ences deducible from each text? Does he know the objections raised to them, or from them, by Jews, Deists, Papists, Socinians, and all other sectaries, who more or less corrupt or cauponise the word of God? Is he ready to give a satisfactory answer to each of these objections? And has he learned to apply every part of the sacred writings, as the various states of his hearers require? And as to his intention, both in undertaking this important office, and in executing every part of it, ought it not to be singly this, to glorify God, and to save souls from death? Is not this absolutely and indispensably necessary, before all, and above all things?'

Was it in such language as this, reader, that the pious, learned, venerable, and ever-to-be-remembered Wesley, declared unequivocally,' as this writer says, that no education, or knowledge, either literary or theological, was an essential qualification' for a person entering upon the duties of the Christian ministry, in any aspect.'

Again: Dr. Clarke is here appealed to, and made to say, that no education, either literary or theological, is essential' for candidates for the Gospel ministry, in any aspect.' But when did Dr. Clarke utter such a sentiment? Was it in 1806? when he said,- We want some kind of seminary for educating such workmen as need not be ashamed. I introduced a conversation on the subject this morning; and the preachers were unanimously of the opinion, that some strong efforts should be made, without delay, to get such a place established. Every circuit cries out, "Send us acceptable preachers." How can we do this? We are obliged to take what offers. The time is coming, and now is, when illiterate piety can do no more for the interest and permanency of the work of God, than lettered irreligion did formerly. Speak, O speak speedily, to all our friends! Let us get a plan organized without delay!'

This extract from Dr. Clarke, I gave before in the Essay under notice, not as a plea,' however, for theological seminaries,' particu larly, but as an argument which I supposed would have some weight in favor of a theological education; and little did I suspect, that any Methodist could be found in this country who would take occasion to say, with this extract before his eyes, that its venerable and learned author declared unequivocally' that neither a literary or theological education was an essential qualification in any aspect,' for a person entering upon the duties of the Christian ministry! Nor does it cover up the error committed in this assertion for the writer to add, that each of the persons whom he enumerates consider human learning as a secondary qualification-an auxiliary, truly desirable in the work of the ministry. Nay, it makes the former statement more inconsistent still; for, if they did not consider either literary or theological learning an essential qualification, in any aspect,' for persons just entering upon the responsible duties of the ministry, how could they consider human learning merely an auxiliary truly desirable,' afterward, when such persons had already entered into the actual service of the ministry? Does one that is young and inexperienced need less learning, less qualifications, when commencing in this work, than when he has been actually engaged in it fifteen or twenty years?

To any one who has attentively read the Christian Advocate and Journal, for a few years past, as well as the previous numbers of the VOL. VI.-April, 1835. 19

6

Methodist Magazine, and the very last number of the Meth. Mag. and Quarterly Review, it will easily appear how very unfortunate this writer was, in referring to Dr. Bangs and others, as a justification of his assertion. Who has forgotten the 'Letters' of Dr. Bangs to young ministers, and which were published years ago? And how could one speak more explicitly than this venerable servant of the Church does, in the very last number of this Review, upon this subject? Nor can I omit this opportunity of saying, that I shall always bear in my soul a most grateful recollection of the early, and, I may add, the successful efforts of Dr. Nathan Bangs to advance the cause of education and intelligence in the ministry of our Church.

6

And I might quote also from a number of articles, which have appeared in our different periodicals, bearing the signature of Dr. Emory, which would abundantly show that he also has had, for years, the same objects in view; and that it never was his intention, as this writer says, to be understood as saying, that no kind of learning, either literary or theological, is an essential qualification, in any aspect,' for persons commencing in the work of the Gospel ministry.' And this I would do, for his sake, and for the sake of the cause of Methodism, if I had the least suspicion that the statement upon which I have been remarking was believed by any one.

6

9. From what has already been said, the reader will now perceive with what propriety this writer uses the following language:- Let no one then, believe, from this Essay, that our Church fosters ignorance in her ministry, or that we are unmindful of the value of learning.' See what is said above, 7, where these Strictures accuse the author of the Essay of gross injustice' for having said, no provision had been made by the M. E. Church for the education of such as she believes the Holy Spirit calls to the work of the ministry;' though at the same time the Essay declares distinctly, that the Methodists, as a people, had never been indifferent in the cause of general literature and education! And that many of her ministers have been the most eminent for their attainments in science and theological learning.' Yet in criticising this very language, David M. Reese says, this was gross injustice, and this whole representation is as unjust as it is unkind!' And now, to complete the climax, he cautions the world against supposing, from the Essay which contains such language, that the Methodists are unmindful of the value of learning!'

