how Whitefield with characteristic rashness declared that its author knew no more of Christianity than Mahomet; and afterwards, with equally characteristic candour, owned that he had been far too severe in his condemnation.  Cowper called it ’that repository of self-righteousness and pharisaical lumber.’[809] Berridge equally condemned it.  Much more testimony to the same effect might be given.  There was, then, ample room for a treatise which should aim at the same purpose as the ‘Whole Duty of Man,’ but which should enforce its teaching on different principles.  This want the ‘Complete Duty’ supplied, and in its day supplied well.  It was written from a Calvinistic point of view; but its Calvinism differed widely from that, for instance, of Romaine.  A comparison between it and the ’Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith’ marks the decided difference between two types of Calvinists.  Both books, it is presumed, were intended to be practical treatises; but, whereas the one treats but very little of directly practical duties, the full half—­and the best and most interesting half—­of the other is exclusively concerned with them.  Having fully stated in his opening chapters the distinctive doctrines upon which alone he thinks sound morality can be based, Venn in the rest of his treatise enters with the utmost minuteness into the practical duties of the Christian to God and man.  Truthfulness, honesty, meekness, courtesy, candour, the relative duties in various capacities—­of masters towards their servants and servants towards their masters, of parents towards their children and children towards their parents, and the like, are all fully dwelt upon.

For convenience’ sake we have spoken of the later Evangelicalism as distinguished from the earlier Methodism.  But it would be inaccurate to represent the one simply as the successor of the other.  The two movements were, to a certain extent, contemporaneous, and were for a time so blended together that it is difficult to separate them.  Besides the clergy already noticed, there were several others scattered throughout the country who clearly belonged to the Evangelicals rather than to the Methodists.  Such a one was Walker of Truro (1714-1761), who, by his own personal work and by his influence over other clergy, contributed largely to the spread of the Evangelical revival in the West of England.  Such a one was Adam of Winteringham, the author of a once very popular devotional book, entitled ‘Private Thoughts,’ and his friend and neighbour Archdeacon Bassett of Glentworth.  Such a one was Augustus Toplady, about whom enough has been said in connection with the Calvinistic controversy.  On the crucial test, which separated Methodism proper from Evangelicalism proper, these and several others of less note were decidedly on the, side of Evangelicalism.  While agreeing thoroughly with Methodist doctrines (we may waive the vexed question of Calvinism), they thoroughly disapproved of the Methodist practice of itinerancy,