6

the author of the Essay on Theological Education is assailed in those • Strictures,' as a heavenly-looking heretic,' uttering impious sentiments,'—an ‘ adversary to Methodism,' quarrelling with the Disci pline,' and dealing in truisms,' and egregious mistakes.'

·

6

But, in defending the doctrine, however, which is advocated in that Essay against this assailant, I might, perhaps, as well confess, at the outset, that I shall labor under a manifest disadvantage in the view of all such (if any there be,) who may have been influenced by those Strictures to believe, that my views on the necessity of clerical intelligence are, in any respects, exceptionable; for, however heretical' and 'impious' I may be in some of my sentiments,' or however egregious' some of my mistakes' may have been, I cannot feel myself at liberty to deal out these and similar epithets upon any one, who may differ from me in opinion, or however much it might seem to me that such a person deserved them.

The object of the Essay, under notice, is thus expressed on the first and fifth pages:-It was to show the importance of a theological education, an education expressly adapted to the work of preaching the Gospel;' and in applying the subject to the Methodist E. Church, it is stated, page 6, distinctly what is meant by a theological education:It is an education which may, in some sense,' qualify such to preach the Gospel, AS THE M. E. CHURCH BELIEVES THE HOLY SPIRIT CALLS

TO THIS WORK.'

Here the reader will perceive, that in no equivocal language, and upon the very threshold of the subject, the Essay places the call from the Holy Spirit, to the work of preaching the Gospel, before the education for which the author argues in the pages of the Essay which follow!

The Essay commences with referring to the general sense which the great body of the Christian Church has entertained from the earliest ages, that some such education was necessary; and then comes the following inquiry, which fixes and determines the design of what follows:

Why has the M. E. Church never made any provision for qualifying such to preach the Gospel, as she believes the Holy Spirit calls to this work? It is true, that a limited course of study is now generally required of persons on trial in our conferences, after they have entered the ministry; [that is, after they have joined the annual conference ;] but my inquiry is, why no kind of study, either literary or theological, has ever been required, either in the Discipline or general usage of the Methodist Church, as a requisite for persons, [such as are mentioned above, called of the Holy Spirit,] before they commence in the actual service of God's sanctuary?',

And then, to this very paragraph, it is added in a note, that, since this Essay was written, a course of literary and theological study had been specified by two conferences, which all persons must have pursued before they could be admitted on trial in those bodies.' And then again, on a succeeding page, speaking of a society which had been formed in the New Eng. conference for the purpose of aiding suitable persons in obtaining a theological education, lest I might, perhaps, be misunderstood by any one, I remark:- Observe, the object of the above-named society is not to make ministers, but to assist such in preparing for the work of the missionary enterprise, either as preachers or teachers, as God may call to this work.' And in another note, I

add, again, The object of this society is to assist such as God may call into the missionary field in obtaining an education suitable for this work!'

6

Nor is there one paragraph, nor one sentence, nor one word, nor even one letter, nor comma, in that Essay, which, by any consistent rules of interpreting another's language, can be made to mean any thing contrary to the foregoing quotations. Its design was to show, in some small degree, the great importance of intelligence in the Christian ministry, and some of the reasons why every minister of the Gospel should be thoroughly furnished for his work:' it was not written to show what constitutes a call from the Holy Spirit to the work of the ministry, but to exhibit some of the responsibilities which such a call imposes upon all such as are favored with it. Why, the very title of the Essay shows what the subject is upon which it is written it is a theological education-such an education as gives one whom God has called to the work of the ministry a knowledge of his work, and the most appropriate means by which it may be accomplished. To show the importance of such an education, the Essay states, that the Bible and ecclesiastical history unite in the testimony, that, by nearly every Christian Church, which has ever been distinguished by the Divine approbation, such an education has been considered an indispensable prerequisite for persons entering upon the duties of the Christian ministry.' This is the first sentence which I find quoted in the Strictures;' and before David Meredith Reese, M. D., denied it, he should have quoted it correctly. However, he meets me with this very modest argument these broad and unqualified declarations are utterly unauthorized and unfounded! It happens, however, that my statement is not unqualified, as the reader will see by looking at it; and whether it is utterly unauthorized and unfounded or not, we shall see directly.

