For the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review.

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION.

[THE following must end this controversy in this periodical, so long as the present editor has it under his control. And we think our readers will perceive in this, as well as in the one to which it is an answer, good reasons for declining the discussion of this question in the columns of the Christian Advocate and Journal.-EDITOR.]

6

MR. EDITOR,-In the communication of Rev. La Roy Sunderland, published in your last number, in vindication of his former Essay on Theological Education,' against the Brief Strictures' which I had made in a previous number of the Magazine, there is so much of personality, that but for the interest I feel in the cause of education and intelligence,' and the righteous zeal against theological seminaries' in the Methodist Episcopal Church, which I rejoice to feel, and which I regard a sacred duty to exhibit on all suitable occasions ;-but for this I should not condescend to notice the author by the present rejoinder. And I feel that even now I shall not be able to measure swords with him in this mode of warfare, nor do I find it in my heart to render railing for railing,' but would rather leave him alone in his glory.' The severities of my Strictures,' of which La Roy Sunderland complains, as every one of our readers knows, were directed only at the sentiments, doctrines, and tendency of the essay of this junior preacher, while to his person or ministerial character I offered no indignity, and to his motives I awarded a measure of approval, and even praise, for which I have been censured by many of the most literary and best educated men in the Church; several of whom have written me in remonstrance against the unjustifiable lenity' with which I treated the author of an essay' so utterly at variance with Methodism and Christianity, as I have attempted to prove this to be. But it is true, notwithstanding my forbearance toward him, which he fails to appreciate, that there are severities in the strictures' against mistakes, and heresies, such as those of which I have convicted the essay, under which none but the galled jade will wince.' Qui capit, ille facit, is the test by which it may be known and read of all men,' whether La Roy Sunderland has or has not 'plead for theological schools' in the ⚫ objectionable sense,' or in any sense and to the readers of the Magazine it will now be apparent, that it is to the TRUTH of my allegations against the essay that I am indebted for the personal sneering at my humble name, and even the professional title I bear, which La Roy Sunderland has introduced with so sickening repetition.

6

It is not a little remarkable how this 'junior preacher,' in a paper on Theological Education,' has contrived to introduce into his first paragraph the very relevant topics of brick bats, prisons, Irishmen, popery;' and last, though not least, anti-slavery! and this fact may serve to indicate the perturbation into which La Roy Sunderland has been thrown by the brick bat thrown at his head' in the shape of my 'brief strictures' on his essay. And any one who has read my paper with common candor will, I am sure, acquit me of having used one single expression which savors of the acrimony and censoriousness

which characterize his reply, or a solitary word of that personality with which he has assailed my humble name. No less than sixteen times does he repeat my name in half as many pages, and sometimes twice or more in the same paragraph, and always with a sneer of sarcasm, as though he thought this an exhibition of that candor' and 'Christian courtesy' which he so highly commends. Had I treated La Roy Sunderland thus in my 'strictures,' he would have had just ground for complaint, and some pretext for retaliation.

But the question between us is not whether La Roy Sunderland or I be the abler controversialist; nor whether theological seminaries' ought or ought not to be appended to our ecclesiastical system;-for this last question is precluded from the Magazine by the decision of its editor; but the question is simply, whether the kind of theological education for which his essay contends, be consistent with Methodism as such, and whether the doctrines of his paper are or are not enforced by unfounded assertions, and heretical or antichristian sentiments. And it is obvious that this question is not to be settled by the enumeration of distinguished names, who heard it read,' either before or after its publication. For although the reference to the respected brethren he names may for the most part be authorized by them all, yet this would only prove that they agreed with him in sentiment, but would prove nothing in relation to the question at issue. It will be necessary however that I should first show that La Roy Sunderland in his 'Essay' upon which my strictures were founded, did 'plead' for theological schools,' which he denies having intended to do.' To settle this question the following extracts from his Essay are submitted to the reader :

After referring to ancient and modern theological schools, he says, 'The Wesleys themselves were trained and educated for this sacred work in the very way of which we have been speaking.' 'They were educated for the ministry, and so also was Fletcher, and Dickenson, and Benson;' and Fletcher himself was once the president of a theological seminary, at the same time he was a Methodist, and in good faith and fellowship with Wesley and his people.' 'Efforts are now in operation for the establishment of a theological seminary in England, by the Wesleyan Methodists of that country.' The idea of theological seminaries among the Methodists is not something new, as many suppose, and their establishment would not be an innovation on the original plan of Wesley.'

