theology students, which illuminates his approach to the various subdisciplines of theological studies. The book, he claimed, is “the first original work on Propaedeutic in America,” aimed to serve for American students the same purpose as K. R. Hagenbach’s Encyclopädie und Methodologie in Germany. Although many seminaries treat church history as a mere “appendix” to other subjects, Schaff argued that it, like biblical studies, should run through all three years of coursework. Schaff advised beginners to acquire “some knowledge of the primary sources”—advice again suggesting that primary source reading was not usually the focus of regular coursework. Yet so vast are the sources, Schaff conceded, that even the greatest historians must depend on the collections, digests, and specialized monographs produced by others.52 In this concession, Schaff surely included himself, for his lengthy volumes on the history of Christianity are not always grounded in primary source investigation.
Unsurprisingly, Schaff retained a pietistic orientation in his teaching, attempting to inculcate faith as well as to provide information. He opened his lectures with a prayer: “Sanctify us by the truth; Thy Word is Truth. Amen.”53 The first hour of the day, he counseled students, before they commence their academic work, should be given over to prayer and devotion. Students are being trained as theologians, not as philosophers: they should not be encouraged to doubt everything. A special danger lies in the “pseudo-theology of rationalism—the chief tempter of the student of the present day,” meeting him at “every step in exegesis” from Genesis to Revelation. The spiritual, for Schaff, takes precedence over the purely intellectual.54 Schaff’s pious approach to academic study emulated that of evangelical German professors Neander and Tholuck.55
Which areas of concentration are most important for seminary students? Schaff advised that after the Bible, students should study Reformation history, followed by the history of their own denomination. They should choose one particular period or aspect for more exhaustive work. Note that Schaff does not here identify the patristic era as worthy of this concentrated study: it is “of far more consequence to know the exact teaching of Christ and the Apostles than that of the Fathers, Reformers and Councils,” he wrote.56
Schaff also offered practical advice to American seminarians, who were often scarcely twenty years old and still unsettled in their habits. Study systematically, Schaff urged, since time cannot be replaced. Leave light reading, such as newspapers, for the afternoon or evening. Don’t sleep more than is necessary for your health. Take exercise. Keep your body clean and vigorous; does not sound Christianity teach that “cleanliness is next to godliness”? Our model, Christ, manifested no trait of “ascetic austerity and self-mortification,” but rather was “healthy, serene, and hopeful.”57
On the academic side, Schaff urged the student to acquire a good library. He should read the Bible daily in Hebrew and Greek, making use of commentaries by Chrysostom, Augustine, and Protestants from the Reformation era to the present. Master ancient and modern philosophy, the orators, the classical poets, Schaff counseled. But don’t be a bookworm: study also the book of Nature and “the book of society.” Students should cultivate their hearts as well as their heads, and keep guard over their morals.58
Schaff’s generous spirit is revealed in the financial support he offered promising students in church history. In the 1880s, he gave copies of his books to Mercersburg Seminary (then relocated at Lancaster) to serve as prizes for student essays on church history. In 1889, he endowed a Teaching Fellowship at Union.59 Soon thereafter, he contributed half the funds for a prize essay in church history offered by the American Society of Church History.60 Late in life, he employed a junior colleague, Francis Brown, soon to be a noted scholar of the Hebrew Bible and later President of Union, to act as his assistant, paying him $1500 out of his own salary.61 And when Schaff’s favorite student, Arthur Cushman McGiffert, who succeeded him as Washburn Professor, encountered financial difficulties while studying in Germany, Schaff sent him money and encouragement.62 As noted earlier, he contributed $5000 to rescue the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series from collapse.63 After Schaff’s death, 1800 of his books went to the Union Seminary library.64
That Schaff was a beloved teacher seems clear from the tributes of former students. During his time at Mercersburg, Schaff—on the model of German professors—invited students to his home one evening a week, encouraging them to ask questions and join in free discussion.65 One former student, U. H. Heilman, reminisced that such evenings “reminded one of Socrates gathering around him some of the young men of Athens, asking and answering questions.”66 Joseph Henry Dubbs (later Professor of History at Franklin and Marshall College) recalled both pleasant evenings at the Schaffs’ home and his trips accompanying Schaff when he preached in surrounding communities. Teacher-student relations, Dubbs observed, then were “more free and unconventional” than in later times. Schaff’s students largely continued to follow the lines of thought that they had learned from him.67
Frederick A. Gast, who later taught Hebrew at Lancaster, testified that Schaff gave him his first lessons in that language, “when it seemed to me a wild dream that I should myself be called to teach others, however imperfectly, the principles of the language of Moses and the prophets.” But his obligation to Schaff preceded his seminary days: even before he had met Schaff, Gast reported, Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism showed him “a new standpoint from which to survey the whole realm of truth,” namely, that Christ is the principle of the entire cosmos, not only of Christianity. Moreover, the book convinced Gast that he could maintain an unshaken faith while adjusting to new truths: “I came to know what life and history might mean.”68
All three Union professors here surveyed, it is clear, made indelible impressions on their students. In student notes and tributes, as well as in their published writings, they stand out as lively characters.
Ephraim Emerton and Predecessors: Harvard DivinitySchool and Harvard University
Before Ephraim Emerton assumed the Winn Professorship of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard in 1882, various instructors connected with the theological faculty taught the subject.69 At least two of them, although not specialists in church history, had studied in Germany: Charles Follen and Frederic Hedge.70 Emerton’s immediate predecessor in a temporary appointment was Joseph Henry Allen (the grandson of Henry Ware), a firm Unitarian who had strongly desired the chaired professorship that Emerton received.71
In his inaugural speech as Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History in 1878, Joseph Allen expressed hope for the day when there would be an entire department of church history at Harvard enjoying equal rank with other departments. While a full staff at Harvard pursues the study of ancient Greece and Rome, one man—namely, himself—is expected to cover the entire 2000 years of Christianity. Allen outlined his proposed teaching method. He will look to the original sources when possible, “listen to the voice of the man himself.” He will combine weekly lectures with student reports on special topics and with recitation. Among the textbooks he will use are Philip Smith’s (with first-year students),72 Gieseler’s and Neander’s Histories, Henry Milman’s Latin Christianity, and Thomas Greenwood’s Cathedra Petri (with second-and third-year students).73
As he began teaching, Allen described his academic routine to a correspondent. He spent two hours a week with each class, he reported, striving to keep up “the tone of the study.” The juniors (i.e., the first-year class) cover to 800; the middlers, to 1500; and the seniors, to the present. Allen listed twenty-seven lectures he was preparing, extending from “Christ” down to “German Theology,” “Unitarians,” and “Present Prospects.”74
To another correspondent, Allen complained that the History Department at Harvard did not encourage appeals to the imagination, sympathy, or moral judgment, approaches that he favored. He intends to introduce a new teaching method: to pair off the students in the
