WESLEYAN REFORMER.

CONDUCTED BY MEMBERS OF "THE GENERAL WESLEYAN

REFORM COMMITTEE."

VOL. II.]

JULY, 1852.

METHODISM, PAST AND PRESENT.*

[No. 7.

MR. CARTER belongs to the Moderate Movement, and has published his pamphlet as an exponent of the views generally held by his brethren on the subjects at issue between the Conference and the Reformers. It will be seen, in another part of this Number, that, at their late meeting in London, the Moderate men adopted several Resolutions, in which the same principles as those we stand upon are explicitly avowed. The Popish dogma of Pastoral Supremacy, which has, with a singular fatuity, been adopted by the Preachers, is utterly denied. Hence, the Conference is requested to modify its discipline, so as to exclude this doctrine. Now, we ask, if this is done, will not Reform be effected? Why, then, should men who stand upon our principles, and are really demanding the same Reform as ourselves, hesitate openly to ally themselves to us, and why should they be content with designating their Movement by the terms. "Moderate" or "Mediation?" A mediator is not of one, but of two, and his function implies some principles which may serve as a basis for mutual reconciliation; but, in this case, no such principle is apparent. They seem to us altogether on our side. We have laboured, and they are entering into our labours, and, we hope, will vigorously prosecute them. They have Truth on their side, and God befriends Truth and her brave adherents. Sometimes these may be foiled; but, over their prostrate bodies, Eternal Truth will go on conquering and to conquer.

We are glad to see a second Reform body in the field; and, should they be repulsed as the first Reformers have been, we doubt not a third, and even a fourth, will arise to renew the assault upon Conference absolutism, and to carry on the conflict.

With Mr. Carter's book we are well satisfied. It is a very able digest of the legal view of the case. It takes Methodism " 'as it is," with its exaggerated pastoral superstition, and compares it with Methodism as the Regulations of 1795 and 1797 made it; and, from the comparison, he concludes a very serious deterioration. A different polity has gradually been introduced, and the stipulations of the Conference that then was have been infringed and virtually set aside by the Conference that now is. The source of the mischief is what Mr. Carter calls "the Pastoral idea; and this he very properly terms "the most astounding hallucination of modern times." Methodism, at the beginning of the present century, recognised no Collective Pastorate" swaying unlimited and irresponsible authority over the Societies. The Pastor was then determined by his

*

66

Methodism, Past and Present. By WM. B. CARTER. Partridge and Oakey.

work, and Leaders and others who discharged pastoral duties were practically acknowledged as possessing the pastoral character.

Upon the pastoral principle rests a claim of exclusive authority in the government of the Church of Christ. The argument is, that a pastor is a ruler. None but a pastor may rule in the church. Travelling preachers only are pastors in Methodism : none but they are rulers. They rule singly and collectively. What is difficult to one, is easy to many. What an individual pastor may not be able to effect, the 'collective pastorate' may accomplish. The pastorate is entitled to implicit obedience. Its authority is the authority of Christ, exercised through it; therefore, disobedience to it, is disobedience to Christ. Whoever disobeys the pastorate, is guilty of enormous sin; and, if he persist, must be cut off as a rotten branch from the healthy part of the Wesleyan tree. Such is a brief summary of the doctrine of the pastorate in Wesleyan Methodism."

