who possess these, and are indigent: and Christians must be convinced, by an exhibition of facts, that there is a deficiency of learned ministers, before they will make the proper efforts to provide a remedy. The topic in hand, where English preachers are alluded to in the Report, is the number of Christian teachers, who are possessed of competent literary attainments. I accord entirely with the general remarks of the reviewer, as to the defective character of a large class of the English clergy. But when we have excepted, as the Report does, one half of the whole number from the account, I should be unwilling to apply these remarks, without much restriction, to the remainder. It is, however, only the connexion of these remarks, which renders them liable to be understood as imputing inadequate views to the Directors, concerning the importance of piety and fidelity in preachers.

The review, as it proceeds, says; "There are many clergymen in this country, some of them distinguished for learning and ability, who were never members of a college." p. 159. The Directors have most distinctly expressed the same opinion. But it is supposed that they place too much reliance on college catalogues." In the first place, the number of living ministers, on these catalogues, from all the principal colleges, is reckoned. Then the number of our ministers who were educated in foreign countries, is supposed to be equal to the superannuated and infirm, who were educated here; and 135 more are added. If this estimate is too small, it would be pertinent to show it by facts and documents."

The self-taught, &c." however well taught, do not belong to the above reckoning. These are included in a distinct class, and are supposed to make one third of our competent ministers. If this estimate again is too small, it would subserve the general cause to show the error by specific statements.

Perhaps the language of the Report was liable to be misunderstood respecting the population and supply of the great western territories. The reviewer says, "There is no propriety in speaking of the square miles of these great states and territories in reference to their present population;" because only a small part of them is inhabited. Supposo the 350.000 souls. computed to be now in these territories, were transferred to an island five miles square, in the Pacific Ocean. Would they need as many religious teachers as they do now? Can the Christian philanthropist forget, that these people have the territory of an empire before thein; and that with the flood of emigration rolling westward from Europe, and the Atlantic states, these vast regions will shortly be filled with villages and commercial cities; and with despisers of godliness too, if they are suffered to form their habits without the influence of Christian institutions?

It might have been taken for granted. that the Directors, in a public report, would not state facts without a good degree of deliberation and caution. Still they are liable to mistake; and any error in their statements, fairly pointed out, they must rejoice to see corrected. But a hesitating assent to these statements, or an indefinite denial of them, furnishes to the skeptical, and the covetous, just such an escape from the claims of charity as they desire. For this reason, I submit to VOL. XV.

50

your reconsideration the following passage in the aforesaid review: "We think the account of East Tennessee, as communicated to the Directors, must be erroneous. We were told on the spot by a New England clergyman, who had resided there eighteen months, that the means of moral and religious improvement, in the western states were greatly underrated by the people of the east. The same opinion was very strongly expressed by a respectable layman, of religious character, who had spent two summers, in the western parts of Virginia.” The account of East Tennessee, alleged to be erroneous is this, that there are 14 counties, in which there is not a single regular or educated minister of the Gospel." This is a specific statement; and to what good purpose is it impugned in the Panoplist, unless it is proved to be incorrect, by specific evidence? A two years resident of Tennessee, may honestly believe that some people in the east are misinformed, as to the religious state of the west, and the above statement may be true notwithstanding.

But Sir, to satisfy yourself and your readers, that this fact was not stated at random, it may be sufficient to say, that it was stated on the authority of the Rev. Elias Cornelius, now of Salem, and lately a missionary in the west;-a gentleman of whose candor and capacity the public will require no testimonials. In a letter just received from him, after expressing his regret that it should have been made necessary to substantiate this statement, he says; "The whole rests upon the evidence of Mr. Anderson of Maryville in East Tennessee-long á resident in the state, and one of the most enlightened and respectable ministers in it.

