were offered, but in order to raise the whole inquiry concerning the preparatory education of clergymen, and in the hope that it may lead to a frank discussion of the subject in various quarters. It is desirable that those studies which are necessary should be recognized, that the proportion of different studies to each other and of all of them to practical work should be outlined, and that proper methods in teaching should be emphasized. If the young men, when they enter the Christian ministry, are destitute of a working knowledge of the Bible, and a sympathetic practical knowledge of men, the blame must be laid chiefly at the door of the professional school from which they have graduated, and those who are directly responsible should most eagerly welcome suggestions in the direction of improvement.

We reserve for a second article the effect of ministerial work, as it is usually conducted, upon the character, methods, and success of clergymen in actual service, and upon the estimation in which they are held, and confine attention now to the studies and training of students in preparation for the ministry.

The interesting coincidence may be remarked, in passing, that in England the demand is growing for a more extended discipline in theological studies. Thus Professor Duff, at the opening of Airedale College last month, gave an address on the qualifications of theological teachers, in which he stated that a reaction has begun in Congregational churches against the feeling common a few years ago, that theological education is useless. He says:

"The present public interest in theological teachers is fairly to be counted wonderful. It was not long ago customary to pit common sense against theology, the strong against the weak — the former being sure to win; but now it is eloquent wisdom to bid common sense go out to seek theology and bring it home rejoicing. Ten years ago colleges bade theology stand aside and leave students alone through their four, five, or six years of diligent struggle after a London B. A. . . . But that is past. That method of training has been found insufficient for the needs of our pulpits, and has been laid aside. The men who were trained on that theory are the ministers to-day who are deploring the past, and are urging our colleges to provide a truly theological training in the future."

...

The occasion of these remarks was the necessity of filling at once six or more theological chairs in the Congregational colleges, and the difficulty of finding suitable men for the positions. The growing demand for able theological teachers grows out of the conviction that the general culture of a college course, combined with however much religious zeal, does not fit men for the ministry in the absence of distinct and thorough theological instruction. The editor of the "Nonconformist and Independent" refers to the address quoted above, and adds:

"Dr. Duff puts aside, as no longer pretending even to be formidable, those specious and plausible, yet fundamentally fallacious arguments against theological training that used at one time to be considerably in vogue. With literary culture, fervent devoutness, and some native gift of utterance, a

preacher might, it was held, safely forego all special study of theology. If ease in the composition of sermons and popularity during the first few months or years of a preacher's career were the sole things to be aimed at in our colleges, all serious study of theology might, indeed, be dispensed with. But if the object is to provide the best attainable preparation for a life-long efficiency in ministerial work, then it is a deplorable mistake to send out preachers who carry with them from college nothing better than a few showy and superficial accomplishments. . . . The man who hugs a prejudice against thorough training in theology for aspirants to the ministry is just as antiquated and absurd as are those who should grumble against thorough technical training for agriculturists and engineers."

The critics of our American seminaries will probably admit that exegetical and theological studies are necessary, but that in addition there should be special training for the practical work of the pastorate. We will indicate, therefore, the studies which, it will hardly be denied, should have a place in the preparation of young men for the ministry, and for which, consequently, sufficient time should be allotted.

With rare exceptions clergymen should have some acquaintance with the original languages of the Bible. Not that all are expected to attain advanced scholarship in Hebrew and Greek, nor to continue far beyond the acquirements which can be made in the first year of the course. But enough knowledge should be gained to insure an intelligent use of the contributions of scholarship to the interpretation of Scripture.

There should be thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the development of doctrine in the Bible, and of the characteristics of the various writers and books. There must therefore be time for study of Biblical theology both of the Old and New Testaments.

No one can be well prepared for the preaching of the gospel who does not know its relation to reason and conscience, that is, its rational grounds and ethical quality, and its strength of defense as against skepticism and unbelief. Every one should know the significance and relation of the doctrines of the gospel. It is necessary to know them as truth. But this requires the study of theology.

