The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in 1784. Mr. Wesley died 1791, seven years thereafter. And yet bishops and clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church by writing, publishing and circulating this tract, tacitly endorse this palpable falsehood, that "when Wesley died there was no organization claiming to be a Methodist Church!!" These are some of the doctrines of this tract (No. 4) which Mr. Bolles did not see fit to notice. Let the reader review these doctrines, keeping in mind the fact, that these tracts were given to persons who were either not members of any Church, but inclined to Methodism, or were members of his own Church, and contemplated becoming Methodists, and then decide whether by his circulating pamphlets of this character among such persons, he is not guilty of an attempt to preju dice individuals against Methodism.

And as he avers his belief, that the author of the tract has sustained his positions, viz. "that the Methodists are not a Churchhave no ministry-no sacraments—no divine warrant: are guilty of the sin of Korah-are living in open rebellion against Godhave no good hope of heaven-that the fellowship the Protestant Episcopal Church should have for us is, the same they should have for the Moral Reform, Abolition and Temperance Societies," we thus know, and this community will know how to appreciate his professions of love to us-his frequent remarks in social circles to the members of our Church that we are alike in all essentials and nearly so in non-essentials. Whether such a course of action is analagous to the jesuitism of Rome, or consistent with christian candor, and how near it approaches to the spirit of Bishop Horsly, so piously put forth in Mr. B's first letter, the student in ecclesiastical history will be able to judge.

CHAP. V.

Mr. Bolles defense continued. His circulating tract No. 5 not an attack upon the Methodists-the tracts anonymous—his charge that I, not himself, had left tract No. 4 at the Book Store.

I proceed in my review of Mr. B's defense; and now ask the attention of the reader to the consideration of that part which relates to his circulation of "tract No. 5." of "tracts for the people." In this act, Mr. B. claims that he made no attack upon us, and that Methodists should not, on this account, hold any grievance against him, for the reason, that the tract contained nothing more than the faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church. By this statement Mr. B. would convey the idea, I presume, that his knowledge of Methodism exceeded that of the author of the tract, for while acting on the same ground with him, and pleading fair designs, he steps beyond the path made by him. The author of the tract does not assert that he was advocating the doctrines of our Church; on the contrary, he avers, "that his position was not only against Presbyterians ordinarily so called, but, also, against Baptists, METHODISTS," &c. Here it will be perceived, that Mr. B. in his effort to free himself from the allegation of the Leaders Meeting" is brought in conflict with the assertions of the author of the tract. Is not this absolutely so? Let us notice the position maintained in the tract.

66

From the general bearing and structure of his argument it is evident, that the author of tract No. 5 wished to prove, that there was but ONE true Church, and which could only be so by having three distinct orders created by divine authority, with the right or power of ordination restricted to the first and superior order, without which three distinct orders thus constituted, there could not be a true Church. It will appear that I have stated his positions correctly from this quotation in which he says, that "in the Apostolic period of the Church, as in the Jewish period, the divinely established and only authorized ministry, was constituted in three distinct orders: to the first of these orders, alone, belonged the high powers of ordination, government and discipline. And these three orders were intended to be and actually were continued as permanent orders perpetuated by successive ordinations"-"this divinely constituted ministry is necessary to our covenant with God in Christ, being the official seals of that covenant; and the covenant is necessary to convey and assure to us the pardon and

promises of the Gospel. Without an authorised ministry, then, there are no sacraments-without the sacraments there is no covenant, no Church; and out of the Church there is no promise of God's mercy and favor, no pledge, no assurance of salvation." He then proceeds in his endeavors to show, that none but a ministry thus constituted, "have a right, to impart to us the LIFE GIVING Sacraments, and to feed us with the true bread which came down from heaven."" "Where this ministry is not found," he adds, "there is no ministerial authority-there are no sacraments-there is no Church; and all men who are, unhappily, destitute of them, whatever they may believe or profess, and whatever forms of religion and religious observances they may adopt, are aliens from the holy covenant, to which they have not been authoritatively admitted." The consideration of these subjects he states, comes "within the circle of his present theme." Whether he sustained his positions I will not now stop to inquire, but that he had these subjects under consideration, is further evident from what he thus says, "the evidence furnished is clear, pointed, conclusive-sufficient to convince the impartial, candid and christian reader." And, again, he adds, that "what he had adduced was only a specimen of what fills all antiquity." That Mr. B. deemed these positions sustained is presumed from his assertion, "that he" (the author) "had presented such proofs as could not be overthrown;" though his arguments had all been exploded for the ninety-ninth time, long before the tract was written, or the veritable endorser of its sentiments saw the light of day.