"Deeply deploring the state of religion in East Tennessee, he desired me to write to you a statement of facts, for the truth of which he said he was prepared to vouch. In looking over my journals, I find a succinct statement of the same facts, taken down under the eye of Mr. Anderson. They are as follows. East Tennessee is divided into 17 counties, and perhaps should include 4 more lying upon the CumberHand Mountains. Of these 21 counties-there are 14 without a single educated minister of the presbyterian order, and probably not one of this character of any other order; viz. Jackson, Overton, Warren, White, (lying on Cumberland Mountains,) Bledsoe, Roane, Anderson, Campbell, Claiborne, Granger, Sullivan, Carter, Cocke, and Sevier. In the remaining seven, which lie in the most eastern part of the state, there are 12 Presbyterian ministers, viz. In Rhea 1, Blount 2, Knox S, Jefferson 1, Greene 2, Hawkins 1, Washington 2.'-Mr. Anderson belongs to Blount County, and is included, as well as every other settled minister, in the estimate. Of the young men studying divinity, there are generally one or two with Mr. Anderson-and three or four at Greenville College with Dr. Coffin."

You will recollect, Sir, the remark to which the last sentence of this extract refers; and will perceive that the district where these theological students are, is not the same which the report represents as "peculiarly destitute."*

*We did suppose that East Tennessee was represented in the Report as "peculiarly des titute," and these theological students are all in that district. We mentioned the fact, that there were six young men studying divinity in that part of the country, not to prove that there is, or will be very soon, a competent supply of preachers; but to show that there are enconging circumstances in those new settlements, which are deemed peculiarly destitute. ED. PAN.

The statement respecting the western parts of Virginia, which is called in question, is summarily this, that in one tract of country larger than the whole of New-England, (excepting Maine,) there are but three educated ministers. There are but a handful of Methodists and Baptists, who deserve a great deal of credit for their zeal and exertions. But here are 180,000 people, who are absolutely without religious teachers of any sort."

This account was received from the Rev. Doctor Hill of Winchester, Virginia, an old inhabitant and minister of that state; and one of the most respectable men, as you know, in our country. His letter was published at length, with his express permission, and with his name, two years ago. Whether such a man, who wrote for such a purpose, and with such means of information, was less likely to be correct than a "layman who had resided two summers" on the ground, I leave you to judge. Besides, the indefinite remark of this layman, is not at all applicable to the specific statement of Dr. Hill. While the "people of the east," then, are not accountable for this statement, thousands of them, I trust, instead of deeming it incredible or useless, will agree with the respectable writer of the letter, "that it is enough to awaken sensibility in the heart of a stone."

You will pardon me, Sir, for giving you the trouble of these remarks; but I have thought them necessary to obviate impressions, apparently unfavorable to the success of a cause, which I am anxious to promote. There are one or two other points, which seem to demand some remarks; but they must be omitted, at least for the present.

With best wishes for the prosperity of your useful labors, I am yours, very sincerely, A DIRECTOR OF A. E. S.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRECEDING LETter.

We trust that those, who have read the Review, which occasioned the preceding letter, do not need any assurance, that we are in the most decided manner friendly to the American Education Society, and to all similar institutions. Were it necessary, we could refer to passages written by ourselves, and inserted in our earlier volumes, long before the formation of a single Education Society in our country, in which passages the great efforts now made were recommended, and the argu, ments now dwelt upon, with so much force and emphasis, were briefly but plainly stated. The remarks, which we ventured to offer with a view to correct some of the less important statements of the Report under consideration, were made from pure friendship to the Society, to its Directors, and to the cause in which they are so laudably engaged. If we were in any respect unsuccessful, in the communication of our thoughts; or if any occasion has unintentionally been given to the captious or the covetous to withhold a countenance, which they would otherwise have given, we sincerely regret it. But we have not the slightest apprehension, that the Society will suffer in consequence of any thing contained in our Review.

On most of the topics, which are brought into view by the preceding letter, we might easily dwell at some length; but we choose to refer oue

readers to the Report, our review of it, and the article which we have just inserted. We briefly observe, however, that in regard to the number of English preachers, we fairly quoted all that the report contained. Our readers would see, therefore, that one half of the whole number were put out of the estimate. Still the conclusion seemed to be, that England was better supplied with competently educated preachers, than the United States, in the proportion of 11 to 3. This conclusion we do not admit. Although the subject was introduced incidentally by the Directors, a false conclusion might still be pernicious.

We never supposed, that the Directors had inadequate apprehensions of the importance of piety in a minister. On the contrary, we had no doubt that they would esteem picty the first and most indispensable qualification. Nor have we designedly made a different impression. It does not follow, however, that the writer of the Report may not have been so much engrossed with one topic, as to forget that many of his readers, little acquainted with the design, origin, and progress of the Society, might innocently suppose piety to be undervalued, when in fact it was the less dwelt upon, because its importance is so generally acknowledged.

