THE
THEOLOG
Anniversary N u m b e r Containing A D D R E S S E S DELIVERED
at The Semi-Centennial Anniversary
of The Reestablishment of Theological Instruction in the Western Theological Seminary
May 4, i935
HOPE REFORMED CHURCH HOLLAND, M I C H I G A N
• • • THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY REV. J O H N W E S S E L I N K , D.D. President, General Synod, R.C.A.
LET US REMEMBER REV. A L B E R T U S PIETERS, D.D. Dosker-Hnlsunt Professor of English Bible and Missions in the Western Theological Seminary
T H E STITHY OF T H E O L O G Y O n this h a p p y occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the resumption under
the
of
theological instruction
auspices
of the R e f o r m e d
at
Holland,
Church
Michigan,
in America,
I
bring the cordial greetings a n d congratulations of our d e n o m ination to the President, Faculty, Students, A l u m n i and the B o a r d of Superintendents of the W e s t e r n nary.
Theological
Semi
T h e w o r k w h ich has been accomplished during the half
century which w e c o m m e m o r a t e today is truly noteworthy. It has furnished the leadership for the expansion a n d g r o w t h of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in A m e r i c a west of the Alleghanies.
It
has thus exerted a powerful influence u p o n the whole d e n o m i n a tion in every phase of its w o r k during these years. In that w a y it has affected the lives of thousands of people for good in our o w n land a n d in foreign lands. N o one can adequately estimate all the blessings that have c o m e u p o n the world through the service rendered b y this institution. I a m sure, therefore, that every m e m b e r of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in A m e r ica rejoices with
all those in a n y w a y
connected with
this
institution over the splendid w o r k accomplished. B u t as w e c o m m e m o r a t e the past, w e can not refrain f r o m taking a look into the future. Is there still need of the T h e o logical S e m i n a r y in the church a n d the world? It can not be denied that our theological seminaries, together with all edu cational institutions, are in m a n y respects in a bad w a y these days. There see m s to be a n over-supply of the products of these institutions today, so that m a n y of their graduates can not find places a n d opportunities w h e r e they m a y carry on the w o r k for which they are prepared. There s e ems also to be considerable difficulty in maintaining these institutions ade quately in a financial way. B u t I a m inclined to think that the over-supply of workers is only apparent. T h e need of workers has not diminished since 1929 — it is only that w e have found difficulty in providing for the w o r k that needs to be done. It is a n economic maladjustment between w h a t w e heed and w h a t w e can afford. W e m a y therefore hope that with the return to economic normalcy, which it see m s m u s t c o m e sometime, these things will also be adjusted. A n d judging f r o m the spiritual condition of the people of our country as well as of the peoples of the world, the need of theological study and instruction w a s never greater than it is today. S o on this fiftieth anniversary of the resumption of the w o r k of the W e s t e r n Theological Semi-
nary I w o u l d speak briefly of T H E
PERENNIAL
NEED
OF
T H E S T U D Y O F T H E O L O G Y . A n d I w o uld speak of that need along three lines: First, for the development of the spiritual life of the church; second, for the proper understanding of the world a n d of m a n ; third, for a safeguard against error. I.
T h e D e v e l o p m e n t of the Spiritual Life of the Church.
Since m a n w a s created in the i m a g e of G o d a n d is designed and capacitated to k n o w G o d and to enjoy H i m forever, it m u s t follow that the knowledge of G o d is one of his first requisites. T h u s only can he c o m e to his true life a n d development. T h u s only c a n he truly take his place of dominion over the w o r k s of G o d ’s hands as His viceroy. F o r that purpose also has G o d revealed Himself both in Scripture and in the w o r k s of His hand, that m a n m i g h t k n o w H i m a n d trust H i m . B u t that field of kn o w ledge is a n unlimited one. It w a s Dr. A b r a h a m K u y p e r w h o suggested that really all truth could be classified as theology. All things find their origin in God, are maintained a n d governed b y God, a n d find in H i m also their ultimate objective. All truth therefore runs in a circle, beginning and ending in God. There is nothing that can be fully a n d truly k n o w n except in connection with, and through a knowledge of God. T h e study of theology is therefore a matter of perennial interest but also of perennial need.
M a n is truly unfit for the
business of life, cannot attain unto the real purpose of his existence, except for a gro w i n g knowledge of his M a k e r and L o r d through a constant study of the revelation w h ich G o d has m a d e of Himself. B u t the study of theology, finding its subject matter, according to Calvinistic principles, in the special revelation of God, n a m e l y in the Scriptures, is often characterized as static. In the Scriptures w e find “the faith w h i c h w a s once for all delivered unto the saints,” a n d this is a closed b o o k — nothing is to be added to it and nothing is to be subtracted f r o m it. T h a t s e e m s to give s o m e people g r o u n d for the contention that the study of theology does not admit of progress. It is a w e a r y rehearsal of facts a n d teachings that have been discussed and studied for a thousand years. T h ere are n o n e w fields to be explored, nor n e w problems to be
solved.
How
can
such
a
study be of perennial need a n d interest? It s e e m s to m e that this contention has failed to take into consideration the living character of the Scriptures. These are the W o r d of God, w h ich is timeless, does not lose its value or p o w e r b y age, a n d its bearing o n h u m a n life is n e w for each
individual. E v e r y age also finds in the W o r d of G o d the c o u n terpart of its o w n life a n d needs. Being the W o r d of the living God, it speaks always to living m e n in their varying circum stances a n d with their varying problems. It gives us the point of vie w f r o m w h ich w e m a y see a n d understand other truth. As
someone
has
put
it, the
Scriptures
are
the
spectacles
through w h i c h w e m a y truly see a n d understand nature. W h a t is more, G o d has ever m o r e light to break forth f r o m the Scriptures. A s each generation of m e n studies it a n e w in con nection with w h a t previous generations have found in it, n e w m e a n i n g s will be seen in it and n e w p o w e r will issue f r o m it. T h e Bible is still the m o s t progressive b o o k in the world. It is so progressive, that in s o m e respects it is true, that it has never yet been tried. T h e study of theology is therefore never static; it is a perennial need of h u m a n life. When
the truths of Scripture are taken u p into the con
sciousness of believing m e n a n d recast b y t h e m in the thought forms of their o w n day, n e w vistas of truth will open before their mental vision; n e w relations will be discovered between truths that have thus far been understood only in part; and n e w truths will spring into sight.
S o the temple of Christian
truth will grow. N e w glories will be discovered in G o d ’s reve lation w h i c h have never been seen before. Is not that the les son of church history? Did not the church gradually c o m e into a k n o w l e d g e of the Christian truths whi c h n o w have b e c o m e c o m m o n p l a c e s with us?
