provoked, forced itself upon him with a vividness of which he had not before been conscious. From this decision of Mr. B. I presume no one of his readers will dissent. Whether the circulating of pamphlets in this community, attacking the institutions of all sister Churches, was a trifling affair, or not, the reader will be able to judge after having examined our expose of their doctrines found on the preceding pages of this work. It may, indeed, be considered a trifling affair, in his estimation, to excommunicate all other Churches than the Protestant Episcopal from the pale of the Christian Church-to denounce them as schismatics, hypocrites and impostors-to stamp all their ordinances with spuriousness, and to warn the people to beware how in any way they countenance such awful rebellion against God, and to advise them to avoid participation in such daring iniquity, as they would wish to escape the doom of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram! He may think it a trifling affair thus to stigmatize and criminate his neighbors thus to rob them of their altars; their sacraments; their spiritual homes; and to hold them up to the world as fit objects of scorn and ridicule. So no doubt the Papist considers it a trifling affair to take away the Bible from the people-to deny them the right of private judgment-to coerce men to embrace their dogmas, by burning heretics at the stake; or dislocating their limbs upon the rack; but, will a Republican, a Protestant community, consider it a trifling affair for a sect who are but of yesterday to set up such exclusive claims and utter and propagate such denunciatory sentiments? Mr. B. may consider it a trifling affair, to scatter such pamphlets over this region, and to pour forth from his pulpit the sentiments contained in them, from Sabbath to Sabbath; but when members of a neighboring Church, feeling aggrieved by such a course, take it upon themselves, as a duty which they owe to the world and slandered dead, to correct, through their pulpit, the errors and misrepresentations thus cre ated, it becomes in the estimation of the Rev. Gentleman a very different matter-a very serious affair; and all the Jesuitism of Rome is laid under contribution, and the tactics of the most archpolitician left far in the shade, to cripple and put down a people, who have dared to resist the aggression, and thus call in question the infallibility of "THE CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES"!

However trifling or foolish Mr. B. may have been in getting up the matter of the first 74 pages of his work, he now promises his readers a subject worthy of their attention-"a subject which," he says, "should not be allowed to slumber, and which at all times is a fair and legitimate subject for impartial inquiry,' viz. "the claims of Methodist Episcopacy." This is a subject which, in his opinion, "ought not to slumber," and any one acquainted with the doings of Protestant Episcopalians knows, full well, that many of his communion have entertained similar views

and feelings, and under their influence, they have drawn up the most frightful caricatures of Methodism, and scattered them broad cast through the length and breadth of our land. Methodist Episcopacy has had no slumber, but what could be obtained amid the din of battle and the constant commotions of war. If agitation is necessary to purity surely the absence of purity here will not be owing to a lack of service on the part of Protestant Episcopalians. But we have reason to thank God that all the storm of elements without, which the enemies of the Methodist Episcopal Church have provoked, have not shook her foundation or driven her from her course. She still wields, successfully, the sword of the spirit. Still advances to new conquests over the empire of sin; and though high Churchmen may denounce her credentials, she gives most indubitable evidence of having the divine approval of bearing the signature of heaven, that the "Lord of Hosts is with her, and the God of Jacob her defense."

