he (Charles) deeply regretted, but could not control, Mr. J. Wesley ordained three of his preachers to administer the sacraments in England, wherever they might deem it necessary; but in a sermon on the sacred office, published about the same time, he (J. Wesley) strongly urged upon the body of the preachers the duty of confining themselves to preaching the word of life, as their original and special calling, and to abstain from administering the sacraments altogether. The three men whom he selected from their brethren, and invested with what he considered the full Ministerial character, were Mr. Alexander Mather, Thomas Rankin, and Henry Moore. The following is a copy of the certificate of ordination given to Mr. Moore, as published by himself:

'Know all men by these presents, that I, John Wesley, late fellow of Lincoln College, in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of England, did, on the day of the date hereof, by the imposition of my hands and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers,) set apart Henry Moore for the office of a Presbyter in the Church of God: a man whom I judge qualified to feed the flock of Christ, and to administer the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England; and as such I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may conIn testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this twenty-seventh day of February, in the year of our Lord 1789.

cern.

'Present and assisting,

JOHN WESLEY.

'JAMES CREIGHTON, Presbyters of the Church
'PEARD DICKENSON,

of England.'

,,,

From another instrument of Mr. Wesley's I make also this further extract, bearing upon this point: "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke, and Mr. Francis Asbury, to be joint Superintendants over our brethren in North America; as, also, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey, to act as Elders among them, by Baptizing and administering the Lord's Supper." With these facts thus presented by these documents, the reader is the better prepared to judge how much credit for true statements is due to Mr. Bolles and to the author of the tract, and how little reliance should be placed upon their assertion, that "Mr. Wesley did not appoint preachers to administer sacraments." I know it has been said by high Churchmen, again and again, that "Mr. Wesley refused to the last, in the strongest terms, his consent that those he ordained should take upon them to administer the sacraments." To this continued and obstinate adherence of these successionists the language of Mr. Jackson, to Dr. Pusey and others, can be very appropriately applied, when he says, "Thus it is, that grave

men, whose very office binds them to attach a peculiar sacredness to truth, fearlessly dogmatize on subjects which they never take the pains to understand. Mr. Wesley expressly appointed about twenty of his preachers to perform those acts which these clergymen tell the world he absolutely forbade them to meddle with; thus dealing their censures blindfolded, regardless of the injury they may inflict. With a large class of writers it seems to be now an admitted principle, that they are under no obligation to confine themselves to strict veracity when speaking of Methodism and its founder. But whatever blame may be justly imputable to Mr. Wesley and his preachers, the men who violate truth with ample means of correct information within their reach,* should be the last to assume the office of censors. A convicted transgressor of the ninth commandment is ill prepared to undergo a strict cross-examination in preferring the charge of schism'against his neighbour. Moral precepts are at least as binding as those which relate to Church order."-Jackson's Life of C. Wesley, p. 743.

On this point, Dr. Peck truly says, "how came Mr. Wesley to set apart these men if," (as Mr. Bolles and his tractator claim,) "their desiring it 'was the sin of Korah,' would not this have been upon the part of Mr. Wesley on the principles of the tract rebellion against God?' Here, ye wise and good men of the Church is your sound high Churchman, John Wesley either for saking the order of the Church, or becoming a captain in the. company of Korah, Dathan and Abiram! Upon which horn of the dilemma will you hang him?"—Examination of Tract No. 4, P. 19.

I consider the facts here presented sufficient to show that this doctrine of the tract, which asserts that "Mr. Wesley did not appoint his preachers to administer the Sacraments," is based upon grounds entirely and wholly at variance with the truth. Here then, I think, I can safely drop the consideration of this point, and will only add that, after asserting, the statements of the tract are true, and arguing, at length, their truthfulness, it is a remarka ble circumstance that Mr. Bolles, on p. 29 of his work, yields as untenable the main position of the tract, and acknowledges its author has exceeded the truth, for in giving his opinion of the tract he says, "I am of the opinion that it speaks too highly of Mr. Wesley himself, and that one might conclude from reading the tract, that Mr. Wesley never departed in his conduct from the sentiments which he so often and so strongly asserted. This I know, is the opinion of many, and that Mr. Wesley himself always persisted in declaring that he had never separated from the Church. But to my mind it is perfectly plain that he acted inconsistently with his principles, and this is the opinion of those who knew him best." It is perfectly plain to Mr. B's mind, that

Mr. Wesley acted inconsistently. How? Not by observing, but by departing, separating, from the formularies of the Church of England! And this, Mr. B. says, is the opinion of those who knew Mr. Wesley best. It must, then, have been perfectly plain to the Rector's mind, that the Methodists, in copying departures which Mr. Wesley sanctioned, have not acted inconsistentlythat in circulating tract No. 4 he was circulating a misrepresentation of both Mr. Wesley and the Methodists-was performing an act calculated to produce in the public mind unjust and unequal views of our institutions-was circulating what to his mind was clearly and plainly false-what was not merely an attack upon the Methodists but upon truth. I have thus noticed and commented upon all the doctrines presented by Mr. B., named as contained in tract No. 4. These are not, however, all that the tract furnishes. They constitute only that portion which it was necessary for me to treat of in reviewing that part of Mr. Bolles' defense which relates to the circulation of the tract; the motive of Mr. B. in that act, requires examination, as, it will be recollected, he denies having any design to prejudice the community against Methodism by circulating this tract.