S o the promise of Christ m a d e to His
disciples before His death has been definitely fulfilled through out the history of the church: “W h e n He, the Spirit of truth, is come, H e will guide you into all truth.” A n d does not the Apostle Paul definitely expect that through the service which G o d has given to the church in the offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, a n d teachers, the saints shall be perfected, till they all c o m e to the unity of the faith a n d of the k n o w l edge of the S o n of God, unto a full g r o w n m a n ? Is not that thought also in the back ground of the w o r d s used in the Hebrews, w h e n it is said of the Old Tes t a m e n t saints, the heroes of the faith, that they received not the promise, not having seen the Christ a n d not having full knowledge of the content of the Old T es t a m e n t promises; but that G o d has provided something better for us in giving us the knowledge of the Christ?
T h e n the writer adds that these Old Tes t a m e n t saints
w o u l d not be m a d e perfect apart f r o m us; this is to say, that perfection w o uld not be attained b y t h e m until they too c a m e to k n o w the Christ w h o m w e know.
A
gro w i n g knowledge of
G o d ’s revelation is needed for the spiritual development of the church.
T h a t is also taught b y Jesus w h e n H e said: “This is
life eternal, to k n o w T h e e the only true G o d and Jesus Christ w h o m T h o u hast sent.” II.
T h e study of theology is needed for the proper under
standing of the world and of m a n .
It is of course recognized
that w e c o m e to a knowledge of the world about us through research —
through a careful study of the phenom e n a .
But m y
contention is that a true interpretation of the facts is not found unless w e regard t h e m in the light of Sacred Scripture. This rests on the conviction that the revelation of G o d in Scripture is in full h a r m o n y with His revelation of Himself in creation, a n d that the t w o revelations are necessary to c o m e to a proper understanding of the world a n d of m a n . Is it not true that all the facts of the world and of m a n run out into m y s t e r y ?
Fol
l o w u p a n y chain of cause a n d effect as far as w e can go, and w e stand face to face with the Creator, or perhaps s o m e w o uld say, with the great u n k n o w n . There is a point in our research of the physical world w h e r e the telescope a n d the microscope a n d the best mechanical devices that w e have for the study of phen o m e n a , can help us n o further. Confessedly science k n o w s only a section of the chain of facts — the beginning and ending are mysteries. H o w can true a n d safe conclusions be d r a w n f r o m such data?
A n d right there is revealed our need of the
study of theology for the proper understanding of the world a n d of m a n . It is only in the light of the W o r d of G o d that w e m a y hop e to c o m e to sound conclusions on the data furnished b y the physical world about us. T h e old conception of a university w a s that of a theolog ical faculty taking its place in the circle of faculties represent ing all the fields of h u m a n interest a n d knowledge.
That was
a perfectly true and clear conception. N o doubt it w a s born of Christian
principles.
faculty is ruled out.
But
in
modern
times
the
theological
All our kno w l e d g e is thus left at loose
ends. O r at best the loose ends are left in charge of the specu lations of philosophy.
We
have frankly accepted the view of
the agnostic, that beyond material data w e k n o w nothing. w o n d e r that science is all at sea. W e
No
have to change our text
books on science at least once every ten years, and even thus w e do not have the latest conclusions.
We
have no body of
assured findings on w h ich w e m a y build future conclusions. W e need the study of the revealed W o r d of G o d to complete and
round out the data of science, that w e m a y c o m e to true and abiding conclusions on our knowledge of the world and of man. H o w desperately w e need a psychology a n d a p e d a g o g y on such a plan! M a n does not understand himself, nor the inner w o rkings of his o w n m i n d a n d heart, until he k n o w s G o d and G o d ’s will for h u m a n life. T h e tragic failure of a large part of our educational w o r k these days m a y be accounted for b y the fact that it has proceeded on the supposition that h u m a n n a ture is normal, a n d b y the further fact that the regulative principle b y whi c h h u m a n
life is designed to be controlled,
n a m e l y its relation to God, is ignored. In the training of the intellect a n d in the inculcation of morals w e have proceeded on a naturalistic basis a n d then afterwards perhaps have tried to give s o m e instruction in religion w h ich rests on a n entirely different conception of things. T h e whole process has resulted in confusion. A n d not only our educational work, but also our social relief a n d our social reconstruction w o r k in penal and psychopathic institutions have proceeded o n We
the s a m e
basis.
need not only theologians, w h o study the truths of
Scripture a n d organize the s a m e into a system, but w e also need m e n w h o have c o m e to a thorough kno w l e d g e of G o d ’s W o r d w h o will apply their enlightened m i n d s to the study of science. W e need scientists with Christian principles w h o will coordinate the facts revealed b y the telescope a n d the micro scope a n d b y the chemical a n d biological laboratories with the special revelation of G o d ’s W o r d . W e need Christian m e n and w o m e n w h o will study the facts of h u m a n society and h u m a n g o v e r n m e n t in the light w h i c h the W o r d of G o d throws u p o n these facts a n d then c o m e to conclusions in w h ich all these data h ave received full recognition.
We
need m e n
who
will
e x a m i n e the facts of h u m a n culture, of art, literature and music, a n d set each in its place according to the nature, the capacity, the function a n d destiny of m a n as revealed in the Scriptures. T h e n at last w e m a y hope to m a k e s o m e advance m e n t to a Christian civilization as contemplated in the K i n g d o m of God. B u t first w e need the Christian theologian. T h e two revelations w hi c h G o d has m a d e of Himself, n a m e l y the one in nature a n d the one in Scripture, need to be kept side b y side. T h e y will correct a n d supplement each other. S o there is need of the study of theology for the proper understanding of the world a n d of man. III.
The
perennial need of the study
safeguard against error.
of theology as a
T h e light there is in the world is
always surrounded b y a closed circle of darkness.
And
the
m o m e n t the light beco m e s d i m or is extinguished in a n y part of the lighted area, that m o m e n t darkness will forthwith take its place. W e m u s t therefore ever be on the outlook against error. There are a thousand w a y s a n d forms b y w h i c h it m a y c o m e in, there is only one w a y b y w h ich it m a y be r e m o v e d a n d that is b y the truth. A very large percent of the tragedies that have been enacted in the moral and spiritual life of the church hav e found their origin in hazy, ill-defined conceptions of truth. Great conflicts, with terrific casualties, have been waged, a n d the whole matter at issue w a s misunderstood.
If
they h a d understood each other there wou l d have been n o con flict perhaps — they w o uld have found themselves quite in har m o n y with each other, or at least, they w o u l d not have c o m e into each other’s way. T h e study of theology can help to clear u p the haze. This will also enable the church to have a stronger hold u p o n the truth, and so they are less susceptible to the allurements of error. A clearcut knowledge of the truth is one of the best defences against evil. The
study
of theology
can
also
assist in keeping
the
thought a n d life of the church in line with the historical devel o p m e n t of truth. There is such a n historical development of truth. Previous generations of Christian m e n have not alto gether lived in vain. T h e h a n d of G o d m a y be discerned in his tory a n d also in the history of doctrine. There are s o m e things that have been proven true a n d other things that have been proven false in the life a n d experience of the church. A s the poet says: “Yet I doubt not through the ages a n increasing purpose runs, and the thoughts of m a n are widened with the process of the suns.”
