designs to convey the impression that they were without a Pastor, he is equally in error, for they have always had a regular Pastor, and had Mr. B. been better acquainted with our economy he would have known that we never leave our people unsupplied. True, sometimes it is necessary, for various reasons, to unite two or more societies into one charge, as is not unfrequently done in the Protestant Episcopal Church, especially in their Missionary stations,-but ours are all supplied with such an amount of ministerial labor as the circumstances of the case require. Our people here, then, have not in any sense been left as "sheep without a shepherd," and any plea of justification for entering among this flock clad as the fabled wolf was clad, or in any other garb, has no real foundation.

As benefactors, Mr. Bolles urges that he and his people have done much toward building us up as a Church-(Society, I sup pose in high Church language I should say)-by subscriptions for the erection of our house, and by manifesting a friendly spirit: hence any attempt on our part to repel the accusation and to expose the sophistry of the pamphlets with which our village was so bountifully and, mostly, gratuitously supplied-any attempt to show that we were a Church, with a ministry and sacraments, was ungrateful in the extreme. Admitting that Mr. Bolles and his people had done much for us, and held towards us that spirit of friendship which one christian people should hold for another, could he be justified in using the denunciatory expres sions of the character he did use? Better that he and his people should be open, manly, and avowed enemies, than, while pretending to be friends, strike insidiously hostile blows, aimed at the very heart of our religious structure! How, then, can he justify himself in his course? To plead friendship here is to plead hypocrisy of the vilest and most degrading species, But the facts do not support the assertion, that Mr. Bolles and his people had done so much for us. The whole extent of their offerings by way of subscriptions towards erecting our building amounts to some $200, of which Mr. B, contributed, himself, $10. Now, it must be remembered that this amount was not the result of the kind offers made by Mr. Bolles, or of his voluntary proffers to assist, not only by subscribing liberally himself, but also, by making direct application to members of his congregation for us. for although Mr. B. had made such promises, when called on to redeem them, he utterly declined soliciting his congregation on the subject, and satisfied his conscience, and good wishes, by simply drawing a private subscription paper, and putting down his name for $10.

The reader may judge of the consistency of Mr. Bolles in this matter by reading the copy of this subscription drawn up by him and found on the twelfth page of this work. His remarks in re

lation to Methodists thus seem difficult to be understood by those who appreciate adherence to opinions as necessary to constitute the character of a true christian. It is singular language for so strong a high Churchman as Mr. Bolles is, to hold towards a soci ety or church which he has proscribed as without the pale of the hallowed administrations and precincts of the Church of God! The Host and Traveller of Esop's fables, when the mouth was made to blow hot or cold as was expedient, seems most beautifully to illustrate this part of the "defense." Mr. Bolles and his

congregation, however, surely, do not claim that we are greatly indebted to them in the matter of assistance in building and in supporting the Church. While we acknowledge that they gave us assistance, we must be permitted to claim that they have received from Methodists more by hundreds, towards the erection and support of their Church, than has been contributed by them towards the erection and support of ours.

It is urged that we assumed a hostile attitude at the opening of our house. In what this consists Mr. B. has not pointed out, and thus, one is left to his own conjectures. It could not have been in neglecting to invite him to attend the dedication service! for this invitation I gave personally to him and to all the Clergymen of the village. It could not have been in the prayers, hymns, lessons, sermons or collection of that day! for in all these there was not, I am sure, any unfriendly allusions to the Protestant Episcopal Church, or to any of the sister churches. There is but one circumstance left, and for various reasons I think that must be the one which shadows forth the real ground of the difficulty, and that is the name. Names are terrible things with high Churchmen. Our house was opened under the mild and pacific name of "St. John"; this name was announced unaccompanied with any remarks or allusions; hence the evil is the namethe hostility must be in the name. Now, the crime on our part is not in taking the same name chosen by our neighbor, for that is called "St. James." And can this have been evidence of hostility to them? Our old house was called a "Chapel," why was not that evidence of hostility? Why? because, gentle reader, in the language of the "Church of the United States"-the self-styled legitimate branch of the Church of England-"Chapel" is a term applied by them to an appendage to the Church, an inferior place of worship-and this "St. James" was willing, aye, gratified to allow, as it would be highly flattering to have a Chapel represented abroad as an attachie. But in adopting the name of "St. John" for our new house, it was probably construed, and, very likely, correctly construed as conveying that idea of equality which Paul so aptly expressed when he said "in what are we inferior to other churches?" This was undoubtedly considered by our neighbor as an unwarrantable assumption. We

had broken into their sacred enclosure, and if we had not stolen their Gods, we had taken some of their holy Apostolical panoply -we had, in a word, come somewhat in opposition to their selfcreated monopoly of names, and as is well known, we had exci ted that bitter spirit of prejudice which is so easily engendered and cultivated by all monopolists, and which here may appropriately be denominated the odium and intolerance of the Protestant Episcopal Church: for the claim of sole and entire right to the covenanted mercies of God-of Apostolical power and Apostolical names, amount to, and richly deserves such appellation. If, therefore, any other denomination shall venture to open their house of worship under any of these sainted names, they must expect to be considered as being placed in a hostile attitude to the Protestant Episcopal Church, and cannot escape being assailed by all the various means which may be devised, and if they dare to defend, their very defense will be regarded as a provocation for further injuries. Hear then, all ye of other denominations, of whatever creed or principles ye may be, dare not to use Apostolic names! they are, emphatically, the peculiar and entire property of the "churches of Protestant Episcopacy."

