new house was provided for the flourishing society at Leeds ; while at Sheffield the society grew so rapidly that they could not wait for the completion of the house; but Wesley was obliged to preach in the shell of the new house.25 A room or "tabernacle," built by a fanatic, Macdonald, who left it and went to live in Manchester, became the first meeing house in Newcastle.26 But this room became so hot in the summer, and even hotter in the winter, that a subscription was started for a new room; because the Methodists desired to worship in comfort. 27 On April 21, 1771, in London, a proper plate suitably engraved, together with a corner stone was fixed in position with due ceremony that strangely contrasted with the humility of former years.

28

The task of raising suitable funds for these meeting houses was an enormous one, because nearly all of the Methodists were poor. Wesley himself was always in debt on this account. He insisted, however, on owning the land upon which the meeting house was built. He would not take a gift or a loan of land for this purpose and because of this, he frankly said that when the first stone of the house at Newcastle was laid, no one seemed to know where the money was coming from.29 When the Foundry was repaired and a few other buildings erected, the sum total of debt was £900. This large debt was later increased. 30 The way in which the needed money was raised, was by personal solicitation and personal giving. In two or three days, the people of Bristol raised £230 towards strengthening and enlarging their meeting room.31 At Cork, Ireland, the people gave freely; in one day ten people subscribed one hundred pounds, and in three or four days more, the sum was doubled and a piece of ground taken.32 All of this money usually came in very small sums, for when there was a gift of three or four pounds it was usually noted. There were but few times when hundreds of pounds were con

Ibid., vol. v, p. 101.

31 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 331.

tributed.33 Nevertheless, as the societies aged, they became stronger; so that in 1776, in two meetings, one thousand pounds were subscribed toward building a new Foundry. The Methodist societies were becoming financially prosperous.34

At the beginning of the movement of building meeting houses, the officers appointed could not raise sufficient money for carrying on the work; hence Wesley took upon himself the task of paying all debts. This he did in order that he might have full liberty to preach what he wished in these houses.35 Wesley owned all of his chapels in his own name, with the exception of those in London. In London, City Road Chapel was the only one he owned-all the rest he leased.36 As a result of this, Wesley was constantly in debt and it was not until 1783, when over £3,000 were taken in, that Wesley found his income to exceed his expenditures. Of this sum, he reserved thirty pounds for himself.37 Because of this heavy responsibility, Wesley was very particular to see to it that all houses were built upon the so-called "Conference Plan". This plan gave Wesley complete jurisdiction over the preachers who were to preach and the people could not oust them, provided Wesley did not wish it. In 1788, the Conference officially ratified this plan.38 One year later, conference became even more exact and stated that no house should be begun without a majority of the building committee consenting, "and not a stone laid until the house is settled on the Methodist form verbatim. N. B. No lawyer is to altar one line." The idea was to prevent new buildings from being erected until at least two thirds of the money was first raised for their payment, and to give Conference perfect freedom to send what preachers it would to the various houses without the interference of people who did not happen to like what the preachers said.39 The financial phase of the Methodist societies was be

Minutes, vol. i, p. 209.

coming an important factor in the development of Methodist organization.

The purpose of organization was to promote Methodist discipline or practices. Wesley met his societies very regularly and was exact in his discipline. If they would not attend their class, be constant at the Church services and the communion, he would not have them in his society.40 All of the rules were to be observed—not a part only—and if a woman wore ruffles or a high crowned hat, Wesley took means to see that she put these things off, or that she be ejected from the society.41 At Norwich, there were three rules enforced at every meeting of the society. Each member must show his ticket.

I.

2.

3.

Men and women must sit apart.

No spectators in the gallery during the communion. Wesley occasionally read over all of his rules to his individual societies, stating that all who were willing to abide by them could remain within the society, and all who could not, were obliged to leave.42 Frankness itself was Wesley's strength in this matter. "I met the society at seven, and told them in plain terms that they were the most ignorant, self-conceited, selfwilled, fickle, untractable, disorderly, disjointed society that I knew in the three kingdoms." 43 This was real discipline.

