cised by Bishops as a third order by divine right. What is the legitimate construction of our Discipline on the subject? Surely none other than places this third consecration upon the ground of an Ecclesiastical arrangement, "for the order, peace, unity and good governance of the Church?" This is the correct construction, and avows similar sentiments, according to Dr. Samuel Miller, with nineteen out of twenty of all the Episcopalians in Great Britain and the United States. It is simply a matter of human expediency-not of divine appointment!-proper for the perfection of the discipline of the Church, but not as tract No. 5 maintains, a sine qua non to its existence. This I hold is the true construction relative to our faith as touching the office of a Bishop, and the same as is supported by primitive usages, and the indubitable testimony of Christian Fathers and the old reformers.

If our forms of ordination imply such belief as it is contended they do by Mr. Bolles, then is the Protestant Episcopal Church placed in a fearful position, and Mr. B. is found urging against her the high crimes of believing that neither of the acts of ordination confer any power at all; and, that, therefore, every order of the Ministry is a mere nullity and ordaining an idle ceremony,- —a solemn mockery; that it is unnecessary to make a man a Minister in the Church of God; that her leading divines have been found admitting the power and authority of self-constituted teachers: that in direct violation of the spirit of their ordination, of their vows and their prayers, as prepared in their formularies of devotion, they have acknowledged themselves Presbyterian in faith and hence should have received Presbyterian ordination: for Mr. B. says, to submit to ordination under these forms without believing in the divine right of these three orders, as named in tract No. 5, is to be guilty of all these "high crimes and misdemeanors." Now as it is evident "so far as can be learned from the most respectable writings and other authentic sources of information" that not more than one part out of twenty in the Protestant Episcopal Church believe in the divine right claimed by tract No. 5-taking our date prior to the Oxford tract excitement Mr. Bolles will see the propriety of extending the application of the following, which are his own, sympathetic strains to the members of his own household. "We think, that the use of such a service, and such prayers, without intending what they mean, or believing what they say is, a most dangerous practice, and one against which, we feel most solemnly bound to lift up our warning voice in notes of tenderness and love; and we beseech you, therefore, to reflect upon the consequences should they rise up in the judgment to condemn you." Such timely admonitions may arouse them to a sense of the profanation and hypocrisy, of which, according to Mr. Bolles' reasons, they have been guilty.

No one can read that part of Ecclesiastical History which speaks of the days of the Martyrs and Reformers, and claim with any degree of propriety, that it is evident, that such men as Cranmer, Ridley and Hooper believed in the divine right of a third order in the Ministry as asserted by tract No. 5,-indeed it cannot be shown that such claim is even sanctioned by the prefatory remarks to the ordination service contained in the Protestant Episcopal Prayer Book. On the contrary it will be found that "Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, Whitgift, Leighton and Tillotson, and Bishops Jewel, Reynolds, Burnet and Croft, Drs. Whitaker and Stillingfleet" and a host of "the most learned and pious divines of the Church of England, from the Reformation down to the present day," did not believe in the divine right claimed by the tract-they placed Episcopacy on the ground of human expediency and not upon divine appointment! It will likewise be found that "Bishops Hall, Downham, Bancroft, Andrews and Forbes, Archbishop Usher, the learned Chillingworth, Archbishop Wake, Bishop Hoadly and many more" decided against the indisputable necessity of Episcopacy to the existence of a Church, though they grant the necessity of it to the perfec tion of a Church. If reference be made to the preface of the Ordination service of the Protestant Episcopal Church, these words will be found-"It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, that from the Apostles time, there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and it seems they are the same as existed in King Edward's ordinal, they have, therefore, the same interpretation, "for there is nothing declared to the contrary in the revision of 1662. The question, then can only be as to the meaning attached by the Reformers to the term order. The fathers used it for a distinction of persons in the Church possessing equal powers by divine right as Gospel Ministers. The Reformers were familiar with the writings of the fathers. The proper interpretation of their language, then, is, that from the Apostles times such distinctions as Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons had existed; NOT that the office or duties of a Bishop were by divine institution incompatible with the office of a Presbyter as a Presbyter; for they expressly affirmed the contrary." To this testimony of Mr. Powell can be added that of Bishop Hoadly, as quoted by Bishop White. The latter says, that, "with evident propriety he (Bishop Hoadly) remarks, that the service pronounces no such thing as three orders of divine appointment." What is the language of the preface, it says "that from the Apostles time, there have been, in Christ's Church, these orders of Ministers, Bishops, Priests and Deacons." This is quite differ. ent from what is claimed in the tract! that there have been in Christ's Church, from the Apostle's time, by divine appointment, these three orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons! Now that it

was the sentiment of the tract, and not the sentiment of the preface, that was in Mr. Bolles' mind at the time he penned the paragraph upon which these comments are made is evident from the incorrectness of the quotation. "The same distinction" says Bishop White, "is accurately drawn and fully proved by Stillingfleet in the Irenicum." If then, in our ordination, Mr. B. has convicted us of hypocrisy and profanation, I think it has been made to appear that he has placed a large portion of his own people in the same fearful predicament: and we may be permitted to say, in the language of Bishop White, "it is no small consolation derived from being found in company so respectable." But, I will not press further a point that must involve him, in such serious domestic trouble, and will now return to our Book of Discipline.

I enter the plea of not guilty to Mr. B's charge, and while I do this I assert, without hesitation, that there is not the least particle of evidence which can be produced from our statute bookacts of Conference, or our standard works, to support the charge; but that all of these with common sense are against such a construction of our Ordination Service. And inasmuch as Mr. B. has said, that no individual or body of men can be responsible for the inferences which others may draw from their doctrines, and, that we have no right to charge upon them inferences of our own, or to misrepresent the real doctrines which they teach, I cannot do better than to recommend to Mr. Bolles the due consideration of such just remarks. Reflection may induce him to quote his own language, "Is this the dictate of christian love? Is this the kindness of brethren in Christ? Is this the way to convince us of our error or our sin? Nay more, is it morally honest to charge the Church with doing that which she never has done?"

