letter was sent to me in proof-sheet for correction, which I erased entirely, remarking to the messenger from the printing office, that as the act of publication was unauthorized on my part that was the only correction I could justly make. A prospectus of the work was published, not only in the form of a handbill for private circulation but in the "Gospel Messenger," a newspaper printed at Utica, representing the work as being made up of a series of letters between Mr B. and myself. Inasmuch as this prospectus was a misrepresentation and had deceived many of my Methodist friends in other towns and cities, who were not conversant with the affair I deemed it my duty to notice it through the press, and thus apprising my friends and the public of the facts of the case have waited the appearance of Mr. Bolles' work, that I too, might be able to come before the public on the same ground chosen by him.

Such is a brief outline of the material points in the history of personal matters between Mr. Bolles and myself; and this sketch will, I conceive, clearly establish the fact, that whatever differences have existed between us, the origin or commencement of those differences had a prior date to those fixed upon by Mr. B. in the delivering of my course of Lectures. Does it not establish this truth, that these lectures were merely made a pretext by Mr. Bolles to afford some plausible ground to himself for a complaint from him to the public; and that the corroding evil which so forcibly impelled him to seek such an opportunity was engendered under other circumstances than those connected with these lectures? the propelling passion being that which has too often stained the fair name of many an individual, and blasted the moral purity of those officiating in the Church-the jealousy of power. Herein lies the mystery. Herein lies concealed the vis irritationis which, under the garb of injured innocence, incited Mr. B. to gain an opportunity of complaint against me. In order to render these allusions more readily understood, I must make reference to the condition of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Batavia, for some few years past.

When Mr. Bolles came to Batavia, some seven or eight years since, the Protestant Episcopal denomination was much the largest in the town. It had received accessions both from the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches; from the first in consequence of dissensions growing out of the Anti-masonic excitement, and from the last in consequence of the depressed condition of the congregation in pecuniary matters, which left them without a suitable building wherein to worship. Mr. B. being then in the ministry, and wanting both the experience of age and of service, and being withal, of an ambitious, ardent and aspiring disposition, was very greatly gratified with his position as Rector of a wealthy, large and indulgent congregation. He possess

young

ed those elements of character which are easily excited and awakened. His congregation entertained very liberal feelings towards him; manifested to him many marks of kindness, and granted him every means he asked, either for his own welfare or to extend the influence of his Church. Of course he was greatly flattered and his vanity cultivated to an inordinate degree. A few years of a clergyman's life, when young, and of Mr. B's temperament, only were necessary, to become under these circumstances in an artificial and dangerous position; where the most fatal of human propensities to a clergyman are too apt to be developed and to obtain an overruling influence over his thoughts and actions. These views applied to Mr. B. offer a full explanation of his course, and expose the ground of his complaint more clearly, I fancy, than he is willing to admit.

Mr. B. had thus imbibed erroneous notions of his influence and situation, and under the increasing prosperity of other denominations in his location, became disturbed and lost what little equanimity of feeling he naturally possessed. He considered his rights invaded. He was no longer the "High ecclesiastical of the domain," and held and expressed views and feelings towards other denominations too arrogant for his own good and peace and comfort. Looking thus at the transactions of others through a false medium, he has been governed too much by the maxims and laws of a worldly minded state of society. He has forgotten the truths and lessons of humility which the duties of his office should teach him ought to belong to a clergyman. He has magnified his own station to an Alpine eminence, and from this imaginary and fictitious elevation looking down upon others through an atmosphere of his own creation, has exalted himself high above the realities of things about him, and subjected himself to learn that lesson which he should have been taught in the first year of his clerical studies-"that the proud in heart shall be humbled," and that "the wisdom of the world does not make one wise unto salvation."

CHAP. III.

MR. BOLLES' DEFENSE.

His work deficient in order and arrangement-his admissions articles in the Christian Advocate and Journal-Methodists here as sheep without a shepherd-St. James' Ch. our benefactor-the hostility of names-proselyting spirit of the Methodists-their circulating scurrilous books-the reading of Dr. Chapman's Sermons.

Having in the preceding chapter given a history of the Methodist Episcopal Church in this place up to this date, embracing all the material facts connected with the points at issue, I propose, in this chapter, to examine the defense which Mr. Bolles has made and by which he seeks to exonerate himself from all charges of having given just cause of offense to the members of the Methodist E. Church.

In this examination it would be tedious to follow the different points as they are presented in Mr. B's work, for the reason, that repetitions are frequent and the whole matter greatly deficient in order and arrangement. I must, therefore, treat of the several particulars under an arrangement of my own, assuring my readers that the sentiments reviewed shall be precisely as expressed in the work of Mr. Bolles. By this means I hope to show more satisfactorily Mr. B's intentions; and by noticing his positions separately, to illustrate their falsity more fully and clearly. After the reader has gone with me over the different points of the structure and given to each special observation, he can look at the whole and be the better prepared to judge correctly of the work. I want, that, not only the whole should be viewed as a mass, with all its external parts adroitly prepared to attract a favorable notice, but also that the internal points, wherein lie the defects and faults and errors, should also have a CLOSE inspection.

