to them in my defense; but proceed to notice other charges, found in different parts of Mr. B's work, which the Rev. Gentleman has seen fit to bring against me, and which, I have not as yet dwelt upon.

I am charged by Mr. Bolles with refusing to discuss subjects which I had suggested and of referring him to Dr. Bangs. I claim not to have suggested any subject, other than such as related to facts, with which I knew he was familiar, as justifying the public expose of the tracts he had circulated. He has suggested the subjects himself; first, by assailing our institutions in the manner already named, and second, by the letters which he addressed to me. I have not certainly, refused to discuss any question with him, either of a personal character, or, such as were noticed in our private correspondence. Nor have I declined to discuss the claims of Methodist and Protestant Episcopacy publicly, provided he would first pledge himself to observe just and equal rules. As regards Dr. Bangs, Mr. Bolles was the first to bring his name into the controversy, as may be seen in his second letter. Because I considered this irrelevant, and stated, that if he wished to join issue with the Doctor, I presumed he would find him, ready and willing to controvert with him, surely cannot be claimed as a design, on my part, to decline discussing any subject. I was simply referring Mr. B. to the same source for explanations, and discussions if he wished it, relative to Dr. B's work, from which that work emenated. This was merely sending him to the fountain head, for which he ought rather to be gratified than otherwise.

Another charge is, that by leaving the points at issue unsettled, I have impugned the integrity of my antagonist. Now it must be remembered that the issue was made by Mr. Bolles, and some points involved in that issue were of a personal character; as any one can see, by reading Mr. B's first letter. In replying to personal matter therefore, it became necessary for me to refer to facts in which he personally was concerned; and if those facts involved his integrity, then on him who made the necessity must be the blame, if blame there be in calling them forth. It, certainly, is as painful to me as it can be to him, to dwell on personal matters, and this is the reason why I did not even in my private letters allude to various things which I gladly would have refrained from mentioning; but, which I am now under the necessity of noticing publicly. It is remarkable that if discussion. was so painful to him, he should have commenced it. Whether he had forgotten certain facts, or thought I was too diffident to. name them must be left to the readers own conclusion..

I am charged with denying the jus divinum of our most solemn prayers. The prayers referred to are those contained in our ordination service. If Mr. B. means by jus divinum, that our

prayers are of divine authority, I would say, that whatever inspiration he may attach to the Prayer Book of his Church, as Protestants, we claim inspiration for no book but that book of books, the Bible. As Methodists, we attach no divinity to the prayers of our ordination service, and claim only that there is nothing in them that is at variance with the spirit, precepts, or doctrines of the Scriptures. If he means, we deny the truth, the sentiment of our prayers, because we do not attach to the term "Bishop," all that high Churchmen have appended to it, he has first to show, that our prayers contain not by implication-not by his interpretation, but by express declaration all the attributes which they affix, and which we denying to a Bishop before he involves us in the crime of approaching God with the language of hypocrisy! But, has he shown that there is any such declaration? Certainly not, for there is none. The charge is founded upon his construction of our language, and if he claims the privilege of interpreting our language, certainly, we have a right to define the sense in which we use terms, and when he shall prove, that we have no right to use terms in the sense in which we do use them, or that we do not, in fact, use them in a correct sense, then indeed he may think he can convict us either of ignorance or hypocrisy. When he has clearly shown, that we have no right to offer up prayers for our Bishop and to implore, that God will give him grace to discharge faithfully and profitably all those duties which the economy of our Church, and the word of God have made incumbent upon him, merely because we do not make the distinction between him and a Presbyter as broad as the high Church party do, then, will he have some ground to urge the charge of dissimulation and hypocrisy upon us. But, until this is done, I must look upon this charge as a violation of the ninth commandment. As slanderous not only to us but to a large and respectable portion of both the Clergy and Laity of his own Church, who are known to have similar views of "sacred orders" to those entertained by'us. One could, with as much, if not with more justice claim that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church -the Popes of Rome-the Archbishops of England, will bring against the Protestant Episcopal Church the charge of denying the "jus divinum" of their most solemn prayers, because they do not attach to their Bishops all the powers and rights claimed by these high Church ecclesiastics; particularly, after having consecrated them by the same formularies.

He asserts that I avail myself of the productions of others without giving due credit. He alludes to this, he says, "with reluctance," but thinks he must do it, as "it illustrates my idea of justice and propriety." Without questioning his sincerity, I would also say that I reluctantly allude to this charge, because it so fully illustrates either his want of a due sense of justice and

propriety, or such an anxious desire to injure the influence of his opponent and to set aside arguments which, he was unable or unwilling to meet, to show that he had forgotten all rules of justice and propriety. But, as truth demands that facts should be given, and as no man would lie under the unjust imputation of having purloined from another's works, and of having palmed off, what was copied from them, as his own, it becomes necessary for me to notice this charge of literary theft, and to vindicate myself if possible. The charge is found in various parts of his work; generally, in insinuations, but sometimes openly and boldly avowed: and in one instance directly so. In general it is found in such expressions as the following-"And Mr. Steele in the wake of Dr. Bangs"-" words of abuse which others manufactured for you," &c. These are repeated in various forms and after I had denied to him the allegation. He seems to labor hard to make the impression, that my Lectures in reply to the tracts, consisted of matter taken without credit from Dr. Bangs' "Original Church of Christ." Hence, becoming a little more direct, he says, that in reviewing the above named work he shall examine the positions of the Doctor; and "those who heard your" (that is my) "Lectures can judge whether his arguments are in any respect the same as those employed by you." He says, it is true, in many places, that in personalities I stand alone, and claims for himself, that he has not injured, nor would he on any account injure my influence; but, what could his object here be? He did not hear my Lectures! How then did he know, that I had used Dr. Bangs' arguments? Does he suppose his notice of them would alter the case? Could not the people who heard my Lectures, judge after reading Mr. Bolles' work whether plagiarism had been committed without any such imputation from him? Suppose, that I had used arguments that can be found in the work alluded to, did not the Rector of St. James use arguments that can be found in books not written by himself? Let me tell him, that there is not an idea in his work, on the direct argument, but that I have seen years before I saw him; and most of the arguments I have heard used by one of his Prelates. This however I should not have thought of mentioning, nor do I now notice it, as any disparagement to his work. The fact is, two minds investigating the same subject may fall into nearly the same trains of thought, especially if in their polemical reading they have both perused the same authors, and, indeed, when writing, we frequently do not know where, or how, we obtained our ideas; whether by reading, conversation, or meditation. Every writer or debater well knows that he has used arguments which at the time he did not recollect to have received from others and long after has found the substance of them in standard works. Perhaps if Mr. B. had heard Professor Lyell's lectures

