Search

This paper will limit itself, as seems appropriate in addressing the Religious Education Association, to the question of the supply of educated men for the ministry, and indeed, as is perhaps less appropriate, mainly to that of men prepared for the ministry by both a college and seminary course. I have collected the statistics of attendance at fifty-eight of the leading theological schools of the United States, covering a period of approximately a quarter-century. In this list are included practically all which are intended especially for college graduates. From it I have intended to exclude all schools of a lower grade than this, and the foreign departments of such schools as maintain such departments of a lower grade than I have indicated. I have not undertaken to exclude from the statistics the non-college graduates studying in schools whose work is intended for college graduates, even though in a few of the schools included in this list the college graduates are not over one-third of the whole number. Inasmuch as most theological schools are distinctly denominational in the sense that each draws almost exclusively from one denomination, and inasmuch as the facts respecting different denominations are very different, it has seemed best to present the statistics by groups, despite the fact that some schools are difficult to classify on this basis. To meet the difficulty, certain schools have been included in two groups, though of course without duplication of their figures in the totals. It will be seen from the following table that all these schools, taken together, had in I88I, 2,I50 students; that in the next nine years they gained in round numbers IOoO students; in the next five

is not altogether as simple of understanding and easy of application as it is sometimes thought to be. If two people were living alone on an isolated island without other inhabitants and without outside communication, for each to do to the other as he wished, or ought to wish, that other to act toward him, for each to love his neighbor as himself, would be a task easily defined, however difficult it might be actually to perform. But the moment we emerge into the actual world, to the moral difficulty of really loving our neighbor as ourselves, there is added the intellectual difficulty of determining what such regard for the interests of others equally with our own really calls for in the complicated relations and circumstances of life. For in the actual world, just as there is no isolated individual who can define what

The justification of a paper on this subject is not in a previous neglect of it by New Testament scholars. On the contrary it has been the subject of discussion not only in lexicons and commentaries but in a number of monographs by able writers.' The differences of opinion among those who have written, and in the view of the present writer at least, a certain inharmoniousness of their conclusions with the evidence even when they are most in agreement with one another, demand and warrant a re-examination of the whole question. Under these circumstances, moreover, it seems best to examine the evidence from the beginning rather than simply to discuss the points on which there has been disagreement or to criticize the views of those who have already written upon the subject. We begin, therefore, with a treatment of the usage of the word o'r'roko' in literature preceding the time of the New Testament.

It is beyond the scope of the present discussion to enter into the question of the authorship and date of the Fourth Gospel, the epistles commonly called John's, and the Apocalypse. It is assumed, though without attempt to argue the case, first, that all these writings are among the later of the New Testament books, and hence call for consideration at about this point, and second, that the gospel and first epistle proceed from the same author, or at least from the same school of thought, and that therefore what they severally have to say about atonement may be considered together. The ideas of the book of Revelation about atonement must be treated separately, since it cannot be confidently affirmed that this also is from the same school and period as the gospel and epistle. With the second and third epistles we need not concern ourselves, since they have nothing to say about atonement. The evidence of the gospel concerning the thought of John the Baptist and Jesus has already been considered. That the author of the Gospel and First Epistle of John believed that there was alienation between God and men and hence need of atonement, is perfectly clear. "The whole world lieth in the evil one " (I John 5: 19). " The wrath of God abideth on him who obeyeth not the Son" (John 3:36). "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar" (I John 5: Io). The general term for the cause of this alienation is sin (I John 2:4; 15: I7). The specific forms of sin most commonly spoken of are the hatred of one's brother, love of the world and the things that are in the world, and most especially rejection of Jesus, denial that he is the Christ, not believing the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son, not obeying the Son. The central condemnatory element in sin is the rejection of the light that God has given to men. " This is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the

church ? What claim have this faith and this church to the allegiance of modern men? Not in mere curiosity have men asked these questions, but with the earnest desire to know the truth and with earnest purpose to abide by the results of their investigation whatever those results might be. In the second place, from without Christianity there has come to Christian men a knowledge of other religions such as Christians formerly did not possess. Missionaries of Christianity, students of other religions, have brought to Christian nations accounts of other faiths and other religions that have won and held the allegiance of millions of people through centuries of history. And Christian men have asked themselves, What is the secret of the power of these religions ? and, Is it certain after all that our religion alone is true or even the best among religions ? And these questions, too, men have asked with earnestness and honesty, ready to accept the results of honest inquiry. With the former class of questions it has been my duty to deal for many years, and I have tried to deal honestly and fearlessly with

There has been much discussion in times past of the apostle's doctrine of justification, and in late years of his eschatology and Christology. But it is doubtful whether his thought about the essential features of the religious life in its specifically Christian form has received a proportionate amount of attention. Nowhere is his thought concerning the content of religion and of morality and their mutual relations more strikingly set forth than in Gal. 5:6. But for the full apprehension of the meaning of this passage it must be interpreted in the light of its relation to the whole epistle, and especially to the remainder of the chapter in which it stands.

This article continues the description of the beliefs and rites of certain modern sects in China. In a previous article three societies were described, namely, the T'ong Shan She, the Wu Shan She, and the Tao Yuan. The present article describes two more of such societies.

The beginnings of Christianity in Rome-The Gentile character of the Christian community-Gentile type of the Christianity-The Apostle's reasons for writing: The Roman Christians were in his territory by virtue of being Gentiles; his work in the East was finished; he could not go to Rome at once; there was danger of the Judaizers coming to Rome-Purpose of the ethical part; of the whole-Analysis.

Shall the teaching of theology continue to be viewed chiefly as the communication to the candidate for a denominational ministry of the formulas of belief authorized by the ecclesiastical tribunal under whose jurisdiction he is to serve ? Or shall the primarv interest in the teaching of theology be the encouragement and direction of the student in research into the sources of knowledge, and in the co-ordillation and use of his findings in whatsoever part of the church he can ultimately enter with moral sincerity and intellectual self-respect ?

It is not many years since the term theology, used without qualification, was, in this country at least, understood to mean systematic theology. If there existed here and there a chair of biblical theology, this title did not designate a different discipline from that which elsewhere was called systematic theology, but only indicated a desire to put emphasis upon the Bible as the great source for theology. In more recent years, however, following the Germans in this as in many other things, we have adopted the term biblical theology to designate a branch of study distinct from systematic theology. To many no doubt the distinction between the two fields of study is perfectly clear, and any discussion of their interrelation wholly superfluous. Yet one constantly encounters evidence that the relation is still hazily defined in some minds, even in quarters where one would least expect to find it. It is probably not an instance of such haziness that the veteran Berlin theologian, Professor Bernhard Weiss, who published years ago his work on The Biblical Theology of the New Testament, has recently issued an entirely new volume bearing the title The Religion of the New Testament, in which he endeavors to set forth the unity underlying that diversity of doctrine which his previous volume had exhibited. But in the publication of such a book, which is neither biblical theology in the modern sense, nor systematic theology proper, the general reader is likely to find occasion of stumbling and confusion of thought as to where the line is drawn between biblical and systematic theology. Moreover, to fix a boundary is not always to define relations, as diplomats have often had occasion to discover. The present article has been written in the hope of contributing somewhat to clearness of thought on both these points: the line of demarcation and the relation between the two fields of study, biblical theology and sys418