6

10. Again: look at this: We hold no fellowship with the doctrine, that when called of God to the work' of the ministry, any 'are to excuse themselves from immediate obedience, until they shall have gone through a course of study in a theological seminary.' Now compare this with another place in these Strictures, where the author says, 'If any of our conferences had a list of junior preachers, for whom there were no fields of labor, like some on the list of reserve in England, they might be sent to some of our colleges, and the Church would sustain them in it!'

A few more remarks on these singular Strictures and I shall have done.

This writer accuses the Essay with saying, that God has altered the economy of his grace, by which men are called to the work of the Christian ministry! And how do you suppose he attempts to fix this

charge upon a Christian brother? Why, by quoting a part of a paragraph, where I make a comparison between the ministers generally, in the days of Wesley, and the ministers of the present age! These are my words, and those which this writer left out of his quotation for the purpose of changing the sense are here italicised, that the reader may the better distinguish them :—

'But there is scarcely any perceptible similarity between the age in which we live now, and that in which Wesley lived; as little, indeed, as there is to be seen between the manner of God's calling men into the ministry then, and the manner of his doing this now. The regu lar and ordinary ministers of Wesley's day were generally backslidden, or such as never possessed the life and power of godliness; and the same remarks will apply to the days of Christ. Hence, God called men in an extraordinary way, to do the work which others had left undone. But it is not true, now, that the great proportion of ministers in this country, who believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and who have come into the ministry in the ordinary way, are destitute, as many of their predecessors have been, of the unction of the Holy Ghost. This is not the fact.'

Now, why did this writer so cautiously leave out the words I have marked in this paragraph; dismember a sentence, and wring out of it a sense which he must have known the writer never designed? Is this the way to prove a man 'guilty, both in fact and form, of heresy ?'

6

And what is the plain, unsophisticated meaning of the above language? Why, simply this; that there are many more ministers in the Protestant Episcopal Churches, and among the Presbyterians and Congregationalists of the present day, who have been called of God, and anointed of the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel, than there were in the days of Wesley. And I am exceedingly sorry to find that any one, who claims relationship with the great Methodist family, should, in any way, deny this; and much more so, when I find such a one setting down the whole of these ministers, almost without discrimination, as the greatest drones, idlers, in the ministry,-who have never been made a blessing to the Church;' and 'useless encumberers of the ground, who glory in their theological training instead of the cross of Christ.' I repeat it, I am pained to find such assertions made by any professed lover of Methodism, and I pity any one who could allow himself to write in this way. But as these remarks were not commenced with the design of noticing every thing in those Strictures deemed incorrect, or as the editor himself has judged them, ' uncalled for,' and unjustifiably severe;' I think it is not necessary longer to tax the reader's patience; and with a word concerning the opposition which this writer informs us is felt by some of our people against education and intelligence, I will add no more. He says: 'There

may be found individual members of our Church, who really think it a sin for a preacher to look into a dictionary or English grammar, and who would lose all faith in a minister who used a Greek Testament, especially if he were college bred.' There may be,' but are there any such in the M. E. Church? Now, if there be such persons in our Church, who think it a sin for a preacher to be properly informed and intelligent, how came they by such views? Did they re