What object had the author in sending abroad this tract? According to his own representations "to contribute to the tide of effort making for the UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF GOD." But, what is the unity of which he speaks? In his conception it is the con-version of Methodists and people of all other denominations to Protestant Episcopalianism-the high Church unity! Not that unity of spirit "in the bonds of peace and love" which we are taught to seek, but unity in submissiveness to peculiar forms and ceremonies! Unity of hands without unity of hearts; the cold, formal, selfish, sycophantic unity of interest governed by and exhibited under the ceremonies and pageantry of a lifeless discipline. The object, then, of the author of the tract was to persuade Methodists to abandon, what he calls, schism and to unite with the Protestant Episcopal Church-and in order that they may have plausible grounds for doing so he labors upon the special argument furnished by the position assumed by him, that Methodism is not a Church, but a society, without sacramentswithout a ministry-without a divine warrant!" By him Mr. Wesley is represented as being in "the realm of spirits, bearing witness against the present pretensions of Methodism-declaring these pretensions rebellion against God." "Wesley out of the way, they made for themselves a ministry, and they made for themselves sacraments, and they called themselves A CHURCH. Were they a Church? If they were, then may the Abolition society at length become a Church. Then may the Moral Reform society become a Church. Then may the Temperance society become a Church. Nay, then may any number of men and wo

66

men who have been for some time for any purpose united, appoint something that they call a ministry, arrange something that they call sacraments and, then stand out to the world as THÊ CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD." Such is the language of Mr. B's tracts which precedes the inquiries, "will you take to your fellowship the Abolition Society, or the Moral Reform Society, and call them Churches? If you acknowledge one, why not the three." To the intelligent man of the world he thus appeals. "For any secondary purpose will you sustain that which is so manifestly an invention of men? Why not get up a Church yourself, as well as be at the trouble and expense of supporting that which is nothing, after all, but what some other men got up? Can you trust your eternal interests and the eternal interests of your household, to such inventions? Listen to that instruction of the Holy Spirit, 'mark them that causes divisions and avoid them."" Now, it is most remarkable that any clergyman could use such language. This spirit of denunciation is indeed a most bigoted spirit. It seems as if the heart of man could become as cold and selfish in bigotry as the most degraded and debased of fallen spirits. What a grovelling conception this, that all other churches are but of men's inventions, than the Protestant Episcopal Church which, I suppose, is claimed to be purely of God's invention! nothing of the world is, around or about it-all purity in its attributes! What blasphemy! What fanaticism! He who can thus denounce all other Churches-who can thus advise Methodists and people of other denominations to shun the altars they have erected upon which to offer their worship to the ever living God, "as they would avoid final condemnation," both from God and the founders of their sects, must have a heart so sunken in the mire of unrighteousness, as that its own corruption would sink it to the deepest recesses of perdition. The ancient representation, of an animal having the form of a beast with the face and breast of man, was, indeed, it seems, founded upon something more than mere fable. It is painful to be obliged to acknowledge that this age, which has been strenuously claimed to be the enlightened age, should give such conclusive illustration of that symbolical monster.

66

To the inquiry, "what has become of the thousands who have died in it," (the Methodist Episcopal Church,) the author of the tract says, no reply is pretended, the human mind cannot tell that." Well and aptly has the Rev. Mr. Thompson, of the Presbyterian Church, remarked upon this closing paragraph, "This is horrible, truly here is a precious morsal-here is catholicity for you-charity with a vengeance!" It is indeed beyond the power of man's intellect to divine what has been the fate of the thousands referred to, as well as millions of all religious denomina tions who have, in the course of time, been gathered to "that

bourn from whence no traveller returns." But notwithstanding it is beyond man's divination, and as much in conflict as it may be with the sentiments of high Churchmen, we will yet hope that they now rest "with the souls of the blest made perfect in Heaven. The charitable man of the tract would consign all out of the pale of Protestant Episcopacy, to perdition. To him it matters not whether Methodists exercise "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." With him the inquiry is useless, whether they have pure religion and stand undefiled before God and the Father. Whether they are of those who "visit the fatherless and the widow in their affliction," and keep aloof from and unspotted by the vices of the world? All these questions are of no moment to him. "The human mind cannot tell" when they are dead whether they are in heaven or in hell. Did they leave behind them fond tokens of their faith in and patient resignation to the will of God? Is there not one solitary syllable that throws light upon their destiny? Must surviving friends still bedew their ashes with the tears of hopeless grief? What are all these queries worth to high Churchmen? There is but one question in which they feel interested, and that is, did they die PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIANS? Did they die in communion with that Church which the author of the tract recognizes as bearing the essential outward marks of truth: if not, then wo unto them! their sun has gone down in darkness-their path beyond the tomb is overshadowed with clouds! He would permit us to hope for them, perhaps, but he makes our hope, like that for the heathen, and in the exercise of his christian benevolence, he would commend them along with Mahomedans and Pagans to the uncovenanted mercies of God! But his charity could do no more. This is indeed a horrible picture, and, I wish I could add, it is the only and solitary exhibition of folly and fanaticism which by them has been displayed.-Thompson.

A few words more before concluding this chapter. It is stated in the tract, that "when Mr. Wesley died and went away to the invisible world, he did not leave, neither was there such a thing known on the earth as a Methodist CHURCH." This is a statement which every one conversant with the history of Methodism knows to be false. I will not say of Mr. Bolles, when he adopted this sentence, as he once said to one of the Leaders of St. John's Church, of Dr. Bangs in reference to a certain paragraph of the Doctors, that "it is a lie, a big lie, and Doctor Bangs knew it to be a lie when he wrote it," for this would be vulgar and moreover uncharitable, to say Mr. Bolles knew this assertion to be false, as I really think, and few will differ from me, that the Rector is not over conversant with Methodism, or he would scarcely have admitted to his appendix that long, prosy, and stupidly foolish letter of his anonymous correspondent on Methodist Discipline.