That Mr. Carter thoroughly and correctly comprehends the position now held by the Conference and its supporters, is sufficiently plain from this paragraph in the preface; and we cordially congratulate him on his successful demonstration of the anti-Methodistical character of that position. It is so palpably un-Scriptural and irrational, that we wonder any sane men can be found who give it credence; and yet it is hard to conclude against the sanity of a body of 1,200 or 1,400 Preachers. The truth is, they have received the doctrine as the dictation of their superiors; and as it comes to them with the sanction of such names as R. Watson, Thos. Jackson, Dr. Beecham, and others, to whom they have been trained to look up with reverence, they tremble at the thought of challenging its soundness. If they would but adopt our principle, and take truth for authority, and not authority for truth, their eyes would doubtless be opened. Until these Methodist Preachers understand that they also are men, and, in the exercise of their own minds, have no need to be trammelled by the superannuated dogmas enounced by their very Reverend Fathers in the Conference, we have no hope of their conversion to a better judgment. Their predecessors seem never to have dreamed of the almost supernatural sanctity claimed by this modern race of Pastors, as the peculiar distinction of their office, and the semi-Divine functions which they assume as their exclusive prerogatives. The Constitution of 1835 may have given form and seeming legality to these Pastoral pretensions, but the Constitution of '95 and '97 cannot, by any fair interpretation, be shown to acknowledge them.

"Such was not the view put forth by the men who settled the constitution of Methodism. They did, indeed, assert their claim to be regarded as pastors of the Wesleyan People, but not in such a sense as to exclude the local pastorate. They found themselves associated with a large body of men in every locality, doing work that was truly and properly pastoral and ministerial; and, acting upon the principle that the work creates the office, not the office the work, the only principle that could sustain their own pastoral pretensions, they recognised the right of those men to exercise functions which their successors claim as belonging exclusively to themselves." -Preface, p. vii.

In the prosecution of his argument, Mr. Carter most abundantly establishes the official authority of the "penny pamphlet" published in 1798. Our readers will remember that this little Tract is the subject of Mr. Matthews' letter to the President, and, in reply to Mr. Matthews, the Rev. William Arthur tries to prove its non-official character, and maintains that the "Large Minutes" is the compilation of Laws promised to the Societies by the Leeds Conference of 1797. Mr. Carter has, by anticipation, fully refuted Mr. Arthur's position :

"From this document it is manifest, that the Leaders' Meeting was regarded as the centre of influence and of disciplinary authority to the Society. Every Steward and

Leader, though nominated by the Superintendent, must have the approval of a majority of his brethren composing the Leaders' Meeting; and it declares, that 'no Leader or Steward can be put out of his place, but by-(whom?)-a Superintendent, or a Travelling Preacher, or any number of them? No; but by A MAJORITY OF LEADERS, or a Quarterly Meeting.'

2. That no member of Society could be dismembered but by the same authority. Human language cannot express anything more explicitly than this: Neither can any member of the Society be excluded, but BY A MAJORITY AT A LEADERS' MEETING."

This, then, was Methodism, as the compilation of Rules promised in the circular letter of the Leeds Conference represented it. But the question is, are these the Rules so promised? Mr. Carter replies in the affirmative, and, we think, correctly; and thus he proves, that, at this period, the doctrine of pastoral responsibility and corresponding authority, as now held by the preachers, was not then recognised by the Conference. The practical operation of the doctrine is to vest in the Superintendent the sole right of pronouncing the sentence, leaving to the Leaders merely a power of finding in reference to the fact. Now, it does not appear that this distinction was made so early as 1797. Whether it was known before is not a matter of much importance; but to us it seems beyond question that the Methodism of '97 was innocent of it. The whole case may be briefly summed up. The Conference held at Leeds issued a circular Address to the Societies, in which we find the two following clauses :

"V. We have selected all our ancient Rules, which were made before the death of our late venerable Father in the Gospel, the Rev. Mr. Wesley, which are essential Rules, or prudential at this present time; and have solemnly signed them, declaring our approbation of them, and determination to comply with them; one single Preacher excepted, who, in consequence, withdrew from us.

"VI. We have determined that all the Rules which relate to the Societies, Leaders, Stewards, Local Preachers, Trustees, and Quarterly Meetings, shall be published with the Rules of the Society, for the benefit and convenience of all the members."

