t was unfortunate that there should ever have been any antagonism
between men who were really workers in the same great cause. Neither
could have done the other's part of the work. Warburton could have no
more moved the hearts of living masses to their inmost depths, as
Whitefield did, than Whitefield could have written the 'Divine
Legation.' Butler could no more have carried on the great crusade
against sin and Satan which Wesley did, than Wesley could have written
the 'Analogy.' But without such work as Wesley and Whitefield did,
Butler's and Warburton's would have been comparatively inefficacious;
and without such work as Butler and Warburton did, Wesley's and
Whitefield's work would have been, humanly speaking, impossible.

The truths of Christianity required not only to be defended, but to be
applied to the heart and life; and this was the special work of what has
been called, for want of a better term, 'the Evangelical school.' The
term is not altogether a satisfactory one, because it seems to imply
that this school alone held the distinctive doctrines of Christianity.
But this was by no means the case. All the great features of that system
which is summed up in the term 'the Gospel' may be plainly recognised in
the writings of those theologians who belonged to a different and in
some respects a violently antagonistic school of thought. The fall of
man, his redemption by Christ, his sanctification by the Holy Spirit,
his absolute need of God's grace both preventing and following
him--these are doctrines which an unprejudiced reader will find as
clearly enunciated in the writings of Waterland, and Butler, and
Warburton as by those who are called _par excellence_ Evangelical
writers. And yet it is perfectly true that there is a sense in which the
latter may fairly claim the epithet 'Evangelical' as peculiarly their
own; for they made what had sunk too generally into a mere barren theory
a living and fruitful reality. The truths which they brought into
prominence were not new truths, nor truths which were actually denied,
but they were truths which acquired under the vigorous preaching of the
revivalists a freshness and a vitality, and an influence over men's
practice, which they had to a great extent ceased to exercise. In this
sense the revival of which we are to treat may with perfect propriety be
termed the _Evangelical_ Revival. The epithet is more suitable than
either 'Methodist' or 'Puritan,' both of which are