History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org
History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org
pounds were contributed by the people for its erection and the building of a mission ship for the South Sea Islands. For the Home work various funds were organized, to which the Methodist people contributed their wealth. The Superannuates were better cared for, and most of these measures are to be traced to the lay cooperation, which Bunting advised, defended, and successfully established in the face of the old party of preachers, who still held that the trinity of lay virtues, as already set forth, was to pray, pay, and obey, as Wesley also held for his Societies. If he had ever seriously contemplated a Church for the Methodists in either England or America, he would probably have found a place for laymen, taking his cue from the National Church at home and its congener in America, in both of which, despite extreme conservativeness, in their lower houses of legislation there is full lay representation and cooperation. Higher education, both for the preachers and the children of the people, was pressed, and schools established at various points. This very educational movement was, directly or indirectly, the occasion, if not the cause, of that serious disturbance which eventuated in expulsion and secession and the organization of another branch of Methodism, and also of important revision of the Wesleyan polity, "the one single exception for this period," as Stevens notes it. He says of this defection: "Not a little agitation accompanied the initiation of this important measure. Many devoted members of the society and some members of the Conference suspected that its tendency would be deteriorating to the simplicity and purity of the ministry; others, restless under the government of the Church, or disappointed in their ambition for places in the management or offices of the new institutions, availed themselves of the occasion to disturb the peace of the Connection." Perhaps these reasons are fairly enough stated, though the parties implicated tell another story, as might be expected. Dr. Samuel Warren, a prominent member of the Conference, led the way. Stevens says that he at first fully agreed with the educational plan, but "finding that his own name was not reported in the nomination of its officers, he opposed the institution with extraordinary animosity." He wrote against it with severity, and organized the "Grand Central Association" for combined attack. He was in consequence suspended from the district meeting of Manchester. He threw the case into the courts, and it was decided against him, as he might have foreseen, and possibly did, as there could be no doubt about the legal validity of the Conference polity under the Poll-Deed of Wesley. He appealed to the Lord Chancellor, but the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor was confirmed. Warren then appealed to the next Conference against the district meeting which had suspended him. The Conference heard him, and then expelled him. The Association became the basis of a new Methodist sect, "The Associated Methodists." A schism had taken place at Leeds over a church organ question in 1829, and these now joined the new body. At its second assembly it reported 20,000 members, but in the coming twenty years it had advanced numerically but about 2000. Warren labored energetically to promote its success, but finally took refuge in the National Church. No explanatory data are at hand, so the case must be left as Stevens reports it. It occurred in 1835. The gist of it is, however, that, as in other cases, the parent body had a way of first excising the disaffected and then conceding in its law about what had been contended for; for it is unreasonable to assume that all this agitation was without real grievances. The effect of the movement was considerable, but by the centenary year the old Conference had fully recovered. The result was that farther concessions were made to popular and liberal Methodism. Bunting, the sagacious, prepared a "Special Address" of the Conference to the Societies, "embodying," Stevens says, "explanations and some emendations of discipline, especially of rules