was

The subject of "Methodist Episcopacy," Mr. B. thinks, “is at all times" a proper subject of investigation. Without calling in question the correctness of this sentiment, which, duly qualified I have no disposition to do, I will simply inquire, how he would like to have the tables turned. It is a poor rule that does not work with equal justice both ways. The maxim of the Gospel is, "whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them." Suppose, then, without cause or provocation, that I had publicly examined the claims of Protestant Episcopacy, and assigned, as a reason of this attack, that the subject one which at all times was a fair and legitimate one for investi gation"; think you the Rector would have admitted this as a valid and satisfactory justification of my course? What do facts. say? Why, because I preached four Sermons in our pulpit, in defense of our organization against the attacks of Mr. B. I am complained of as a very ungentlemanly Clergyman-an assailant upon the Episcopal Church-and a pamphlet of nearly 200 pages. is issued to defend the Church against the assault. Is it to be admitted, then, that an examination into the claims of Methodist Episcopacy is at all times proper, but its defense never? I argue that if such examination into our claims is at all times proper, then just and equal rules decide that a similar examination into the claims of Protestant Episcopacy is at all times proper; and much more is it proper that we should defend ourselves when our claims are unjustly repudiated. How triumphantly then, though unwittingly, has he justified, and more than justified, my course, -that all his complaints are causeless-an effort to excite public sympathy, where none is deserved and where none should be bestowed. But has he justified himself? His justification of this assault upon Methodism fails inasmuch as it does not meet his case. He affirms, "that it"-Methodist Episcopacy-" is at.

all times a fair and legitimate subject of impartial inquiry." Now, if it is impartial to try its claims by a standard which it does not acknowledge-to strive to blacken the character of her founders by the introduction of testimony from her known and avowed enemies-to violate all the rules of interpretation in the construction of the statements of her ministers-to quote as authority, works which she has never admitted to be authentic, but condemned as unworthy of confidence-if such an examination is impartial, then, indeed, his justification meets his case: but if not, then it fails, and he is left without an apology. I think it will be made apparent to the reader, before he is through with the Review, that Mr. B's investigation of Methodist Episcopacy has no claim to impartiality, and, hence, his reason comes not within the case it was intended to justify.

Mr. Bolles having thus opened his cause by a plea of justifica tion, proceeds to erect the standard by which the claims of this spurious Church are to be tried. He proposes to test her claims by "the well know principles of Episcopalians themselves," the Protestant E. Church being the Ultima Thule of all ecclesiastical matters. This is the bar to which Methodist Episcopacy is summoned, the laws, and the exposition of those laws, which are to govern the case, are such as she has furnished. The Methodists are charged in the bill of indictment, with claiming to possess, by divine right, Diocesan Episcopacy. The suit is brought by the Rector of St. James to test the validity of this claim. Now, I object, in the first place, to the bar before which we are arraigned, and to the laws which are to govern the case. If high Churchmen are to be the judges in this matter-if their principles are to control the ultimate decision, then it was unnecessary for Mr. B. to institute the trial, for they have long since given to the world, as their opinion, that our claims are spurious-that our orders are irregular-our sacraments and ordinance invalid: and Mr. Bolles himself, had endorsed the correctness of such decisions, by circulating in this community, pamphlets containing them. We may well inquire, by what authority are they to act as umpires in this case? They are a party in the suit-the complainants and they assert that Methodists have trespassed upon their territory-have broken into their enclosures, and laid claim to titles and prerogatives exclusively their own. Having brought the charge, are they to fix the rules of trial and dictate the final decision? To such a course all honorable men would object as, unjust and partial. Is there not a higher tribunal-a common infallible standard, that takes cognizance and claims jurisdiction over both of these parties, and by which the claims of all Churches must be tried, and from which, there can be no appeal? If there be such a court of reference, then all must admit that is the bar before which Methodism should be arraigned, and the

rule by which her claims should be tested. What is this rule, and where is it to be found? As Protestants, we admit, that the Bible is the rule and the all sufficient rule both of faith and practice. To this we make our appeal to the law and to the testimony as found in the Holy Scriptures. If our claims abide not this test, we yield them as worthless. And this, we affirm, is the only tribunal to which we are amenable-the only tribunal that has lawful jurisdiction over the case. Mr. B., then, by "a petitio principii," a begging of the question, assuming as undis puted, the right of high Churchmen to sit as judges upon our claims, and approve or reject them by their own rules, has sought to try them "by the well known principles of Episcopalians," instead of the well known principles of the word of God! With as much, and more propriety, might I try the claims of Protestant Episcopacy by the well known principles of Papacy, and because they fail in this test pronounce their claims to be invalid!!!

