METHODIST REFORM Edward J. Drinkhouse, M.D., D.D.
Volume I
Chancery, made under this document, have given security to the property, and stability to the whole economy of Wesleyan Methodism down to our day." When this famous Deed of Declaration[1]
comes under review this question will be considered more fully. Suffice it to say, as a running comment now, that there can be no dispute that this class and exclusive method of holding church property by the founder of Methodism, and the Legal Hundred after him, had the merit of giving security to the property, and stability to the economy. The same may be said with even more pronounced emphasis of the tenure by which all church property is held in the Roman Catholic Church. The entail is through the bishop of the diocese, and the archbishop and the cardinal, and ultimately in the Pope. In its incipient stage the same process is going on in the now worldwide Salvation Army. Under General William Booth it is known that for a period, movements of the officers, and the rank and file under them, were by his orders after a council with those nearest him in authority; but he quietly assumed, as the Army grew and military power concentrated, to discard the councils, and he now issues his orders independently. The garrisons and barracks, the press plant, and valuables of every kind are deeded to him, and it is safe to predict that after his decease serious trouble will originate from this cause with possible disintegration. [2]
In vain do you look for New Testament precedents for thus securing property and stability.
Parallels in civil government are not wanting in the czars and emperors and kings. If it could be shown that security of property and stability of government cannot otherwise be obtained, there might be some color of excuse for a proceeding so violative of the methods of the primitive Church under the Apostles and of that principle of common law that property should vest in those who have created it. The strongest objection is yet to be mentioned: it preordains opportunity for abuse without possibility of redress and without limit as to its flagrancy. History is full of such abuse. That Wesley did not abuse it may be freely admitted as a fact, and something could be allowed him in "his peculiar circumstances"; but when he "transferred it', to the Legal Hundred the moral right is challenged and its expediency questioned. Empire follows property, as shall be farther exhibited.
Some modification was made by Wesley; for ten years after the Bristol chapel case, Stevens says:
"In 1749 the chapels had been legally settled upon trustees. A person was now appointed to examine their deeds, and see that vacancies among their trustees were filled." He evidently means that for local convenience trustees held the chapels formally, but it did not affect Wesley's power of entail.
The Manchester Conference, though the most important in twenty-five years, receives but scant notice from Whitehead, and the same may be said of Moore. In the latter case it can be accounted for from the fact that his "Life of Wesley" is almost a literal transcript of Whitehead's "Life." He purloined whole pages, but never mentions Whitehead's name except to discredit him or to make a point emphatic. Stevens and Tyerman furnish what facts are available. The Conference continued four days. None of the historians gives the numbers in society at this date. It now assumed business shape. The theological and ecclesiastical questions were mostly settled for the nonce. For the first time a roster of the preachers and of the circuits is published, and a Plan of Appointments, with minute rules of discipline for both the societies and the preachers. Superannuated preachers are first named, with a plan for their relief. The certificate, or ticket of transfer of members from one society to another, became an established custom. The phrases "brother" and "sister" were allowed
"prudently." Tobacco and drams were not to be touched by the preachers on "any pretense," and were denounced among the people. Men and women were to sit apart, and no backs were to be put to the
chapel seats. Breaking bread in the love-feasts was discountenanced as "a silly custom invented by James Wheatley." No preacher was to print anything without Wesley's approbation. Fasting and family prayer were urged, and economy enjoined in the households. Wesley, the God-fearing man of ascetic habits, narrowly looked into everything, and one cannot but admire his intense earnestness for the welfare of both the bodies and souls of his "sons in the Gospel" and the flock over which he was made a watchman.
1766 was also an eventful year in Methodism. Wesley's plan for a union with the evangelical clergy of the National Church having failed, he seems to have looked with a more favorable eye upon the Calvinistic Methodists. A closer union took place with Whitefield and Lady Huntingdon. August 21, 1766, he wrote: "This morning I and my brother spent two blessed hours with George Whitefield.
