by the majority—­of those who would be included under the title of ‘Evangelical.’  It was not because they feared the ridicule and contempt attaching to the term ‘Methodist’ that so many disowned its application to themselves, but because they really disapproved of many things which were supposed to be connoted by the term.  Their adversaries would persist in confounding them with those who gloried in the title of ‘Methodists,’ but the line of demarcation is really very distinct.

Still more misleading is the term ‘Puritan.’  The ‘Evangelicalism’ of the eighteenth century was by no means simply a revival of the system properly called Puritanism as it existed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  There were, of course, certain leading features which were common to the two schemes.  We can recognise a sort of family likeness in the strictness of life prescribed by both systems, in their abhorrence of certain kinds of amusement, in their fondness for Scriptural phraseology, and, above all, in the importance which they both attached to the distinctive doctrines of Christianity.  But the points of difference between them were at least as marked as the points of resemblance.  In Puritanism, politics were inextricably intermixed with theology; Evangelicalism stood quite aloof from politics.  The typical Puritan was gloomy and austere; the typical Evangelical was bright and genial.  The Puritan would not be kept within the pale of the National Church; the Evangelical would not be kept out of it.  The Puritan was dissatisfied with our liturgy, our ceremonies, our vestments, and our hierarchy; the Evangelical was not only perfectly contented with every one of these things, but was ready to contend for them all as heartily as the highest of High Churchmen.  The Puritans produced a very powerful body of theological literature; the Evangelicals were more conspicuous as good men and stirring preachers than as profound theologians.  On the other hand, if Puritanism was the more fruitful in theological literature, both devotional and controversial, Evangelicalism was infinitely more fruitful in works of piety and benevolence; there was hardly a single missionary or philanthropic scheme of the day which was not either originated or warmly taken up by the Evangelical party.  The Puritans were frequently in antagonism with ‘the powers that be,’ the Evangelicals never; no amount of ill-treatment could put them out of love with our constitution both in Church and State.

These points will be further illustrated in the course of this chapter; they are touched upon here merely to show that neither ‘Methodist’ nor ‘Puritan’ would be an adequate description of the great revival whose course we are now to follow; only it should be noted that in terming it the ‘Evangelical’ revival we are applying to it an epithet which was not applied until many years after its rise.  When and by whom the term was first used to describe the movement it is difficult to say.  Towards the