T h e church has often suffered f r o m an
over-emphasis of s o m e subordinate point of teaching.
Perhaps
the right conception of such a point w a s at issue between cer tain divisions of the church. T h a t gave such a point a n u n natural weight of importance in the estimation of the contest ing groups, a n d perhaps their thought life and practice m o v e d off into a side line of truth.
T h e y missed the m a i n line and
finally arrived in a blind alley. So w e have whole denominations of Christians parked o n a side street of Christian truth, and m a k i n g n o progress. If the life and w o r k of the present gener ation is to m a k e a p e r m a n e n t contribution to the cause of the K i n g d o m of God, it m u s t w o r k in line with the historical devel o p m e n t of truth. T h e study of theology can help in discerning that general line, in profiting b y the life and experiences of
the past, a n d in recognizing the old a n d discredited foes of the truth as they appear in our midst with n e w faces. S o I close this short discourse with once m o r e congratu lating the teachers, administrators a n d officers of the Wes t e r n Theological Seminary, n o w not o n the accomplishments of the past, but o n the prospects of the future. Y o u are engaged in a w o r k that is of perennial value a n d interest. Y o u are build ing at a structure that will not pass away. M a y G o d bless y o u all.
LET US R E M E M B E R __ A
historical address delivered b y
Albertus
Pieters, Dosker-
Hulswit Professor of English Bible a n d Missions, at the Semi-Centennial of the Re-opening of Theological Instruction at Holland, Michigan M e m b e r s of the B o a r d of Superintendents, Faculty and Stu dents of the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary, and Christian Friends: — T o the children of Israel, w h e n about to enter the promised land, M o s e s said: “T h o u
shalt r e m e m b e r
all the w a y
which
Jehovah, thy G o d hath led thee.” T o the Ephesians, St. Paul said: “R e m e m b e r that ye w e r e aforetime Gentiles” ; and to the whole church Jesus said: “This do in r e m e m b r a n c e of me.” So this business of r e m e m b e r i n g duty.
Savages
have
no
is a m o s t important Christian
civilization and
make
no
progress,
because they have n o collective m e m o r y . Tonight w e are engaged in one of these very essential peri odical acts of collective m e m o r y , as w e look b a c k u p o n the history of the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary. It is, in one aspect of the case, a very long history. A s the tiniest leaf on the ut m o s t twig of a giant California red w o o d shares a c o m m o n life with the smallest rootlet far beneath the surface, and with the seed that germinated in Californian soil perhaps two thousand years a g o ; so the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary, albeit like a tiny leaf u p o n such a tree, is part of all the Christian history that preceded it. B a c k of the seminary lies the i m m i gration of 1847, and back of that the great revival in Holland that b e g a n in 1834, under D e Cock, V a n Velzen, B r u m m e l k a m p , a n d Scholte. B a c k of that lies the a w a k e n i n g under Bilderdijk, D a Costa, Caesar Malan, and Robert Haldane: b a c k of that the S y n o d of Dort: back of that the Reformation, a n d back of that the great w o r k of Willebrord, w h o brought the m e s s a g e of the gospel to our fathers w h e n they w e r e still heathen. B a c k of Willebrord lay the ages of the church, a nd back of these the Incarnation of G o d in Christ and the days of the Apostles. E v e n bac k of these w e r e the prophets a n d the patriarchs and the great promise that the Seed of the W o m a n should triumph over the seed of the serpent. B a c k of that lies the creation, a n d even b a c k of that the eternal counsel of the Sovereign God. T h u s in seeking to understand the W e s t e r n Theological Semi-
nary, the m i n d finds n o rest until it rests in H i m of W h o m and to W h o m , a n d through W h o m are all things. A t w h a t point in this long history shall w e begin to think tonight? Surely the point m o s t g e r m a n e to our subject is the immigration of 1847, under Dr. A. C. V a n Raalte, b y which this c o m m u n i t y w a s founded. T h e people w h o c a m e with h i m h a d for the m o s t part the elements of a c o m m o n school educa tion, but be y o nd that they w e r e uncultured a n d ignorant, m a s ters of n o art but the art of m a k i n g a living b y hard labor a n d rigid economy. Y e t in one respect they w e r e really m o r e advanced than the great m a s s of A m e r i c a n Christians of their day; for they w e r e a decidedly religious people, and h a d c o m e through a struggle that h a d left t h e m theologically alert; particularly with respect to modernism. T h a t w o r d is n o w m u c h used in A m e r i c a n church circles, but at the time of the Holland immigration the w o r d a n d w h a t it stands for w e r e u n k n o w n to m o s t A m e r i c a n Christians. Y e t to those w h o c a m e with V a n Raalte it w a s thoroughly familiar. T h e y h a d c o m e through a bitter fight with modernism. T h e y k n e w exactly w h a t it was, a n d w h a t it did to the life of the church. T h e y w e r e determined at all costs to have nothing to do with it. A t this point, therefore, they h a d already attained a position to w h i c h a considerable portion of A m e r i c a n Christianity is at present only begirming to attain, but to whi c h the A m e r i c a n churches m u s t c o m e if they are to survive at all. O n e m o r e thing the immigrants had that w a s of the utmost importance. T h e y h a d a leader — just such a leader as they needed. If the m a s s of his people w e r e uncultured, Dr. A. C. V a n Raalte w a s not. E d ucated at Leyden, one of the m o s t f a m o u s universities of Europe, a n d having reacted vigorously against the m o d e r n i s m there taught, he w a s qualified to appre ciate, o n the one hand, the danger, and, o n the other hand, the necessity of the m o s t advanced scholarship in relation to reli gion a n d theology. F r o m such a b a c k ground a n d such convic tions c a m e the Holland A c a d e m y , H o p e College, a n d the W e s t ern Theological Seminary. In the year 1850 our people h a d b e c o m e formally a m a l g a m a t e d with the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in America; a n d thus it c a m e to pass that in 1836 seven y o u n g m e n about to graduate f r o m H o p e College m a d e application to the General S y n o d to be permitted to pursue their theological studies at that insti tution; hoping a n d intending thereby to b e c o m e the beginning of a p e r m a n e n t theological seminary.
Their n a m e s w e r e Ale
B u u r s m a , Gerrit D a n g r e m o n d , William B. Gilmore, Peter Moerdyke, William Moerdyke, J o h n W . T e Winkel, and H a r m Woltm a n . These m e n w e r e the founders of our seminary. O f course, one understands that these y o u n g m e n did not act purely f r o m personal impulse.