or usages which had been most assailed by the seceders. This document recognized decidedly the propriety of 'Mixed Committees' of preachers and laymen in the administration of the funds and other temporalities of the denomination, a policy already in practice, but now more uniformly applied. It made new provisions for accused members under trial, granting them farther opportunities of appeal. It authorized applications from the people through the 'June quarterly meeting of every year' for any changes in the government of the Connection not incompatible with its constitution as left by Wesley." A careful consideration of the concessions as thus outlined by Stevens will disclose how vital to lay rights are some of them, and the query recurs, why the parent body should expel first and afterward concede. The reason, perhaps, is not far to find. Entrenched in authority backed by property, no serious thought is given to the unbalanced government, until an uprising demands changes by the people. Acquiescence would have acknowledged superior wisdom in the discontented. It would look too much as though rights withheld had been wrested from the power party. Hence expulsions for "moral discipline." Then in the Conference wisdom rights are voluntarily surrendered. But no one is deceived by such procedure. It remains true that men, as individuals or corporations, do not part with power except under coercive stress, and hence also the fact that reforms from within are rarely, if ever, successful, for the reason that reforms work from above downward. Revolutions work from below upward. The destiny of the Associated Methodists will be given later. In 1828 Dr. William Capers of the South Carolina Conference was sent by the General Conference to the Wesleyan Conference. In 1835 William Lord was sent by the Wesleyan Conference to the General Conference in America. Dr. Wilbur Fisk was sent with fraternal letters [1] in return in 1836. The slavery question was under discussion in both countries, and the British brethren had made some pointed allusions to it in their former address. An effort was made to prejudice the Wesleyans against Dr. Fisk on this score. But explanations were made, and he was cordially received, and by "his influence," Stevens says, "the form of ordination by imposition of hands was adopted for the first time by the Conference, he himself sharing in the ceremony. " It was a reactionary step and marked the influence of the American Episcopacy over them. During the period just closed the Wesleyan Conference increased by an average of forty a year. Three hundred and forty-nine had passed to their reward, among them notable names. Charles Atmore, David Stoner, Thomas Vasey, died in this period. The latter was sent to America with Coke and Whatcoat to assist Asbury in 1784. He remained in the American Connection a few years, but grew dissatisfied, probably with the Asburyan rule, as no other has ever been assigned, when he entered the Protestant Episcopal Church, receiving ordination at the hands of Bishop White. He returned to England, accepted a curacy, Stevens says "with Wesley's approbation," proof that he had good reasons for his course in America, and in 1789 he resumed his place as a Methodist itinerant under Wesley. He lingered to his eighty-fourth year and died in 1826. John Smith, the revivalist, also died triumphantly. In 1833 two of the greatest lights of English Methodism departed,— Richard Watson and Adam Clarke. A volume to each of them would not suffice for memorial. Among honored laymen were Butterworth, Thomas Thompson, and Samuel Drew, who from a shoemaker's bench rose to literary eminence as editor of the Imperial Magazine and as a metaphysician of high
- Page 77 and 78: eached 2828. The membership was 76,
- Page 79 and 80: * See Appendix to Dr. Kewley's "Inq
- Page 81 and 82: METHODIST REFORM Edward J. Drinkhou
- Page 83 and 84: He said soon after, "I will get up,
- Page 85 and 86: short, and the design itself was sp
- Page 87 and 88: METHODIST REFORM Edward J. Drinkhou
- Page 89 and 90: week of Wesley's death he wrote: "M
- Page 91 and 92: stewards, the admission and expulsi
- Page 93 and 94: wrote like a mountain torrent. Stro
- Page 95 and 96: present purpose reads: "But when on
- Page 97 and 98: y the calendar, must be used wherev
- Page 99 and 100: presidency the Conference would not
- Page 101 and 102: 1 Asbury's " Journal," Vol. II. p.1
- Page 103 and 104: HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM Synopti
- Page 105 and 106: Commentary is an imperishable monum
- Page 107 and 108: parent bodies will the mission of t
- Page 109 and 110: ENDNOTES 1 She was a Friend, but he
- Page 111 and 112: constantly devising new plans for i
- Page 113 and 114: urst out, and one Daniel Shubetham
- Page 115 and 116: insulted the representatives of the
- Page 117 and 118: METHODIST REFORM Edward J. Drinkhou
- Page 119 and 120: courtesy due him, was thought too p
- Page 121 and 122: like Wesley, betrayed his ignorance
- Page 123 and 124: delicate woman, died and was buried
- Page 125 and 126: 1 "History of Methodism," Vol. III.