and had been familiar with works on Geology he would have published him to the world as a literary thief. Why a good brother Minister once said to me, privately, after preaching, "my dear sir you made rather too free use of a certain author this morning." Why? said I, in reply, I never saw or read the work to which you refer. Well, said he, I am glad that I asked the question, for though it has been some time since I read it, yet, I, certainly, thought you was on the authors track." Ministers,

66

in these days of loose language, should be careful how they countenance such a course of injustice; for there has been so much published in Sermons, Systems of Divinity, and Commentaries, that they, more than any class of public men, are exposed to this charge. But Mr. Bolles' method of annihilating an opponent is not new to him. He has had an example from "high places" in his own Church. When Bishop Onderdonk found himself at odds with Mr. Barnes upon the subject of Scriptural Episcopacy, he found it convenient to avail himself of the same weapon, and parry his neighbor's blow, by telling the public, that Mr. Barnes' sword was a borrowed one. But, the Bishops antagonist was not to be foiled in this way, and he replied, by telling him, that when he wrote his article he had no book but the bible before him, and, that if two minds, independent of each other, in examining the same book, had brought out and proved the same kind of Episcopacy, it would only show, as a strong circumstance, that his views were true. As it is common for pupils, to be more ultra than their teachers, so in this case Mr. B. is found far in advance of his Prelate; for he publicly charges me with using the arguments of Dr. Bangs, without the evidence of seeing or hearinghaving neither heard the Lectures nor seen the manuscript. Let me say to this veritable Rector, that I was not indebted to Dr. Bangs for a single argument which I used, nor do I know that I presented a single idea that can be found in his work, with two exceptions. The first of which is this. I referred to some of the authorities, which he used, but they were not taken from his work; for I wish the Rev. Gentleman to know in opposition to what he insinuates, that Methodist Ministers have more than one book in their library, though they have that all essential one of ultimate authority-THE BIBLE. The second exception is, the act -the Royal act-by which a Rector received from a Layman the right to preach the Gospel in all the world except the British Empire. This act I read to my congregation from Dr. Bangs' book, which I held at the time in my hand, and which would hardly be a literary theft as every person present saw I did not present it as my own work. I was then treating upon another branch of the subject than that canvassed by the Doctor. My attention was then being given to the fact that we had been assailed by the circulation of pamphlets, in which our ordination.

and ordinances were ridiculed, and we were held up as impostors. In the four Sermons that I preached I was occupied in examining the argument of the tracts. I say then, that the insinuation thus made by Mr. B. is false and libelous, and appeal to the manuscript for proof, which will be given to the public as soon as I can secure time to prepare it for the press. I leave it for Mr. B. to settle the justice and propriety of his act in thus assailing the character of a Minister, without the least proof.

The charge of plagiarism in another place is made direct. Mr. B. affirms, that in proposing certain inquiries to him, I had copied them from a work recently published by a Mr. Powell, without giving any marks of quotation. On this I would observe, first, the simple fact, that the inquiries had been used before would not render them inappropriate at this time on the same subject; second, the quotation marks being added would not have made the inquiries more suitable; third, the quotation marks of such of the questions as were given in nearly the language of Mr. Powell, were made in my copy of the letter, and if not in the one sent to him it was by mistake; which of course would not be strange, when it is understood, that the letter was a private one, written without the least expectation that any but himself would see it, and when it was sent to the press by him, I was not permitted to revise it for publication, nor even see it until presented to me in the book form, nor can I even now have access to it in the manuscript: fourth, the questions of Mr. Powell were used by him not as Mr. B. says, to present the points of difference be tween Oxford divinity and Wesleyanism, but as constituting the different steps in the doctrine of Apostolical succession as defin ed by the high Church party; and as Mr. B. identifies himself with that party, the suitableness of the application must be apparent.

In the postscript to his third letter I am also charged with historical ignorance,-first in supposing that tract No. 5 was one of the Oxford tracts. This would not be strange for as there is not the name either of author, printer, or publisher to it, and knowing, that the Oxford men were engaged in publishing tracts of this character, assailing all other Churches except Rome, and consigning them over to the uncovenanted mercies of God-it would be very natural for one to suppose, that they were the authors of this. But strange as it may appear, I made no such assertion. In that letter not a particle of evidence can be found to sustain the insinuation. It is an entire fabrication made up by the Rector of St. James, for what purpose he must show. However, we are now informed by him that, some country Clergyman finding himself annoyed by these Methodists-and indeed they are quite pestilent fellows, as the Apostles were-and very probable in his neighborhood, some of his old communicants had