The foregoing are a few of the evidences which the Essay' affords that La Roy Sunderland did plead for theological schools,' whether he 'intended' to do so or not. And the reader may judge whether a brick bat was hurled at his head merely for advocating the cause of education and intelligence,' as he pretends.

But as the junior preacher' now distinctly affirms that he did not intend to contend for a theological seminary of any kind,' and that all the foregoing extracts concerning theological seminaries are said

* One of the gentlemen referred to, Rev. President Durbin, as is admitted in the Essay itself, rejected it when offered to him for publication in the Advocate while he was the senior editor of that paper, whether on account of the 'here. sies' it contained, or, as is alleged, because of the question not having been yet opened for discussion in that paper, I have no means of deciding.

incidentally,' and for the mere purpose of illustration,' we need no farther controversy on that subject, but I will only admonish this 'junior preacher,' that when he next writes an essay' on any subject, he had better only say what he intends, and he will have no necessity afterward of announcing that he did not intend what he says. I expressly provided this loop hole for him in my Strictures, when I said, It is no vindication to say that the author did not mean to go so far,it is sufficient for me to prove that his Essay does.'

This retraction of the most objectionable feature of the Essay is accompanied by a number of desultory and incoherent complaints against my Strictures, which call for a passing notice. The following disclaimer of the sentiment that men may be made ministers the same as men are made merchants and mechanics,' is altogether uncalled for, since this italicised sentence, though craftily accompanied with quotation marks, to give the impression that it is my language, is not found in the Strictures.' And yet after pretending to quote it from me, La Roy Sunderland exclaims :

'Such a thought never entered my heart till I found it in the Strictures of D. M. Reese, M. D. I never said this. I never wrote it. I never said nor wrote any thing which by any honest rules of interpreting another's language, could be made to imply this! Never!' Now he certainly never found it' in the Strictures,' for it is not there! Every reader of my paper will see that I charge him with 'depreciating the holy office of the ministry to the standard of a mere secular calling ;' and what is said about a merchant and mechanic,' is in a quotation verbatim et literatim from his Essay. The fairness, candor, and Christian courtesy' of this 'junior preacher' here are only a demonstration of the old truth, that the wicked flee when no man pursueth!' That charge may have been made in some other of the public rebukes which the Methodist press* of this country has given to the author of the Essay, which in his confusion worse confounded,' he dreamed was in the Strictures.'

Again: La Roy Sunderland charges that I hold him responsible for the use he has made of the scissors in the consecutive extract of five octavo pages which he has made from Dr. Porter, and hence charges me with a mistake.' The correction of this 'mistake' is easy, as every reader knows; for after three sentences from Dr. Porter, which the author of the Essay now objects to acknowledge, I give the following, in his own words, as a proof that he goes the whole with Dr. P. : These are just such views as I would to God were engraven upon the heart of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church.' Are these his own words, or the words of another? Where then is the 'mistake?'

But if La Roy Sunderland is seeking for mistakes,' he may find them at home in abundance. For example, he says that in proof of one of his positions he referred to the Bible, and quoted chapter and verse, and that' I waive all reference' to the Bible, which every reader knows is untrue, since this expression is used in reference to the

By a correspondent in the Western Christian Advocate, as well as in the Western Methodist, the Pittsburgh Conference Journal, and the Methodist Christian Sentinel, La Roy Sunderland may see how his 'Essay' and my 'Strictures' are estimated.

forced analogy he attempts between the schools of the prophets and theological seminaries,' and not to the Bible. And again, it is to this same unauthorized analogy I refer, when I say it is too puerile to need refutation,' and not of Dr. Goodwin and Richard Watson,' as he alleges. But these are only examples of his honest rules of interpreting another's language.' The taunting sneer of the author, in professing to wait till I have read ecclesiastical history and the works' he names, entitles him only to my contempt.

6

Once more: La Roy Sunderland complains that I attempt to show that he said that Wesley was not called of God to preach. I made no attempt of this kind, unless quoting his own words does so. I proved that if Mr. Wesley was made a minister in the very way precisely in which education societies make ministers,' that he was not a minister after the conclusion of the process for several years, in his own estimation, nor had there, until then, been any Divine agency' in the case. This every reader fully understands, and I forbear to repeat the evidence which he so ingeniously evades.

