charged, for they were in circulation in this village, through his agency, long before this individual called for the book in question, as a number of persons are ready to testify.

Mr. Bolles says that this individual called upon him for some work which was a reply to the positions of Dr. Bangs, in his work on "An Original Church of Christ" and that he gave him, at his own "special request," the Tract No. 4. This story wants a link to make it out as good as his former sophistry. How did he know there was any such Tract as Tract No. 4, and if he did not know it, how could this Tract have been given him at "his own special request"? He did not know there was any such Tract; for the very language of Mr. Bolles shows, conclusively, that such was the case. The individual called upon him for some work which was an answer to Dr. Bangs'. He left it to Mr. B. to select the work, and thus it was that Tract No. 4 was handed him, and not at his special request. If this tract was, indeed, a reply to Dr. Bangs' work, then there would be some plausibility in the story of Mr. Bolles; but inasmuch as it is not -never was claimed to be by any one who has read the work—– surely Mr. B. was not complying with the request made, to furnish a work which was a reply. Does not Mr. B. also, admit that Tract No. 4 is not such a reply in his attempt to reply to it, or does he think it a reply, but not one sufficient, and, therefore resolved to reply to it himself "more.effectually"?

The reading of Dr. Chapman's Sermons "On the Ministry, Worship, and Doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church" to his congregation by Mr. Bolles, is claimed to have been done without any design to make a defense of their organization, or as an act which should be construed by other Churches as an unkind one. For these positions two reasons are given;-first, that his Sermons are "models of christian kindness and courtesy," and second, that they were read in the lecture room, on Sabbath evenings. I admit, indeed, that Dr. Chapman's work is written in a pleasing style that his sophistry is smooth-his arrogance refined: that his charges and denunciations are accompanied with expressions of regret for what he regards as the necessity for them. But, these admissions do not render me the less sensible of the fact that there was a design on the part of Mr. Bolles in reading these Sermons to create favourable views of the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and repugnant feelings to the organization of other Churches; nor do they lessen my conviction of the denunciatory and condemning expressions of Dr. Chapman. Because one denounces his neighbor as a heretic, and adds that he does it with kind intentions, does not render the denunciation the less bitter, though it may be removing the disgust which coarser expressions would create. This doing of coarse things in a mild way, is too much like the assas

sins' using a keen edged instrument to destroy one and then pleading that he has done you a favor by his discrimination!

Dr. Chapman's arguments are based upon High Church grounds and embody the essential doctrines of successional exclusiveness; hence, if true, all out of the pale of the Protestant Episcopal Church, are beyond the covenanted mercies of God; and Methodists like all other denominations are in a state of rebellion against God. Though Dr. C. fails in his argument, yet this is no evidence against his designs. Where can one find severer thrusts at the doctrines of other Churches than his own, in his 18th and 19th Sermons? It may, with a high Churchman, be a trifle to charge the Methodist Episcopal, or any other Church, with hav-. ing a spurious origin; to alledge that all the heresies, and all the evils which have existed among professed christian communities, from the days of the Apostles to the present day, were engendered or promoted by us to affirm that the tendency of our doc trines is to Unitarianism and to infidelity, and predicting that we must inevitably land on the shores of the one or the other-todenounce Calvin and all other dissenting reformers as the patrons of heresy and scepticism; charging upon them the infidelity of Germany and all other lands: but to the advocate of religious liberty and tolerance, one who desires to be guided by the precepts of Him who taught men to love one another and to return good for evil, these evidences of that pride which religious intolerance generates in the bigots heart, come with an array of painful anxieties and distressful fears for the fate of a large portion of mankind. If it be any enjoyment for Protestant Episcopalians to hold and entertain these opinions of Dr. Chapman, the susceptability to such enjoyment must be founded upon some trait of our nature which was insidiously instilled into the heart of Eve in the Garden of Eden, and has reached a degree of cultivation at this period of mans existence which even the most abhorred of men should shudder to look upon!

It would not be difficult to show that the arguments of Dr. Chapman, in the hands of a Papist, could be brought to bear upon the Protestant Episcopal Church with greater force and be urged with greater propriety, than upon us;-that if his arguments are conclusive, his own church is in the same condemnation. In fact, it could be shown that the Romanists did urge, against the English Church, the same charges of "division and offenses." And we could throw back upon our accusers similar ones; but this is no duty of mine now in the Review of Mr. Bolles' work.

CHAP. IV.

Mr. Bolles' Defense, continued-His circulating Tract No. 4, not an attack upon the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Mr. Bolles attempts to defend himself against the charge of attacking us in circulating Tract No. 4, on the ground that this tract contains nothing but the doctrines of Mr. Wesley, and hence, that the circulation of his sentiments cannot be construed as holding evil designs towards the Methodist Episcopal Church.