T h e y w e r e m o v e d to m a k e this request b y
their teachers, and b y ministers of the church; especially b y Dr. A. C. V a n Raalte and Dr. Philip Phelps, w h o w a s then President of H o p e
College.
One
of t h e m
said later of Dr.
Phelps "It w a s he w h o brought the pioneer class of the college and the seminary to see the desirability, the necessity, and the possibility of a college a n d semi nary. It w a s he w h o planned a n d pled for it before the General Synod, with success.” ( F r o m the address b y the Rev. William Moerdyk, D.D., at the QuarterCentennial of the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary.) T h e General S y n o d of 1866 granted the request of these y o u n g m e n b y the adoption of the following resolution: "Resolved: T h a t the subject be referred to the B o a r d of Education, a n d the Council of H o p e College, with instructions that leave be granted to pursue their theological studies at H o p e College; provided no m e a s ure shall be instituted b y w h ich additional expense shall be t h r o w n u p o n S y n o d or the B o a r d of E d u c a tion at this time; and provided, further, that S y n o d reserves the right to w i t h d r a w this permission at any time that it m a y d e e m expedient.” This is a thoroughly characteristic resolution, the fore runner of m a n y resolutions of like tenor with regard to the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary.
T h e General S y n o d w a s play
ing safe. H e r e w a s permission, indeed, but without enthusiasm, a n d with notice, to all intents and purposes, that the fathers a n d brethren w h o voted for the resolution h a d not the least intention of doing anything about it. It w o uld be unfair and uncharitable, n o doubt, to b l a m e the General S y n o d of that day for not having a n y adequate vision of w h a t w a s necessary in the W e s t ; a n d yet one can not help wishing that it m i g h t have been otherwise. Surely, the subsequent history of the seminary, the college, a n d the churches m u s t have had a far m o r e favor able development if there h a d been a better understanding of w h a t the case required. T h e next year the Rev. Dr. C. E. Crisped w a s elected P r o fessor of Didactic and Polemic Theology at H o p e College. A t the s a m e time the Revs. T. R o m e y n B e c k and Charles Scott w ere invited to act as lectors. These teachers w e r e m e m b e r s of
the faculty of H o p e College, and h a d no separate remuneration as professors of theology until 1875, w h e n the General S y n o d a s s u m e d the p a y m e n t of such salaries, relying o n collections in the churches and o n appropriations f r o m the B o a r d of E d u c a tion.
O nly a f e w churches responded, however, and complaint
w a s m a d e that the salaries of the professors remained unpaid. T h e situation w a s in m a n y respects unsatisfactory, so m u c h so that in 1877, after twenty-nine students h a d g r a d u ated in theology, such instruction at H o p e College w a s sus pended, the General S y n o d thus m a k i n g use of the reservation e m bodied in the action of 1866. m a n y reasons. T o begin with,
F o r this course there were the financial situation w a s
exceedingly bad. In 1873, the country h a d experienced the worst financial panic of its history, perhaps even m o r e serious than the one w e are n o w experiencing. In 1871 the great fire h a d almost w ip e d out this city, a n d h a d crippled every f o r m of c o m m u n i t y effort. T h e teaching of theology w a s never ade quate. Dr. Crispell w a s the only full professor, but he w a s at the s a m e time professor of m a thematics in the college. Y o u can imagine the effect of such a combination! T h e lectors were likewise chiefly occupied with their college duties. There w a s friction betw een the administration of the college a n d the pro fessor of theology, whi c h the latter even brought to discussion in the class-room: a n indiscretion difficult to understand or to forgive. The
greatest trouble of all w a s
the lack of unanimity
a m o n g the ministers of our churches in the W e s t as to whether it w a s desirable to continue theological education here. A group of able men, graduates of N e w Bru n s w i c k Seminary, w e r e thoroughly convinced that it w a s a mistake, a n d their point of view is easy to understand. In the first place, they argued that the church w a s not large e n o u g h to support two theological seminaries, the entire R e f o r m e d C h u r c h being then about as large as the t w o Particular Synods of Chicago and I o w a together are at the present time —
and w e k n o w w h a t w e
should say if it w e r e n o w proposed to start a n e w seminary in Pella!
In the second place, they pointed out that the young-
m e n w o u l d have far better opportunities at N e w which
was
undeniably
true.
Finally
they said
Brunswick; that
if the
churches of the W e s t w e r e to be one b o d y with those of the East, it w a s of the first importance that the prospective minis ters should be educated together at the eastern seminary.
N o one can deny that these arg u m e n t s h a d a large m e a s ure of validity. S o m e of t h e m are with us still. If w e had been there a n d h a d listened to the eloquent speeches of those w h o argued thus o n the floor of the General Synod, it is possible that we, too, m i g h t have been convinced. In fact, however, this w a s not a question to be settled mainly b y argument. It w a s a question rather that called for insight a n d wisdom, for a n u n derstanding of the needs and aspirations of our people, and for vision of w h a t m i ght be if these needs w e r e adequately met. T h e m e n in favor of theology in the W e s t m a y have been inferior to their opponents in a r g u m e n t o n the floor of General Synod; but they understood their o w n people better. T h e y were like the m e n of Issachar, w h o had understanding of the time, to k n o w w h a t Israel ought to do. There is one thing that ought to be said at this point, and that it is pleasant to say, a n d that is this. A t no point in these discussions, so far as I have ever heard, w a s it suggested that the W e s t ought to have its o w n theological seminary because the s e m inary at N e w
B r u n s w i c k w a s doctrinally unsound, or
in danger of b e coming so. M y father w a s one of the foremost advocates of theological instruction here, but he always spoke with the greatest respect for his professors at N e w Brunswick, w h e r e he received his o w n theological training, graduating in 1861. W h a t e v e r the reasons that lay b a c k of the establishment of W e s t e r n Theological Seminary, distrust of our sister insti tution f o r m e d n o part of them, to the best of m y
knowledge
a n d belief. T h e action of General S y n o d in suspending theological in struction, while approved b y some, c a m e as a tremendous shock to the b o d y of the W e s t e r n churches. I still r e m e m b e r the dis m a y with w h ich m y mother received a letter f r o m m y father, then in attendance u p o n the said Synod, reporting this action. I w a s at that time a child, eight years old, a n d of course understood nothing of the subject under discussion, but I did get the impression f r o m m y
m o t h e r ’s attitude and f r o m that
of her friends that s o m e great disaster h a d taken place. H o w far this contributed to the discontent a n d secession of 1881 m a y be a question, but that it h a d a large influence will not be denied. T h e W e s t e r n churches h a d b y that time been a part of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in A m e r i c a for nearly thirty years, but n o w their loyalty w a s grievously undermined. T h e y h a d not joined the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h to have their dearest aspirations thwarted.
