and gave fifteen lectures on “theological encyclopedia,”16 an introduction to the theological curriculum derived from German university practice.
Still under discussion in Smith’s era was the question of the best means of preparation for would-be ministers: private instruction or theological seminary? Private instruction for the ministry is peculiar to America, Smith told his class; in Europe, schools of theology date back for centuries—think of Iona, founded around 521. Jumping to the eighteenth century, Smith described ministerial training in colonial America. After college the student would spend about a year with a minister of note who provided practical training and whose small salary was supplemented by student fees. Some distinguished northeastern clergymen in the course of their careers trained up to 60 ministerial students apiece. A half century ago, Smith mused, ministers were usually more cultivated than their congregations, but with the rise in the general level of lay education, that situation no longer always obtains.17 Students must prepare well to keep up.
Seminary education, however, was better than private instruction. Although critics charge that seminaries do not prepare men for the pastoral life, are “injurious to piety,” and easily spread doctrinal corruption, Smith countered that in a group setting, students learn to critique each other’s views and are less likely to become “tinctured” by one person’s peculiarities. Moreover, seminaries provide a complete course of instruction that individual ministers cannot replicate. The greatest works in all branches of theology have been produced by scholars at seminaries, Smith claimed.18
Despite Smith’s reputation as a progressive, his approach to church history often seems both adversarial and apologetic. On the progressive side, Smith advocated “a broader theological culture,” in part because students who are to be ministers need to understand the sects and controversies of America. To this “broader culture,” church history contributes by making ministers more careful in their choice of language and more averse “to the petty and easy art of the unscrupulous polemic.” It teaches them not to stress minor points of difference.19
This broader view, however, was still circumscribed. Ministerial students, in Smith’s view, needed to be fortified to defend and advance their Presbyterian beliefs and polity against the claims of other Christian groups, not just those of “infidels.” Progress in theology, he claimed, consists in “giving the truth a new form adapted to the new warfare it is called to meet.” Students must learn how to refute the views and practices of others (for example, Roman Catholic approaches to Scripture) and to adjudicate competing theories about the consequences of the Fall for the human race.20 Although intra-Protestant controversies, in Smith’s view, pale beside those between Protestants and Catholics, only by studying history can Rome’s claims be understood.21 Striking what he imagined as a sound mean, Smith recommended that theological education should be “conservative without bigotry and progressive without lawlessness.”22
In his class on “Theological Encyclopedia,” Smith advised students on their course of study. First, they should pursue a broad program, with philology as a foundation. Historical studies come second. Natural science is important for addressing questions of biblical interpretation on such topics as “controversies concerning the races of men” and the resurrection of the body. Philosophy teaches students to analyze, construct arguments, and answer objections. “Master Plato, or some of the works of Aristotle,” Smith urged; learn both the history of philosophy and modern philosophy. Psychology and ethics also should not be neglected; for “mental philosophy,” “Reid’s as good as any.”23
Smith recommended that once every six or eight weeks, students should put “all [their] strength into some sermon or essay,” a recommendation implying that students were not accustomed to writing papers. “Have some independent definite investigation,” Smith counseled. Every student should have two or three theological “hobbies,” so that he can be a “terror” to his friends on these points. Students should stay abreast of contemporary history by reading newspapers; when perusing foreign ones, they should keep a map in hand.24 Smith also tried to stimulate his students by organizing an essay competition, offering a first prize of $50 and a second of $25—but only one senior opted to enter.25
Archival materials provide a warm portrait of Smith as a teacher. The professor, he thought, should expound points according to students’ needs. If the relation between teacher and student does not remain open, the teacher will become dogmatic and the student will copy his dogmatism. Each student should be encouraged and “brought out through the medium of a free discussion.” New School Presbyterian teachers and ministers, Smith asserted—implying a contrast with the Old School Presbyterians of Princeton—enjoy freedom of explanation; they understand that modern philosophy and theology should work together, rather than in opposition. Intellectual stumbling blocks should not be deemed irreconcilable.26 Smith’s (Hegelian-inspired) vision of the harmonious unity of knowledge is here in evidence. The unity, nevertheless, is constructed around Christian confession.
Smith’s former student Thomas S. Hastings, later President of Union, recalled his impression of Smith’s teaching. His approach to church history, Hastings testified, “was so different from anything we had known before—so much more scientific and thorough, that he awakened our enthusiasm and stimulated us to the uttermost.” Students tried to take down Smith’s every word: indeed, the extant student notes on Smith’s lectures often seem verbatim. “We wrote with intense effort,” Hastings confessed, “but always, in our weariness at the close of the lecture-hour, we felt we had lost much because we had not secured all that he had said.” Students deemed remarkable Smith’s ability to answer their questions on the spot—suggesting that most professors (pace Samuel Miller) were not able to do so. Hastings added:
No question surprised him; his answers dissected the subject so thoroughly that it seemed as if he had specially prepared himself for each question. He made us work harder than we had ever done before. He marked out courses of reading sufficient to occupy us for years, and seemed quietly to take it for granted that we would accomplish it all in a few weeks.27
Smith mainly lectured to his classes, as the many student course notebooks housed in the Union Seminary archives show. Abandoning the stillcustomary recitation method of teaching, Smith proposed topics for student investigation.28 Clearly he was a pedagogical pioneer.
Roswell Hitchcock: Union Theological Seminary
Roswell Hitchcock was likewise widely respected for his excellent teaching. He held the Washburn Professorship of Church History at Union from 1855 (when Smith transferred to Theology) until his death in 1887; by then, 1400 living former students could count him as their professor. Hitchcock’s list of courses included Biblical and Apostolic History; General Church History; Sacred History; Old Testament History; The Life of Christ and Apostolic History; General Church History from the Second Century; The History of the World Before Christ; and History of Doctrines.29 This list shows the prominence of “biblical history.” There remain three sets of student notes for each of Hitchcock’s courses on “Church History, 100–323 [or 325],” “Church History, 323 [or 325] to 800,”30 and “The Apostolic Church”; two sets on “The Life of Christ”; and one set each for “The History of the World Before Christ,” “Church History, 800–1294,” and “Church History, 1517–1884.” Hitchcock largely taught by the lecture method. Since Hitchcock never published a Church History, as Philip Schaff had urged,31 his approach to the subject must be gleaned largely from these fourteen extant sets of class notes taken by his students, supplemented by his articles and sermons.
Hitchcock’s lectures on ancient church history follow a pattern. First comes a lengthy “Introduction,” in which Hitchcock describes, inter alia, church history, its “uses,” sources, and the auxiliary studies needed for its pursuit. Turning to the “First Period” (ante-Nicene), Hitchcock gives a general overview and
