a

cent origin," &c., &c. The sentiment of the extracts accord with the scriptures. They breathe the spirit of the Gospel. Neither in or out of this succession will avail the minister anything at the bar of God, but a new creature, and, hence, the rejoicing of Paul at the close of his ministry was-not that a triple consecrated prelate had ordained him-but" the testimony of a good conscience, that not by fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, he had his conversation in the world;" that he was pure from the blood of all men, because he had “not shunned to declare the whole council of God." To all such whether they can trace their ordination to Henry VIII or to John Wesley God will say

“ Servant of God, well done ; well hast thou fought
The better fight, who single hast maintained
Against revolted multitudes the cause
Of truth, in word mightier than they in arms,
And for the testimony of truth hast borne
Universal reproach, far worse to bear
Than violence; for this was all thy care,
To stand approved in sight of God, though worldo
Judged thee perverse.
Fearsless of men and devils ; unabashed
By sin enthroned, or mockery of a prince,
Unawed by armed legions, unseduced
By offered bribes, burning with love to souls
Unquenchable, and mindful still of your
Great charge and vast responsibility,
High in the the terople of the living God,
You stood, amid the people, and declared
Aloud the truth, the whole revealed truth,

Ready to seal it with your blood." But if he has been false to his trust, regardless of the responsibility and sanction of his office; or actuated by any other than pure motives, whether in or out of the succession, though his ordination be as canonical as John Tetzel's or as uncanonical as Archbishop Parker's,

" He was a Wolf in clothing of the Lamb,
That stole into the fold of God, and on
The blood of souls, which he did sell to death
Grew fat; and yet when any would have turned

Him out, he cried, “ Touch not the priest of God.” Verily he shall receive his reward. His royal letters shall be no guarantee of acquital at the bar of Jehovah. His hands stained with the blood of souls, those will not cleanse.

“ His end is sure, without one glimpse of hope." Finally does not Mr. B. absolve me from all blame in attacking the Church. Ist. On the ground that it was at the instigation of others. 2d. I was ignorant of the points at issue, and of the facts in the case. I deny, however, having attacked the Church either at my own, or at the instigation of others. As to my ignor

ance of the points at issue, and the facts in the case, it becomes me not to speak. I understood the facts to be the existence of certain tracts in this community through a certain agency, and the point at issue, the truth or falsity of the facts and doctrines thus disseminated. Neither do I admit, that Mr. Bolles has a knowledge of my intentions, or the prerogative to absolve me from sin, at least, until it is confessed, as this would be in advance of Rome. Thus I have gone over the charges, which this “Defender of the Faith” has brought against me, and I trust have said sufficient, to show, that they have no foundation in truth. Hence, I feel justified in all that I have said or done in this mata

Whether these feelings are right or not I leave for the reader to decide.

CHAP. XIV.

MR. BOLLES' ATTACK UPON METHODIST EPISCOPA.

CY, alias DR. COKE.

Ecclesiastical History unsalisfaclory-intemperate spirit of par

ty-necessity of Reviewing this part of Mr. B's work--his cir. culating the pamphlets a trifling affair-his justification of this attack upon Methodist Episcopacy—our claims and the test by which he tries them-our recognition by the English Methodists—the source of our Episcopacy—the true issue—the harm. less character of the one nou instituted.

“Dr. Adam CLARKE has expressed the opinion, in his Letter to a Preacher, that though we should not be unacquainted with the History of the Church, yet, except that which is contained in the Acts of Apostles, the study is the most jejune and unsatis. factory, in the whole compass of human knowledge. The late eminent Dr. Jortin, expressed a nearly similar sentiment, thusthat ecclesiastical history is a sort of enchanted land, where it is hard to distinguish truth from false appearances; and a maze which requires more than Ariadne's clue. The authority of antiquity, he adds, that hand-mnaid to scripture, as she is called, is like Briareus, and has a hundred hands; and the hands often clash and beat one another. Those then, who undertake to assert, with dogmatical positiveness, what was ancient ecclesiasti. cal usage 'in every instance,' ought first to perform the preliminary task of satisfying us that they are better acquainted with antiquity, and have more critical acumen, than either Dr. Clarke, or Dr. Jortin. In doing which, if they succeed to convince us that they are more learned, they will hardly, at the same time, impress us with a conviction of their superior modesty.

The only ecclesiastical history on which certain dependance can be placed, is that which is contained in the Holy Scriptures. And there we find no specific form of Church polity, either prescribed, or even uniformnly acted on. How is it possible, then,

, that this subject can be one of such vital importance, and of such all absorbing interest, as some of our opponents would have it? For it is on this point alone that they prosess to differ from us,and yet think this difference sufficient to justify the severance of the dearest and most sacred ties! This is, indeed, making of Church polity a ‘poisonous tree, which, instead of affording shel.

a

ter to the neighboring plants, causes them to sicken and wither beneath its baleful influence;-whilst it yields a friendly covering to weeds and nettles; beasts of prey lodge safely at its root ; and birds of ill omen scream in its branches.'