Six years later the General S y n o d w a s m o r e favorably inclined towards theology in the West. A preliminary resolu tion looking to the restoration of theology w a s adopted in 1883, an d in 1884 Dr. Nicholas M . Steffens w a s elected pro fessor, with the proviso that he should not be formally installed until the s u m of $30,000 for the e n d o w m e n t of his chair had been fully paid in. W h i l e the causes that led to the suspension in 1877 are easily traced, it is not so simple to explain w h y there w a s this change of m i n d so soon; particularly since the party in favor of theology h a d lost three of its m o s t prominent leaders, Dr. V a n Raalte b y death in 1876, Dr. Philip Phelps b y resignation in 1879, a n d m y
o w n father b y death in 1880. T h e chief rea
son was, n o doubt, that the troubles a n d the secession of 1881 h a d done m u c h to a w a k e n m e n to the necessity of this action if the development of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in the W e s t w a s not to be cut short: a n d one m a y n o w confidently say that the present flourishing condition of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in this section of the country is, in large measure, directly due to the re-establishment of our seminary. O n e instance of such a change of opinion, a n d a m o s t important one, w a s that of Dr. Steffens himself. A t the Quarter-Centennial of this seminary he said: “W h e n I learned w h a t action General S y n o d had taken, I chimed in with those w h o looked u p o n this action as wise. It w a s in h a r m o n y with m y views in educational matters. I really believed that the sus pension of theology w a s a step in the right direction. W h e n I came, a year later, to Michigan, I soon b e c a m e convinced that I h a d looked at things f r o m m y study w i n d o w and h a d judged about things in a n a c a d e m ical manner. I w a s then no longer astonished about the heated discussion w h ich h a d been going o n in the papers about the theological question. A storm and stress period followed, a n d the m o v e m e n t s w e r e beg u n w h i c h w e r e the direct or indirect results of the sus pension of theological instruction in Holland.” T h e s e m inary w a s
reopened in 1884, a n d
has continued
until this present time. Let us look briefly at its development along four lines, the faculty, the equipment, the finances, and the students. I — We
THE
FACULTY
begin with the faculty, for the faculty is the soul of
the institution: in a real sense it is the institution. T h e qual ity of the w o r k done b y the school depends directly u p o n the
quality of the m e n w h o occupy the professorial chairs.
I be
c a m e a student of the seminary in 1888. This w a s the first year in w h i c h Dr. J. W . Beardslee b e gan to be associated with Dr. Steffens in the work; and it was, therefore, in a sense the year in w h i c h the faculty, as a p e r m a n e n t b o d y of professors, took its origin. It has always s e e m e d to m e that it w a s b y the g o o d h a n d of our G o d u p o n us that these t w o m e n w e r e the first professors of the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary. T h e y w e r e eminently qualified for that work, mentally and spirit ually. T h e impression they m a d e u p o n us, as students, w a s profound. Dr. J. W . Beardslee w a s one of the finest examples of that very fine product, the A m e r i c a n gentleman; a n d Dr. Steffens w a s no less a gentleman, of the E u r o p e a n model. T h u s the finest fruit of t w o great civilizations w a s present in our small seminary in those days.
No
doubt their knowledge had
limits w h i c h w e as boys w e r e not able to discern, but even if these limits w e r e narrower than I think, it m a k e s but little difference, for education is m o r e than the impartation of k n o w l edge, it is the impartation of attitudes, the impact of one per sonality u p o n another. Lest this impression of mine, r e m e m bered f r o m m y student days, be discounted as the j u d g m e n t of a n inexperienced boy, without adequate standards of c o m p a r ison, allow m e n o w to p a y m y tribute to these m y
theological
professors f r o m the vantage g r o u n d of m y present age and experience. I a m no longer a boy. In the forty-four years that hav e elapsed since I left the seminary class room, I have m e t in m a n y lands m a n y m e n of m a n y kinds, a m o n g t h e m s o m e of the greatest m e n of their generation, a n d I wish to say that with due regard to all the outstanding qualities of Christian gentlemen a n d scholars, I have never met, anywhere, grander m e n than Nicholas M . Steffens and J o h n W . Beardslee. Dr. Beardslee continued in the seminary a n d rendered u n broken service for twenty-five years. great gift in his son, J o h n W . h i m in office —
T h e n he gave us a very
Beardslee, Jr., w h o succeeded
alas, for a short time only.
Dr. Steffens left
in 1895 to b e c o m e professor at the theological seminary D u b uque, Iowa, but c a m e b a c k in 1903. the seminary w a s
at
His total service in
twenty years, eleven years f r o m
1884 to
1895, a n d nine years f r o m 1903 to 1912, w h e n he w a s taken a w a y b y death. U p o n his resignation in 1895, his place w a s taken b y the Rev. Egbert Winter, D.D., formerly pastor at Pella, Iowa, and
at G r a n d
Rapids,
Michigan.
He
was
well
equipped intellectually a n d theologically, but w a s unfortunately hampered
b y increasing deafness, whi c h m a d e
necessary for
h i m to give u p his w o r k nine years later. Dr. Winter w a s a strong premillenarian, hut of a type w h ich did not in the least interfere with complete loyalty to the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h and its doctrinal standards. His place w a s filled b y a y o u n g m a n w h o had, y o u n g as he was, long been a m a r k e d m a n , both as a student of the seminary a n d as pastor of the Third R e f o r m e d C h u r c h of Holland, Mich. This w a s the Rev. G. H. Dubbink, D.D.
To
high intellectual gifts a n d a splendid grasp of the
R e f o r m e d system of doctrine, he added a peculiar quality which m a k e s it impossible for those w h o k n e w h i m well to think of h i m without a special sense of tenderness. I can think of no better w o r d for that aspect of his character than to say that he w a s a saintly m a n . N o doubt this is w h a t Dr. J. W . Beardslee m e a n t b y saying in his introduction to the report of the Quarter-Centennial: “Possessed of talents w h ich fitted h i m in a pre eminent degree for the w o r k of his department, he w a s also a consistent and steadfast Christian, w h o s e life w a s hid with Christ in God.” Dr. Beardslee did not m e a n to suggest, I a m sure, that it is unusual for a theological professor to be a consistent and steadfast Christian! Dr. D u b b i n k died in 1910, a n d Dr. Stef fens once m o r e b e c a m e Professor of Systematic Theology, being transferred f r o m the chair of C h u r c h History, until he also w a s taken away, in 1912. T h e place of Dr. Steffens w a s taken b y the Rev. Evert J. Blekkink, D.D., until 1928, w h e n he retired, under the consti tutional provisions of our church. O f the w o r k of Dr. Blekkink I should hav e m u c h to say if he w e r e not here present with us. It is not well to read a m a n ’s obituary in his presence. A n adequate estimate of his labors m u s t therefore be left to a celebration of this kind at the end of another period of twentyfive years; but surely it will do no h a r m to remind one another here a n d n o w h o w greatly his w o r k during those sixteen years p r o m o t e d the usefulness a n d prosperity of the seminary, h o w greatly he w a s beloved b y his students, a n d h o w deeply his w o r k is appreciated b y the churches. U p o n his retirement, Dr. J o h n E. K u izenga w a s transferred to Systematic Theology f r o m the chair of Homiletics a n d Pastoral Theology, but his occupancy of the n e w chair continued for t w o years only, w h e n he accepted a call to Princeton Theological Seminary. Since 1931 the chair has been officially vacant, with Dr. Winfield Burggraaff as lector for the space of three years.
