more serious charges against lay preachers, Conference dismissed after a careful investigation as advanced without foundation, 104 When Wesley saw the condition of the material which he had in his lay preachers, he toiled mightily to improve it. He made an agreement with Charles Wesley outlining the general principles they both would use in selecting lay preachers. He exhorted these lay preachers not to be lazy; but to continue at their regular trades, or else to devote as much time to reading as they were wont to devote to their trades. He opposed utterly a lazy or ignorant preacher. 105 Later on, Conference decided that these lay preachers must give up their work in order to study, if they would preach for the Methodists.106 Wesley read to his preachers from the best theological works of the times to improve their minds.107 He looked with much sympathy on John Fletcher's plan to have Kingswood used as a school to prepare ignorant preachers for ordination.108 Nor were the little things forgotten. Alexander Coates was told not to contradict the tenets of other sects, especially when in their churches; neither was he to use strong rhetorical expressionshe was to keep out of all controversy.109 Wesley felt that God made practical divinity necessary, and the devil made it controversial. Hence the lay preachers were to avoid all controversy they could.110 When they prayed too long, talked too long, or preached over an hour, Wesley was sure to be heard from.111 He kept a close watch on all their doings. Francis Wolf was told he was "out of his wits" because he neglected to come to Conference; Thomas Carlill was ordered to attend Conference from his circuit and "none other"; William Stevens was plainly told that he ought to marry; and even William Shent was not forgotten in the hardships of his old age though Tyerman: vol. ii, p 413ff. 110 Works, vol. vii, p. 72. he had left the Methodists many years before because of his bad conduct. Wesley kept a careful oversight over his lay preachers.112 If James Oddie forgot the annual collection, Wesley reminded him of it; if Joseph Taylor ventured to wear a surplice, he was plainly rebuked; if Joseph Humphreys became a trifler he heard about orthodoxy; and when Dr. John Whitehead was a little careless of the condition in which his accounts were brought to Conference, he was told to bring them in a proper manner. 113 Wesley urged these men to read the many publications put forth by his press. Methodist publications and Methodist publications alone should be used.114 He even edited a good tract entitled Directions Concerning Pronunciation and Gesture. This was to aid his lay preachers in their public speaking.115 Although Wesley sought in every way to improve the interests and welfare of his preachers, yet he would not stand in the least degree any opposition from them. When Alexander M'Nabe objected because Wesley brought Mr. Smyth, a regularly ordained minister, to Bristol, on the ground that the Conference appointed the preachers and not Wesley, Wesley cleared up the matter by stating in very clear terms understood by all: "the rules of our preachers were fixed by me before any Conference existed... . Above all, you are to preach when and where I appoint." Since M'Nabe would not submit, he was forced out of the society and Wesley remained as an autocrat.116 John Bennett found Wesley's discipline too severe; so he left too. There was nothing else to do.117 Wesley had, however, much difficulty in maintaining his discipline. But he would not give it up even though he was obliged to expel many lay preachers after a long time of service. He felt that the way of efficiency was discipline, and his results seemed to justify the means he used, 118 Though Wesley was careful for his own authority, and kept the ecclesiastical power in his own hands, yet he was also keen to see that the temporal wants of his preachers were looked after. This was a very real problem, for oftentimes the poverty among these lay preachers was distressing.119 A special fund was inaugurated for the benefit of old preachers. This was raised through gifts from those preachers who traveled on the circuits and also from the people. Old, sickly preachers and their families had first claim upon this fund; then came the claims of the widows. The purpose of all this was to encourage the laymen to give up remunerative employment and go to preaching.120 In 1765, this fund for the preachers was further organized, and Conference declared the following terms: Every widow of a preacher was to receive once and for all not more than forty pounds; every child not more than ten pounds; every superannuated preacher was not to receive less than ten pounds yearly. But if any preacher failed to contribute to this fund, or "made less than four yearly payments into it," he could not draw from it in his time of need.121 Thus were the lay preachers systematically safeguarded. Wesley not only encouraged laymen to preach; but he also did not discourage women