But one more example of the honest interpretation' and candor of La Roy Sunderland is found in his taking an extract from the fourth page of my Strictures,' on the subject of the scholastic divinity of ancient and modern schools,' such as those he names, and a pretended quotation from the fifth page, in which I say of men-made ministers' whom I describe, that among those who glory in their theological training, instead of the cross of Christ,' there are found idlers and drones, who are a curse to the Church, &c. Now, between these two sentences there is no more proximity or connection, locally or sentimentally, than there is between his essay and mine, and yet La Roy Sunderland places the one before the other, with the declaration that the latter is written before the writer stops to take breath,' and what is an act still worse than this deception itself, his quotation is false.— I give it as he falsely quotes it.

These very persons'-observe, these very persons whom he acknowledges have had inferior learning and extraordinary qualifications'have been drones, &c.' Now the words italicised are not in the Strictures, and any reader will perceive that the commentary inserted in his ellipsis is therefore utterly unfounded. Those of whom I pronounce this judgment are described in the following words, immediately preceding the sentence which he perverts and garbles :'Young men who are unfit for any and every other occupation, or have fallen through in some more appropriate vocation, have been "trained" for the ministry, and having acquired the "indispensable prerequisite," have been proclaimed as competent ministers, to the exclusion of their less learned, but more evangelical brethren; and Christian Churches in our land by hundreds are now groaning under the burden of these men-made ministers,' &c. These are the persons of whom the opinion is expressed which is most cruelly appropriated to men of superior learning and extraordinary qualifications,' by the dismembering above mentioned, and I blush for the author of so heinous an offence, for which I have no name sufficiently abhorrent. As respects the charge that I contradict Richard Watson and the Wesleyan Magazine on the subject of Mr. Wesley's seminary for laborers,' every reader knows that I confirm all that they have said, and demonstrate that neither

6

that nor the British institution would meet with opposition any where, it being entirely unexceptionable, and strictly Methodistical and evangelical.

But I should extend my rejoinder too much if I were to particularize the instances of similar perversion, or enumerate the examples of quotations from my Strictures, and others from his own Essay, which are not in either of them. And I will only invite the attention of the reader to the heaviest charge La Roy Sunderland brings against me, viz. that of leaving out of my quotation,' for the purpose of changing the sense.' And what is the omission complained of? It is this, that in quoting a single sentence, complete in itself, for the purpose of criticising its sentiment, I did not add thereto the whole paragraph and a subsequent one! He might with as much propriety complain that I did not copy his whole essay including Dr. Porter's five octavo pages, and other fruits of the scissors, with which instrument of composition he is so singularly skilled.

But I forbear to pursue this junior preacher' any farther, even in self vindication. If he did plead for theological seminaries in our Church, and if he did maintain all the erroneous sentiments attributed to him, surely he must now be excused on the plea of juvenility, or puerility, for he assures us he never intended it! No never!' Indeed I rejoice to find that he has entirely retracted the doctrines of the Essay, as I understood them, and as I know them to have been understood, by many of the best educated men in the Church, in the north and in the south, in the east and in the west. And as he now protests that he did not intend to inculcate the anti-methodistical and anti-christian heresies, of which I have convicted his Essay, we must all accept of his 'second edition,' and can only lament that his 'literary and theological training' did not qualify him to express his sentiments in language less unfortunate and ill chosen, that he might have been spared the chastening under which he now writhes with so violent contortion. Let him be patient in tribulation,' and it will work experience,' which is the best teacher. I take my leave of him therefore and the subject too, for I should never have written my Strictures' on his Essay, had I suspected that he did not mean what he said. My zeal against theological seminaries,' in the Methodist Episcopal Church, however it may meet with sneers from his Christian courtesy,' will prompt me to reply to any man who advocates them, if his plea is published in any of the acknowledged periodicals of Methodism.

6

Finally, in vindication of the reverend editor of the Magazine I would only add that La Roy Sunderland calculates without his host' when he considers the admission of my Strictures as an evidence of the editor's willingness to have every thing said by those opposed to HIS views on the subject of theological seminaries.' No one knows better the views of the editor on this subject than myself, nor am I opposed to his views on this point, as they have been fully and repeatedly expressed by himself. We differ in opinion on the subject of La Roy Sunderland's Essay, as the caveats and disclaimers' accompanying the 'Strictures' demonstrate, but the junior preacher will cease his glorying when he learns that my paper was published along with all the caveats and disclaimers with a mutual understanding, and that I did not scruple to send out my Strictures' surrounded on every side