There is one imperfection attending reviews, which is more difficult to be avoided, than would be easily perceived at first. It is this. The suggestion of an author may lead a reviewer into a train of thought and reasoning, and into statements of facts, which he may deem interesting to his readers and pertinent to his subject, without intending to apply what he writes, by way of approbation or censure, confirmation o discredit, to the work which he is reviewing. The reader, however, may mistake, and suppose the reviewer to be combating the author, when he is simply pouring forth his own reflections, or perhaps exposing the errors of other authors. To avoid all possibility of mistake, in this respect, demands a formality and stiffness, in passing from one subject to another, not very agreeable to the writer or his readers. We cheerfully admit, that many of our observations, in the review here under consideration, were occasioned by other publications than the Report, to which the article was particularly devoted. We also had in view many facts, which do not appear in any publication. Perhaps it would have been well, in one or two instances, had we stated expressly that some of our reflections and arguments were not occasioned by any thing in the Report.

Before we proceed further, let it be understood, that it is by no means strange, and should not excite surprise, that some erroneous statements find their way into the most cautious publications, and, apparently from the best authority. When we pronounce a representation erroneous,therefore, we do not mean to impeach the general accuracy and authenticity of the document, in which it is found. An error may originate from an ambiguous expression, used by a most respectable and accurate correspondent; or from an abridgment, intended to be faithful, from which some important fact may be inadvertently exclud ed; or from many other circumstances, in the ever-varying condition of human affairs.

We proceed now to consider what was said by us, in reference to the destitute condition of East Tennessee. The Report contains the following paragraph:

"In East Tennessec, which contained, in 1810-17 counties and 101,367 inhabitants, an intelligent gentleman on the spot say b There are 14 counties, in when there is not a single regular or educated minister of the Gospel.”” p. 14.

Upon this statement we had the following observations.

"We think the account of East Tennessee, as communicated to the Directors, must be erroneous. We were told on the spot, by a New England clergy man, who had resided there eighteen months, that "the means of moral and te igious improvement, in the western states, were greatly under-rated by the people of the east."" Pan. Ap. p. 160.

We are ready to admit, that there is an imperfection in the above passage, which might mislead the reader. It is this. The secmi d sentence might be understood as a reason for the conclusion formed in the first. Perhaps it would be naturally so understood; though we never thought of such a construction. The first sentence expressed our opinion that the account of East Tennessee was erroneous. Though we had reasons for this opinion which were perfectly satisfactory, we chose not to mention any reason, because we could not state all the facts with sufficient accuracy, and particularity. Had we seen the journal of Mr. Cornelius, from which he has obligingly given an extract, we could have pointed out exactly what the error was. The declaration of the New-England clergy man, mentioned in the second sentence, is no reason for the conclusion formed in the first; and we are mortified to think our respected correspondent should suppose us capable of reasoning in so inconclusive a manner. The statement in the Report, and the declaration of the New-England clergyman might both be perfectly accurate. It is natural to ask, for what purpose we intended this declaration. Simply for this:-to contribute our mite towards diffusing a correct knowledge of the moral and relig ions condition of our western country, We have no objection to stating now, what we should have stated then, had we thought it proper to give the reasons of our opinion. After expressing a confident persuasion, that the Report was erroneous, we should have added as follows: From the passage, which describes the destitute condition of East Tennessee, it appears, that out of 17 counties, of which that part of the state is composed, 14 are entirely destitute of a single regular or educated minister. From having recently passed through East Tennessee, and seen several of the clergy living in different counties, and heard of others living in other counties, we are certain, that there is at least one regular clergyman in each of more than three counties situated in that part of the state. Of course,

the Report must be in some degree erroneous. But as we have not a perfect knowledge of the county lines, and know not exactly the nuinber of clergymen in that district, we cannot say precisely how great the error is. Perhaps the error may consist in rejecting from the number of competent clergymen. those, who, in our opinion, ought not to be rejected.' This is the substance of what we should have assigned as the reason, why we pronounced the Report erroneous. But the accurate and perfectly authentic statement of Mr. Cornelius makes further explanation unnecessary. Had this statement been published in the Report, or an accurate abridgement of it been given, we should