6

for intelligence in the Christian ministry, for an education expressly adapted to the work of preaching the Gospel;' and all that is said in the Essay concerning theological seminaries is said incidentally, and by way of illustrating the main object of the writer; and, as an evidence of this, it may be mentioned that the extract from the Wesleyan Mag., and the one from Dr. Porter, were incorporated into the Essay more than three months after it was written. And yet David M. Reese, M. D., seizes on three mangled sentences from the language of Dr. Porter to prove that the whole Essay is none other than a plea for theological seminaries;' and the remarks of Dr. Porter, from which I quoted, were never designed as a plea for seminaries,' particularly, of any kind, but they were written on the cultivation of spiritual habits, and progress in study!'

6

6

5. It is really ludicrous to observe how this writer argues about educating men for the ministry, and in the ministry.' What the Essay means by educating men for the work of the Christian ministry has already been shown; it is the affording such as the Church believes the Holy Spirit calls to this work the necessary means and time for study.' The knowledge which all such ought to have of the nature of their calling, and of the Holy Scriptures, I still say, in my opinion, is indispensable; and Wesley himself says this. He declares, in no very obscure language, that no one can take one right step without it ;' that without this knowledge' there can be no hope that one will discharge his office well,' or 'acquit himself faithfully of his trust.'

6

6

But this writer finally admits, that men may be educated in the ministry;' he admits that the Wesleyan Methodists have now a seminary for educating men in the ministry;' and he farther admits, that, possibly, it may be well for the Methodists in this country to do something by and by' for the purpose of educating young men,' not for the ministry, but in it.' Very well; and when young men are educated in the ministry, pray, what will they be educated for? What will be the motive in giving them an education? Will it be to fit them for the work of the ministry, or for something else? O,' says the writer of the Strictures, their education, in this case, will follow their call to the ministry, and not precede it; their education, in this case, will not be substituted for a call from the Holy Spirit.' Very good; but who ever supposed that an education should be considered as a call from God? Not the author of that Essay. I never said this, nor any thing which could be honestly made to imply it! Never! But I will allow this writer all the credit that he could desire for his brief Strictures,' which, by the way, however, are longer than the Essay upon which they are written,-while he argues in this way against an education for the ministry, possibly, he did dream that such Strictures' from his pen would be deemed 'too puerile to need refutation!'

6. In the Essay it is stated, that a person's being moved by the Holy Ghost to call sinners to repentance, does not qualify him, in every sense of the word, for the most successful performance of this work.' For this statement, however, the writer of the Strictures manifests no sort of fellowship. Hence he says, If this sentence means to recognize a Divine call to the ministry at all, it would leave us to infer, that he who is thus moved, is to understand himself to be called of God to preach, not now, but by and by.' Then David M. Reese believes,

when one is called of God to preach, that call qualifies him, in every sense of the word, for this work! So much to the credit of zeal for the Church!'

Now, compare the above with another part of these Strictures, where it is said, 'If any of our conferences had a list of junior preachers in reserve, for whom there was no field of labor,' they should be put upon 'a course of study!' Alas! what will not a man say out of zeal' against heretics' and theological seminaries! What! does this writer suppose, as he tells us here, that God calls men to preach for whom there are no fields of labor?' Must such as are qualified, in every sense of the word,' to preach the Gospel, by their call to the work, wait for a field of labor, when more than two thirds of the world are destitute of the Gospel.

6

6

And look, again, at the following:-If any of our junior preachers who apply unsuccessfully for admission into the itinerancy, because there are no circuits or stations, should go, as they ought to do, to any of our seminaries or colleges for the improvement of their minds in literature and theology, would not the Church sustain them, and rejoice in it? No! Never! Never! God forbid, that the Church should ever undertake to improve the minds of such as are already qualified to preach the Gospel, in every sense of the word,' by sending them to a seminary or college! And, beside, how could our young men be taught the knowledge of theology in any of our seminaries or colleges, which are purely literary? For, says this very writer, if any one of our infant colleges were known to be not purely literary, or suspected of deteriorating into a theological school, it would be impossible to avert from it swift and certain destruction; for it would be utterly abandoned by the Church.' And but a little before he tells us, nevertheless, that, if some of our junior preachers were to go, as they ought to do,' in certain cases, to our purely literary seminaries, to be taught a knowledge of theology, the Church would sustain them, and rejoice in it!' Such, reader, is the reasoning of one, who charges another with uttering truisms,' and egregious mistakes.'