6

ceive them from Essays' written and published by our preachers' on theological education? Did they receive them from any efforts which have been made by our preachers or people to advance the cause of education and general literature among ourselves or elsewhere? Are these views the legitimate fruits of Methodism? NO! These singular views, with which it would seem this writer is acquainted, never were derived from the Discipline of our Church, which makes it the duty of every Methodist preacher to preach expressly on the subject of educa tion; they were never derived from the teachings of Wesley, nor from the prudent teachings of any of his real followers; nor from any of our books or periodicals. Whence, then, did these singular views originate? It is a remarkable fact, that the preachers of the M. E. Church, as a body, have done more by their own contributions and personal exertions, to advance the cause of education, for fifty years past, (every thing else considered,) than the same number of preachers in any other Church in this country! And yet there are some of our people who think it a sin' for a public teacher of religion to look into a dictionary, or an English grammar, or to read in a Greek Testament;' and who would loose all faith in one who had been college bred! This is mortifying surely; and hence this inquiry becomes so much the more important: What has been the cause of such views among our people? I will not believe that any Methodist preacher either entertained such views himself, or that any one ever designedly

communicated such views to others. But have none of us ever written or spoken against a 'theological education,' in such a way that we may have been understood to be speaking or writing against being college bred?' Have none of us ever done any thing which looked like opposition to learning and education? Who among us has ever said that the superior learning and extraordinary qualifications of both teachers and students of scholastic divinity, in all schools, both ancient and modern, have never been rendered a blessing to the Church of God? Who among us has said, and proclaimed it in one of our standard periodicals, as a 'well-authenticated fact, that the greatest drones in the Gospel ministry, idlers in the vineyard, and useless cumberers of the ground, who now afflict and curse the Church, are among those who have an education,' and who, of course, look into a dictionary, and read also in the Greek Testament, and have been college bred? Who, among us shouts an alarm at a feeble and 'puerile' attempt to advance the cause of education among the junior preachers' of our Church? Who has denounced an Essay,' written and published for this purpose, and one too, as 'puerile' and feeble as it confessedly was, which had been approbated by some of the most pious and intelligent men in this Church? And who, in his zeal to do this, has said, I choose to incur the hazard of being excluded from the company of the most enlightened, pious, and useful members of the Church! Who has classed the author of an Essay,' simply designed to promote the cause of education and intelligence among such as are entering upon duties of the Christian ministry,' with the adversaries of Methodism ;' as forming a league with our enemies,' and guilty of heresy in fact and form,' uttering doctrines which are 'anti-Methodistical' and 'antiChristian? Who has denounced such an attempt as a dangerous and ruinous innovation ?'

6

the

Innocent, indeed, he may have been, and his motives as pure as an angel's in heaven; he may have succeeded to his heart's content, in convincing his readers that he has said all this, and much more like it, out of a 'conscientious regard for the Church of his choice ;' but surely, he need not marvel, nor need he be at the pains to tell others of the fact, that he has some in his congregation of hearers, and in the company of his acquaintance, who really think it a sin for a preacher to look into a dictionary or English grammar, and who lose all faith in one who has been college bred!'

February 20, 1835.

LA ROY SUNDERLAND.

AN EXEGESIS OF HEB. VI, 4-6.

BY THE REV. GEORGE PECK.

Heb. vi, 4-6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. and have fallen away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.' (Wesley's Translation.)

'For IT is impossible to renew again, by repentance, those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age which was to come, and yet have fallen away; crucifying again in them. selves, and making a public example (for this translation of rapadayμateŠovtas, see Matt. i, 19,) of the Son of God.' (Dr. Macknight's Translation.)

For it is impossible that they who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the influences of the world to come, and have fallen away, should be again renewed to repentance; since they have crucified for themselves the Son of God, and openly exposed Him to shame.' (Professor Stuart's Translation.)

THIS passage has been variously interpreted, according to the theological notions of critics and commentators. By divines of the Arminian school, it has commonly been considered as unequivocally asserting the possibility and danger of falling finally from a state of grace. By Calvinistic interpreters a variety of constructions has been put upon it, to make it harmonize with their doctrine of the infallible and unconditional perseverance of all those who are brought into a gracious state.

Some of these critics maintain, that all the high attainments set forth in the passage.come short of a real state of grace; only implying such an illumination, and such gifts and endowments, as may be possessed, without genuine love to God. Others, that, though a genuine state of grace may be set forth, yet the impossibility of renewal to repentance is not to be understood of an absolute impossibility, but as only expressive of the extreme difficulty of the case. Others, that it is only impossible with men; or that it would be impossible for the apostles to renew them, but that still God might and would do it. Others, with Beza, resort to a bare-faced interpretation, inserting the particle ifIf they shall fall away.' These are followed by the translators of our present authorized version. But the last construction we shall notice