wherein such liberty of conscience is now allowed, or has 'been allowed since the days of the Apostles. Herein is our 'glorying, and a glorying peculiar to us.' But in his writings Wesley displays a most perplexing eclecticism. His 'Christian 'Library' and his Arminian Magazine' contain extracts from the most opposite divines. His design was to separate pure, 'genuine divinity,' and to leave the huge mingled mass of baser mixtures to their own obscurity.' So, with the selfreliant air which was so natural to him, he sat in judgment upon Anglican divines, Puritan ministers, Apostolic Fathers, Cambridge Platonists, and French Mystics. He taught his congregations to sing

'The Unitarian fiend expel,

And chase his doctrine back to hell;

*

In

but he published a life of an eminent Unitarian, with the frank preface: I was exceedingly struck at reading the following life. ... I dare not deny Mr. Firmin was a pious man.' another thing he showed his superiority to the narrow pietistic spirit that condemned fiction. Finding a novel of which he approved, he condensed it, cutting out much of the 'goody' padding, by which he awoke the ire of the author, and recommended it to all who are already or desire to be lovers of God ' and man.' This book, edited by Kingsley as The Fool of Quality,' has beguiled the hours of many a Methodist schoolboy who was strictly forbidden to read novels, but was permitted to revel in the very mild sensationalism of Wesley's 'Henry, Earl of Moreland.' Indeed, Wesleyans have broken away from his teaching on many points. He dreamt of a Broad Church society, liberal in theology, evangelical in doctrine, disciplined with the rigour of a religious order, and burning with the zeal of Redemptorist Fathers in a mission. The wrecks of his ideas encumber modern Methodism. It appoints quarterly fasts, which are as much observed as Lenten abstinence is practised by ultra Protestants. Wesley drew up sumptuary laws against lapelled coats, short sleeves, long'tailed gowns, and a superfluity of buttons and ribbons;' but the people called Methodists' do not seem to give special directions to their tailors and milliners to observe these regulations. He desired breadth of thought amongst his people; but Methodist preachers do not play the role of liberal theologians. He gloried in their liberty; the chief literary organ of

6

* Hymn 443, for the Mohammedans, last edition but one; now expunged from the 'Collection.'

Methodism has discovered another and quite different ground of boasting. 'Methodism,' we find, has assumed all the 'characteristics and responsibilities of an organic Church of 'the Presbyterian type; it has its ministry and its sacraments ' and its catechism, and all that goes to the perfection of eccle'siastical organisation. Perhaps there is no denomination or 'Christian Church existing which can send forth so unanimous ' and therefore so strong a voice on any question of ethics or 'doctrine.' The self-assertion of this passage rivals the most unblushing avowals of priestly dignity to be found in any manifesto; but the following extract displays the dexterity of a practised apologist who knows how to press every feather into the scale he desires to load. In the preface to Winer's Confessions of Christendom,' Dr. Pope, the most cultivated theologian in Methodism, gives the following account of Wesleyan doctrines from the standpoint of a scientific student of creeds :

'English Methodism has no distinct articles of faith; at the same time it is undoubtedly true that no community in Christendom is more effectually hedged about by confessional obligations and restraints. Methodism combines creeds, confessions, and standards, in its doctrinal constitution, after a manner on the whole peculiar to itself. Materially, if not formally, its theology is bound by the ancient œcumenical creeds, by the articles of the Church of England, and by comprehensive standards of its order. It holds fast the Catholic symbols; the Apostolic and Nicene are extensively used in its liturgy, and the Athanasian, not so used, is accepted so far as concerns the doctrinal type. The doctrine of the Articles of the Church of England is the doctrine of Methodism. The assertion must of course be taken broadly. The "Connexion" has never avowed the Articles as its confession of faith; some of these Articles have no meaning for them in its present constitution; others of them are tolerated in their vague and doubtful bearing rather than accepted as definitions; and, finally, many Methodists would prefer to disown any relation with them. Still the verdict of the historical theologian would locate the Methodist community under the Thirty-Nine Articles. . . . Where they diverge from the Westminster Confession, Methodism holds to them. . . . Finally, we have the Methodist standards belonging to it as a society within a Church, which regulate the faith of the community, but are binding only upon its ministers. Those standards, more particularly, are some sermons and expository notes of John Wesley's; more generally, these and other writings, catechisms, and early precedents of doctrinal definition. Taken as a whole they indicate a standard of experimental and practical theology, to which the preaching of its ministers is practically conformed.'

Suffice it to say

'that the Methodist doctrine is what is generally termed Arminian, as:

it regards the relation of the human race to redemption; that it lays great stress upon the personal assurance which seals the personal religion of the believer; and that it includes a strong testimony to the office of the Holy Spirit, in the entire renewal of the soul in holiness as one of the provisions of the covenant of grace upon earth. It may be added that a vigorous maintenance of this common standard of evangelical doctrine has been attended by the preservation of a remarkable unity of doctrine throughout this large community.'