T h u s ends,
to date, the record of the chair of Systematic Theology.
F o r six years Drs. Steffens and Beardslee did all the w o r k together, but in 1894 the faculty w a s strengthened b y the not able addition of the Rev. H e n r y E. Dosker, D.D., and the estab lishment of the chair of Historical Theology. H e continued until 1903, w h e n he accepted a call to the Presbyterian S e m i n ary at Louisville, Kentucky. There he continued to shed lustre u p o n A m e r i c a n theological scholarship, and at the time of his death w a s pronounced probably the m o s t erudite m a n in the Presbyterian Church. T h e successor of Dr. D o s k e r as Professor of C h u r c h His tory w a s Dr. N. M . Steffens, called back f r o m the seminary at Dubuque. A s already stated, he w a s transferred to S y s t e m atic Theology in 1910, and the place w a s filled b y the elec tion of the genial Dr. M a t t h e w M . Kolyn, until his sudden and lamented death in 1918. F r o m that date until the present the s e minary has enjoyed a n d profited b y the services of the Rev. S. C. Nettinga, D.D., in that capacity. We
n o w turn to the chair of Practical Theology. W h e n w e
w e r e students, instruction in this department w a s given us b y Dr. Steffens. W e had no occasion to complain of our teaching. H e understood the art of s e r m o n m a k i n g a n d h o w to teach it; while in regard to pastoral w o r k he h a d an inexhaustible fund of anecdotes f r o m
his o w n
experience in the ministry.
How
the w o r k fared after he left, I do not know, but in 1907 it w a s committed
to a separate professor b y
the
establishment
of
the chair of Practical Theology a n d the election thereto of the Rev. J a m e s F. Z w e m e r , D.D., w h o w a s obliged b y ill health to retire in 1916.
T h a t brought into the faculty Dr. John E. Kui-
zenga, w h o served with distinction until 1928, when, as above, he b e c a m e Professor of Systematic Theology. Dr. J o h n R. Mulder, w h o is still active in this department, w a s chosen to take his place. There w a s at first but one chair of Exegesis and Biblical Literature, occupied b y Dr. J. W . Beardslee, Sr., w h o taught both the G r e e k a n d the Hebrew, with the Biblical Criticism of both testaments. In 1913 a separate chair w a s established for the N e w Testament, a n d w a s filled b y the election of Dr. J. W . Beardslee, Jr. F o u r years later this brilliant y o u n g scholar w a s called to the N e w B r u n s w i c k Seminary, to our great loss and the corresponding gain of our sister institution. F o r three years thereafter the place remained vacant, but in 1920 it w a s filled by the election of the Rev. Jacob V a n der Meulen, D.D., w h o is with us still. Dr. J. W . Beardslee, Sr., after his resignation in
1913, continued his w o r k in the Old Tes t a m e n t L a n g u a g e and Literature, without salary, until 1917, w h e n he accompanied his son to N e w Brunswick. T h e Rev. H e n r y Hospers, D.D., w a s elected to fill the chair, as it is this day. Finally, in 1926 there was
established the chair of English Bible and Missions, to
w h i c h I w a s called. S u c h is the record of the faculty over a space of fifty years. Excluding the period before 1884, a n d not counting lectors, fifteen m e n
in all have been professors of our seminary;
of
w h o m three died in office, three left for other seminaries, one b e c a m e emeritus b y constitutional limitation, three resigned for other causes, and five are still in office. It has been a record of delightful harmony. There have been n o quarrels a m o n g the professors, and there has been n o accusation of doctrinal u n soundness against a n y one of them. M a y it ever so remain! It is a record for whi c h w e m a y thank God, u p o n whi c h w e hav e enjoyed the blessing of God, a n d u p o n w h ich w e m a y still expect that blessing in time to come. O n e thing certainly w e c a n point to as no small compliment to the faculty of our S e m i nary, a c o m p liment that cost us dear, but nevertheless a c o m pliment heartily appreciated, a n d that is that four times with in these fifty years our professors have been called to other institutions of theological learning. W i t h the scholarship of the whole country to choose from, these seminaries turned to our comparatively small a n d obscure institution; because they could find n o w h e r e else m e n better fitted for such high grade spiritual a n d scholarly work. In addition to the w o r k of the seminary itself, the w o r k of the faculty for the edification of the church at large through preaching, through lectures, a n d especially through regular con tributions to the church periodicals, m u s t not be forgotten. O n e need only ask w h a t “D e H o p e ” w o u l d have been for m a n y years without the writings of Dr. N. M . Steffens, a n d m o r e recently of Dr. S. C. Nettinga; or ‘‘T h e Leader” without the w o r k of Dr. G. H. Dubbink, Dr. E. J. Blekkink, Dr. J o h n E. Kuizenga, Dr. Jacob V a n der Meulen, a n d at present Dr. John R. Mulder. This is a service of the highest importance that w o u l d scarcely have been possible without the faculty of the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary. II —
EQUIPMENT
T h e second point to w h ich w e
wish to p a y attention is
that of equipment. W h a t there w a s in m y student days is easily described; grounds, none; recitation hall, none; maps,
none; library, none; periodicals, none. This is a complete and accurate inventory of the equipment of the W e s t e r n Theological S e m i n a r y at that time.
Brighter days b e gan with the build
ing of the Semelink F a m i l y Hall, the gift of a devoted Chris tian family of Vriesland, Michigan, in 1895. T h e next great step in advance w a s the erection of a dormitory for the stu dents.
In the report submitted to General S y n o d in 1912, it
is stated that through the kind offices of the Rev. R. H. Joldersma, Mr. Dennis V a n der Linde, of Cleveland, Ohio, had given to the seminary a valuable piece of property, the pro ceeds of the sale of w h ich w e r e to be used for a student home. Other gifts for that purpose also w e r e collected, and in 1914 it w a s completed, at a cost of $27,216.62; although it w a s not completely paid for until 1920. T h a t g a v e us t w o buildings. T h e third c a m e at about the same
time, for in 1912 Dr. J. W .