On this point I beg leave to remark ;-first, if Tract No. 4 contains nothing more nor less than an honest statement of Mr. Wesley's sentiments, why this effort on the part of the Protestant Episcopal Church to circulate it? Why should the members or clergy of that church be at the trouble and expense of printing and scattering, broad cast over this country the sentiments of Mr. Wesley? Are they so much in love with the character and opinions of that venerable man of God, whom high Churchmen have denounced as an enthusiast, a schismatic, and have affixed to his name almost every vile epithet? Do they wish to assist us in circulating his works, or do they claim that the Methodists are unwilling to have Mr. Wesley's views and opinions generally known? Such cannot be the fact for we are now and always have been ready to spread his writings; not however, as others have done, palming upon the public, works containing only garbled and unfair extracts from them, accompanied with unwarrantable inferences and false statements-but the entire works, that the people might read and understand for themselves what were the whole of Mr. Wesley's sentiments. By reading them thus published have Methodists become dissatisfied with their church, and turned their affections to the younger daughter of the church of England? If so, where has such a dissatisfaction been known to exist? Is it not strange, then, if tract No. 4 is in no way at war with the entire sentiments of Mr. Wesley, and if it is not designed to make a different impression from that which would be received from the perusal of his entire works, that this effort should have been put forth? It may be said that the whole works are too voluminous and that few would purchase them complete. But, why urge such an argument in favor of this tract? Why not publish the whole of the two sermons entire, without note or comment, from which the extracts making this tract are mostly taken? In fine why have not high Churchmen

exhibited practical evidence of their faith in the observance of that sentiment, upon which Mr. Bolles dwells with so much emphasis "I have great confidence in the intuitive judgment of the people when not influenced by special pleadings"?

Secondly:-If this tract contains nothing more or less than an honest exposition of Mr. Wesleys sentiments how are we to estimate the motive which Mr. Bolles assigns to the author of it for withholding his name? Was the author induced to send forth the tract anonymously because he wished to escape the commendation he would receive from those who venerate the name of Wesley? Was this gratuitous and entirely unsolicited act likely to create prejudices and bitter feelings against the author of the tract, by the admirers of Wesley, if the tract was a fair and candid publication of the opinions and views of Mr. Wesley? No, as Mr. Bolles intimates, the author "was afraid of the storm that would be raised against him," not by the enemies of Mr. Wesley for publishing the truth, but by his friends for publishing what was false. This was unquestionably the true motive of the author, for concealing his name. He knew very well, that he was perpetrating an act which from all good men would draw upon him that condemnation and scorn which is bestowed upon the vilest and most degraded character. He therefore, ventured to send forth the tract, as a father sends forth his illegitimate child without a name or any evidence of birth and parentage, little caring how much of the seeds of corruption might be sown by the act. The most charitable inference to be drawn, is, that the author hoped to realize some benefit from those who like himself could feast upon the indulgence of the grovelling propensities of mankind, and thus for the immediate interest which his falsehoods might create, upon the minds of those who should read the tract and not read the corrections which should be made, he was willing to cast aside all principles of honor, morality and truth. Debased and corrupt, indeed must be the heart of such a man. blood which circulates through his body must be thoroughly imbued with the condensed elements of sin, and his very features must picture forth the hideous lineaments of the Prince of Darkness!

The

If this tract contains the sentiments of Mr. Wesley unperverted what object had Mr. Bolles in circulating it? Was it to build up Methodism to increase the friendship between the two churches? If it was to build up Methodism, then the Rector of St. James should be called to an account by his Bishop for aiding and abetting schism. I cannot think it was for this purpose, that it was to put down what high churchmen term schism, especially the schism of Methodism, and I am confirmed in this opinion from the character of the persons to whom the tracts were given. I notice but one out of the number, now. A communi

but

cant at St. James' who had formerly been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Batavia called upon Mr. Bolles to inform him that he wished a dismission from the Protestant Episcopal Church for the purpose of uniting with the Methodist. He was urged to wait and defer deciding upon a change until he had read some on the subject. The first reading article placed in his hands was tract No. 4.

tract.

A very important matter for consideration is the fact that Mr. Wesleys sentiments are not fully nor fairly presented in this What he has said at one time and in a certain situation, under particular circumstances, is made to apply to entirely different, circumstances, and the whole construction, thus so much varied, as essentially to pervert his true meaning. His remarks. in reference to his followers in one country are transferred and incorrectly applied to them in another country. This course, pursued by the author of this tract, shows conclusively that the public were designed to be deceived. There is no more honesty in such statements and perversions than would be exhibited by me, should I say of Mr. Bolles, that because at one time he had never written a sermon preached at Batavia, he had not therefore written a sermon preached there or elsewhere. And this will appear to any one who will read Mr. Wesley's entire and complete works.

But, let us see what Mr. Bolles says of the tract. He says, that "it teaches us that Methodists were originally members of the church of England" and he affirms "that this statement is true and cannot be denied.' Now, the truth or falsity of this doctrine depends upon the sense he attaches to the terms "Methodist" and " original." The terms may be used to refer to those only who first organized a Class at Oxford, and in this sense the application would be just, for they were members of the church of England. The terms, again, may be applied to all those who bore the name of Methodist in England and America at the time of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in this country: And this must be the sense in which Mr. Bolles and the author of the tract made use of them: if it was not so, then there is a manifest error and irrelevancy. The author of the tract labors to show-if there is any point in his argument—that Mr. Wesley was so connected with the church of England, that all who were his followers or bore the name of Methodist, were also originally members of the English church. In this sense, notwithstanding the affirmation of Mr. Bolles and his challenge of its truthfulness, I am ready to make a positive denial of the correctness of the application. With as much, yea more, truth can the Roman Catholics claim that all Protestant Episcopalians are Papists. Any person acquainted with the history of the Methodists knows well, that even in the days of the Wesleys the