Having, in his own opinion, sustained his position, the author advances to the work of excommunication; not, indeed, in his own language, (nevertheless he is none the less guilty,) but in the adopted "significant language of others," which consists of quotations from some of the fathers, embodying such inferences as he wished to exhibit. Thus he, by such quotations, says "as many as are of God and of Christ are also with their bishop. If any one follow them who make a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Hearken to the bishop, that God also may hearken unto you. Being subject to your bishop and the presbytery you may be holy and thoroughly sanctified. They who do not come to the Church do not partake of the spirit, but deprive themselves of life; for where the Church is, there is the spirit of God. Those who tear and divide the unity of the Church receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam. Whosoever separates himself from the Church, declares himself an alien and cuts himself off from the inheritance which the Church promises. He cannot obtain the reward which Jesus Christ gives, who leaves the Church which Jesus Christ has established; he is an alien; he is impure; he is an enemy. God

is no more our father when we cease to be children of the Church. He cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother. Think you that any one can stand and live who retires from the Church and forms for himself other habitations and a different home. Whoever is separated from the Catholic Church ** the wrath of God abideth on him." These doctrines are presented, and declared to be those, which "were held and taught by the whole ancient church."

Under this view of tract No. 5, it seems that its author designed to place and, in his opinion has succeeded in placing, Methodism without the pale of the true Church; and has supported his charge against Methodists of having no inheritance in the kingdom of God, yea more, of having now "the wrath of God abiding on them." Let it be remembered that such is his own inference. How, then, can it be said that this tract is not calculated, and was not designed to injure the Methodist Episcopal Church? How can it be said that the doctrines of the tract are not the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but only those doctrines as understood by an individual member of that Church? To such constructive pleas Mr. Bolles has already debarred himself a resort by assuring us, that the object of the tract was "to prove the three orders of the ministry as held by the Protestant Episcopal Church?" Let it not be said hereafter that Mr. B. and his "successional" associate "never pronounced the uncharitable sentence of condemnation," for here, in a tract written for the express purpose of expounding and supporting doc trines as held by their Church; in a work duly credited by their paper, and introduced by Mr. B. into this community-not by the half dozen but half hundred-and gratuitously circulated, such "uncharitable sentences" abound, and Methodists as well as nineteen-twentieths of professed Church members in christendom, are pronounced to have "no inheritance in the kingdom of God -no sacraments-no covenant-no promise of God's mercy-no pledge, no assurance of salvation:" but to have "the wrath of God abiding on them."

The only evidence adduced by Mr. B. in support of the asser tion that tract No. 5 truly displays the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is drawn from that part of our Book of Discipline which embraces our ordination service. Here he has fallen into the same error which others have before him, and which is but one of the many contained in his letters, and either exhibits ignorance or deceit, which of the two he may decide for himself. The charge which he here makes, is, that our "forms of ordination" are copied from the Prayer Book of the Protestant Epis copal Church. Now Mr. Bolles may or may not know, that this Prayer Book was not in existence at the time our Church adopted her forms of ordination. If he does not know it he is ignor

ant of this point of Ecclesiastical History-if he did know it he is guilty of an absolute falsehood: which will he admit to be the fact? I will not alledge that the Protestant Episcopal forms of ordination are taken from ours, for I presume, both received the leading and important features from the same source, each making such modifications and alterations as seemed necessary to answer their own special purposes. If Mr. B. should not be aware of certain facts relative to these forms and other matters connected therewith, he may learn them from the works of Bishop Burnet; one of which he will find affords satisfactory infor mation that the ordination service of the Protestant Episcopal Church as contained in her Prayer Book, is not there as it was in the ordaining service of the Church of England prior to 1662. At this time the Prayer Book contains a special service for the ordaining of a Bishop to distinguish him from a Priest; at the date of 1662 no such difference existed; and hence, the terms "receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest," and "receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop" have been added. There is also a difference with regard to the lessons. Those passages which relate to the duties of a scriptural Bishop were then applied to a Presbyter. How is all this? Can it be inferred, from these facts that prior to 1662 the Church was Presbyterian. But more of this hereafter. The simple questions to be considered here are, do the forms of ordination, as found in our book of discipline, prove that we ordain ministers under the name of Bishops, claiming for them under that title, an order, by divine right, distinct from and superior to Presbyters: which order alone has the right to perpetuate its own and the two lower orders? And do we also claim, that without these three orders regularly constituted and handed down in "succession," there can be "no Church, no ministry, no sacraments," &c.? These are the questions, according to the argument of Mr. Bolles; for these are the points at issue, and the orders named and embraced within those points in tract No. 5.

Now, do we believe in these distinct orders of Ministers and do we ordain to them? This can easily be decided by the standard authors on Methodism in the negative: but as Mr. B. might be unwilling to admit such evidence as conclusive, and as fully illustrating our faith, I will refer him to testimony from another source, and Mr. Bolles will not then be able to repeat, his protestation against any argument founded upon our writers as he has thus done in his letter, "not what Dr. Bangs says, nor any individual among your number may say.' What is the language of our Book of Discipline, where the different officers of our Church have their powers and work defined? Its language clearly shows that we do not claim to have any such distinction of orders as is represented in tract No. 5,-no superior powers held and exer