Do the facts warrant Mr. Bolles in saying that he has given us no cause of offense? Does he maintain the bold assertion, that in this controversy I am the aggressor? Does he not, indeed, admit, in the commencement of his defense, that he is guilty of one of the charges named by me; that of circulating the tracts referred to? In his first letter he complains of my having unjustly attacked his character and influence by reading to my congrega

tion a document addressed to me by the "Leaders Meeting" of St. John's Church, but does he deny that he circulated the pamphlets named in that communication? Yet this act constitutes the charge there made against him. All that was claimed in that communication relative to him was, that he had circulated anony mous pamphlets hostile to the character and principles of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now, although the truth or falsity of this statement does not rest upon me, but upon the "Leaders of St. John's Church," yet, if I choose to admit that I may, with propriety, be called upon to support this statement, I certain ly will be allowed to do so by Mr. Bolles own admissions, and, he not having denied that he did circulate the pamphlets named, surely is evidence that should be deemed appropriate. The evidence drawn from Mr. B. on this point, however, does not rest upon his silence in his first letter. The second furnishes evidence positive, for he there acknowledges that he did circulate the pamphlets in question. By this admission, then, I claim that I am not only exonerated from all blame in reading this document, but the Leaders are likewise released from any charge against them; because if that document contained the truth, so far as Mr. Bolles' name was mentioned no evil was done, unless, forsooth, "being in the regular order and succession of the Church of England" he claims the observance of the old English law of libel, "the greater the truth the greater the slander."

The matter with Bishop De Lancey is of another character. The Leaders alluded to him merely to show that he evidently sanctioned these efforts which were the ground of the complaint; and when he shall request proof of the manner of his sanction whereof they complain, they can furnish it.

Mr. Bolles urges in his defense against the charge of having attacked the people of St. John's Church the far-fetched off-set of certain articles in the "Christian Advocate and Journal," in the year 1836, upon the subject of "an Original Church of Christ." Those articles he proclaims contain "the grossest abuse of the Episcopal Church;" by which I suppose he means, the Protestant Episcopal Church; the regular successionist and representative of the Church of England in this country. What plea can be formed thereon? Those articles appeared in a Methodist paper, published by Methodists, edited by Methodists and mostly read by Methodists-they were published sometime in 1836. How puerile, then, is the plea of Mr. Bolles. Because certain articles were published at New-York in 1836, relative to the Protestant Episcopal Church, he was justified in attacking the good people and ministry of St. John's Church Batavia, in 1842! With as much reason might he say, because John Rogers was burnt at the stake in England, Feb. 4, 1555, by order of Queen Mary, for his opposition to popery, therefore the Catholics

in Batavia should now, in 1843, be hung for the burning of John Rogers! Had Mr. Bolles shown that the Methodists in Batavia had circulated the articles among his congregation with a view to create dissatisfaction, then there would have been some cause for his complaint; this, however, he does not even assume. It is difficult, therefore, for one to conceive the connection it has with the subject in hand.

66

Mr. Bolles likewise affirms, that these articles which were so grossly abusive" "were most effectually reviewed" in the Churchman "by a Methodist minister"-(one who had been a Methodist minister.) Now, it is well known that the Churchman is extensively circulated among Mr. B's congregation, and surely, if the review was effectual, whatever injury had been done, must have been repaired, for the antidote was freely circulated without the poison; and it seems remarkable that there should be so much of the evil in 1843 as to have required the circulation of special tracts to remedy it! But Mr. Bolles is careful not to name that these articles in our paper so grossly abusive," were written in defense by a Methodist, to ward off an attack which had been made in two of the Protestant Episcopal papersthe "Gambier Observer," published under the direction of the Bishop of Ohio, and the "Churchman," under the guidance and patronage, and the official paper of Bishop Onderdonk, of N. York, And, that this defense was called forth by articles of a very iniquitous character, of which I here quote a specimen. "The Protestant Episcopal Church, is an original church of Christthe Methodist Societies are not, as they have separated from the Church of England, without, in the judgement of that Church, having a valid ministry." Now this attack upon us in their papers, had been circulated, before the articles complained of appeared in the "Advocate & Journal;" thus giving Mr. B's congregation the first and last of the arguments, and probably without the article in our paper having been read by one of them, The reader will readily perceive how little value is to be placed upon all the special pleadings of Mr. Bolles on this point.

Again, Mr. B. urges in defense, that the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in this place "were as sheep without a shepherd." This is indeed a very weak point, and the premises upon which it rests untrue. Our people here have never been without a shepherd; they have never made any such acknowledgment, nor have they ever supposed such a statement could with any degree of truth be made relative to them. They have always claimed that JESUS CHRIST was the Bishop and Shepherd of their souls; to whom they are united not by the "circumcision of the flesh made with hands," but by the "circumcision of the heart" made by the Spirit of God: and in the fulfilment of His promise they claim ever to have had his presence. If Mr. Bolles