to be, in the hands of every Methodist. They have been the acknowledged standard and test of conduct ever since they were drawn up, and they continue so at the present time. It is easy to perceive that they contain the very essence of practical christianity.

The members of the United Society were universally called Methodists. They did not choose the designation, but were obliged to suffer it. It was given in derision and contempt, and the reproachful epithet continually clung to them. The term was considered so disgraceful in those days, that to call a man a Methodist was equal to calling him a mad dog or a fool. When Mr. Wesley used the term, he sometimes marked it as being given to the people by others. He did so, even towards the latter end of his life, for he entitled the large hymn book he published, "A collection of Hymus, for the use of the people called Methodists."

66

And what is a Methodist? A man who lives according to the method laid down in the bible,” says Mr. Wesley, in his English Dictionary. He always considered a genuine Methodist to be a genuine christian; and Methodism to be the work of God.

Methodism so-called," says he,

is the old religion, the religion of the Bible, the religion of the Primitive Church, the religion of the Church of England." If I am asked," says the great Dr. Chalmers, What is Methodism ?

I should say it is christianity in earnest."

Methodism was, in some measure, a revival of neglected doctrines of scripture; but it was

chiefly a revival of vital and practical godliness, of inward and outward holiness.

Pale envy, that never found an Nor did it owe its

And how did Methodism arise? Not because of the envy of its founder. He envied not those persons who were in more honourable positions in the church than himself. withers at another's joy," entrance into his pure bosom. origin to disappointment in attempting to procure preferment. The founder of Methodism never sought nor desired promotion, and he was therefore never disappointed. Hatred of authority, or impatience of control did not prompt it. Love of power was not the root of it. Ambition to be at the head of a party was not the moving spring. No quarrel with the doctrines or discipline of the Established Church was the cause. He complained not of despotism, nor had he any desire to revolutionize or liberalize the laws of the church he loved. Methodism was not begun by a secret, anti-christian conspiracy, formed against the Establishment or its ministers. No anonymous pamphlets, fiercely attacking the characters of the clergy emanated from his pen. There was no malicious imputation of corrupt or dishonourable motives; no searching for delinquencies; no retailing of slander. Inflammatory speeches were not delivered by Mr. Wesley throughout the country, upon the wickedness of the national clergy, or the rottenness of the national church. Methodism did not arise in any wrong feelings, nor because of any wrong conduct. No hostility of parties; no religious disturbance; no spiritual

squabble, originated Methodism. It owes its rise (under God) to the fervent piety, and burning zeal of John Wesley.

Methodism, be it observed, was not a secession from the Establishment. Mr. Wesley earnestly exhorted all his people to attend the Church. Thus it was a religious society formed within her pale. It was a circle within a circle; a church within a church. Mr. Wesley reprobated "splits ;" he abhorred divisions. Thus, when it was objected that by forming the people into societies, he divided the members of the Church, he smartly retorted, "We divide them by uniting them together! Truly, a very uncommon way of dividing!" Mr. Wesley was a faithful and zealous churchman. He was no secessionist; he was no dissenter. He lived and died, a member and a minister of the Established Church.

66

The Methodists, it will be noticed, were joined by Mr. Wesley into a society. He told the serious persons who came to ask him for advice, to meet together on Thursday evenings, and promised that he would meet with them. The number, it appears, increased continually. "Twelve," says he, came the first Thursday night; forty the second, soon after, a hundred." This was the rise of the Methodist society; first in London, and then in other places; for wherever Mr. Wesley went, he formed societies. Herein was Mr. Wesley's strength; the neglect of this was Mr. Whitfield's weakness. Mr. Wesley, instead of allowing the hundreds and thousands convinced and converted under his ministry to be scattered abroad and lost, carefully gathered them together

into societies, and thus preserved the fruit of his labours. Mr. Whitfield preached powerfully, and with great success, but his genius not being constructive, he neglected to join his converts together, and they were consequently dispersed among the masses. The final result, therefore, of his labours, when compared with Mr. Wesley's, was small and insignificant. "The fruit of Mr. Whitfield's labours,” says Dr. Adam Clarke, "died with himself. Mr. Wesley's fruit remains, grows, increases, and multiplies exceedingly. Did Mr Whitfield see his error? He did, but not until it was too late." 66 My brother Wesley," once said Mr. Whitfield, "acted wisely. souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labours. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand." "And what now remains of this great man's labours?" continues Dr. Clarke, "Multitudes were converted under his ministry, and are gone to God; but there is no spiritual succession."

66

The

Not only were the Methodists gathered by Mr. Wesley into societies, but these societies were united to each other. Mr. Wesley called them, “ United societies." They were not independent of one another, having separate and antagonistic interests. That would have been ruinous to the whole work of God. Congregational independency would have been christianity in impotency; whereas Methodist connexionalism was christianity in resistless power. The various societies were united together in bonds of sympathy and affection, and united to

Mr. Wesley as their common head. He was the father of the family; the great centre of unity; the key-stone of the arch; the sun of the system. He was the centre of attraction and gravitation : everything was attracted by him; everything revolved around him; and everything depended upon him for regular motion. He gave the same rales for the regulation of the conduct of his people in whatever part of the country they might be found. The various societies were governed by the same laws and had the same preachers. Thus they were all closely connected with each other; and Mr. Wesley firmly and unflinchingly mentioned them in one connexion. He would raber have sacrificed half these societies than have abandoned the connexional principle. He considered that sacred and invidable. If he had not firmly maintained, and tenaciously clung to this great principle, where would now have been the societies which be formed in London and caber places ? And bow would the poor people in our commny villages tuve been supplied with the bread of life?

The terms of altissin imo the Methodist SOLDELT WERE Very Eberl, some would think Eteral 10 am extreme. The condition required of persSCES previous to their entrance into the society was

- a desire 10 fee from the wrath no come. and be saved from their sons." This was the engine common, and in has remained the only COMAMIE ever salt. And making could be catre proper. To refuse a man admission into a Chrisman society, to deny him the bendins of