triculate in the University of Halle in the following
autumn, and to be a daily attendant upon the lectures of such men as
Tholuck, Julius Mueller, Jacobi, and Roediger. From some theologians he
heard Rationalism defended with an energy worthy of Wolff and Semler;
from others with a devotion worthy of the beloved Neander. In the
railroad car, the stage, the counting-room, the workshop, the parlor,
and the peasant-hut, Rationalism was found still lingering with a
strong, though relaxing grasp. The evangelical churches were attended by
only a few listless hearers. His prayer to God was, "May the American
Church never be reduced to this sad fate." The history of that movement,
resulting in such actual disaster to some lands and threatened ruin to
others, took a deep hold upon his mind; and if he has failed in any
respect to trace it with an impartial pen, his hope is that his failure
will not cause any bright color of the truth to be obscured for a
moment. For no man and no cause can ultimately triumph by giving an
undue prominence to favorite party or principles; it is only by justice
to all that the truth can win its unfading laurels.

Criticism was to have been expected, from the very nature of the topic
of investigation. But the author has endeavored, as a student at the
feet of his judges, to derive the largest possible benefit from
criticism. No word of censure, however wide of the mark, has been
unwelcome to him, whether from the sceptical or orthodox press. To all
questioned passages he has given a careful re-examination, in some
instances finding cause for alteration, but in others seeing his ground
more strongly sustained than was at first imagined. He has, for example,
been informed by many esteemed persons that his representation of
Coleridge was hardly just; and, in obedience to that suggestion, he has
given that author's works a more careful study than ever, having
previously resolved to completely reverse his judgment of that profound
thinker's faith, if he found his own utterances would justify him in
that course. The result was, as far as he can now recall, that he could
alter but one adjective in the entire section relating to Coleridge. Of
course, the author finds no fault with those who differ from him on
Coleridge, or on any other writer who has come under treatment; but he
must be granted by others what he concedes to them. For the criticism,
as a whole, which he has received both through the press and