Then, would a man be fitted for the position of religious teacher who has no knowledge of the history and development of doctrine in the past? Shall he go out in ignorance of the opinions of Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, and Edwards, all of whom are "dead, buried, and mummified church fathers"? And will a hundred lectures be too many for his guidance into such knowledge?

The student needs instruction and training in the preparation of sermons, the art of bringing religious truth to actual men in a popular and persuasive form.

If, now, these studies are to be pursued, it is evident that two or three years' time must be taken for the purpose, and under the direction of competent teachers. The method need not be cramming text-books on one side, nor listening to lectures on the other. There should be a wide range of reading, independent investigation, and free discussion. It has, in

deed, been found that the best method, except in the study of languages, is courses of lectures, with ample lists of authorities for reading, accompanied by discussions and original work, and this method generally obtains in all higher departments of teaching in Germany, England, and America. That critic must be singularly ignorant of existing methods in American Divinity schools who alleges that the work consists principally in "cramming systems and committing text-books." It can do no harm, but rather incalculable good to a youth just out of college to spend three years in the acquisition of knowledge in the departments we have mentioned.

Improvements may and will be made in the proportionate place of the several studies. Certain departments should be made optional, such as the continuance of Hebrew after one year's study, researches in Assyriology and other archæological studies, the more remote relations of Christianity to science and to other religions; for these are the studies of special scholarship. Indeed, except in a limited degree, they are not insisted on. But in any professional school only a few studies can be optional. The choice of a profession is itself the election of certain studies which are indispensable.

The demand, then, if it is at all intelligent, must be, not for curtailment of theological instruction, but for enlargement in some directions. There might very advantageously be more time given to ethics in connection with theology, as is the case in Germany, and in some of the seminaries of this country. And, then, more attention might properly be paid to evangelism, the conduct of prayer-meetings, Sunday schools, mission work, and the like. In some seminaries this is already done, although, as any one must perceive, the theory of such work requires only a brief statement, and it is to be learned chiefly by experience.

But it should not be forgotten that students in seminaries are not separated from the life of the churches. They do not study in monasteries nor meditate in cloisters. They are present and participate in prayermeetings, they teach in Sunday schools, they conduct religious meetings in outlying districts, and they hear preaching every Sunday. A majority of all theological students also spend three or four months of every year in charge of churches in various parts of the country. Indeed, a difficulty which becomes serious after the first year is to keep students from preaching too often, to the neglect of their studies.

The danger of considering truth from the intellectual more than from the spiritual side is a constant and serious danger to be carefully guarded against. It is a danger which resides not in the nature of the studies, nor in the proportionate amount of time given to them, but in the spirit and methods of instruction on the part of teachers. It has been a conspicuous fault in the past, especially in the department of theology, that metaphysics has had too large a place. The logical faculty in New England theology has been worked more than the spiritual. But the tendency at present is to build doctrine on the basis of the historical facts of

revelation, and to proceed out from them to the results in the redemption of men and the renovation of society. So far as the kingdom of God is substituted for a dialectic, so far will the danger of cold intellectualism, and of a merely curious debating of doctrine, be avoided. But, in any event, the theological teacher will determine very considerably the temper of students in their study. An instructor who is greatest in overcoming antagonists, most impressive in the keenness of his sarcasm, most skillful in the evasion of real difficulties, clearest in adjusting niceties of doctrine, but which are kept within a narrow horizon, will send out disciples of a like spirit, and theological study will not develop Christian love. An instructor who can see truth only from one point of view, and is without sympathetic appreciation of the opinions of those who differ from him, will encourage intolerance, as well as a purely logical method in students. But there need be no fear that cold intellectualism, or a merely dialectic attitude towards truth, will appear in the pupils of instructors who bring spiritual discernment to spiritual things, who show candor and sympathy in their dealing with error, and who speaking the truth in love are thereby growing up in all things into Him which is the head, even Christ; such men as Neander, Tholuck, and Dorner, Moses Stuart, Henry B. Smith, and Roswell D. Hitchcock, and living teachers who have found the Scriptures profitable for furnishing the man of God unto every good work.

