One of the less encouraging consequences deriving from the revival of traditional modes of theology and church life has been the shadow which has fallen over the great historian-theologians of the nineteenth century. It is said that we have superseded the work of these men. This is no doubt true, but it is not at all clear in what sense we have superseded them, or what the world “supersede” might mean in this judgement. To be sure, the student who turns to these nineteenth century figures today finds that their historical judgements are frequently unreliable by current standards (but less so than we might wish!), and that their biases sometimes narrow their historical vision to an almost intolerable extent. But he also finds in their work a seriousness and an earnestness which did not flinch from the great problems which arise when the Christian faith is subjected to historical science. The student finds that most of the issues which they raised are still relevant, mostly still unsolved.

In view of the rancor and vehemence which characterize much of the patristic condemnation of Epicureanism, it seems remarkably incongruous that there should be in the Fathers any expressions of approval at all for the philosophy of the Garden. Nevertheless, such expressions do occur and with reference to all three divisions of Epicurus's system, canonic, physics, and ethics. No doubt the best explanation for this apparent inconsistency of attitude is suggested by Clement's definition of philosophy and the tolerance that it implies: “By philosophy I do not mean the Stoic nor the Platonic, or the Epicurean and Aristotelian, but everything that has been well said by each of the schools and that teaches righteousness along with science marked by reverence; this eclectic whole I call philosophy” (Strom., i. 7. 732CD).

I should first like to refer to some documents which I found during my research this summer in the Propaganda Archives in Rome. Then, I should like to show how they help towards a better understanding of the very complicated historical relation between Church and State in Ireland in the nineteenth century. The first of these documents is a series of three letters from an Irish priest to his agent in Rome in January, 1823, concerning the impending appointment of a new Archbishop to the See of Cashel. The second is a long letter from the Bishop of Elphin to the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda, in February,1826,protesting the charges leveled against him at Rome by the Augustinians of his diocese. These two men, priest and bishop, peasant and aristocrat, represent the essential faces of the clergy in Ireland in the nineteenth century. More often than not, however, the priest or the bishop was not simply the one or the other, but rather an interestingly complex amalgam of these two representative types. Their letters, then, tell us a great deal not only about the Church in their time, but give us historical insight into the Church of their posterity.

Although dependence upon a literally inspired Bible has been one of the most common beliefs among American Protestants, theological justifications for this doctrine of the Scripture have not been common. Eighteenth century infidelity from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine attacked the possibility of special revelation more than any particular form of revelation. In order to refute these adversaries, the great champions of orthodoxy, such as Timothy Dwight, never found it necessary to become specific about the nature of biblical inspiration. The growing influence of biblical criticism after the Civil War ended this period of Edenic innocence and compelled the churches to theologize about the nature of biblical authority. The results were not unanimous, and the ensuing controversy focused attention as never before upon the doctrine of inspiration. Only one of the conservative defenses of inspiration, the Princeton Theology, will be discussed in this paper, but there are good reasons for considering it the most influential theological support for biblical literalism in the twentieth century. J. Gresham Machen carried the Princeton Theology with him into his new denomination and seminary after 1929, and others in Bible institutes and seminaries not connected with the Presbyterian church have looked up to the Princeton professors as their great teachers and champions. In the Fundamentals series published just before World War I, six articles were devoted to the problem of inspiration, and three of these took much of their argument from the Princeton Theology. The history of the Princeton Theology is not well known nor its importance widely appreciated, but some good monograph and periodical literature has been written.

The story of the founding of Moody Bible Institute serves several purposes. Such a resume fills a gap in our knowledge of an institution that has made important contributions to the life of the city of Chicago and to the shaping of the twentieth century American Protestantism. Any account of the early days of the Institute must also become a case study of the thought and personality of Dwight L. Moody, one of America's most famous revivalists. The record of Moody's struggle to found the school provides us with some underStanding of his social and economic views, offers glimpses of his conception of his role as a leader of evangelical Protestantism, and illuminates several important facets of his personality. All of these subjects merit the attention of the historian.

In today's world the most powerful appeal of any spokesman for the West is to champion liberty against the oppressiveness of a monolithic society and the tyranny of the totalitarian state. The call for freedom appeals to the deepest aspirations of peoples and touches upon the longing of masses of individual human beings. No rellying cry is so effective in creating a durable ethos among the democratic nations and in bringing to their consciousness a sense of those values by which they live or ought to live. No idea is more useful in destroying the image of the West as the self-satisfied defender of the status quo and in dramatizing the authentic revolutionary tradition, for men live by their dreams and visions.

Soon after Pope Leo XIII's pastoral letter on historical studies, Saepenumero considerantes, was published on August 18th, 1883, a renewed interest in the field of Catholic historical research became apparent. Once again, great scholars came forward “to undertake the writing of history for the purpose of showing what is true and genuine” in the drama of international ecclesiastical development.