The threefold cord we trust will never more be broken. On Tuesday next my brother is to preach in Lady Huntingdon's chapel at Bath. That, and all her chapels, are now put into the hands of us three."
It was just after the twenty-third Conference, held at Leeds, August 12. In the early part of this
[3]
year, when he had reached Liverpool in his annual itinerary, he examined the new trust deed of Pitt Street chapel, and was much displeased. There is such a charming simplicity and innocence in the way this "autocrat of the Methodists," as Tyerman titles him, states his objections that they must be rehearsed in full. "(1) It takes up three large skins of parchment, and so could not cost less than ten guineas; whereas our own deed, transcribed by a friend, would not cost six shillings. (2) It is verbose beyond all sense and reason; and withal so ambiguously worded that one passage only might find matter for a suit of ten or twelve years in chancery. (3) It everywhere calls the house of God a meeting-house, a name which I particularly object to. (4) It leaves no power either to the assistant or me, so much as to place or displace a steward. (5) Neither I, nor all the Conference, has power to send the same preacher two years together. To crown all, (6) If a preacher is not appointed at the Conference, the trustees and the congregation are to choose one by most votes! Can any one wonder I dislike this deed, which tears the Methodist discipline up by the roots? Ah me, empire by[4]
property creates friction. Thoughtful laymen who contributed their money to build chapels, being loyal to doctrine and discipline, could not see why they must resign all control over it to the Conference deed. The fact was, as disclosed by this rebellious deed at Leeds and the admission of Watson, that "some began to wish a larger share in the government"; the yeast of dissatisfaction[5]
with the paternal system was fermenting in the Methodist mass.
At the Leeds Conference forty circuits were reported, and for the first time the minutes show an attempt to furnish a census of the societies, but it is too imperfect to give an aggregate of the members. The debts on the chapels and preachers' houses had increased to 11,383. "We shall be utterly ruined," said Wesley, "if we go on at this rate." It was found expedient, officially, to assert that they were not Dissenters, and the preachers were directed not to hold their services so as to interfere with the Church worship. Separation from the National Church was one of the great topics discussed and negatively determined. The Wesleys had but one dictum, which John expressed in an apothegm, "Whoever separate from the Church separate from the Methodists." Tyerman gives evidence that Charles attended this Conference, and deems it important as a fact by reason of this discussion and also of John's administrative power, and a "thorough reform of the preachers." It appears there were Methodist "radicals" in those days, and the murmurings against unamenable authority, as exercised by Wesley, grew so loud that he felt constrained to make a defense. It is an elaborate paper given by Tyerman in full, but not noticed by Moore, though he copied from[6]
Whitehead, who also gives it nearly in full. Watson has scant reference and Stevens contents himself with a dozen lines, and they do not give the pith of it. A paraphrase is the best the limits will allow.
"But what power is this, which you exercise over all the Methodists in Great Britain and Ireland? The answer is, that in 1738 persons came to him in London asking him to advise and pray with them . . . here commenced my power, to appoint, when and where and how they should meet and to remove the unfaithful — and this power remains the same, whether the people meeting together were twelve, twelve hundred, or twelve thousand." He rehearses how he came to appoint stewards and of removing them, another phase of power. Then certain brethren as lay-preachers desired to help him and he durst not refuse their assistance, "and here commenced my power to appoint each of these where, when, and how to labor; that is, while he chose to continue with me," — the case continued the same when the number of preachers increased. He recites that in 1744 he called together the first Conference of a select few. "They did not desire this meeting, but I did." Afterward, when the number of preachers increased, he invited more to attend Conference: "I sent for them to advise, not to govern me. Neither did I, at any of those times, divest myself of any of that power above described, which the providence of God had cast upon me, without any design or choice of mine."
