gainst him by the officers of our Church, he acknowledging it as true, offered no ground for defensive action. What privilege, then, have I denied him? Of what can he justly complain? His reasons for commencing the correspondence are fallacious, and the existence of his letters so far as we are concerned causeless. Mr. B. assigns many reasons for publishing a private correspondence; private so far as regards my letters-not, however, as relates to his own; for he admits, that he wrote his with a view to the publication of them. First, he denies, withal, that the correspondence can in any sense, be considered private. Let us for a moment notice this position. If it was not a private correspondence, how are we to account for the following language, which he holds in reference to it?" Perceiving from your entire misunderstanding of my first communication, that there was little probability of our coming to any agreement personally, I then determined to follow the lead which you had given me, and (notwithstanding your talk about preliminaries) discuss the question of Methodism and Episcopacy; and then at the conclusion of our correspondence to lay the whole before the public." It would seem from this, that with regard to the public character of this correspondence there was but one party in the matter. Mr. Bolles had concluded to make it public without consulting me, without settling any rules to be observed, or even the ques tions to be discussed, he being in the lead, and his having commenced it he should write on what he chose, as much as he pleased, and then after receiving such replies as a private correspondent might make, he should publish them with as many additions and alterations as he pleased under the title of a regular correspondence, written with a view to publication. Now all this he admits he determined to do, because he was in the lead. What wonder then if I should try to follow in time to secure the "second sober thought of the people." Is it not evident, that I was willing to proceed to the discussion of these subjects, provided the proper preliminary questions could be settled: this matter of fixing rules however was of too little importance, Mr. B. could not tarry, "the Kings business required haste." The quotation I have made here also shows, that the correspondence was commenced as a private one and that Mr. Bolles, himself, had not then concluded to carry it to the public; for he says "I then determined," when? why after receiving my answer to his first letter.

says,

Take another quotation. In speaking of his first letter, he "I determined as a duty, both to you and myself, to take some notice of them," (my discourses) "but, not hastily, not by any public and unexpected declaration of my sentiments and feelings.". "Hence the letter which I addressed to you Sept. 7th." Does it not appear then that this correspondence was commenced

on the part of Mr. Bolles, ostensibly as a private matter, and one which he did not manifest his intention to make public. Again he says in reference to his first letter "I did not know what you would do about it; nor what shape our correspondence might assume, nor indeed that it would assume any shape." From these expressions, I think, it is plain, that Mr. B. wishes to convey the idea that he had not considered this at that time a public correspondence. How does this correspond with what he says on pages 72 and 73 of his work? "You must not shield yourself from the responsibilities of your letters by saying now that they are private, ," "for you must perceive that there is no way or shape in which our correspondence can be regarded as private." And, then, in an address to his reader, which it is true does not look much like a private correspondence, but, by the by, which has been added to the original letters sent me, he says 66 our readers will perceive, that so far as I am concerned it was not my intention to confine our correspondence to matters of a personal nature, but, that I wished to enter upon a frank and manly discussion of those topics which are really of interest to the community at large." In another place he states, his only object was to know from me the reasons of the course which I had taken, supposing, that the matter could be easily adjusted; but here he informs the reader, that it was his original intention to discuss the question of Episcopacy; for this is what, I suppose, he refers to, when he speaks of "topics which are really of interest to the community." And this he designed to do "frankly and manly." If he has not done it "manly and frankly," whose fault is it? Certainly he has had the ground to himself, and as he acknowledges, was on the lead. My only complaint has been, his unwillingness to pause and settle a few principles "manly and frankly," and then I would proceed in the discussion.

But suppose it is admitted, that he had concluded to make this correspondence public (should his letter lead to one) before he wrote his first letter, was it an evidence of "manliness and frankness," to conceal it from his correspondent, and not make the least intimation, until his book is ready for the press; and when he does inform him of the fact, decline to receive any further communications, assigning as a reason that his columns are full, and insisting that the letters received must be published just as they were written, et literatum et punctuatum! Is this "manly and frankly"? If as Mr. Bolles by his witness says "Methodism is a hodge podge" what shall we call this collection of his inconsistencies and contradictions? What is the most charitable construction which we can place upon his language?

Another reason given by Mr. B. is, that I "had published his name from my pulpit without his knowledge or consent," and hence a correspondence founded on such a public act "is not a

private correspondence," and its publication "cannot be considered a violation of the courtesies of gentlemen.' The reader will keep in mind that I complain not of the publication of his own letters. I stated to him that I was willing he should make any protest to the public he should deem proper, that I objected not to the publication of a series of letters from his pen on any subject addressed to me, or any other individual, yea, more, that if we could fix upon the question or questions to be discussed and give to me equal space, I would make half of the book of any size, and give to him all the profits of publication; but the publishing of letters written as these were, upon his part with a view to make them public, keeping me under the impression that it was a private matter, and not suspecting but that he had the honor (not to say of a Minister) of a gentleman, he keeping to himself the privilege of occupying as much space as he pleased -refusing to receive only such communications as he imagined could be turned to his own advantage-to publish them as the replies proper to his letters declaring them to be from one of the most able Ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church,—to such a course I objected as "unmanly, dishonorable, and unjust." It is to justify such a course that he presents the reasons we are now considering.