If ministers as a class fail to come into loving contact with men, the reason is more likely to be found in the customs and methods which prevail in the actual exercise of their profession than in the omissions of their theological course. In another article we shall therefore consider some of the conditions which have a tendency to make narrow, unreal, and unpractical the professional labors of clergymen in modern times.

SOCIOLOGICAL NOTES.

THE revival in the work of the Evangelical Alliance with new purposes and a wider field is one of the more important of recent religious movements. Certain phases of it come within the scope of these Notes. The Alliance proposes to hold a general conference in the city of Washington December 7-9 to study in effect the following questions:

"1st. What are the present perils of the Christian Church and of the country?

?

2d. Can any of them be met by a hearty co-operation of all Evangelical Christians, which, without detriment to any denominational concerns, will serve the interests of the whole church?

3d. What are the best means to secure such co-operation, and to awaken the whole Church to its responsibility?"

These questions rest upon three or four assumptions. They are: The prevalence of great social dangers, which the call of the Alliance specifies with considerable fullness; the existence of large bodies of Christians having a common purpose, but with separate and in some degree competi

tive organizations; the conviction that in consequence of these facts there is a serious waste or positive misuse of forces; and an earnest feeling that the time is ripe for an attempt at the better development and adjustment of the resources of the Christian Church of our country, and that this can be made without serious disturbance of denominational interests. The method of the Alliance seems both scientifically and practically sound. While congresses of churches have been getting Christians to face each other's opinions and ecclesiastical bodies have been trying to formulate plans of union, the National Council of Congregational Churches and the Evangelical Alliance have begun work at the other end. The former method starts from the theoretical or dogmatic basis, and is important; but the latter is practical and scientific. That is to say, it begins with the facts and tries to proceed inductively. The National Council has appointed an able committee, with Professor George P. Fisher of Yale University at its head, to confer with the general ecclesiastical organizations of all other churches of Evangelical faith for the purpose of reducing the evils growing out of the occupation by different denominations of the same territory, and to secure an inter-denominational congress whose aim it shall be to " open the way for a practical co-operation in such forms of Christian work as call for the concurring action of all Christian bodies." Power is given to this committee to represent the Congregational churches in such a congress. The aim here, it will be seen, is purely practical. The Evangelical Alliance goes even farther, but begins with what is now practicable. Indeed, its circular calling the general meeting carefully avoids all attempts at disturbing the existing status of the several denominations, and assumes the existence of a very large number of common interests demanding co-operation for their successful prosecution. Other steps towards closer relationship between the various branches of the Christian Church have been taken in this direction, notably that towards a union of the Free Baptists and the Congregationalists, but they belong mainly to the other class and begin with the aim, unity in doctrine or organization. Another significant assembly has been held recently in New York. It was a convention of Christian workers in which all forms of Christian work like those of theological seminaries, reaching the masses by the ordinary church, the McAll Mission, Work for Women, Boys' Clubs, Street Preaching, Penny Savings Banks, and so on, were considered. The reader need only be reminded of the associations for the study of Social Science and Prison Reform, of Associated Charities, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Woman's Suffrage, Social Purity, Prevention of Vice, Divorce Reform, and so on to the end of a long list, to recognize the multitude of organizations for Christian or other philanthropic work which add to the multiplying agencies of the various churches. One can but acknowledge the great need of just such a study as the Evangelical Alliance proposes of the possibilities of a better adjustment of the relation of these multitudinous societies to each other and their common field.

The first suggestion that comes within the range of these Notes is the need of something like a scientific method of dealing with religious and kindred statistics. These movements are eminently those of practical men whose ideas are the result of actual experience and who seek a basis of solid fact. The popular mind is awake to the need of facts. One class of hearers listen eagerly to statistical statements having any semblance of reality. The other class are repelled by the popular credulity, and have a conviction or feeling that all statistics must be taken with much