ganization, which good sense would not allow them to discard lightly, and to keep which, added to their sense of unity, while it took away their feeling of need and dependence up the Established Church.

Whatever might have been the avowals and desires he Methodists, that their various organizations should force and teach loyalty to the Church, the very existence of these organizations worked in quite the opposite direction. The Methodists could not have an organization of their own, and have unity with the Established Church furthered at one and the same time. This was sociologically impossible.

CHAPTER VI

DEVELOPMENT OF METHODIST SOLIDARITY

SECTION I. WESLEY'S OPPOSITION TO THE UNIFICATION OF METHODISM

MENTAL and practical differences such as peculiarities or standards of conduct are socializing forces, and to this the Methodists were no exception. There were practical differences between Churchmen and Methodists from the very beginning of the movement. As we have seen, the Methodists differed from the Church in the emphasis they placed upon doctrines such as the New Birth, and Christian Perfection. Then too, their preaching in the fields; their establishment of the itineracy; their use of lay preachers; their ordinations: all of these practices were considered by the Churchmen unnecessary and unjustifiable innovations. And finally, the various phases of Methodist organization such as the Conferences, classes, and quarterly meetings constituted a real difference.

The continuance of these practical differences had its effect upon the social grouping of the Methodists, for endlessly varied modes of low and hate tend ever to reconstruct and dominate social grouping.1 The Methodists were fully aware of how much

1

Giddings: Readings in Descriptive and Historical Sociology, p. 275.

they and the group to which they belonged differed from the Church, and this consciousness came to its own in their many pronounced expressions of opinion concerning the life about them, for nearly all Methodists were dissatisfied with the state of the Church and vital religion.2 And the very opposition they received, stiffened their convictions so that this consciousness, which was at first somewhat vague, developed into a more or less definite emotion of mutual sympathy.

This type of sympathy among them was nothing abstract or unreal. "It is a power as real as that consciousness of disciplined strength which fights victorious battles, or as that consciousness of weakness and demoralization which hastens inglorious retreat." It made the Methodists wish to organize more intensively to attain their common ends and to promote those beliefs and acivities which they felt England badly needed. No uniformity either of time or place characterized the steps they took; but before Wesley's death a vague consciousness had clarified itself into a distinct desire for greater combination to achieve Methodist purposes.

Yet Wesley, who in other respects was such a keen observer of the life about him, seemed not to understand the direction which the Methodist movement was surely taking; neither did he seem acquainted with this desire for greater unity and independence among the Methodists that so clearly marked the conduct of his followers. That the Methodists were becoming a distinct social entity, he repeatedly professed not to believe. Nor did he in the least desire the Methodists to be formed into a body separate from the Church, and his personal actions neither sanctioned nor countenanced the taking of any steps connected with his organization that would result in separation. He was frankly opposed to leaving the Church.

Wesley professed great loyalty to the Church of England. "I live and die a member of the Church of England." This

4

Lecky: Hist. of Eng. in 18th Century, vol. ii, p. 688.

loyalty did not hinder him from advocating for his followers a higher type of piety than was commonly practiced by the members of the Church. 10 In a phrase that must have been irritating to the clergy he said: “It is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time. . . . we do not need to separate from the Church in order to preserve allegiance to Christ; but may be firm members thereof, and yet ‘have a conscience void of offense toward God and man.'"'11

To be sure, he did write to his brother saying, “I do not at all think (to tell you the truth) that the work will ever be destroyed, Church or no Church."12 Yet this attitude is outdone when it is remembered that he was quite particular to bury his mother according to the rites of the Church of England.13 In 1758, a tract entitled, Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England was published. Here, Wesley gave twelve reasons why the Methodists should remain within the Church. So heartily was Charles Wesley-the High Churchman-in accord with this statement that he seconded it with his signature. 14

Wesley showed that he assumed the Methodists to be members of the Church, when in an address to the king on March 5, 1744, he asserted: "that we are a part (however mean) of that Protestant Church established in these kingdoms."15 He also approved Middleton's Essay on Church Government; because it neither exalted nor depressed the regal power; but kept the middle way.16 All of this sounded much like good churchmanship, and when as late as 1782 he was asked, "Is it your wish that the people called Methodists should be, or become, a body separate from the Church?"-he answered as upon former occasions, "No." Mr. W. E. H. Lecky, authority on Irish affairs and the writer of those famous volumes, England in the Eighteenth Century, was correct when he said, “Nothing can

Jour., vol. iii, p. 123.

16 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 42.

be more unjust than to attribute to him the ambition of a schismatic, or the subversive instincts of a revolutionist."18

Since Wesley, as leader, felt thus loyal to the Church, one is not surprised to find that he and others worked for the unity of the Methodists with it. Between Wesley and Mr. Walker, of Truro, there was much correspondence on this head. Walker said that Wesley intended to be a schismatic; but Wesley answered Walker to the contrary by saying, "Tell me what, and I will do it without delay, however contrary it may be to my ease or natural inclination."19 Here Wesley said he would do anything save give up his flock in order that he might not be schismatic. At another time he wrote to Walker saying that the clergy were all too worldly and inefficient to meet the needs of the day; and that while such a condition lasted, the Methodists could not more heartily unite with the Church. 20 Mr. Walker also came forth with the suggestion that Methodist lay preachers be ordained in the Church; not as preachers, but as inspectors and readers. These he would have stationed in certain societies. Wesley objected that the lay preachers had not enough talent to remain in one place for a long period of time-fixed lay preachers became dead and inefficient. 21 Walker continued this matter and urged Wesley to do away with his lay preachers, saying that there could be no unity while lay preachers were used by the Methodists. To this persuasion Wesley replied, "I am still desirous of knowing in what particular manner you think the present work of God could be carried on without assistance of lay preachers.”22 He would not give up his lay preachers to gain unity.

Wesley also wrote a circular letter to the clergy, asking them to meet with him that they might discuss the basis upon which unity might take place. No attention was paid to this suggestion.23 The clergy knew Wesley's proneness to ask advice and not take it too well.