"Of all the distempers with which poor mortals are afflicted, in the great infirmary of this world, an intemperate spirit of party seems to be not the most infrequent, or the least contagious, or inveterate. Indeed, when it has once attained a certain height, it defies the healing art, and mocks the bands both of reason and religion; which are severed before it as a thread at touch of fire. A perverted imagination feeds the disorder, and deludes the an. gry disputant with her hideous phantoms; and on these he spends his rage, as if they were real substantial foes. Such seems to us to be the circumstances in which the violence and injustice of assailants, compel ns to defend ourselves in the present contra versy.”—(Bishop Emory, Meth. Mag. vol. 12, p. 69.)

Upon first reading Mr. Bolles' “Examination into the claims of Methodist Episcopacy" I concluded, that it would not be best to swell the size of my Review, but confine myself to a brief now tice of it. I was led io this conclusion by the following reasons: Ist. Mr. B's examination contains no other facts or arguments, than such as our enemies have urged, through the press and pulpit, against us, again and again. 2d. These facts and arguments have frequently been met, canvassed, and refuted by men of superior ability and influence to myself. 3d. Mr. B's examination, proceeds upon principles which, however well sustained, affect not, in the least, even the out-posts of our organization. He has made up an issue which meets not the case he proposes to exam: ine. Should it be admitted that his witnesses are unimpeacha ble, his evidence most direct and conclusive, and all his deductions logical, it makes nothing against the structure he proposes to assail; for any one acquainted with the Methodist E. Church, knows, that it is a very different edifice from that against which his artillery is aimed; and, hence, Methodist Episcopacy has not only survived the intended shock, but its friends would not have known, from the issue, that he designed to assail it. In this, the caption of his letter is very essential, inasmuch as by announcing the name of the object whose claims he proposes to examine, he thereby removes that doubt upon the mind of the reader which a perusal of his letter might otherwise create. This naming at the commencement of the letter, the thing with which he con. ceives he is contending, seems to rest upon the same necessity which induces the school-boy to place above the figures he may have rudely and grotesquely sketch'd as representations, in his own fancy, of a certain object, the name of ihat which he had in view to delineate. I had, therefore, deemed it unnecessary at first, lo attempt any reply to this portion of Mr. B's work, but the

following reasons have induced me to change my course. It has been urged, 1st. That the defense should be maintained as long as the fire is kept up by our assailants. 2d. That although there is nothing new in this examination of Mr. Bolles', and, although the old material has been frequently disposed of, yet as it comes up in a new dress, from a new assailant, it will probably reach a new class of readers not before reached by former efforts of this kind, and hence the necessity that a new answer by a new de fender should be prepared for the benefit of this new class of readers. But more than all, 3d. As the issue is new to multitudes who are ignorant of the real points at issue between high Churchmen and Methodists, they will not be able to detect the failure of Mr. B. in correctly stating his case, nor will discriminate between what does and does not appear against us, and be ing thus blinded at the outset they will be led to draw wrong inferences, and come to erroneous conclusions, placing a false estimate upon the value of this portion of the work. 4th. That as other defensive efforts of ours have been directed against dif, ferent issues no one meets precisely the case now before us. I have, therefore, concluded that in carrying out my title page “10 correct the errors and misrepresentations of the work Reviewed," it would be proper for me to give it a more extended notice than at first I deemed necessary. With this conclusion I proceed to Review this pretended attack upon Methodism; assuring the reader that I shall dispose of it in as short a space as possible, and, at the same time, give to those not familiar with our history, the information essential to form correct opinions of the facts and reasonings of Mr. B.

Mr. Bolles commences his examination, by announcing to his readers, that his circulating the pamphlets in this community, attacking the institutions of our Church, with which he was charged, was a very trifling affair; and he thinks it quite marvelous, that this small offense should arouse the members of the Meth. odist E. Church to vindicate themselves against the allegations therein contained. He affirms it to be folly in the extreme, that

grave and reverend ministers” should be engaged in controversy by such a circumstance. To say nothing of the virtual admission here of all, with which by us he has been charged, and to disprove which was the object of a large portion of his work, it is quite marvelous to me, that the fact of the extreme foolishness of this controversy did not force itself upon his mind at the time he commenced it. The only reason that I can assign for this clearer perception of his folly at this stage of the controversy is, that having now brought out all his facts, and arguments, and expended all his skill in the manufacture of sophistry, he had so far failed even in his own estimation, of making out a probable justification of his course, that the folly of the controversy he had

a