Beardslee, Sr., announced
that he w o u l d build at his o w n expense, and present to the seminary a suitable library building. Since it w a s at his o w n expense, there is naturally n o record of the cost, but it m u s t hav e been not far f r o m $15,000. T h e building is a m o n u m e n t , not only to his generosity but also to his j u d g m e n t and taste, for it w o u l d be difficult to imagine a n y h o m e for the library better fitted for its present a n d prospective needs. Finally, in 1928, the n u m b e r
of students having
grown
too large for the original dormitory, under the administration of Dr. J o h n E. Kuizenga, the n e w dormitory w a s built, costing about $30,000. In addition to these buildings, the equipment of the seminary has been continuously improved b y the estab lishment of a suitable theological library, beginning with the legacy of the library of Dr. Talbot W . Chambers. It n u m b e r s n o w m o r e than 20,000 volumes, and is fully indexed and arranged, under a m o d e r n system, for convenient use. Without such a library, scholarly w o r k
along m o d e r n lines w o uld be
impossible. Ill — We
h ave
seen
how
THE
FINANCES
the W e s t e r n
Theological
Seminary,
f r o m a beginning in 1884 of one professor and n o property e q uipment of a n y kind, has g r o w n to its present state, with a faculty consisting normally of six full time professors (albeit for the present one chair is vacant) a n d with property that cost not far f r o m $100,000.
The
question n o w
comes, “H o w
w a s all this financed?” A complete answer wou l d be in terms of n a m e s a n d figures w h ich it wou l d be tedious to report here,
a n d w h i c h w o uld leave but a confused impression u p o n
the
mind. Rather let m e a n s w e r it in terms of persons w h o labored a n d sacrificed that the finances of the seminary m i g h t be put u p o n a sound basis. If w e approach the matter in this way, there is one n a m e that stands out a m o n g the others, not merely as “primus inter pares,” but as first without a peer. It is the n a m e of Dr. J a m e s F. Z w e m e r , w h o gave himself to this aspect of the work, first as financial agent, then, while professor, along side of his professorial work, a n d then again as professor emeritus in charge of the finances of the seminary.
T h e w o r k of soliciting
gifts is so distasteful that f e w m e n can be induced to under take it at all. It requires so m u c h skill a n d tact that fewer still are successful at it. It b e c o m e s so tedious that only the exceptional m a n will keep at it for a long period of time. Yet to this w o r k Dr. J a m e s F. Z w e m e r devoted his time, his talents, a n d his energy for m a n y years. In pursuance of it he forsook the comforts of h o m e and spent days and m o n t h s in travel. H e w e n t f r o m f a r m to f a r m in the country a n d f r o m house to house in the city, everywhere holding before m e n the impera tive necessity of the seminary for our church life. If a n y m a n is entitled to be called the father of the W e s t e r n Theological Seminary, it is J a m e s F. Z w e m e r . His crowning d a y c a m e in 1919, w h e n he w a s able to report to the General S y n o d that four chairs w e r e fully e n d o w e d to the a m o u n t of $40,000 each, a n d that a begirming h a d been m a d e on the e n d o w m e n t of the fifth chair.
T h e t w o chairs with the e n d o w m e n t of whi c h he
w a s not greatly or not at all concerned are the chairs of N e w T e s t a m e n t L a n g u a g e a n d Literature, to w h ich Mr. A. Biemolt, of Chicago, especially led b y the good offices of Dr. E. J. Blekkink, contributed $30,000, a n d the chair of English Bible and Missions, w h i c h w a s established b y Mr. a n d Mrs. Cornelius Dosker, together with Mr. a n d Mrs. F r a n k Hulswit, w h o gave the s u m of $60,000.
T h e negotiations whi c h led to this were
conducted b y Dr. J o h n E. Kuizenga. T h e services of Dr. J a m e s F. Z w e m e r deserve to be held in reverence a n d honor in the history of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in America. T h e ability a n d energy w h ich he put into this financial aspect of the w o r k w o u l d have brought h i m a fortune in commercial pursuits. H e laid u p n o earthly treasures for himself, but in his hands the unrighteous m a m m o n b e c a m e the friend of the k i n g d o m of God. It is written “After the fathers shall be the children,” a n d w e recognize the fulfilment of this
promise in the fact that one son-in-law of Dr. Z w e m e r is at the head of our denominational w o r k in Kentucky, and another is the President of our seminary, while a grandson is at present one of its students. W h e n the resolution to re-open the seminary w a s carried in the General Synod, there w a s a fund o n h a n d for its e n d o w m e n t of something over $5,000, w h ich h a d been collected in the early years. Against this, the m o s t recently published state m e n t gives as the s u m of its p e r m a n e n t fund, the figure of $195,533.93. N o doubt this figure is greater than the present actual value of the securities, since the seminary has not escaped the devastating financial disaster that has
crippled
the entire country. It will be the w o r k of the present genera tion to repair the dama g e , a n d to build further u p o n the foun dations w h i c h the fathers have
laid, thus demonstrating
by
their w o r k s that they are heirs to the s a m e faith. In addition to these p e r m a n e n t
funds, the w o r k
of the
seminary has been m a d e possible b y another financial creation of Dr. J a m e s F. Z w e m e r ’s experience and skill; namely, the fund for seminary salaries a n d support. F o r this also he labored a m o n g the churches, and with such success that it has b e c o m e a p e r m a n e n t institution. T h e s u m contributed each year rose f r o m a beginning of $500.00 to over $7,000 at its highest point; an d although in recent years this also has suffered severely, there are already indications of returning prosperity. We
can not attempt to give here a full list of even the
larger contributors through all these years, and in n a m i n g any there is always the danger of overlooking others with quite as g ood a title to honor.
Yet, in spite of this possibility, a n d with
due apologies beforehand in case it should take place, w e can not let a n occasion like this go b y without n a m i n g s o m e w h o b y their unselfish devotion have acquired the right to be grate fully remembered. First of all stands Mr. Peter Semelink, w h o
provided a
h o m e for a homeless institution. N e x t to h i m c o m e s Dr. J. W . Beardslee,
whose
benefactions,
known
and
unknown,
must
have been fully equal to one-half of all the salary paid h i m by the seminary. W e can not forget, either, Dr. J a m e s A. Cornell, of N e w Baltimore, N e w York, who, in 1909, gave $14,572, the greatest single gift u p to that time.