from preaching. In dealing in this subject, Wesley was always guarded. At first he advised the women to pray all they cared to in public, but not to take a text or talk above five minutes at a time. "Keep as far from what is called preaching as you can" was his advice.122 Later on when he went to Wells, a seaport town twelve miles from Fakenham, he heard Mrs. Franklin preach at the peril of her life. She was supported by another young woman of the town with whom Wesley conversed at length, "and found her very sensible."123 When Miss Bosanquet asked if it would be proper for her to preach, Wesley concluded that it would; because she had an extraordinary call. Nevertheless, he cautiously added that he 119 Jour., vol. iii, p. 494. Thus could not enforce a uniform rule in every instance.124 in a careful manner, Wesley gradually became more favorable in his attitude toward preaching by the women interested in his cause. This being the trend of sentiment, one will not be surprised to read in the Minutes of the Conference of October 27, 1787: "We give the right hand of fellowship to Sally Mallett and shall have no objection to her being a preacher in our connexion, so long as she continues to preach the Methodist Doctrine and attends to our discipline." This was duly signed by Joshua Harper, but contained this footnote: "B. N. You receive this by order of Mr. Wesley and the Conference." Evidently, the Methodists quite approved of women preachers, but intended to keep them under firm control.125 When one can realize how utterly opposed the clergy were to lay preachers, one can in some degree realize how it must have antagonized them to see women going about and acting the part of preachers. Wesley's employment of women could not work for reconciliation between the Methodists and the Church. The opposition to the lay preachers was a constant factor of strife between the Methodists and the clergy. The lay preachers were not always diplomatic. J. Benson rebuked Dr. Tatham of Oxford, and reminded him that Jesus himself was an untaught, itinerating preacher, and that the disciples came into the same class. 126 Collin issued a pamphlet to the "higher ranks of people" and vigorously defended himself against the charges of being too young, and of being too vehement in his address to the people. He said that none should say of him that it was unsuitable of him to preach only from the Bible.127 If the lay preachers were not always diplomatic, those who opposed them were the same. The clergy seemed utterly to fail to understand, and therefore to misjudge these men. The clergy accused them of promoting heresy within the Church because they preached "that Christians are under no obligation to observe the ten Defence of Meth., p. 44. 127 An Address to the Higher Ranks of People in the Parish of St. Mary Hull, p. 16. commandments; that the Church has done all for us, and that we need therefore do nothing for ourselves."128 One lay preacher was accused of setting a date for the end of the world. An old man who listened to this statement believed it and turned all of his cows into his corn, let his fences go, permitted his apprentice to beat himself and his wife to cleanse them from sin, and then continued to live three years longer on this earth with the Methodists. 129 If some lay preachers did put forth such ideas as these, it was not correct to judge the whole body of them as doing the same thing. The manner of preaching adopted by some lay preachers was very disagreeable to the clergy. They were boisterous and shocking, and were said to adopt the best of their skill to alarm the imagination, "to raise a ferment in the passions, often attended with trembling and screaming in the body. . . . the preacher has his recourse to still more frightful representations; that he sees hell flames flashing in their faces; and that they are now! now! now! dropping into hell! into the bottom of hell! This boisterous method seldom or never fails to set them screaming and very often they grow distracted."130 The clergy thought that preaching did not consist in "noise and tone, looks and gestures; in figures and mysteries; in privileges and promises."131 This type of preaching ought to have been condemned; but it was not typical of all lay preachers. Criticism by the clergy, however, went farther than this. They accused these lay preachers of fraud; they were said to go to preaching because they were idle and conceited; they pretended to expound by inspiration. 132 Rowland Hill asked: "But who are these lay lubbers? They are Wesley's ragged legion of preaching tinkers, scavengers, draymen, and chimney sweepers. No man would do this unless he were as unprincipled as a rook."133 Wesley did not stoop to combat such slander as this. "Let all the world judge between Mr. Hill and me" was his only answer. In verse, these 128 Letter from Clergyman to one of his Parishioners, p. 24. 130 Ibid., p. 119. 131 Grey: Serious Address to Lay Meth., p. 12. 132 Evans: Op. cit., p. 116. |