203

THE FORM OF (WESLEYAN) METHODISM.

As to its substance, Methodism, Arminian and Calvinistic, may be spoken of as one, although its elements were developed with some diversity under these two modes. But when Methodistic organisation comes to be considered, then it is solely Wesleyan Methodism that can demand any peculiar attention. Already the fact has been alluded to that, as to Whitefield, he never proposed it to himself to bring his converts within the enclosures of an ecclesiastical constitution. Nor was any purpose of this sort carried out by Lady Huntingdon in such manner as might have rendered the "Connexion," and its apparatus, and its rules, an object of much curiosity, or likely to yield instruction if brought under analysis. Calvinistic Methodism, after fertilizing the Episcopal Church, on the one hand, and the Dissenting communions on the other, has ceased to attract attention itself, as a communion distinguished from others.

Not so Wesley's Institute, for in this instance the FORM the organisation of Methodism offers itself to view as a fact, on every ground deserving of the most attentive examination.

But let a probable misapprehension as to our present purpose in attempting such an analysis be distinctly precluded. Are we then so bold as to entertain the thought of schooling the extant Wesleyan body; -or do we propose to advise "Conference," or to utter judgement in causes now pending between it, and any of its unruly members? Certainly to no such high purposes

as these is the reader, in the present instance, to be made a party. What is actually intended comes within those warrantable limits of remark to which all human institutions are confessedly open. METHODISM we have spoken of as that which has long ago accomplished its purpose, and has passed away: to other moods and modes of thinking it has given place; and with its nominal representative- the modern Wesleyan Methodism, we have no more to do, in these pages, than with any other existing religious body.

But the genuine Wesleyan organisation — that "Society" which was the product of its founder's mind, claims to be considered as one of the most remarkable experiments in ecclesiastical science that has ever been carried forward. In truth, it stands before us alone, and without a parallel, on the field of Church history, and therefore it may well engage the serious regard of those who, in this day of actual and of projected revolution, or reform, are inquiring concerning the first principles of CHURCH ORGANIZATION. Is it not probable, or almost certain, that, from the contemplation of so noted an experiment, carried on upon so large a scale, much may be learned touching the theory and practice of Christian combination?

If, in fact, a free and unprejudiced criticism of the Wesleyan church system should seem to issue in throwing a shade of doubt upon the perpetuity of the body, in its actual integrity, and present form, the writer must take his place among those who would entertain any such forebodings with extreme reluctance, and would witness the fulfilment of them with a lively and profound regret. One must be strangely insensible toward that which touches the most momentous interests of mankind, and be accustomed to regard the well-being of our fellow-men under the very narrowest aspects,

not to be dismayed at the thought of the breaking up, the suspension, or the alienation, of those means of good which, up to this time, have been effective to an incalculable extent toward millions of men. How can a

Christian-hearted man take his course, on a Sunday morning, through the streets of a manufacturing town, and not fervently desire the undamaged continuance, and the further extension, of Wesleyan Methodism?

Nevertheless, it would be an ill-judging weakness, and a miscalculating caution, that would prohibit the sort of inquiry we have now before us, as if its tendency might be to accelerate a result that is foreseen and deprecated. On the contrary unless indeed such a supposition should be scouted as utterly presumptuous, it might be allowable to imagine, as possible, that suggestions offered in humility and affection, by one who can be influenced by no sinister motive, may, in some indirect manner, avail for purposes of conservation and renovation toward the Wesleyan body. With very rare, if indeed any exceptions, the institutions, doctrines, and usages of religious bodies have, hitherto, either been set forth, in laudatory terms, by adherents and advocates, or acrimoniously assailed by antagonists; or the weaknesses of such bodies have been maliciously placarded by renegades. May there not be room, then, for the modest intervention of any whose only solicitudes and whose only jealousies relate to that Christianity which is common to all evangelic bodies?

A religious revival or reformation can never be held exempt from the inconvenience and opprobrium attaching to the circumstance of its receiving from the world, or accepting-a NAME. But this disadvantage, whether it be of greater or less amount, is a temporary evil, and may be patiently submitted to until it wears itself

away; but the founding of a Church, or communion, is another matter; inasmuch as it is a work intended for perpetuity, and the affixation of A NAME to a Christian Institute cannot be regarded in any other light than as a prognostic of its dissolution, at some period not immeasurably remote. Yet among such designations, undesirable as they are-one and all, there may be a choice; and it might be well, and it would show wisdom on the part of a rising community, frankly to take to itself, from the world, a designation given it in scorn, rather than to place, on its own front, as in triumph, the name of its venerated founder. One inclines to think that, in the eye of Heaven, this is an indiscretion, if not an offence, which, though venial at the first, no merits in the body shall avail to perpetuate. It is indeed hard to believe — when thinking of some form of Christianity which we are told is the very purest, and the loftiest, that it should continue for ever to be called after the name of its promulgator, whether Luther, Calvin, Barclay, or Wesley.

If Methodism had not so early split itself upon the Arminian and Calvinistic controversy, it is probable, or it may at least be conjectured, that Wesley's Institute might have come down to us exempt from the ominous prefix which is now its designation—in law and usage. There may be reason to think, perhaps, that some oversight in the framing of that institute was such as could not fail to work out its ill-consequence in the course of time; but when Wesley failed to take effective means for forbidding to his friends and successors the gratification of calling themselves and their church by his name, did he not surely doom it to dissolution? Wesley, if he had sternly enjoined his followers to be content with "Methodism," would have consigned his