History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

of Methodists dates from the separation of himself and others from the Fetter Lane organization,
[6]
which was on July 20, 1740. Innovations of doctrine were charged against the Moravian brethren
of the Fetter Lane Society, though the Church as such was afterward vindicated from the errors
charged. Mr. Wesley vainly expostulated with them and at his last meeting he concluded his
exhortation in these words, "But as I find you more and more confirmed in the error of your ways,
nothing now remains but that I should give you up to God. You that are of the same judgment follow
me. I then," adds Mr. Wesley, "without saying any more, withdrew, as did eighteen or nineteen of
[7]
society." Some months prior to this a society had been formed by Wesley at the Foundry, and to
these the seceding brethren from Fetter Lane joined themselves. Still earlier a society had been
formed at Bristol, so that the question of priority has been largely discussed by Methodist annalists.
Myles, in his "Chronological History," seems to settle the matter between Bristol and London in the
undisputed statement that the "first preaching house was built at Bristol; the first which was opened
was in London." The relevancy of the subject to our main purpose is in the effort of most of these
annalists to minify Wesley's obligation to the Moravians and his connection practically with them,
so far as they had organization in England, from about the date of his return from America in
February, 1738, to July 20, 1740. Stevens gives larger space to it and his summation is just. First,
his spiritual regeneration, a distinguishing experience in the after mission of Methodism. Second,
kindred theological ideas as related to this spiritual life. Third, Zinzendorf's communities within the
Established churches of the Continent for their reformation, as imitated by Wesley in his United
Societies and fourth, not a few details as to means of grace, love feasts, band meetings, and moral
[8]
discipline. Whitehead, however, brings to light the self-governing features of the Moravian
society, which has been already suggested as a conjectural additional reason for Wesley's separation
from them. The Rules of the Fetter Lane Society were made under the advice of Peter Bohler and
are given in full by Whitehead. The fourteenth of these Rules is in these words, "That no particular
person shall be allowed to act in anything, contrary to any order of this society; but that every one
without distinction should submit to the determination of his brethren; and that, if any person or
persons did not, after being thrice admonished, conform to the society, they should no longer be
esteemed as members." On this rule Whitehead makes the following comment: "The fourteenth rule,
to which the ministers were subject as well as the common members, was an excellent preservative
against the abuse of power; and some of the others are good guards against the admission of
improper members. It would have been happy for the Methodist societies if these rules had been
preserved among them, and rigorously kept: the work would in that case have been more pure than
[9]
it has been, and much confusion would have been prevented." Again he says: "It was a rule of the
society, 'that any person who desired or designed to take a journey, should first, if it were possible,
have the approbation of the bands,' so entirely," he adds, "were the ministers, at this time, under the
[10]
direction of the people." It was for utterances of opinions like these and the disclosure of kindred
matters that brought Whitehead under the disfavor of the Conference leaders after Wesley's decease,
specially Coke and Moore; a subject which shall receive full treatment in its current place, and an
appendix furnished for the vindication of this remarkable man. Methodist historiographers, echoing
each other generally, commend the separation from the Moravians, or United Brethren, as
intrinsically wise and providentially ordered. It is open at least to question. Nothing doctrinally was
gained and much ecclesiastically was lost. The merits of it cannot, however, be unfolded, as our
limitations compel the dismissal of this phase of Methodist history.