redeem himself. The bishop gave him an affectionate admonition, which he promised with tears never to forget; acknowledging, at the same time, that he had backslidden in heart, and deeply lamenting his folly and his spiritual declension. The venerable and compassionate man knew the frivolity of youth; he gave him much paternal advice, and prayed with him. He would not allow the family to be called, though he had eaten nothing since breakfast. The next morning, after praying again with the spirit-broken young preacher, he left before the family had risen, that he might save them a mortifying explanation.

The circumstance was a salutary lesson to the young itinerant; at the next session of the Conference, he called upon the bishop a renewed man; he wept again as he acknowledged his error, and has since become a useful and eminent minister. Bishop Roberts often alluded to the incident, but, through a commendable kindness, would never tell the name of the young preacher.* Other and similarly ludicrous rencounters might be mentioned.

*This fact has been extensively circulated, with some exaggeration, and with Bishop George substituted for Bishop Roberts. Bishop Roberts was its real subject.

Peace to the memory of the good, the kindhearted old man! His image is embalmed in the affections of many a heart, and will there be enshrined faithfully through future years of pilgrimage and change. He has passed to the society of his old colaborers. May we who love his memory join him there!

2

HERETICAL TENDENCIES OF METHODISM AND CALVINISM.

“I will also show mine opinion.”—Job's friend.

. I HAVE just been reading in a Calvinistic paper a singular charge against Methodism. alledges, in substance, that Methodism tends to laxity in religion; that "affecting proof" of this tendency is seen in the numerous additions made to Universalist churches from among Methodists, and that as Arminianism once led the New-England churches to Unitarianism, so it is now, in connection with Methodism, leading to Universalism.

Now it may be confidently asserted that there is neither fact nor logic to sustain this novel charge. The history of Methodism is altogether against it. I do not doubt that there have been individual cases of apostasy from Methodism to Universalism; but they are not characteristic of the body; they are not more frequent among Methodists than among most other evangelical sects. I believe I have some acquaintance with Methodism, but am unable now to recall one instance. Such there may have been, and, perhaps, in some few places in considerable numbers, so as to form the nuclei of

Universalist societies; but I have never heard of them. I know not a single Methodist chapel perverted to the use of Universalists. But, is it not a well-known fact, that such apostasies from Calvinism have been frequent; and that not a few Calvinistic houses are now in the hands of the Universalists? For every one derived from the Methodists, five can be referred to which were once Calvinistic, especially in New-England, where Universalism succeeds best: there the facts are known and read of all men.

Nor is there logic in this charge. It would seem that our Calvinistic brethren cannot dissociate the idea of religious laxity from Methodism. It arises from their confounding Methodism with European Arminianism. The latter is not Methodism. It has no sympathy with the Pelagian Arminianism of continental Europe. Its Arminianism consists in its denial of pre-reprobation and a limited atonement. But what, in the name of all logic, is there in this that tends to religious laxity? Is it necessary, for the purity of Christians, that they believe God has irretrievably, and from eternity, cast off most of the human race? There is a rigorous bigotry, sometimes taken for piety, which may be produced by such a sentimentbut never genuine piety. Methodism teaches

the possibility of "falling from grace," and the necessity of "working out our salvation with fear and trembling." Does this savor of laxity? Calvinism teaches the final certainty of the salvation of the elect. Does this tend to spiritual strictness? Methodism has now been in operation more than a century. Where has one of its churches lapsed into Unitarianism? But have not nearly all the Unitarian churches of England and the north of Ireland sprung from Calvinistic Presbyterians; and, in New-England, from Calvinistic Congregationalists? And how is it on the continent of Europe? The strong-holds of Calvinism have nearly all become the intrenchments of Socinianism and Rationalism. In Geneva, the scene of Calvin's labors, there was not, in 1812, a single evangelical preacher. The pulpit in which he preached the "horribile decretum," as he calls it, is now occupied by a Socinian; and the theological school, where he lectured, is now used for the preparation of Deistical clergymen. The few Evangelists who have lately arisen in that city have revived the old dogmas; they will find them the chief obstructions to their success. Now what has caused these changes? The people of New-England know from local observation. It was the repulsive, the intolerable character