Milton, in looking over the same scenes, wrote:

"The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,

But swollen with wind, and the rank mist they draw,

Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread :

Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw

Daily devours apace; and nothing said,

But that two-handed engine at the door,

Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more."

In the commencement of Mr. Wesley's career, the religion of England was a mere hierarchy; a mere establishment. Vital piety was not thought of, except by one in a hundred. The eighteen thousand clergy of the establishment, with their one million and a half pounds sterling a year, was, with a very few rare exceptions, a company of ungodly and wicked men. They were more than this, they were scoffers; they were the promoters of infidelity. One of their own number boldly charges this home upon them.

"But who is to blame," says he, "for the spread of infidelity. The bishops and clergy of the land more than any other people in it. We, as a body of men, are almost solely and exclusively culpable."

Mr. Wesley was one of them, and simply desired to see a revival of religion. He desired it first, and most, in his own heart, and then in those nearest to him. He went out, not He had no knowing whither he went, or for what purpose. more idea of establishing a church than any revivalist now has; nor did he do so, except in a sense which requires explanation. It is perhaps as proper to say the church established itself. It grew up, and came into being by the force of circumstances. Religion is cohesive and adhesive. It cohered and adhered in the persons of religious men, and that formed a church. Methodism became a church. To have prevented it would have required violence and assault against the laws of association.

Perhaps as true an exposition of the character of Methodism as may be found, may be gathered from the writings of a pious clergyman of the established church in Wesley's time.

66

If a man happens to have a little more zeal than ordinary, and labors more diligently to do good than the generality of his brethren, immediately

they are all in arms against him. And nothing is more common than for his ecclesiastical superiors to frown upon him, to stigmatize him as a Methodist, and to oppose his interests in every way they can contrive. Whereas a clergyman may be a man of pleasure and dissipation; gay, foolish, silly, trifling; he may spend his time in the diversions of the field, drink, swear, and live as foolishly as the most foolish of his flock, and yet no harm shall happen. He is no Methodist, and therefore every favor shall be shown him which he can desire. Methodism is like the sin against the Holy Ghost; it is neither forgiven in this world nor the world to come."

Mr. Paley says:

"After men became Christians, much of their time was spent in prayer and devotion, in religious meetings, in celebrating the eucharist, in confer ences, in exhortations, in preaching, in an affectionate intercourse with each other, and correspondence with other societies. Perhaps their mode of life, in its form and habit, was not very unlike the Unitas Fratrum, or of modern Methodists."

Mr. Simpson, above quoted, says:—

"Methodist is a term of reproach which has been made use of for many years in this country, to stigmatize all the most serious, zealous, and lively professors of religion. It is not confined to any one sect or party; but is common, more or less, to all who are peculiarly animated in the concerns of religion. In the Church of England, as by law established, all those ministers and people are called Methodists who believe, and preach, and contend for the doctrines of the thirty-nine articles of religion.

Indeed, Methodist is, in the eighteenth century, what Puritan was in the seventeenth."

It seems, then, that the phrase Methodist has crept into our vocabulary in the same way that many, perhaps all, of our names have, from some other thing, or from some occasion or circumstance. It is the name of a thing, viz., zeal and purity in religion. So that the followers of Mr. Wesley were or were not called Methodists, according to these circumstances.

But the fact was, that the truly religious people of Great Britain, with some exceptions, did congregate with Mr. Wesley, and so, as a body, they were called Methodists. We may, however, if we choose, go still further back into the history of the church, to find the origin of the term Methodist. In 1686, and subsequently, great efforts were made in France, as well as at other times and in other places, to reconcile the differences between the popish and reformed churches.

Each party

desired, by argument, to reduce his adversary to such terms as he could tolerate. A school of popish divines, or, as Dr. Moshiem calls them, "a new species of polemic doctors," were called Methodists, and entered this list of debate with peculiar adroitness, and gave their Protestant competitors no small annoyance, from their peculiar mode of warfare. It appears that they took the name of Methodists from two circumstances; first, their peculiar and strong method of commencing and conducting their arguments; and secondly, from their zeal and perseverance in maintaining them. This, after all, may be the origin of the term.