6

6

6

It is not a little amusing, I confess, to observe with what a peculiar aptness this writer proceeds to say, that the education mentioned above is clearly defined' in the Essay, so that its meaning cannot be misunderstood;' and then to prove, that by such an education the author meant that a person should be made a minister in a "theological seminary," without a call from God;' he skips over six or eight pages of the Essay, and brings forward three sentences from Dr. Porter! concerning which, he says, 'These sentences, some in his own words, and some in the language of another, are here appealed to.' And then, after saying that some of them were my words, and quoting the sentences referred to, he adds, The foregoing extracts are quoted from the Rev. Dr. Porter!' But it seems that D. M. Reese, M. D., was so zealous' to defend something, or to say something against the egregious mistakes' of another, that he forgot to correct his own. And this is the way in which the writer begins his Strictures' on my Essay! He first quotes a sentence from it incorrectly, which he denies, without offering one word in evidence of his assertions! Then he quotes and transposes three sentences from Dr. Porter, and, referring them to the author of the Essay, says, Some of them are in his own words!' And thus, it is proved, that the education contended for in the Essay is none other than a plea for " theological seminaries!" But is there a sentence in that Essay which goes to say, that ' an

6

6

6

education expressly adapted to the work of preaching the Gospel' cannot be obtained without a theological seminary? Not a word of it! The Essay contends for intelligence in the Gospel ministry, that those whom God calls to the work of preaching the Gospel should be, according to God's direction, thoroughly furnished' for this work. But how this 'thorough furnishing' can be best obtained is another question altogether; and one which is not discussed in that Essay! Hence the very first inquiry made in the Essay is in the following words :- But how can one teach what he himself has never learned? How can any one learn without study? And how can any one study to any good purpose, without having the necessary means and time at his command?' And the whole drift of the Essay, from the first to the last, was to show, that persons, called of God to preach in the M. E. Church, should have the necessary means and time for study, before they are admitted on trial into our conferences; for this most obvious reason, that they cannot so well have them afterward.

Now, reader, how do you suppose the author of the Strictures proves that I have committed an egregious mistake,' in saying that the great proportion of the Church of God, from the earliest ages, have not differed, materially, either among themselves, or from the Mohammedans, Jews, and even the heathen, as to their sense of the importance of knowledge, in all persons previously to their becoming ministers of religion?' This statement, you will have observed, does not say, nor is said any where in the Essay, that all religious teachers, among the Mohammedans, Jews, and heathens, or even among Christians, have had the knowledge here spoken of; but all have, in some way or other, manifested their sense of its importance.

But this statement, David M. Reese, M. D., meets with a sneer, and brands it with falsehood, as utterly unauthorized and unfounded!' Το prove this statement, I referred to the Bible, and quoted the chapter and verse; but the author of the Strictures says, I shall waive this reference!' I quoted an extract from Dr. Goodwin and Richard Watson to prove the truth of this statement; but David M. Reese, M. D., says, This is too puerile to need refutation!' I also referred to ecclesiastical history, to the theological schools established at Alexandria, Cesarea, Antioch, Edessa, and a few other places; I referred to Eusebius, to Clement of Alexandria, to Origen, and others, to prove what I had said; but all these references, says this writer,' are equally irrelevant, as every reader of their history well understands! What a very convenient way this is to convict another of egregious mistakes,' and statements which are utterly untrue!' However, I shall wait till the author of those Strictures' has read the histories and the works above named, before I attempt to offer any more evidence of the truth of what I have said.

6

And here my remarks in reference to those Strictures might have an end, were it not for a few other impious sentiments' and 'high misdemeanors' and egregious mistakes,' preferred against me by this

writer.

1. To show with what fairness he quotes other parts of my Essay, and withal how correctly he represents my meaning, take the following: He,' that is, the author of the Essay, affirms, that John Wesley was made a minister, precisely as the education societies make

66

6

ministers at the present day." Now the reader must observe, that this is quoted from my Essay, by this writer, expressly to prove, that Wesley, in my opinion, was made a minister by education merely, without his being called of God! But my Essay reads thus :- It is true, as Newton says, "None but He who made the world can make a minister." But, then, who will pretend to say how God shall make His ministers? The truth is, God will have His own way of calling and fitting men for the work of the Gospel ministry; nor can there be any reasonable doubt but that He ordinarily does this through the instrumentality of His Church; and it does not alter the case at all, whether suitable persons [that is, such as God calls,] are led into the Gospel field through an education society, or a quarterly or an annual conference. Was not Wesley called of God to preach? and yet he was made a minister in the very same way, both by the Divine and human agencies, precisely as the education societies [and annual conferences] make ministers at the present day.'

Such, reader, is the very language, from which David M. Reese, M. D., attempts to show, that I said that neither the venerable Wesley, nor any of his coadjutors, were really called of God to preach the Gospel! Such is the language of the Essay, from which this writer takes some dozen or fifteen words, to prove that I affirm, that Wesley was made a minister without his being called of God!

