any man into their class, and their building has no back door through which they can retire unfit members. It is true they are members of the quarterly conference; but they have no conference of their own, and no status in any ministerial conference. Various efforts have been made to remedy this evil. The original idea of the district conference was a conference of local preachers; then it took the tentative form of a conference of all the preachers of a district; but it has settled into our law as a conference of all the official workers of the district, and in this form has conspicuously failed. Presuming that we want an effective unpaid ministry, one step toward getting it might be taken by organizing the local preachers by districts or conferences better, perhaps, by conferences. These conferences of local preachers should confirm or reject the selections of the quarterly conference for new local preachers, retire from the body unfit members, and approve or reject the candidates going up to the Annual Conferences. Other duties connected with their class might be added to the foregoing. Esprit de corps cannot grow where there is no corps, and responsible duties to the Church tend to nourish the will and the capacity to discharge them with credit. It would be just to give these conferences a small representation in the Annual Conferences, and to provide for the election of a dozen or score of them to the General Conference. Such an organization is a radical change in our system, and is not to be too enthusiastically expected. An alternative plan is, to fall back upon the union of all ministers in district conferences, where the local preachers should have a separate vote on the subjects relating to their class. A bolder plan-which would certainly improve the quality of the local preachers-is to make all licensed preachers members of the Annual Conferences. The first plan is most favorable to the development of the lay character and power of the class. A separate organization, with decisive and important duties, would probably tend to build up those distinctive characteristics which make local preachers valuable; whereas the classing of them with the ministry tends to rob us of their power as laymen, and to increase the danger of comparative undervaluing of them as ministers. A preacher who fills a secular place and preaches gratuitously may be, for his special field, the best preacher; but neither he nor the Church should forget that his secular calling is an element of his power. Making him a minister in his modes of address and thinking must generally tend to impair his usefulness. If this study is unsatisfactory, it is because the subject involves uncertain elements. While the writer believes in a lay ministry, such as our Church law provides for, he is compelled to believe that it has declined, and is still declining, under the weight of forces that show no sign of relenting. We should need, to rehabilitate the lay preacher, a large and strong movement and some wise legislation. It may strengthen the small demand for change toward a better care of this arm of the ministry, if we remember that other branches of the Christian Church are feeling their way toward lay preachers. For example, a son of the eminent missionary, Adoniram Judson, having attempted to do a missionary work in the center of New York, has associated with himself three "assistant pastors" who speak the different tongues of our foreign population. With us, also, efforts to recover lost neighborhoods would provoke us to new zeal in cultivating local preachers. But, without such a demand for their services, it seems inevitable that this class of preachers must gradually come to be made up of licentiates and located ministers. ART. III.-WEBER'S SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY OF THE [SECOND ARTICLE.] VIII. ORAL TRADITION. The authentic exposition of the Scriptures.-The written Word of God was accompanied from the beginning with an authentic exposition for the community, called the "Oral Law," which was not to be transmitted in writing, but through tradition. The import and consequences of the divine laws are determined and explained for the community by the wise men in the Halakah; the doctrine and meaning of the historical and prophetical sections of the Scriptures in the Haggadah. The Jewish theology distinguishes the written Law, -These expres .תורה שבעל פה,and that delivered orally שבכתב sions were demonstrably in use in the time of Rabban Gamiel. They are often found in the older literature. This oral law, equally with the written, proceeded from God; but, in respect to the manner of it, there are two current views. According to one view, the oral doctrine was so far given with the written Torah, as this was so formed that it comprehended the oral doctrine in itself; it is indeed of infinite contents. According to the other view, God himself added to the written Torah the oral doctrine, either in its outlines or details, written (upon tables) or merely orally. Dr. Weber gives the various authorities that bear upon these points. After Moses received from God, along with the Torah, which was to be written down, also its exposition, to be transmitted orally according to a predominant and older view, he began to repeat it faithfully in the tabernacle and to explain it. According to Erubin, 54, he delivered the oral law to Aaron, who transmitted it to his sons. These taught it to the elders, and the latter instructed the people in it. But this oral law of Moses, complete in its contents and form, was not safely kept by Joshua and his Sanhedrim. In the mourning for Moses, three thousand halachoth (legal precepts) were forgotten, which even