inculcated the popish docVOL. VIII.

41

trine of the efficacy of sacraments, and has not reiterated the common places about the unbroken succession and the dulyes tuted ministry, then most readers will agree with us in sa that the fault, if indeed it be a fault, is one which may be part The writer next proceeds to argue, in what seems to us a original method, for the importance of external ordinances, w in his argument, make all the difference between China and E land, nay between the Hottentot and the German Transcender ist. 66 Why then," he says, bringing the argument to a po

[ocr errors]

Why then should we not regard the offices and sacraments: church as the channels or golden conduits, through which the of the Spirit's influence are made to flow into the heart? O should we hesitate to believe, that whilst an inward and direct must be brought to act upon the apostate will, that these ord are yet most important media employed by the Spirit of God to ope upon the spirit of man? and that of a consequence they should voutly received, and every infringement upon them carefully av pp. 5, 6.

Now it is possible, that all this means only what Paul when he said, "How shall they believe on him of whom have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach except they be sent?" But if this s meaning, surely the writer has found out an unfortunate way setting it forth. The apostles never say, "Of his own will be he us by the offices and sacraments." They never say, "Seet ye have purified your hearts by receiving the offices and sa ments." Nor did Christ say concerning his disciples, "Sare them through the offices and sacraments of the church." We we to find such language in the new testament, we should it was designed to teach that external ceremonies rightly adoss tered, have power to sanctify the soul. Finding it in the pre to Mr. Kaufman's translation of Tholuck on John, suspect, that the translator's episcopacy is recent, and does not yet sit easily upon him. We proceed to another paragraph:

pretice

we camme tut

There are not wanting in our own country those who regard aller ternal forms in religion as fit only for the human race in its inaney but since it has thrown off its swathing bands, and stands forth mature. in manhood, these are by them considered as mere trammels to soul. They have outgrown, they tell us, the necessity of every thing formal in its character; they think themselves able to rise up to ven by the energy of the Spirit alone.' p. 6.

are sure

These despisers and rejecters of all that it is outward, ly the Quakers. We are at a loss to conceive of other deany nomination of men in this land, to whom the description can be ap plied. And the reader will be at a loss to imagine what could induce

translator of Tholuck to go out of his way in order to belabor nakerism. We have not been informed, that the principles of orge Fox are making any alarming progress among those rears to whom this commentary is likely to have access. If the iter means to intimate, that those who do not become Episcopans, regard all external forms as mere trammels to the soul, the genuity of the insinuation is about equal to its ingenuousness. The next paragraph begins thus:

[ocr errors]

The external ordinances of the church, are "the living creatures d the wheels" which the holy prophet saw in the visions of God that ere given to him, whilst he sat among the captives by the river Cher, when the heavens were opened. To humanity they are the Chebim, on which "the living Spirit" is to sit enthroned, and by which is to be upborne in its aspirations after God.' pp. 6, 7.

The external ordinances of the church are "the living creatures, nd the wheels"!" They are the cherubim, on which the 'living pirit' is to sit enthroned, and by which it is to be upborne in its spirations after God"! To us, this is entirely unintelligible. We ay presume therefore, that it is " deep." Yet as we pause over is palpable obscure, we cannot but ask, Had the writer any meang? If he had a meaning, was it a meaning too shadowy to be xpressed? If his meaning was indeed inexpressible, why did he ry to express it? If it was expressible, why did he not express And if a writer cannot set forth his own meaning, how shall e set forth the meaning of another man?

t?

One more passage from this preface, and we will proceed to what is far better:

It is known that this work was originally announced under the name of Mr. Hermann Bokum. A train of circumstances which need not here be detailed, led to a transfer of the work from him to its present hands. p. 7.

The hands of a man, and the hands of a clock, are familiar expressions; but we never heard before, such a phrase as the hands of a book. Yet this most awkward expression occurs a second time in this brief paragraph.

Taking our leave of Mr. Kaufman's prefatory disquisition, we find ourselves on the whole happily disappointed with his work as a translator. We have had occasion to compare the translation with the original in many passages; and we cheerfully testify to the general correctness of the version. Perhaps we might point out some blunders as when (p. 112.) in giving the English of a quotation from Calvin's Latin, he renders Calvin's theologastri, 'belly theologues,'-a translation about as accurate as it would be to render poetaster, belly-poet. We might censure some strange liberties taken with the people's English, as when he writes

"clumb," for climbed, which is worse than the vulgarism of ple for pleaded. We might refer to some German idioms a have found their way into the translation, to perplex the E reader; such as the rendering of the particle schon by the verb already, in many an instance in which it were far better to render it at all. But a faithful translation of such a work Tholuck on John, which shall on the whole convey the me of the author, is truly a benefaction to ministers and studers theology, even though it is not quite so spirited and elegant would have been, had it come from the same pen that transis Herder's Spirit of Hebrew Poetry. Mr. Kaufman generally over the sentences of Tholuck into the vernacular, faithfully elegantly, like a man who understands German well enough the purpose, and English tolerably well; and when the untrans dental reader is compelled to pause, and to wish for a commenz upon the commentary, we suspect, that in many instances, the thor rather than the translator, is responsible for the obscurity, We would not undervalue or lead others to undervalue, luck's commentary on John. We have used it in some studies on this gospel, with equal pleasure and advantage; ui we do most earnestly recommend it to all pastors and stude who desire to enrich their minds with enlarged and spiritual res of the doctrines and the character of Jesus Christ. Yet we r far from acknowledging, that Tholuck with all his learning and nius, and with all his piety, is a guide whom it is safe to follow imp citly. The reader who is to receive his opinions on the mere thority of his commentary, without distinctly understanding wa those opinions are, or on what grounds they rest, ought rather resign himself to the guidance of Doddridge or of Henry. The sound sense and satisfactory learning of the one, and the sober fashioned piety of the other, will never lead him far astray.

The excellencies of Tholuck as a commentator on the sp tures, are obvious. In respect to philology, he is learned, ext ingenious; and yet he makes far less parade of critical learning than most of his brethren. Where a rational doubt can be raised respecting the meaning of a word, he gives his opinion and his re sons,-where the reader can be supposed to need information, be gives it; often his minute attention detects in the grammatical fo or construction of a word, some shade of meaning which others have overlooked; yet he does not, like many commentators, over load his pages with mountains of information and disquisition which nobody needs, and which too often serve to perplex rather than to enlighten. Let us compare him with Kuinoel in a single passage.

We open to John iv. 1-3. On this passage Tholuck's com ments are as follows:

« ПретходнаНастави »