It would seem, therefore, that our escape from the horns of Mr. B's dilemma, is quite easily accomplished; for though I do not admit that Mr. Wesley with those associated with him, had no right to ordain Dr. Coke a Scriptural Bishop, but assert the con-trary, yet, I aver that we have not, nor have ever claimed to have, three such orders as tract No. 5 assumes to be indispensably necessary to the existence of a Church. This dilemma reminds one of the advice given by a friend to a controversalist whom he feared would be worsted in the conflict "only be sure and throw dirt enough for some will stick," Mr. B. seems to have acted under this advice, and having no other resource or expedient has stirred up the dust, which on being brushed away shows his dilemma a hornless one, upon which, notwithstanding his permission, one will find a horn wanting to hang upon.

This fully shows, that Mr. B. has been arguing upon false, or rather, upon assumed premises which on examination are found

to be without any foundation. He has drawn inferences from our formularies of devotion which are entirely erroneous, and, judged of by his own rules he has violated the laws of honorable controversy. His course clearly exhibits the evils which result from a vain and conceited opinion, hastily and imprudently formed, upon subjects with which one has but little acquaintance. Mr. Bolles not only shows his ignorance upon this subject, but he adds impudence to that ignorance by calling in question our motives and impugning our sincerity in our prayers. From this method of controversy all honorable men would turn away with disgust. No reasonable man would dare to denounce others upon their motives and opinions, formed, not by the expressed positions of those who hold the opinions and display the motives, but upon inferences formed by the censor himself. This is, indeed, a most pitiable course and one which followed by a high Churchman, shows that the term has been badly applied to him; for while he bears the name of high, he gives voluntary testimony that he can be extremely grovelling and low. The condition is similar to that of the serpent, placed by some fortu itous circumstance in a tree, far elevated above the sphere which nature designed he should occupy, and wanting sufficient sense to keep quiet and enjoy the benefits of his location, he betrays his true character by his vain exposure.

It is rather singular, that a denomination cannot use such terms to distinguish the officers of their Church as may seem to them the most appropriate, without being subjected to denunciation by high Churchmen, Because we expect from the Bishops of our Church different qualities, and regard the office in a different light than Protestant Episcopalians do, surely is no good reason why our Bishop is any the less a Bishop. If the Protestant Epis copalians should admit that our Bishop was as regularly constituted the head of our Conference as theirs was the head of a Diocese, would it make our Bishop any the more of a Bishop? Certainly not. Each denomination arranges such matters to suit themselves, and other denominations have nothing, or at least, should have nothing to say against the arrangement. Why, then, should we be charged with inconsistency when we pray for one whom we have placed at the head of our Conference, and whom we call a Bishop? If the objection of one denomination to the system adopted by another, be a valid objection-if the presid ing officer of one denomination be morally or ecclesiastically illegal because another denomination does not acknowledge such officer, then virtually all religious institutions for the better governance of Church affairs are null and void. The Methodists would have no Bishop because Protestant Episcopalians would not call the chosen one a Bishop-the Presbyterians would have no Moderator because Protestant Episcopalians would not admit

that a Moderator could be divinely at the head of the Presbyterian Church, and the Protestant Episcopalians themselves, would have no Bishops because the Papists would not so acknowledge them. Now this is the substance of Mr. B's position, and to such most remarkable results does it lead us.

But Mr. Bolles, as well as Bishop Onderdonk, admits that we have a Bishop in the scriptural sense of the term; and having one, we, of course, have a right to pray for him according to the Scriptures; and more particularly, for the reason, that we use the term Bishop as it was used by the Church of England at the period when her forms of prayer were instituted! The Methodist Episcopal Church, either do, or do not believe that they have a Bishop in some sense of the term, and if they do believe that they have a Bishop, then are they not guilty of insincerity in their prayers-then do they act honestly, uprightly, and justly before God and before man. Having the belief admitted, (and there was no reason to doubt that we so believed,) the reader will see, that we are, not only from Mr. B's unsupported charge, without a Bishop, but also of not believeing that we are doing right when we pray for him we denominate a Bishop. Thus he would maintain that we are guilty not only of living in violation of God's laws, but of so doing in hypocrisy. Pretty severe sentiments for one christian to use towards another. Our Protestant Episcopal friends have generally been willing to allow that we were sincere--that however great our errors we believed them truths, here, however, we are deprived of even this condescension and, I suppose, we must now exclaim, alas! what hope have we of heaven? They had, indeed, debarred us from the covenanted mercies of God, but had placed our salvation, like the heathen, on the ground of sincerity; that though it was not probable we should be saved, yet it was possible. Now, forsooth, Mr. Bolles has denied us even this possibility! This is not merely unchurching us, but damning us afterward-as the murderer after he has beheaded his victim would give him one stab in the region of the heart for effective security. According to his theory we must have such a Bishop as he pleases to dictate to us under the jure divino claim or there is no salvation for us; for hypocrites of this grade can never enter the kingdom of Heaven. How much is Rome in advance of this, Mr. B's "Episcopacy or damnation"? Let the reader look fully over this ground work and then decide, whether Mr. Bolles in the circulation of tract No. 5, did not make an attack upon the sister Churches with the design of prejudicing the community against them.

Another defense made by Mr. B. is, that he was justified in the act, or at least was not doing an ill act, for the reason that the pamphlets were "anonymous." I am aware, that his remarks on "anonymous publications" are so constructed that the