Wesley not only examined the societies as a whole, but also the individual members. At Manchester he spent three days and had a private conversation with each member.44 There was much scandal concerning the moral state at Kingswood. Wesley investigated the societies of this place and found that two persons had lapsed into drunkenness in the last three months. These were promptly expelled, but there was little reason for scandal.45 One especial habit caused Wesley much trouble-smuggling. It was the general practice of many good people; but Wesley thought it wrong. Though perhaps in the minority, Wesley took an emphatic stand against this custom. He told the people of

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 15.

Cornwall that they "should never see his face again" if they kept up this custom.46 At Sunderland, he waged a hot fight against smuggling and put many out of the society for this cause. Yet 250 were left. But returning there later in 1759, he reported that most smugglers had left the society and honest people had filled in the gap.47 At Norwich he consulted with the class leaders and then asserted that discipline should be enforced if only fifty remained in the society.48 He examined the society at Bristol and left out every careless person, and every one who wilfully and obstinately refused to meet his brethren weekly.49 Wesley felt that this procedure was worth while. At Sutherland, he was of the opinion that one of the strongest societies existed; they scrupled even to buy or sell milk on Sunday.5 The result of such strict standards was either to drive people unsympathetic with Methodism out of the societies, or else to strengthen their zeal and increase their loyalty. The latter usually happened. Whatever else one may conclude, one cannot deny that good members of the societies carried out Methodist practices, and Methodist practices alone.

50

When Wesley first started the organization of his societies he ascertained the attitude of the bishops toward them. He found that very few opposed them and that Archbishop Secker countenanced them.51 At the same time Wesley had an interview with Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London. Both Charles Wesley and John asked him: "Are religious societies conventicles?" The bishop answered: "No; I think not; however, you can read the acts and laws as well as I; I determine nothing." 52 This did not long remain the attitude of the clergy; for soon they began to attack this organizing of Methodists into societies as being unfriendly to the Church. To the accusation that these societies divided people from the Church, Wesley responded, "if any member of the Church does thus divide from, or leave it, he hath

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 380.

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 24.

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 194.

"' 53

no more place among us.' To the accusation: you make schism, Wesley replied: "If you mean dividing Christians from Christians, and so destroying Christian fellowship, it is not. If you mean gathering people out of buildings called churches, it is." "54 In spite of these many explanations the opposition continued; for it was thought that the Methodists held too many meetings; if they held fewer, the people could devote more time to earning their living and taking care of their families, and the preachers also would be less exhausted because of too many meetings.55 Some spoke of Wesley's societies as critics recently spoke of the Salvation Army. The establishing of his societies was spoken of as the "opening of Wesley's Mission," and doubtless many felt the same antipathy toward them as many to-day feel toward the Salvation Army.56 Yet Wesley would not admit these charges. A society was nothing else than “a company of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other to work out their salvation": this was in no sense schism.57 But in spite of opposition, the societies grew. In Dublin there were 420 members in 1752—and that was after much rioting against the Methodists.58

Still in spite of his avowals to the contrary, Wesley did not forward unity with the Established Church. When he said, “I spoke to the members of the society, consisting of Churchmen, Dissenters, and Papists, that were," one can well understand the feelings of the High Churchmen.59 This kind of organization so angered a clergyman named John Free, that he went about maligning the Methodists and in a Speech at Zion College, 1759, he claimed that he was spit upon by the Methodists for advocating their suppression. This showed the high pitch of feelings at the time. 60

53

Appeal to Men of Reason, Works, vol. v, p. 28.

54 Moore: vol. i, p. 453.

55 Hampson: vol. iii, p. 83.

58 Scott: Fine Picture of Meth., p. 20.

57

Works, vol. v, p. 190.

58 Jour., vol. iv, p. 38.

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 177.

59