6

7. The following sentence from the Essay is quoted by this writer, and from which he labors hard to distort it into slander against the Methodist E. Church:- Why has our Church never made any provision for qualifying such to preach the Gospel as she believes the Holy Ghost calls to this work? Now, here the reader will perceive, my own words are quoted by this writer, in which it is distinctly affirmed that the education on which the Essay is written was designed, not as a substitute for a call to the ministry, but for the farther qualification of such as the Church believes the Holy Spirit calls to this work!' How, then, I might ask, in the exercise of common honesty, could any one take the Essay, which was written upon this very question, and quote these words, and at the same time attempt to wrest a meaning from them which they never were intended to convey! Nay; a meaning which they cannot be made to convey, without doing violence to all consistent rules of interpretation!

I need not here stop to show that our Church never has made any such provision as is here spoken of, in opposition to the assertions of this writer. This is fully and sufficiently done by the editor, in a previous number of this Magazine; but I believe, that every reader of

this work will say, that I am called upon to justify myself against the 'high misdemeanor' which is here laid to my charge.

The paragraph in my Essay, which contains the libellous' sentence, reads thus: Now it is very true, that the history of the M. E. Church, as well as the history of the Wesleyan Methodists in England, will show, that the Methodists as a people, have never been so very indifferent in the cause of general literature and education, as many have imagined. The schools established in the British connection, as well as the fourteen seminaries and six colleges, established by them in the United States, will show this; and never, perhaps, was the prospect brighter for the cause of education among us, as a people, than it is at the present day. But has the M. E. Church any usage or practice, in any department of her membership, from which one might be led to infer that an education of any kind is indispensably necessary, before one can be licensed as a preacher of the Gospel?' And to show, what I supposed might be considered one probable reason, why no provision had been made by this Church for affording a suitable education to such as she believes the Holy Ghost calls to the work of the Gospel ministry, and, consequently, one reason why we have no rule in our Discipline for the usage or practice above noticed, I said :-' No satisfactory answer to this inquiry can be given from the fact, that the Methodist Church, from the first, has not produced some of the most eminent men for science and theological learning. This the world knows, or ought to know, she has done. And, by the way, perhaps this very fact may be one considerable reason why the Methodists, as a Church, have never felt more than they have the importance of some kind of a theological education, in all such as seek her approbation as ministers of the Gospel. We know, that a few have struggled into the lights of science and education, without the direction or any kind of assistance from the Church; and so we have unconsciously imbibed the idea, that nothing is either due, or ought to be expected from the Church;' and hence we have no rule in our Discipline which makes education of any kind a preliminary to one's being licensed to preach the Gospel, and go out into the world, in the awful and responsible office of a public teacher of Christian theology.'

Now, gentle reader, it is concerning the self-same language, which you have just read, and the views therein expressed, that David M. Reese exclaims-'What a picture is here drawn of our Church and ministry, by this junior preacher! We marvel that he was not conscious of the gross injustice he has thus done to his own Church, and to his senior brethren!' Alas! for the author of that fugitive Essay ! How could he be so stupid as not to perceive the gross injustice he was doing the M. E. Church, when he declares, that the history of the Methodists in both hemispheres will show, that they have never been indifferent in the cause of general literature and education! what a picture he gives of our ministry, when he declares, that some ⚫ of them have been the most eminent for their attainments in science

6

And

and theological learning! How 'libellous!' 'Here then,' says the author of these Strictures, here then, we take occasion to say, that this VHOLE REPRESENTATION is as unjust as it is unkind!' And then he begins a tedious course of reasoning to show, that there is a rule some where in the Discipline which requires an education in persons, before they can be licensed to preach!

'Such are the clouds which intercept the light,
Hang o'er the eyes, and blunt the moral sight!'