Is

Mr. Bolles claims to have acted justly in this procedure, on the ground "that I had published his name from my pulpit without his knowledge or consent." Now because I read a communica tion while in my pulpit, from the officers of our Church, in which his name occurred, is he justified in reading private letters to various persons, not members of his Church or congregation? he acting honorably in making them the subject of the lowest criticism, and in publishing them without permitting the Printer to correct a word which happened to be wrong in its orthography? Verily, is this reasoning worthy of a place among the scholastics of the Dark Ages; and had one found it in that philosophers works, who in that age studied so closely on unmeaning syllogisms as to contract a consumption with which he died, it would not have been remarkable; but to find it in the production of a divine of the 19th century seems most marvellous. The logic on which this ancient student fell a martyr is as follows, "When you speak the truth and say you lie, you do lie; but you say you lie when you speak the truth, therefore, while speaking the truth you lie." "You have what you have not lost, you have not lost horns, therefore, you have horns." But let us proceed. Perhaps better reasoning will be found as we advance.

Another reason assigned by Mr. B. for publishing my private letters is, that "I had delivered a course of lectures founded upon that document in which his name occurred; thereby, making him responsible for the opinions and sentiments I was pleased to

combat." The object of the lectures was to show, that we were a Church according to scripture and primitive usage, and “the opinions and sentiments" which the circumstances called upon me to combat were, those hostile to this claim as found in tract Nos. 4 and 5. There was no attempt made to fix the responsibility of these "opinions and sentiments" upon Mr. Bolles; if, however, his circulating these nameless pamphlets thereby becoming their "foster parent" has thus identified himself, with them, the work of "making him responsible for these opinions and sentiments" is his own and not mine. If this is a responsibility which he is unwilling to bear, his only remedy is a confession of his wrong and a reformation of his ways. But suppose those lectures aimed at throwing unjust responsibilities upon him, would this justify his course in the publication of private letters? Again it is said, that my letters should be published in order that the people might see the obtuseness of my intellect. Finding there was no probability of making me understand his com munications, Mr. B. then determined (after receiving my first letter) to pursue the correspondence to such a length and on such subjects as he saw fit to introduce, and then without any knowl edge or consent upon my part, to lay the whole before the pub lic. If in failing to make me understand his communications he had determined to go to the public with them I should not have complained; though, even in this case, I do not know what the public had to do with his misfortune of having so obtuse an opponent. How could they remove or relieve his affliction? But what is not understood, his letters or mine? Not mine,. most surely, for he has not complained that he could not understand me, and, I think, I understood myself; at least, I have made no expressions to him otherwise.. It is his letters, then, that are not understood. How is it? Cannot the public understand them, without their being accompanied with mine? Do they need the

exposition of such an obtuse intellect, fully to see, and feel their force, or was this accompaniment designed as proof of my obtuseness? If so, then, his determining to lay the whole before the public was not to have his views fairly understood, but to expose my weakness; and that too after he had published me to the world as the most able, learned, and eloquent preacher of the Methodist connection in this section of the country." Was this kind? Was this courteous ? Let it be remembered, then, that the Rev. James A. Bolles, Rector of St. James' Church, Batavia, N. Y., published my private letters, because he could not make me understand his public letters!!!

Another reason named by Mr. B. is, that "I had refused to discuss the subjects opened by myself." In regard to the opening of the subject he is entitled to all the honor accruing therefrom, he having written the first letter. It is true, in replying to

that letter, I alluded to certain facts, with which I knew he was familiar, as justifying the course I had taken and showing, that he had no ground of complaint. Had Mr. B. published all I wrote to him, the public would have seen more fully than they can from his book, my willingness to discuss all those facts. In my second letter I stated, that all matters of a local and personal nature I was willing to examine as a private correspondent; but beyond that I was not willing to travel in this character for the reason, I could see no object to be gained that a discussion of Episcopacy would not probably tend to convince either of us of error, nor as a private discussion benefit the public. With such an avowal upon my part, if he wished to be " 'manly and frank" why did he not reply, stating his willingness to conform to my wishes, or give reasons why he could not? Would not this have been "manly and frank"? But he chose to suspend any reply except through the press in the form of a book, and immediately he reported that I had refused to proceed in the correspondence. Now he incorporates it in his work as the reason of his publishing my private letters. Is this "manly and frank”? But even if I had declined a discussion of these questions, so "interesting to the community at large," how could it justify the publication of my private letters? And how could Mr. Bolles advertise a work as containing replies from me to his defense of the "Episcopal Church," and his "examination into the claims of Methodist Episcopacy," if he believed as he here avers, that I had refused to discuss this subject? His reason, therefore, is not only unsound but, in fact false.

Another reason offered by Mr. B. is, that had he published his letters unaccompanied with mine, he would have subjected himself "to the charge of withholding my vindication." What vindication does he mean? The reasons why I preached the discourses in defense of the Methodist Episcopal Church? The public already had this vindication; for I gave my reasons in my introductory sermon, to the only community interested in the matter; and when this community, or any other, shall need a supplement to the one given, I shall endeavor to supply it "to the best of my ability." I claim, however, the privilege, as well as the right, to judge of the necessity and the occasion as to when this shall be written and how it shall be communicated. But, perhaps it was a vindication against the charges brought by Mr. Bolles. If he has brought public charges against me, then I claim, it would be proper for me to dictate what my public vindication should be. When this reason of his was penned he had brought no public charges against me, and hence, had received no public vindication from me. How, then, could he have subjected himself to the charge of withholding what he did not possess, what had not been written? And when he con