"But several gentlemen are much offended at my having so much power." "My answer to them is this: I did not seek any part of this power — I never was fond of it. I always did, and do now, bear it as my burden; which God lays upon me; but if you can tell me any one, or any five men, to whom I can transfer this burden, who can and will do just what I do now, I will heartily thank both you and them." "But some of your helpers say, 'This is shackling free-born Englishmen,' and demand a free conference, that is, a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be determined by most votes. I answer it is possible that something of this kind after my death may take place; but not while I live — every preacher and every member may leave me when he pleases; but when he chooses to stay, it is on the same terms that he joined me at first." "But this is arbitrary power; this is no less than making yourself a pope." "If it is meant that I exercise the power singly, it is true, but if by arbitrary is meant unjust, unreasonable, or tyrannical, then it is not true." He disclaims being a pope, and contends that the charge is injurious to him and mischievous to the people — "to whom they really owe more, for exercising this very power, than for all my preaching put together. Because preaching twice or thrice a day is no burden to me at all; but the care of all the preachers and all the people is a burden indeed!" This is his vindication. You need not too carefully analyze it. Hampson, in his History, who had been checked by Wesley, says, "He never thought his authority secure, but when exerted to the utmost. The love of power was the chief misery of his life, the source of infinite disgusts, and the most frequent cause of the defection of his friends." Tyerman says, of his defense,
"He assigns reasons for it, and unless he is suspected of insincerity — a thing of which he was almost incapable — all must give him credit for being actuated by high and conscientious motives. The wisdom of acting as he did is a fair subject for discussion; but the purity of his intention can hardly be questioned." In this calm judgment the unbiased will readily concur. As a parent; he exercised[7]
supervision and discipline, and for the United Societies it was best, everything considered, while he lived. The fundamental error was in his attempt to entail parental power. If, as a matter of fact, its exercise during his life preserved the union of the societies, it was the direct cause of the destruction of that unity after his decease through its exercise by the Legal Hundred and their successors, as shall be shown in the sequel of English Methodist history.
At this Conference of 1766 a heart-searching scrutiny was made of the societies. Wesley gave his opinion in no flattering terms of the average Methodist at this period. He lectured the preachers[8]
severely, but not unjustly. Preaching was not enough — they must visit from house to house and instruct and reprove, or "the Methodists will be no better than other people," as was charged. It was one of the most important he ever held. A new impulse was given the entire work. Wesley entered upon his travels and labors with redoubled zeal, were that possible, and his helpers everywhere were stirred to a higher consecration. He came into the possession of $1000 by the will of a Miss Lewen, one of the converts who died early; but it was speedily distributed among the poor. He could resist no appeal, and his hand was always open while a shilling remained. Withal no man was more loved and more hated than he. He was assailed on every side, maligned and traduced by tongue and pen.
The Conference year of 1767 is notable for the fact that Wesley lifted the first missionary collection at Newcastle, August 8, and not at Leeds in 1769, as is supposed. He had, however, more faith in consecrated men who would volunteer for missionary work abroad than in money as an agency. The Methodist work was pushed by the trio now in full fellowship, — the two Wesleys[9]
and Whitefield. Persecutions waxed hotter, and many were the narrow escapes from open violence and sudden death of these fervent evangelists. About the only doctrinal bone of contention remaining was the Christian perfection theory; the practice was under limitation. There were zealots for the former who constantly misrepresented Wesley's views, and he was kept busy correcting and enforcing what he did believe.
But as this is about the only doctrinal point of difference of interpretation, unity in this regard having been marvelously preserved throughout its whole history in every land, this sketch takes no note of the intellectual and experiential side of this great revival of genuine religion. It is elaborately treated by Whitehead, Moore, Watson, Stevens, and Tyerman. On the 18th of August, the twenty-fourth Conference was held at London. For the first time a complete statistical table of members was furnished, showing an aggregate of 25,911.
There were forty-one circuits and 104 itinerants. Francis Asbury was received at this Conference, a fact worthy of note as the future will show. There were eighty-four chapels in England, one in Wales, two in Scotland, and thirteen in Ireland, with an aggregate debt of 12,000. Subscriptions were taken to cancel it, and the effort was pressed with all the authority and system of Wesley until within a few years the debt was reduced to 7728.