Mr. Wesley's societies, however, differed materially from all other religious associations, in this, that they had no peculiar tenets or creed to enforce or propagate. We are not the followers of Mr. Wesley, in any sectarian sense, by any means. He is our predecessor only in the sense of a mere revivalist. The church came into being, not because of any peculiar doctrines held by Mr. Wesley, for he differed not in doctrine from eighteen thousand other clergymen of the established church. His societies differed from the church only in this, that they were pious; they were religious: and the established church. was not, nor did it become religious, nor has it to this day; and the separation, if it can be called a separation, results from this very circumstance. The imperative laws of association interposed between them, and remain there still.

Other churches were organized for the purpose of sustaining and carrying out some peculiar religious tenets. Not so with the Methodists. They had no tenets, per se, from the beginning. And if they have any now, it is because, finding themselves in existence as a church, from the force of events, neither controllable nor attempted to be controlled by them, they established as their creed that which they already had from the beginning, in common with the Establishment. And if the Protestant Episcopal Church is not now with us, it is because they still persist in their irreligion, from which we revived; or because, by running off after Puseyism, or something else, they have left the position they then occupied.

Our name is Methodist," but this is nothing. The world gave us this name without the asking; nor could we get rid of it if we would. A child who receives no name is soon known by some nick-name, and in process of time that becomes his name, truly and legally.

Methodism is, therefore, merely an Episcopal Church, revived into religious life and zeal, and adapting itself to the wants and condition of mankind, everywhere and in all circumstances. The book before us is perfectly right, therefore, when, in its introduction, it says:

"As a creature of Providence, Methodism, in her peculiar external or ganization, has adapted herself to the exigencies of the times, the genius of the various countries where she has been carried, and the progressive movements of the generations through which she has passed."

It is no disparagement to other churches to say, that such is their peculiar, respective, internal and external organization, and usage, that they are severally adapted specially to the wants and condition of man in some peculiar situations and circumstances. Methodism, on the contrary, is no better adapted to one class or condition than another. She meets the collier and the councilman, the mean and the noble, the rich and the poor, the learned and the ignorant, those of the city and of the backwoods, in the same way, and on the same terms, and seems precisely fitted to all.

Mr. Inskip's book, which we will now more closely examine, sails under the broad banner of "Methodism explained and defended." This is very comprehensive and very universal; just the kind of title we like to see. Certainly this title is liberal and inviting. The introduction, which appears to have been written by some other person, closes with this language.

"The following pages cover nearly the whole field of controversy in regard to the polity of the Methodist church, and present a clear and candid exposition of Methodism in a systematic form, and a highly argumentative style. It is a book for the times, and should be read by all who desire to become more intimately acquainted with Methodist economy. It excels all other works of its class in the arrangement and judicious treatment of its subjects."

of broad, world-wide "Methodism." To look for anything limited, sectional, circumscribed or geographical in Methodism, farther than mere explanations or historic references to such things, of course would do the author great injustice. "Methodist" is the generic name of one of the largest Christian communions in the world. The character, genius, polity, and operations of this great branch of Christianity, it is now promised, will be explained, and, so far as those things may need defence, they will be defended. "All who desire to become more intimately acquainted with Methodist economy," it is promised, may here find reasonable explanations and defences.

The table of contents is as follows:-1 Introduction; 2 Hints to the reader; 3 John Wesley; 4 Methodism in America; 5 Doctrines of Methodism; 6 Discipline of Methodism ; 7 Episcopacy; 8 Presiding Elders; 9 Itinerancy; 10 Local Preachers; 11 Officiary; 12 The Laity 13 Methodism aggressive; 14 Methodism progressive; 15 Results and Prospects. Now we have the whole matter before us, and know precisely what to expect.

But this is a world of disappointment; and the reader of Mr. Inskip must not consider himself, in this respect, above the common lot of his fellow men. He will by no means lose his labor, however, for after reading the book he will be a wiser, and perhaps a better man. Some of the chapters are treated well; none of them are without merit. That on "Methodism in America," treats exclusively of its introduction into this country, and gives a brief and readable synopsis of those

events.

The chapter on the "Doctrines of Methodism" is brief, and intimates very clearly, and very properly, we think, that the religion of Methodism is more important than any peculiar docrines we profess as a church. It is true, however, that we must contend for the faith once delivered; but this is to set ourselves against gross innovations upon the Word of truth, or such as are likely to prove injurious to religion, irrespective of ecclesiastical organizations. As Methodist preachers, we have not time to stop and contend about matters not