The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-09-14
For the Central Presbyterian.
Is the Bible or Theology Taught
in our Seminaries

The Central Presbyterian of August
18th contained an article by IS. K. Y"
entitled "The Direct Study of the Bible
in Theological Seminaries, the tendency
of which was to weaken the confidence of
the Church in our Seminaries.
The author of the article charged that
while the direct study of the Bible is the
main business of the preacher, our Semi
naries direct attention mainly to another
and less important subject, viz syste-
matte theology. Now, no exception is
taken to the position that exposition is of
supreme Importance. Indeed, much might
be added to what was said of the necessity
of studying and preaching the Bible. But
that the criticism upon the Seminaries,
so far, at least, as Union is concerned
(the writer is not familiar with the course
in any other) was unjust, appears from
l. A statement of facts The course at
Union Theological Seminary few years
ago included the following "direct study
of the Bible y: nearlya year s course upon
the facts of Old Testament history in
addition, many parts of the historical
books, the Messianic psalms with selec-
tons from the prophets. The course in
the New Testament began with years
study OF Luke. The book of Acts was
examined with the utmost care. This
course also occupying the greater part Of
a session. Several months were devoted
to Romans; equal time and care was be-
slowed upon Hebrews; Galatians, Ephe-
slams, Philippians, Colossians, I. and II.
Timothy, and Titus, were in the same
manner carefully analysed. Every SEN
tence was examined, and even every i'm
portant word weighed. In almost every
case the student was required to write a
full analysis of the book first finished
This study was always with the excep-
ton of the course in sacred history from
the original. 1t appears at once that the
" direct study Of the Bible" has by no
means been pushed into corner.
2. 1t may still be said that certain
books of the Bible were omitted. Very
true; but the Seminary course cannot be
expected to exhaust the subject of exc
gesis. All that can be hoped for is that
the student shall be fitted for future
study. The slightest acquaintance with
the subject of Biblical exposition will
show that it is much wiser to study GER
tain parts of the Bible thoroughly than
to skim the whole. To fathom every
statement Of Scripture is more than a
lifetime work and cannot be crowded
into brief course but the principles
clearly brought out in the study of the
books already mentioned serve as guide
for future exegetical study.
3. There is also practical reason why
systematic theology should receive even
a larger share Of attention in the Semi
nary than its Importance, as compared
with exegesis, would seem to Justify,
which is that the very nature of the
preachers work requires him to continue
the direct study Of the Bible but i'm
mersed in the cares of q laborious pasto-
rate, few men can study systematically
even theology. When heresy is approach
ing us from all quarters, man must be
a theologian as well as preacher for use
to him if he is uncertain about the doc
trines Of inspiration, eternity Of future
punishments, or the various phases of
the Sabbath question. A complete sys-
tenn Of theology he must have, but often