development than these men, and there is no intention at this time to do anything more than to call attention to the great need of a better trained ministry to reenforce the present ranks in an effective way for good. It is encouraging to note a new departure in two leading theological seminaries. Yale Divinity School changed its course very much a year ago. It strengthened the old course, leading to the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, known as historical, also adding a philosophical and lastly a practical course, both of which lead to the B.D. degree. “The practical course will emphasize the relation of the minister to the problems of modern society, giving special attention to Christian sociology, ethics, and methods of Christian activity. As a preliminary discipline students who take this course will receive in the junior year special instruction in sociology and instruction in elementary law in one of the courses furnished by the University for law students.”

The Chicago Theological Seminary has made a similar change and says in a recent catalogue: “The subjects for instruction are those directly relating to the work of the ministry, and courses in the English Bible, the psychology of Christian living, religious pedagogy, evangelism, missions, Christian sociology and citizenship are included in both the prescribed and elective work. Hebrew and Greek have been made almost entirely elective, and much that is traditional in systematic theology, church history, and other departments has had to make room for new subjects. But the seminary authorities, believing that such changes are necessary, hold that the mere fact that a subject has a traditional place in the curriculum of the divinity school should not be a sufficient reason for retaining it. Each subject must continually prove anew its right to be taught and justify itself under modern conditions.” This does not mean less study or a less scholarly man as the finished product; but it does mean that the seminary is to take its place along with other professional schools in fitting men to meet present needs.

The action of the above schools is most encouraging, and no doubt before a great while many other seminaries will follow the same course. This will do for the minister what our medical schools are doing for the physician; it will bring him in daily contact with the conditions which he must meet out in the world. Who would think of running a medical school without a laboratory and a clinic? Young men might know all the books have to say about the property of drugs or the symptoms of diseases, but such men will be handicapped if they are to wait until they go out into actual life before seeing these drugs tried, or the peculiar manifestation of diseases as they make their inroads on the human system. A thorough knowledge of sociology makes it possible for young men who are in our theological seminaries to get some practical knowledge of human relations and conditions of the present time and thereby be better able to apply the potent Gospel as a remedy.

What is needed is a greater breadth of view possessed by the leaders of our seminaries and in many cases more practical men, such as our great and successful preachers are, ought to be on the teaching staff rather than some men who could not succeed in any eminent way as pastors; example has its effect on theologies as well as medicos and the man with the green bag. Every provision should be made for ministers to be well-equipped teachers and leaders of the people. Such training will make our ministers able to place the emphasis on their work where it belongs. Such men will as carefully consider the financial strength of their people as a physician considers the physical strength of a patient; and no more should we see churches built which are out of all proportion to the financial ability of the people who worship in them. We should not see a great debt hanging over the heads of a poor people, the most of whom do not own their own