The next point in Mr. Bolles' "defense" is, that we had manifested a proselyting spirit; and we are charged with recklessness and a want of honorable principles in seeking to build up a sect, not caring whether our converts came "from the world or from the other established congregations." The Pastor of St. John's Church is charged, not directly, but in inuendoes, with having taken advantage of family afflictions, to insinuate himself into the kind regards of people belonging to other Churches -of visiting them officially, not for the purpose of doing them good by offering them suitable and solacing instruction, but to make Methodists of them-thus, being a "proselyting visitor of the sick." This is claimed to result from an impatience and "haste to build up a congregation"-an unwillingness to wait for that "gradual and better growth." Now if all this were true, I am sure there is nothing so very heinous about it—nothing that does not, to a certain degree, occur to all denominations-nothing more than, according to its own acknowledgements, the Protestant Episcopal Church is constantly in the habit of doing. In another part of Mr. B's letter he affirms "that so far from seeking to unchurch their neighbors, they labor to church as many of them as they can!" Certainly there can be no difference between such efforts made by one denomination and those made by another, at least, no difference in principle, for surely, an individual who is a member of a Church, considers he has been "churched," to whatever denomination he belongs. This is a direct admission of Mr. Bolles, that it is the uniform policy of their Church to proselyte into their fold as many of the regular

communicants of other established organizations as they can. With such examples here for so many years, especially when many Methodists had occasionally, and some frequently, attended Mr. B's services, would it be strange, if for a season, at least, they should show themselves somewhat tinctured with the instructions received from "St. James" "desk" and practice upon those instructions.

If there is not harm in doing good, where is the wrong in be ing "in haste" to do it? Do not the Scriptures say "whatsoev er thy hand findeth to do, do with thy might ?"" that we should work while the day lasts," and as we know not when the day may close, should we not "make haste" to do the duties of the day?

But this charge which Mr. Bolles makes against me, he well knows, is not true; if he was assured it were true, he would have given specifications, and not have sent it forth in this vague general manner. No time can be named when the due observ ance of all clerical courtesies has not been regarded by me, or when I have put any of them aside for the purpose of proselyting to Methodism. This is only another instance of Mr. B's wander ing from, and violating the rules of honorable controversy, by im puning the motives of the pastor and people who worship in St. John's Church,

There has, indeed, been a large increase in membership to our Church in this place within the last year, with few exceptions, however, this increase has been by conversions at our altar. The few who constitute the exceptions, will deny that this change of views is attributable to any proselyting efforts of mine. This charge comes with a special ill grace from the Rector of "St, James," a man who became an Episcopalian as a manufac turer would say, not by being dyed in the wool, but while in cloth! and who has probably, exhibited more proselyting spirit than any other clergyman in the village-a man, whose congre gation is built up, to a considerable degree, of individuals from other Churches. Indeed, subtract from Mr. B's Church all those who have been received from the other congregations of this place, and few would be left him, for it is notorious that the greater portion of his pious and respectable members have been gathered, not "from the world" but from sister denominations: and that without the most distant reference to faith or church government. I speak advisedly when I say, other circumstances than creed or practice induced their union with St. James. But far be it from me to charge it to a proselyting spirit on the part of Mr. B's highly talented predecessor, by whom his congregation was collected, for he at least, affected no mawkish delicacy upon such a subject, but by a frank, open, manly invitation to all, heartily received such as were disposed to unite with his Church,

nor am I aware that it was ever charged to him as a violation of propriety.

It is urged in defense, that Methodists had circulated books, such as never before had appeared in this vicinity, containingthe grossest mistatements in relation to the Protestant Epis copal Church; which books were published under the high sanc tion of the "Methodist Book Concern"-that this circulation had not been restricted to our church or congregation, but, by me directly extended to Mr. Bolles' people. This charge in my private letter to Mr. B. I denied, and there declared, that no book or books of this character had been cireulated by any Methodist in this or any community. The work which I supposed was alluded to, was Dr, Bangs work entitled "An Original Church of Christ," one copy of which-the only copy in this place, so far as I have any knowledge, owned by our people I had lent, not to a member of Mr. B's. Church, but to a member of St. John's congregation, and who was one of our pew holders, and this one copy was lent to this individual at his own special request, at his own application to me for a work that treated of the organization of our church. A full statement of which facts is given in the former chapter,

and

Mr. Bolles, in reply to this denial, holds the following language: True, you say, that the individual to whom you gave the book was a member of your congregation, and not of the Episcopal Church. But what are the facts. He has been baptized in the Church-confirmed in the Church-his children have been baptized by me he has ever regarded himself as a member of the Church, and does now, and since the reading of Dr. Bang's work has come to the communion. Are we to understand that every individual who occasionally attends your services, or who, to assist you, has purchased a slip, is thereby not only a bona fide Methodist, but, that he has utterly renounced all connection with the Church? If so the good people of the various denominations in this village should beware." This is a fair specimen of Mr. B's, manner of reasoning. The reader will perceive, that he does not deny that the individual was a member of St. John's congregation, nor does he proclaim that he was a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church; though a person unread in polemics as taught in the Romish school would be likely to infer this. "He was a member of the Church." But what Church? The Church. What Church is the Church? Surely in this case the Church is not the Protestant Episcopal Church; for the individual never had any connection with that Church--was never baptized nor confirmed in that Church. "Truly is there artfulness beneath the gown and surplice."

دو

All this, however, cannot be pleaded in palliation or justification of circulating the pamphlets, with which act Mr. Bolles stands