Whether we accept this statement au pied de la lettre or not, it shows a marked development of doctrine when compared with Wesley's Plain Account of the Methodists,' and a still more skilful change of front to attack a new generation which more or less consciously rejects the isolation of a society, and claims affinity with the Catholic Church. In one item, however, we must correct Dr. Pope's description. In accordance with Wesleyan usage, he confounds Methodism with his own community. Now there are thousands of Methodists who are not Wesleyans. None of these hold the Thirty-nine Articles, and they never rehearse the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds in worship. But they have incorporated their belief in bald enumerations of doctrines,' as amongst the Primitive Methodists; or placed it under the protection of the Court of Chancery, as the United Methodist Free Churches in their Foundation Deed. All these epitomes are loosely worded, but curiously enough they all insist upon the endless duration of the punishment of the wicked as an article of faith. Even these formularies are not imposed upon private members, only upon preachers and expounders of God's Word,' or, as an extreme case, upon class leaders. The American Episcopal Methodist Church has, owing to its founder's determination to create a Church in America, articles and creeds that are obligatory on the ministry. But for England, Wesley forestalled Neander's maxim, Pectus facit theologum. We believe Methodists boast that all their commentators and theologians hold exactly the same system in every point. Dr. Adam Clarke occupies a bad eminence in one point. He held peculiar views about the person of the tempter in Paradise, and the application of the title of Son to the second Person in the Trinity. The first was condoned with a happy bon mot. Who knows who tempted Eve better than Adam?' the second was refuted by a ponderous treatise; and lest any nascent Wesleyan theologian should ever be tempted to stray in this by-path of obscure dogmatics, a question on the Eternal Sonship is put to every aspirant to the Wesleyan ministry. The minor Methodist communities have not produced any theological writer known beyond their

6

6

6

own confined circle. A hint of novelty of belief is sufficient to injure any Wesleyan minister. At least so we gather from the following semi-inspired remark in the London Quarterly Review.' It appears that a minister elected to the Fernley Lectureship-a sort of Methodist Bampton '-gave room for the suspicion that in some particular his pronunciation of the denominational Shibboleth was defective. Everybody,' says the reviewer, knows the excitement produced by the promulgation of what were held to be new and doubtful 'views; views which, though they are not regarded as endan'gering any fundamental doctrine, and therefore do not impeach the orthodoxy of their promulgator, have probably kept him ' out of a theological chair, which seemed otherwise naturally to wait for him.' Rumour also asserts that the only Wesleyan minister who has ever achieved the slightest distinction in the scientific world is debarred from the same lectureship through a suspicion that he leans to the doctrine of evolution. Ministerial sameness is the necessary result of the Wesleyan system, and proportionately of all Methodist organisation. There is not only the esprit de corps that prevails in every order, but there is a deliberate direction of means to produce this result. It commences from the moment that the superintendent of a circuit nominates a candidate for the ministry, and though after his ordination he is delivered from all formal theological examinations, yet twice every year, till he dies or leaves Wesleyanism, the orthodoxy of his belief is challenged. Twice every year the opportunity of resigning his position on a change of sentiment is afforded. The door stands open for him, simply guarded with the knowledge that if he abandoned that brotherhood, it would be curtly said of him, as it has been said in his hearing of others who have renounced their allegiance, Methodism can do without him, better than he can do without 'Methodism.' Yearly a small band goes forth; but the remainder maintain the same unbroken traditions in theory, if not in practice. There are shades of difference between the ministers of course, and individuality of character gives rise to small divergences; but these bear the same relation to the wide limits of thought in the Church, that the all but imperceptible rise and fall of Mediterranean waves bear to the mighty Atlantic tides.

We now pass to consider how the units are welded into one whole, which Methodist writers term 'the Connexion.' Again taking Wesleyanism as the typical form, and premising that, in proportion to its age, each offshoot retains more of the original impress of Wesley, till the latest is reached, in which doctrines

alone remain to connote the common Methodism, we find all the chapels in a neighbourhood grouped into a 'circuit,' under a minister termed the superintendent.' The circuits are thrown into districts under the oversight of a chairman.' Twice every year the ministers in each district meet with certain laymen. These meetings are really committees of the annual assembly, or Conference. A form has been compiled, called the Order and Form of Business,' and on its lines every committee in Great Britain transacts its business. The proceedings of each are recorded under exactly the same headings in an undeviating order, and summarised in stereotyped tables. The character and efficiency of the ministers, their support, the support and education of their children, their relief in cases of extraordinary personal or family affliction, the distribution of public moneys, the erection and enlargement and sale of every chapel, school, and minister's house, the number of members, teachers, scholars, and local preachers, the working of Home and Foreign Missionary Associations, and all contributions to the various connexional funds, together with detailed reports on every minute point of discipline, and suggestions for the alteration of laws and usages-all in prescribed succession pass in review before these committees. Three full and accurate copies of proceedings are preserved, and separate reports sent to central committees. But, throughout all, a marked distinction is maintained between ministers and people. The ministers alone consider spiritual matters, and decide on all questions touching their own character; the ministers and laity decide on financial questions. The only time when voting takes place by orders is for representatives to the Conference, when each sends its own to the mixed Conference, as will be presently explained. By this system strict uniformity is secured, and all business is prepared for the consideration of the supreme legislative body. In English Methodism all other bodies efface the marked division between ministers and laity.

We now come to the real power in Wesleyanism. This is the assembly called the Conference, a name dearer to the Methodist heart than any other. The term 'Conference' is, in the most recent Wesleyan Handbook, qualified by three adjectives, and is Legal, Ministerial, and Representative, according to circumstances. The Legal Conference was a creation of John Wesley's to secure the chapels he had built and the perpetuity of his system. It was clearly defined by him in a Deed Poll,' and enrolled in Chancery. It consisted of himself, his brother Charles, and ninety-eight of his preachers.