1768 Wesley made his first will, differing very much from his last, in 1789. He also made a second visit to the sainted Fletcher, who so nobly cooperated with him and the lay-preachers throughout life, and whom Wesley nominated by correspondence with him as his successor, an appointment he would no doubt have pressed, but for Fletcher's decease, though he never gave the least encouragement to it personally. And this is all the mention the space will allow of one of the purest, wisest, and most judicious men that ever lived to honor God. On the 16th of August, the twenty-fifth Conference was convened at Bristol. The increase of members was but 430, and Wesley was dissatisfied, as well he might be. It was attributed to the fact that most of the preachers were partly secularized in trades and artisanship, and so not their time only, but their minds, were divided.
Steps were taken to remedy the evil as far as possible. The increased circulation of books was also urged to counteract the declension in some places.
August 1, 1769, the twenty-sixth Conference began at Leeds. There was a gain of six circuits and of 922 members. An appeal came from America for helpers, and Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor responded and were accepted. A collection of seventy pounds was made, fifty for the new chapel in New York and twenty for their traveling expenses to the distant land. Wesley was now sixty-six years old. He began to concern himself seriously about the successorship — heart and mind were intent upon preserving the unity of his preachers and his people after his death. It may be admitted, according to the favorite phrasing of most of his biographers, that, as a rule, he had no preconceived plans; but in this matter he exhibited an anxiety which could not be fathered upon Providence, or referred to any thing but the delusive necessity all autocratic minds see, for a perpetuation of the absorbing idea of their personal leadership. Running before Providence, he finally settled it in a way that ultimated in the converse of his purpose; it destroyed the unity of both his preachers and "the people called Methodists." His distraction was great, for though he presented a plan at this Conference curiously involved and complicated, he held it in suspense for years, then brought it up again at the Conferences of 1773, 1774, and 1775, when it was signed by all the preachers present, 101. [10] In 1784 it was superseded by the Deed of Declaration when he was eighty-one years of age.
Meantime a pious, educated, wealthy, versatile, consecrated, and diplomatic character had come into Methodism, and, more than any other man, Wesley excepted and Asbury not considered, molded its structure both in England and America. That character was Thomas Coke. But for him, probably the advice of his brother Charles would have prevailed, when he wrote to John on this very subject:
"You cannot settle the succession. You cannot divine how God will settle it." Had Providence been allowed to settle it, Providence would have followed its own precedents for church government in the New Testament, and thus settled, it would have been settled right. An earnest appeal had been made to him by the few preachers doing missionary work in America, to pay them a visit, and Wesley was strongly inclined to comply; but he long hesitated, and finally abandoned the idea.
Whitehead gives his dominating reason for not going, characteristic of Wesley. "Being one day asked in company if he intended to go to America, he answered, 'If I go to America, I must do a thing which I hate as I hate the devil.' 'What is that, sir?' said one present. 'I must keep a secret,' he replied, meaning that he would have to conceal it from the societies, which were strongly opposed to his going. And this incident authenticates his brother's declaration, 'But you expect he will keep his own secrets! Let me whisper into your ear; he never could do it since he was born. It is a gift which God has not given him.'" [11] His nature was open and ingenuous. Those who traveled with him had free access to his letters. The representations made him by others, if reputable persons, he never questioned. He had a childlike confidence in the sincerity of others, and thus was moved to action, often unconsciously to himself, by the influences prompting it. The trait is noteworthy as furnishing a key to some of the pregnant events of his life, fraught with consequences of deepest moment, acts of which he repented with tears when it was too late to amend them. He was incapable of guile or malice, and he easily condoned the conduct of those who at times misled him.
The twenty-seventh Conference was held in London, August 7, 1770. There were fifty circuits, a gain of four; the last is significant — "Fiftieth, America, Joseph Pilmoor, Richard Boardman, Robert Williams, John King." There was a gain of 1143 members. There were forty-three preachers' wives to be provided for out of something over one hundred, thus inroads were made upon a celibate ministry. The support was extremely meager: 64 for the preacher, 12 for his wife, 8 for each child,