History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

present purpose reads: "But when once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you knew, that
your preachers here would never rest till you ordained them. You told me they would separate by and
by. The doctor (Coke) tells us the same. His Methodist episcopal church in America was intended
to beget a Methodist episcopal church here. You know he comes armed with your authority to make
us all Dissenters. One of your sons assured me that not a preacher in London would refuse orders
[16]
from the doctor." So, if he finally failed to have a Methodist episcopal church in England (to
follow Charles Wesley's capitalizing of the title) it was not for the lack of honest intention and
sincere preference as well as consummate ecclesiastical intriguing and a wily diplomacy with his
brethren.
Nothing more unfortunate could have happened to the Connection than this Lichfield meeting.
Again let Stevens tell the story. "This private consultation, so cautiously conducted, did not escape
[17]
public animadversion. Its very cautiousness excited suspicion. Kilham referred to it as a
conspiracy to place pretentious prelates over the people . . . The public excitement became again
intense, as the session of the Conference approached. A new element of discord appeared. The
conservatives included most of the trustees of chapels, as these were generally chosen from the most
wealthy members of the society, and were therefore most likely to be influenced by their social
position in favor of the National Church. They were indeed the 'High-Church' lay aristocracy of
Methodism, distinguishable as such from the mass of the people, who demanded the sacraments, and
from the ultrademocratic party represented by Kilham. By extensive consultations and
correspondence they prepared to exert their influence, if not their official power, against all liberal
changes. They met by delegation at Bristol, before the session of the Conference there. They claimed
a larger control than had been conceded them over the affairs of the societies, and particularly the
right of a veto on the sacraments in the chapels. They denounced the meeting at Lichfield, demanded
that the preachers should abandon all ecclesiastical titles, cease to administer the sacraments, abjure
ordination, and divide more equally with the trustees the administration of the affairs of the Church.
[18]
Two comments only on this statement seem called for: the insistence that laymen are always
conservative, and therefore to be trusted and not mistrusted by the preachers, and if Stevens tells the
story correctly, how it stands in proof of the venturesome suggestion that if Wesley had added one
hundred of them to the Legal Conference his plan of perpetuation might have succeeded. The Deed
of Settlement, sometimes so called, would then, indeed, have settled something. It is also difficult
to see, in the light of the facts, how he can make a distinction between "the mass of the people who
demanded the sacraments, and the ultra-democratic party represented by Kilham." The same demand
was a chief plank in his platform, and the sequel will show that the people were with him.
In the face of this new demand for an enlargement of lay participation in the administration of the
societies, the fifty-first Conference met at Bristol, June 28, 1794. Thomas Hanby was elected
President. He had traveled forty years and was eminently fit for the post, devout, quiet, and yet
courageous. Dr. Coke was elected Secretary. A representation of the delegated trustees attended, and
the Conference at once, as the urgent business of the session, entered into negotiations with them.
It must have been a formidable movement, or this deference would not have been paid it. Stevens'
slur is hardly called for, if substantially true, that they were the High Church aristocrats of the
societies. Their principal contentions at least were tantamount to the claims of the "mass of the
people" and the "ultra-democratic party of Kilham." Through respective committees the parties met,
and a compromise was effected. First, the Conference voted against the Lichfield resolutions, and