6

2. Look at the following extract, also, from the pen of him who sneers at some of the statements in the Essay on Theological Education,' as oracular announcements,' and ' egregious mistakes ;' who so dexterously waives all reference' to the Bible in support of them, as forced' and far-fetched; who deems all reference' to profane and ecclesiastical history as too puerile to need refutation.' This writer

6

says,

6

6.6

6

Indeed, the superior learning and extraordinary qualifications" of both the teachers and students of scholastic divinity, in any of the ancient or modern schools, have never been rendered a blessing to the Church, nor have any of them been distinguished for ministerial success or usefulness in the Church of God.' This is an oracular announcement,' surely, with a witness! And before the writer stops to take breath, he adds :—' It is a well-authenticated fact, that these very persons'-observe, these very persons whom he acknowledges have had superior learning and extraordinary qualifications'-' have been the greatest drones in the Gospel ministry, idlers in the vineyard, useless cumberers of the ground, who ever afflicted and cursed the Church.'

But does not this writer affect to make us believe, throughout his 'Strictures,' that whoever has the call from the Holy Spirit, or, in other words, the extraordinary qualifications of a minister of the Gospel, will be more or less useful? And does he not repeat it over and over again, that the author of the Essay denies the extraordinary call and qualifications which all true ministers have? And yet he here, with one dash of his pen, utterly disfranchises thousands of such, whom he himself afterward acknowledges God has called, both from modern and ancient schools! Really this exceeds the story of the two vipers, which, in a violent contest, swallowed each other entire, so that nothing was left of either!

3. David M. Reese, M. D., says, that, in the minutes of one of Wesley's earliest conferences, we have the following explicit declaration of his views on the subject of the call and qualifications for the ministry,' and which has been incorporated unchanged into our own book of Discipline.' (See Dis. ch. i, sec. 10.) In this statement, however, there are two errors; but, whether they are impious,' or 'egregious,' or 'heretical,' I leave the reader to judge. The writer says, the views of Wesley and our Church are given in the rule to which he refers on the call and qualifications for the ministry; but there is not one word in this rule concerning the qualifications for the ministry. The rule lays down the evidences by which we are to judge of a person's call to the work, not of his qualifications; and David M. Reese admits, that some are called who are not qualified, as we shall see in the sequel. But why is not this rule quoted correctly, in these Strictures? As it comes from the pen of this writer, it neither agrees with the Discipline, nor Wesley's minutes.

6

6

6

6

4. The writer of these Strictures prefers one of his charges, it seems, against the lamented Richard Watson; and, according to his showing, this eminent servant of God was guilty of an egregious mistake,' also, if not of an impious sentiment,' in saying, that it appeared from some extracts which he quoted from the unpublished minutes of Wesley, that the venerable founder of Methodism had fully made up his mind, at one time, to establish what he called a "seminary for laborers.” * I referred to this fact simply to show the deep sense which Wesley always felt of the necessity of intelligence in the ministry, and that neither he nor any of his coadjutors were ever prejudiced, in any degree, against a theological education;' and, as farther evidence of this fact, I referred also to the Wesleyan Theological Institution' which has recently been established by the Wesleyan Methodists in England. I observed, A writer in the Wesleyan Meth. Mag. for May last, speaking on this subject, says: "The most prominent feature of the proposed institution, and that which forces itself upon the attention, is, that, so far from its involving any thing new in Methodism, which might endanger its great first principles, the design itself is decidedly Wesleyan. By an extract from the unpublished minutes of conference, quoted by Mr. Watson, it appears to be clearly proved, that Mr. Wesley had, on one occasion, fully made up his mind to establish what he termed a "seminary for laborers ;" and that his design failed to be carried into effect, simply because it appeared at that time impracticable to find a tutor competent to conduct such an establishThis statement from the Wesleyan Mag. David M. Reese, M. D., flatly denies; and says-'I maintain, that the idea of theological seminaries is something new in Methodism, and that it is an innovation upon the original plan of Mr. Wesley! But which the reader will believe, whether the author of those Strictures, or Richard Watson and the Wesleyan Meth. Mag., it is not necessary for me to stop here to inquire.

ment."

6

66

• With respect to Mr. Wesley's" seminary for laborers," it will not be pretended,' says this writer, that, had it been established, it would have borne any the least resemblance to a theological seminary," such as that contended for in the Essay.' But the Essay does not contend for a theological seminary of any kind; the Essay contends

1