Joshua did not restore. Othniel first restored these through the exposition of the written Torah. This was generally the fate of the oral law during all ages, that it was partly lost and partly renewed. The renewal was possible because the oral doctrine is already contained in the written, out of which it can be developed. The entire matter of tradition is called n, literally, inquiries, discussions, and that, too, upon the Torah. For all that has been handed down orally has been acquired through inquiry and determining the sense of Scripture. This inquiry has moved in two directions. So far as the contents of the Torah were developed, the halachoth resulted; so far as the historical and prophetic contents are explained, the haggadoth (edifying discourses) resulted. The former are laid down in the Mishna and are further discussed in the Gemara. The latter especially form the contents of the Midrash in the stricter sense, or of the haggadah, the Biblical Commentary. The relation of Tradition to Scripture. The import of the Holy Scriptures and tradition is identical in principle, for FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXIV.—17 the latter is essentially contained in the former. Hence the statements of both are to be accepted. But inasmuch as tradition must first be developed from Scripture, the latter holds the rank of being the source and rule of all doctrine; it is norma normans, while tradition is norma normata, that is, it must always prove itself to be contained in the Scripture. Finally, Scripture is revelation in a completed form; tradition, on the contrary, is in a state of continual development; the latter exercises itself throughout with contradictions and often ends in unsolved problems. The Halakah (traditional law) is determined by the vote of a college of wise men, (Gittin, v, 6;) but another college, if it has greater authorities in itself, and counts more members, can annul the decision of the first college, and fix the halakah differently. Scripture and Tradition in practice.-Although the Scripture, in respect to its dignity, precedes tradition, yet, for practice, the oral law has a higher value than the written. For legalism, which believes that it possesses salvation in the Torah, inasmuch as through its fulfillment it obtains the promised reward, requires the Torah in a form in which it can be immediately realized in life. In such a form it lies before us only in the oral law. The higher appreciation of the oral law finds its expressions, not only in the predicates of the oral doctrine, but also in the study which is devoted to it, and in the strictness with which the oral law is held. In the post-Talmudic tract, Soferim, 15b, the Holy Scriptures are compared to water, the Mishna to wine, the Gemara to medicated wine. The world cannot do without the Holy Scripture, without the Mishna, and without the Gemara. Or, the Holy Scriptures are like salt, the Mishna like pepper, and the Gemara like wine. Such comparisons always represent an ascending series from the Scripture to the Gemara. To the high authority of the oral law corresponds the fact that its violation is severely punished by the community, and it is also believed that a divine punishment awaits its transgression. The transgression of rabbinical laws is sin. Tosefta to Baba Kamma, c. 8. In Berachoth, 4, it is said: Every one who transgresses the words of the wise is guilty of death. After giving an example of remarkable devotion to tradition, Dr. Weber closes this part of the subject with the remark: "A Jewish saint will rather die than break the words of the wise, the traditional law. In fact, this is considered higher and holier than the simple word of Scripture.” IX. SCRIPTURE PROOF. The thirteen rules. Oral tradition should be susceptible of proof from the written Torah, or, at least, it should be able to lean upon it. The Scripture proof for the tradition accordingly follows, either through a regular derivation of the traditional doctrine from the Scriptures by the application of the thirteen Middoth, that is, hermeneutical principles, or by searching for such words of Scripture as contain at least an allusion to the received opinion. Tradition, as it accompanies Scripture, stands firm already before the biblical proof. The Scripture proof is simply added to it. Even what has no proof from Scripture, or goes beyond it, is valid, if it rests upon rabbinical authority. Hillel appears to have been the first who established rules for the interpretation of Scripture. His six or seven rules were afterward increased to thirteen. But, as these rules have no special interest for us, and we have not space for them, we omit them. The proof through intimation (hints.)—Where, in accordance with these rules of exposition, a derivation of single points of tradition from the Holy Scriptures is not possible, a hint,, or support, nonos, is sought in a text of Scripture for the points once established. Such hints of Scripture are found in the signs, letters, particles, in the position of the words, and in the connection of the sections of Scripture. So far as the thirteen rules of the school are observed in Scripture proof, we can, in a certain way, speak of a regulated, unprejudiced treatment. But now, not only by means of these rules is the halakish (traditional) or haggadish (edifying) matter shown to be in the Scripture, but, in the end, satisfaction was attained by hints which the text seemed to offer, and which, according to our ideas, have no value and are purely arbitrary. Of the methods here indicated we shall cite a few ex. amples in which the value of a word, its Gematria, (yewμɛτpía,) gives important disclosures. From Berachoth, 8a, we learn |