We
have already m e n
tioned the gift of property b y Mr. Dennis V a n der Linde, of Cleveland, Ohio, which m a d e the dormitory possible. In 1920
w e find a n annuity gift of $10,000 b y Mr. J. J. V a n W y k , of Santa Anna, California. A very remarkable understaking w a s that of Mr. a n d Mrs. A. Biemolt, of Chicago, w h o undertook b y successive gifts out of the profits of his business to contribute $30,000, a n d completed that great w o r k in 1930. T h e greatest single gift so far is the Dosker-Hulswit
endowment
of the
chair of English Bible a n d Missions, to the a m o u n t of $60,000. Mr. C. D o s k e r ’s devotion to the seminary led to other large gifts as well. In 1925 he a n d Mr. H e n r y Langeland, of M u s k e gon, Mich., g ave $5,000 each to establish a n “Extension and Publicity F u n d,” a n d again in 1928 these t w o friends gave $5,000 each to the n e w dormitory. A s already said, these are only a f e w of the high points in the contribution of funds to the W e s t e r n Theological S e m i nary.
T h e bulk of the m o n e y c a m e f r o m small gifts that ex
pressed a large m e a s u r e of self-sacrifice and devotion.
They
are on record in the accounts of the institution, a n d are r e m e m bered also, w e believe, b y H i m w h o said b y the m o u t h of the H o l y Apostle Paul:
"If there be
first a willing mind,
it is
accepted according to that a m a n hath, a n d not according to that he hath not.” W e pray a n d trust that God, w h o so m a r vellously put it into the hearts of His stewards to supply the needs of the seminary in the past, will still provide for its expanding a n d continuing needs in time to come. IV
—
THE
STUDENTS
A N D
GRADUATES
T h e questions of finance a n d equipment w e r e not the only serious problems that confronted the re-opened seminary in the fall of 1884.
Quite as important as the other t w o w a s that of
students. T h e leaders of the church in the W e s t h a d b e c o m e convinced that there m u s t be theological instruction here, the General
Synod
h a d consented,
and
the churches
had
raised
$30,000; but w h a t did the y o u n g m e n think? W e r e they willing to forego the advantages of education at N e w Brunswick, of proximity to N e w York, a n d of m o r e alluring prospects of set tlement after graduation? It soon appeared that m a n y of them
were
not willing, a n d
so a considerable proportion of
H o p e College graduates looking forward to the ministry kept o n m a k i n g their w a y eastwards, especially during the first decade. N o b l a m e or discredit, of course, attached to t h e m for doing so. T h e y had every right to m a k e their o w n choice, and every b o d y k n e w that the W e s t e r n S e m i n a r y could not, for m a n y years, present a teaching staff, a library, and cultural opportunities to rival those that m i g h t be h a d elsewhere. T h a t
they continued to prefer N e w Brunswick, however, m a d e things look black for a time for the n e w enterprise. Often there were but t w o or three m e n in the entering class — in 1887 there w a s n o one! F o r a long time this question of students caused no little anxiety. Gradually, however, the clouds lifted. A s it b e c a m e k n o w n h o w excellent w a s the training which Drs. Steffens and Beardslee (despite all handicaps) were able to furnish, and as the churches b e g an to s h o w their approval b y calling the g r adu ates, students found it m o r e a n d m o r e satisfactory to remain. W e can see this clearly w h e n w e arrange the n u m b e r of gra d u ates b y decades. Absolute accuracy is not claimed for the fig ures given, but the m a r g i n of error, if any, is too small to affect the general impression. T h e first year in which there w a s a graduate of the re-opened seminary w a s 1886. W e have there fore the following table.
Graduates of the W e s t e r n
Theological S e m i n a r y
1886-1895_____________________________ 32 1896-1905_______ :____________________ 70 1906-1915_____________________________ 74 1916-1925_____________________________ 92 1926-1935____________________________ 140 Before 1884 __________________________ 29 Total This
shows
________________________________437 a
steady
advance,
from
3.3
graduates
per
a n n u m in the first decade to 14 in the last. Let us next prepare a table to s h o w h o w far the seminary has attained is primary purpose of supplying ministers for the Western
churches.
We
eliminate
all ministers
not
now
active pastoral employment.
Pastors of Churches in the Particular Synods of Chicago a n d I o w a F r o m Minutes of General S y n o d for 1934 E d u c a t e d at the W e s t e r n Theological S e m i n a r y ____192 All Others ________________________________________ 36 Total_____________________ 228 This gives us a percentage of 8 4 % f r o m our seminary.
in
This institution supplies ministers, however,
not
merely
to churches in the West, but to those in the East also. This m o v e m e n t belongs to the last decade, but not a f e w of our graduates h ave found attractive opportunities for usefulness in that portion of the church. In v i e w of this it is interesting to note the following facts: Ministers a n d Licentiates in the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in A m e r i c a Minutes of General Synod, 1934 E d ucated at the W e s t e r n Theological S e m i n a r y ----303 E d u cated at N e w B r u n s w i c k Theological Seminary_288 All Others ________________________________________ 282 Total_____________________ 873 O u r seminary is therefore n o w
the largest single source
of supply for ministers of the R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in America, furnishing 3 4 . 7 % of the whole. The
proportion
of foreign
missionaries f r o m
our
semi足
n ary is greater than that of the whole n u m b e r of ministers. F r o m the report of the B o a r d of Foreign Missions in the 1934 Minutes, w e find that there w e r e at that time 41 ordained missionaries o n the list, of w h o m 19 w e r e f r o m the W e s t e r n Seminary, giving us 48. 5 % to 51. 5 % f r o m all other sources. Larger
still is our
proportion of theological professors.
There are at present eleven professors in active service in the t w o denominational seminaries, a n d of these seven, or 6 4 % , received their theological training in Holland, Mich. to this the n a m e s
of m e n
If w e add
teaching in seminaries of other
denominations, Dr. K u i z e n g a in Princeton, Dr. W e r n e c k e in the Central Theological S e m i n a r y
at Dayton,
Ohio
(now
trans足
ferred to St. Louis), Dr. W i e r e n g a in Arcot, Dr. B a n n i n g a in Pasumalai, India, a n d Dr. S t e g e m a n in Tokyo, Japan, the con足 tribution of our seminary to this f o r m of Christian w o r k is seen to be distinctly noteworthy.
In the field of general Christian
education w e should have occasion also to mention Dr. C. M. Steffens, so long President of the
college a n d
seminary
at
Dubuque, Iowa, Dr. J o h n Wesselink as President of Central Col足 lege, Dr. H o ekje
in Japan,
and Dr. H e n r y
Baptist S e m i n a r y at Shanghai, China.
Huizinga in the
All these are fruits of the tree planted and watered with so great difficulty in 1884; but G o d has given the increase. U p o n this occasion of solemn r e m e m b r a n c e it is fitting that w e should take note of the fruits, a n d that they should incline us highly to resolve that, b y the grace of God, this tree, n o w in its lusty youth, shall not fail to receive f r o m us, its graduates, the full m e a s u r e of loving and loyal devotion.