thankful to you, if you could give me such information as would serve to correct the conclusions, (if they be erroneous) to which I have been conducted by the perusal of those documents to which I have had access. And, before I close, it may not be amiss to remark, that if the liberty I have taken, in making these inquiries, be considered by you an improper one, I hope you will ascribe it to a good motive; for it is truly my wish to obtain all possible information, before I give my essay to the public.

With sentiments of respect, I remain yours, in the gospel, ALEXANDER VCAINE.

The above letter was addressed to the following brethren, who were members of the conference in 1784. The Rev'd. Freeborn Garrettson, Rev'd. Lemuel Green, Rev'd. Thomas Ware, Rev'd. Nelson Reed, Rev'd. William Watters, and Rev'd, Edward Dromgoole.

No. III.

Jan. 15th. 1827.

My kind and respected friend, In perusing that very valuable and useful publication, "the Mutual Rights," for this month, I observe there is reference to a funeral sermon preached by Dr. Coke in Baltimore, on a Sunday evening, on the death of Rev'd John Wesley. The text was "My father, my father, the chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." I was present and heard that discourse; and I could confirm all that your correspondent "Dissenter" has stated. And farther, I can say Dr. Coke called it an almost diabolical act, namely, the expunging of Mr. Wesley's name from the American minutes. He said that no history furnished any parallel to it-that a body of Christian ministers should treat an aged and faithful minister, as Mr. Wesley undoubtedly was, with such disrespect, &c. &c.

I recollect observing at the time, that my friend Dr. Coke was planting thorns for himself; and so it was, for he was left to get into the mail coach next morning by himself: and meeting Mr. Asbury somewhere near Philadelphia, I was told they were very cool and shy towards each other. You know that Dr. Coke was one of Mr. Wesley's executors, and that he was straining every nerve to get to England as quick as possible.

When Dr. Coke got to London, he printed the sermon referred to above. It was the same text; but he omitted all the reflections he made in Baltimore respecting leaving Mr. Wesley's name off the American minutes.

I would also observe to you, that Mr. Vasey and Dr. Coke had very sharp words at the conference in 1784. This was talked of by the preachers: but on what they disputed, I am not at all able to say. I am, &c. Another says "Dr. Coke preached a funeral sermon in Baltimore on the the death of Mr. Wesley; in which he inveighed against those preachers who excommunicated Mr. Wesley from the American connexion in the year 1787. Respecting this act, the Doctor says, "I doubt much, whether the cruel usage he received in Baltimore,in 1787, when he was excommunicated (wonderful and most unparalled step!) did not hasten his death Indeed I little doubt it. For, from the time he was informed of it, he began to hang down his head, and to think he had lived long enough."

VINDICATION

OF THE

RESULT OF THE TRIAL

OF

REV. EPHRAIM K. AVERY;

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED HIS

STATEMENT

OF FACTS RELATIVE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHICH
IIE BECAME INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1834,

By D. N. ELA,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

PREFACE.

IT was hoped that the result of the trial of the Rev. E. K. AVERY would have silenced his enemies, and satisfied all parties. Instead of this, a systematic and most extraordinary persecution has been carried on against him, and all those who believed him innocent and treated him accordingly.

The design of the following pages is to support the decision in his case by a brief analysis of the testimony given at his trial, and to strengthen this by the addition of new evidence. In order to this, many certificates have been inserted in the present work, bearing upon many of the same points with the testimony at the trial. Great care has been taken to insert no important fact without evidence, as well as to admit no evidence by certificate but such as the witnesses would have given upon oath.

Such is the character of what has been written against Mr. Avery and his friends, especially by the writer who signs himself "Aristides,” that we have been obliged to use some severity in our animadversions. This was unavoidable. This writer has observed no fair rule of criticism or discussion, but has dipped his pen in gall, and dealt out slander and falsehood, without mercy and without measure. By the boldness of his assertions he practises upon the credulity of the sunsuspecting, and makes an impression where he has not the shadow

of evidence to support him. We regret to be obliged to make any remarks upon the character of witnesses, or others; but this is unavoidable from the circumstances of the case. We have said no more than a sense of duty, and the course taken by Mr. Avery's enemies, have compelled us to say.

Vigorous and unceasing efforts have been made since Mr. Avery's acquittal, to blacken the character of his brethren and the New England Conference, as though they were leagued with a seducer and murderer, and were determined to force such a man upon the community as a minister of the gospel. These efforts have been witnessed by that body of men without fear.

It may, however, be proper to explain a few things.

A number of Mr. Avery's brethren attended his trial as witnesses; some assisted him in his defence, by looking up evidence, &c. As he had neither money nor relatives to assist him, they believed, and do still believe, that they owed it to him, to themselves, and to the public, to see that every thing was done necessary to a fair trialThey were led to make considerable exertion, and to bring many witnesses from a distance, by the unparalleled zeal on the other side, and by the formidable array of witnesses and circumstances which were raised against him. Was this wrong? But the most serious charge has been made against the New England Conference, because they confirmed him in his ministerial office, and gave him an appointment where it was requested. He had been virtually acquitted by the first Jury of Inquest; he had been acquitted by the Court of Examination, after a long and close investigation of the charges brought against him; and finally he had been acquitted by a Jury of his Country. Did the Conference do wrong, under these circumstances, in giving him an appointment? It is submitted to a candid public to say whether it was even an error of judgment; much less was it an act of diabolic wickedness, as some of the persons who have assailed the Conference affirm. The fact is, the Conference, in its official character as an ecclesiastical tribunal, had nothing to do with the question of expediency. That was not the question submitted to them, as every one must know who knows any thing of legal trials in church or state. The question presented was-Is Mr. Avery guilty of murder, or of adultery, or of any other moral offence that should disfranchise him from his ministerial office. The opinion of the Conference was, that he was not guilty. Did not sheer justice then require that he should be sustained in his office so far as the official acts of the Conference