I object to the charge upon which we are arraigned—the claims of Methodists to high Church Episcopacy, or Episcopacy in a third order by divine right-because we have made no such claim, and hence, have committed no such depredation as is laid in the bill of charges. To sustain the charge brought by our accusers, on the issue here made, it would be necessary for them to show, first, what is a divine right? Second, that the Metho dist E. Church claim Diocesan Episcopacy by such a right. And third, that their claim is not valid. The first question, then, is, what constitutes the divine right of bishops? The learned Stillingfleet, in his celebrated Irenicum, discussing the nature of a divine right, and showing on what it must be founded, says, "juš (law) is that which makes a thing to be become a duty: so jus quasi jussum, and jussu jura, as Festus explains it; that is, that whereby a thing is not only licitum (lawful) in men's lawful pow er to do it or no, but is made debitum, (duty,) and is constituted a duty by the force and virtue of a divine command. Whatever binds christians as an universal standing law, must be clearly revealed as such, and laid down in scripture in such evident terms, as all who have their senses exercised therein, may discern to have been the will of Christ, that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the world's end, as is clear in the case of baptism and the Lord's supper."-(Iren. part 1. chap. I.)

To make out a divine right, then, there must be an explicit statement in the scriptures of the duty claimed as one of perpetual obligation. And we may well ask our accusers, if any such explicit statement respecting their claim has yet, by them, been produced? Modest people would think it in time to arraign a neighbor upon the charge of trespass when one had established an indisputable title to occupancy. It would be very embarrass

ing to Protestant Episcopalians to find, when challenged as to their right, that they were not able to show any original convey ance except by doubtful inference; and yet, that this is the true position of our accusers is known to them full well.

To the second inquiry, does the Methodist E. Church claim such an Episcopacy by such a right? We answer unhesitating ly, no. To what work of acknowledged authority in our Church will Mr. B. refer us, to prove, that we hold that Jesus Christ delegated to a corporation of triple consecrated prelates the exclu sive right of ordination? Of perpetuating their own and the two lower orders of the ministry in regular order and succession, and that all ordinations, not performed by such triple consecra ted prelates, in regular succession from those to whom the original conveyance was executed, viz., the Apostles, are null and void? What evidence will he adduce to prove, that we claim to have received through such a channel, such an ordination? The only proof presented or referred to, by Mr. Bolles, to establish this material point, is, the Annotations of Messrs. Coke and Asbury, from which he makes a quotation, or rather, selects senten ces, and when put together as found in his work, present the sen timent of their authors about as fairly, as the author of tract No. 4 does the opinions of Mr. Wesley. On the page and the one preceding from which he makes his quotations, is the following language:"the most bigoted devotees to religious establishments, (the clergy of the Church of Rome excepted,) are now ashamed to support the doctrine of the Apostolic uninterrupted succession of Bishops. Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Winchester, who was, we believe, the greatest advocate for Episcopacy, whom the Protestant Churches ever produced, has been so completely overcome by Dr. Calamy, in respect to the uniterrupted succes. sion, that the point has been entirely given up. Nor do we recol lect that any writer of the Protestant Churches has since attempted to defend what all the learned world at present know to be utterly indefensible. And yet, nothing but an Apostolic unin terrupted succesion can possibly confine the right of Episcopacy to any particular Church." "It follows, therefore, indubitably, that every Church has a right to choose, if it please, the Episcopal plan." They then proceed to show that Mr. Wesley having recommended the Episcopal plan, the Episcopacy or Superinten dency established in the Methodist E. Church was not a violation of any scriptural precept, but very nearly resembling the ecclesiastical arrangements of Churches in the early days of christianity; and for proof refer to the instances quoted by Mr. Bolles. This, then, was attempting to prove a very different thing than that claimed by Mr. B.-a very different thing from proving, that we had what a high Churchman would call a divine right Episcopacy. So far from this, they positively affirm,