But suppose I were to allow, that the rule to which this writer refers, and which says that one must have 'gifts' before the Church will believe that he is called of God to preach; suppose, for argument's sake, I were to allow, that these 'gifts' meant, as this writer contends, an education of some kind;' and that those who possess them must have 'read, at least, one book,' and acquired a knowledge of the first principles' of English grammar? Why, it would follow from this, that an education' must precede a person's call to preach the Gospel; and it does undeniably follow this writer's showing in this place; and this, too, in direct contradiction of the whole drift of his Strictures, that by this rule of Discipline, the Holy Ghost calls no one to the work of the ministry who has not some kind of an education;' because it is of the evidence of a person's call, alone, that the rule speaks in the Discipline! So this writer, in his great zeal for the Church' and against 'heretics,' has arrived at this conclusion, that an education of some kind,' according to Discipline, must precede a person's call from the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel! Hence, he says, Will the writer of the Essay pretend, that these "gifts" will appear in those who have never read "a single book," not even the Bible, nor acquired a "knowledge of the very first principles of their vernacular tongue ?" And yet these are the very "gifts," by which we are to try every candidate for license to preach, if we are governed by our Discipline.' Here, then, we have David M. Reese's comment on the rule of Discipline by which we are to try those who think they are moved by the Holy Ghost to preach.' The Discipline says, that all who are called of God to preach have certain 'gifts.' This means, says David M. Reese, that they should, among other things, know how to read in the Bible,' at least, and that they should have some knowledge of the first principles of their vernacular tongue!' Really, I believe, the reader will not find heresy' in the Essay on Theological Education' equal to this! The doctrine of the Essay is, that the call from the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel, makes it one's duty to obtain an education, or such knowledge as is expressly adapted to the work of preaching the Gospel,' and without which, Wesley says, 'no preacher can take one step aright.' But, in these Strictures, David M. Reese attempts to force upon the Essay a meaning which, he thinks, is heretical,' ‹ impious, anti-Christian,' and anti-Methodistical;' and, in his 'zeal' to do this, he finally arrives at this very singular conclusion-viz. That an ability to read, and some knowledge of English grammar, is an ⚫ indispensable pre-requisite' to a person's being called of God to preach the Gospel! Now, whether there be any thing heretical in fact and in form,' or whether there be any thing' impious,' 'anti-Christian,' and "anti-Methodistical,' in all this, let the reader judge.

6

And here, I will take occasion to say, that I do not recollect of ever having read any thing from the pen of one who made any pretensions to intelligence of any kind, which, to my mind, contained so many palpable contradictions, so many evident discrepancies with itself, so much perversion of another's language, and so much unfair reasoning, as I find in these Strictures. With the author's motives in writing them, I have nothing to do; but with his language, his arguments, his manner

of reasoning, I have something to do. When a member of the Methodist E. Church, and one, too, bearing her authority as a public teacher of religion, lays to my charge, as this writer has done, the crime of ⚫ heresy in fact and form,' and accuses me of 'inveighing against the Discipline' of the Church of my choice,' uttering inexcusable and egregious mistakes,' and 'impious sentiments,' it seems to me, that with an article containing such charges as these, I have something to do. Fatetur facinus is qui judicium fugit. Surely, if another does the mischief, it is not for me to bear the blame.

8. Another assertion to be noticed in these Strictures is in the following words: Methodism, from the beginning, has denied the doctrine of this Essay, that a literary or theological education is an "indispensable pre-requisite," or an essential qualification, in any aspect. This is apparent from the writings of Wesley, Fletcher, Clarke, and Watson; and with equal pertinacity and uniformity in our own country, by Asbury, Cooper, Bangs, and Emory-all of whom have expressed themselves unequivocally upon this subject.' Now, does the reader fail to see, how flatly the above contradicts what this writer has said before in his explanation of the word 'gifts,' in the rule of Discipline? There he says a person must have so much of an education of some kind, as to be able to read,' and understand the first principles of his vernacular tongue,' before he can be licensed to preach according to the Discipline; but here, he says, that no kind of an education is necessary or essential, in any aspect! And, to support himself in this contradictory position, he appeals to the writings of both the living and the dead!

6

It was certainly a felicitous circumstance, that Wesley's Appeal to the Clergy' was placed in juxtaposition with the Strictures, which contained such a reflection on the character of that venerable man. A more clear, Christian-like, and ample refutation, of such an unjust imputation, so far as Wesley and Methodism are concerned, could not be desired. And was it in that Appeal' that Wesley said, that neither 'a literary nor theological education' was even an essential qualification, for a minister of the Gospel, in any aspect? Was it when he said: As to acquired endowments, can he take one step aright, without a competent share of knowledge?-a knowledge first of his own office of the high trust in which he stands-the important work to which he is called? Is there any hope that a man should discharge his office well, if he knows not what it is?'

Was it when he said::-'No less necessary is a knowledge of the Scriptures, which teach us how to teach others? Ought he not to know the literal meaning of every word, verse, and chapter; without which there can be no firm foundation on which the spiritual meaning can be built? Has he such a knowledge of Scripture, as becomes him who undertakes to explain it to others? Has he a full and clear view of the analogy of faith, which is a clue to guide him through the whole? Is he acquainted with the several parts of Scripture, with all parts of the Old Testament, and the New? Does he know the grammatical construction of the four Gospels-of the Acts-of the Epistles? and is he a master of the spiritual sense, as well as the literal, of what he reads? Does he understand the scope of each book, and how every part of it tends thereto? Has he the skill to draw the natural infer