- Page 127: The respective theories are working
- Page 131 and 132: the ministry, its devotion and libe
- Page 133 and 134: METHODIST REFORM Edward J. Drinkhou
- Page 135 and 136: It is necessary to retrace steps to
- Page 137 and 138: to interfere with the internal affa
- Page 139 and 140: showed, in feasting at high dinners
- Page 141 and 142: ENDNOTE 1 The plan has since been a
- Page 143 and 144: into evil ways. Barbara Heck kept a
- Page 145 and 146: which was the vogue of a large numb
- Page 147 and 148: attended the ministry of both, conv
- Page 149 and 150: thing which I seek, a circulation o
- Page 151 and 152: ENDNOTES 1 Bangs' "History of the M
- Page 153 and 154: 13 Atkinson's "Methodism in America
- Page 155 and 156: Philadelphia, George Shadford (to c
- Page 157 and 158: Lednum has preserved the name of Jo
- Page 159 and 160: y Methodists as a constant prayerfu
- Page 161 and 162: the episcopal form of church govern
- Page 163 and 164: 1784, and he had regular work. He r
- Page 165 and 166: of our national independence, who b
- Page 167 and 168: strength of Methodism was in Maryla
- Page 169 and 170: 1 Lee's "History," p.56. ENDNOTES 2
- Page 171 and 172: METHODIST REFORM Edward J. Drinkhou
- Page 173 and 174: and their children, and they procee
- Page 175 and 176: to men whose opinions disagreed wit
- Page 177 and 178: Why do the printed Minutes take no
pounds were contributed by the people for its erection and the building of a mission ship for the<br />
South Sea Islands. For the Home work various funds were organized, to which the <strong>Methodist</strong> people<br />
contributed their wealth. The Superannuates were better cared for, and most of these measures are<br />
to be traced to the lay cooperation, which Bunting advised, defended, and successfully established<br />
in the face of the old party of preachers, who still held that the trinity of lay virtues, as already set<br />
forth, was to pray, pay, and obey, as Wesley also held for his Societies. If he had ever seriously<br />
contemplated a Church for the <strong>Methodist</strong>s in either England or America, he would probably have<br />
found a place for laymen, taking his cue from the National Church at home and its congener in<br />
America, in both of which, despite extreme conservativeness, in their lower houses of legislation<br />
there is full lay representation and cooperation. Higher education, both for the preachers and the<br />
children of the people, was pressed, and schools established at various points. This very educational<br />
movement was, directly or indirectly, the occasion, if not the cause, of that serious disturbance which<br />
eventuated in expulsion and secession and the organization of another branch of Methodism, and<br />
also of important revision of the Wesleyan polity, "the one single exception for this period," as<br />
Stevens notes it.<br />
He says of this defection: "Not a little agitation accompanied the initiation of this important<br />
measure. Many devoted members of the society and some members of the Conference suspected that<br />
its tendency would be deteriorating to the simplicity and purity of the ministry; others, restless under<br />
the government of the Church, or disappointed in their ambition for places in the management or<br />
offices of the new institutions, availed themselves of the occasion to disturb the peace of the<br />
Connection." Perhaps these reasons are fairly enough stated, though the parties implicated tell<br />
another story, as might be expected. Dr. Samuel Warren, a prominent member of the Conference,<br />
led the way. Stevens says that he at first fully agreed with the educational plan, but "finding that his<br />
own name was not reported in the nomination of its officers, he opposed the institution with<br />
extraordinary animosity." He wrote against it with severity, and organized the "Grand Central<br />
Association" for combined attack. He was in consequence suspended from the district meeting of<br />
Manchester. He threw the case into the courts, and it was decided against him, as he might have<br />
foreseen, and possibly did, as there could be no doubt about the legal validity of the Conference<br />
polity under the Poll-Deed of Wesley. He appealed to the Lord Chancellor, but the opinion of the<br />
Vice-Chancellor was confirmed. Warren then appealed to the next Conference against the district<br />
meeting which had suspended him. The Conference heard him, and then expelled him.<br />
The Association became the basis of a new <strong>Methodist</strong> sect, "The Associated <strong>Methodist</strong>s." A<br />
schism had taken place at Leeds over a church organ question in 1829, and these now joined the new<br />
body. At its second assembly it reported 20,000 members, but in the coming twenty years it had<br />
advanced numerically but about 2000. Warren labored energetically to promote its success, but<br />
finally took refuge in the National Church. No explanatory data are at hand, so the case must be left<br />
as Stevens reports it. It occurred in 1835. The gist of it is, however, that, as in other cases, the parent<br />
body had a way of first excising the disaffected and then conceding in its law about what had been<br />
contended for; for it is unreasonable to assume that all this agitation was without real grievances. The<br />
effect of the movement was considerable, but by the centenary year the old Conference had fully<br />
recovered. The result was that farther concessions were made to popular and liberal Methodism.<br />
Bunting, the sagacious, prepared a "Special Address" of the Conference to the Societies,<br />
"embodying," Stevens says, "explanations and some emendations of discipline, especially of rules