The "Old Baptists,'' as they are called, seem to be very much opposed to Theological Schools. I have seen several things against them from the pen of Br. Watson, and in the last Herald of Truth, I observe that the editor, Dr. Fair, gives a summary of sermon recently delivered by Elder Wm. Cruthcher, in which the preacher is represented as saying, "That education is good in its place and useful to the ministry, but when Theological Schools are used instead of grace, for qualifying men to preach, they are a reflection on the great King in Zion, who has not thought proper to use them, and should not be tolerated by Baptists - Such institutions cannot make men pious or teach them to love God - that grace, and grace only can affect the heart, renew in us a right principle and properly engage us in the discharge of Christian duties."With Drs. Watson and Fair I have the pleasure of an acquaintance, and entertain for them a high regard. Of Elder Crutcher I knew nothing, and am sure I feel no prejudice against him. I have however, a few things to say on the forgoing extract. I am happy to agree with Elder C. in so many points. I certainly think with him that "education is a good thing in its place" - not out of its place - that it "is useful to the ministry" - that "such institutions" as Theological Schools cannot make men pious, &c., &c." But I protest against the impression which certain parts of the extract must make, namely, that the friends of Theological Schools use them as a substitute for the grace of God, as instruments for the creation of piety, &c. The advocates of Theological education entertain no such view. They say piety is the first qualification of a minister of the gospel. Piety is a prerequisite to church membership and young ministers, licensed by the churches to preach the gospel, receive assistance in their theological [blurred]. The churches in granting license aim to grant it only to them who are called of God to preach. I presume that no one will say that God calls those alone who have as much theological information as is desirable. I dare say Elders Watson, Fair and Crutcher, have much more theological knowledge now, than when they began to preach, and that they are still adding to their stores. They will not say it is wrong to learn more about divine things. Very well. Then it cannot be wrong for young preachers at Murfreesboro, or elsewhere, to study theology, that they may learn more of what the Bible teaches. And if they can learn to better advantage in a class with an instructor, where is the objection? Suppose a young preacher, with his mind perplexed as to what Paul and James say of justification by faith and by works, go to Dr. Watson for instruction. He would, no doubt, very promptly explain, and show that the statements of the two Apostles are perfectly harmonious. Why may I not, at one time, explain the same matter to a class of a dozen or twenty? The explanation of Dr. W. and myself would, I am sure, be the same. It is difficult for me to see how the objection to theological study, as prosecuted at our Colleges, can be well founded. Suppose a young minister asks Dr. Fair to give his views of sermonizing. He would probably say with Harder, that a sermon should grow out of text as a plant grows out of the seed. I would say the same thing and expatiate on it in the presence of a class, and I might refer to Elder Crutcher's discourse as a [collation? - blurred] of this fundamental law of sermonizing; for he says many things not suggested by the text. I hope I make this statement with all due courtesy.
My theory is that the more a preacher knows about theology the better, and where this knowledge can be most advantageously acquired, there let it be sought. Indeed all kinds of knowledge may be subservient to the elucidation of the word of God, and may therefore be rendered promotive of ministerial usefulness. Paul's acquaintance with the Greek poets served him a valuable purpose at Athens.
Our plan at Union University is, I think, the bet plan. It is for the young preachers to intersperse their theological studies with their literary pursuits. In this way it is hoped that all their intellectual acquisitions will receive the sanctifying [blurred] of piety. But that our "Theological Department" is to be used "instead of the grace of God," is a thing too monstrous to be thought of.
P.[From The Baptist, Nashville, September 22, 1860, p. 2, via microfilm on CD edition. The reference to this document is from Thomas White, Cedarville U, OH; Selected Works of JMP. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on J. M. Pendleton
Baptist History Homepage