Here, then, two distinct documents are referred to. The one, a selection of ancient rules designed for the use of travelling preachers; the other, a compilation of rules designed for the people. In the following year there issued from the Book-room the compilation of rules upon the authority of which Mr. Carter rests his argument. That this compilation possesses authority, appears from several considerations :

"1. That whilst they bear a similar title to the compilation of rules in previous circulation, and would, therefore, be regarded by the people as possessing unquestionable authority, they were then new in texture and in much of their matter, and were, therefore, received as the product of the Conference.

"2. That they were compiled in conformity with a resolution of the Conference itself.

"3. That they were published by its own Book-steward.

"4. That they issued from its own Book-room.

"5. That they were circulated in the circuits and amongst the people, given to Leaders, and sold to members, by the very men who composed the Conference of 1797, the very men who resolved on their compilation, the very men who had adopted, and published, and circulated the documents that constituted the Magna Charta of Methodism."

These rules continued in circulation for some years, and, as Mr. Carter shows by undeniable facts, were understood in the very sense he takes them in. The circuit court exercised its pastoral functions unchallenged by the Superintendents, nor was the exclusive prerogative of the Itinerants so much as dreamed of.

"How, then, may we account for the discrepancy that appears between the high claims to pastoral authority put forth by Wesleyan ministers of late years, and the regulations and usages we have been investigating? The probability-perhaps we

should say the fact-is, that the Conferences of 1795-7 were not unanimous in the concessions granted by them; for it must not be forgotten, that another series of regulations, different in tone and tendency from the Concessions, was adopted by the same Conference as issued the circular letter of 1797. The two series seem to have been the product of different minds, and to indicate each an opposite policy. Each was probably pressed by opposing parties upon the other. The latter series is couched in an absolute style, but couched in general terms, and giving no intimation of a design to provide any other mode of expulsion than had been set forth in the circular letter, yet capable of being construed to that effect. The former purports to be regulations agreed to,' partly, no doubt, in reference to agreement between the Conference' and 'the Committee of persons from various parts,' and partly to a sort of compromise and agreement among the preachers themselves.

"That some of the preachers, therefore, should cherish a dislike of what they never approved, and become increasingly dissatisfied with what had been 'agreed' upon, is no marvel. That such dissatisfaction should spread and increase, is but a natural consequence of man's love of power and dislike of any restraint. Superintendents, under the infiuence of ambition, could not be satisfied with presiding over and counselling bodies of Christian elders. Leaders' Meetings, with the powers they then possessed, could not but be formidable barriers to a chairman's despotic aspirings. Episcopal presidency, without despotic authority, was not sufficiently flattering to human vanity, to suit any man that was not content to govern by love. And how were those among the travelling preachers, who had acquired despotic habits, to shake them off, and to give up their cherished prerogative of office?"

"For seven successive years, at least, the new compilation of rules, conformably with the resolution of Conference, continued to be circulated for the benefit and convenience of all the members.' After that interval, however, the concessions having been deferred too long to prevent a division in which one-fourth of the whole body seceded, and the societies having become quiet and confiding, a revised edition of the rules was issued, in which Mr. Wesley's rules were restored to their original simplicity, and the rules relating to officers, meetings, &c., were given in a classified appendix. From this edition, the majority clause was expunged."-Pages 33, 34.

In this year, then, the small end of the wedge was inserted; and as, by a succession of strokes, the preachers have gradually driven it home, the societies have been riven asunder and the people scattered. Mr. Carter gives us a brief view of the history of this "Popish Aggression" upon the liberties of the people. It may be traced through its several stages of furtive advance, to its fuller development in 1835, and its culmination in the proposed alterations to be adopted by the next Conference. The daring and corrupt policy of a party in Methodism has at length changed the whole Methodistic polity, so that, in this year 1852, it is a widely different thing from what we find it was made by the Constitutions of '95 and '97. "We object to this revolutionised Methodism, as displacing a mutual compact and fraternal union by a ministerial domination; a domination that ignores the ministerial character of one large body of officers, and the pastoral character of another and much larger body; and that operates in a diffused despotism emanating from a central oligarchy, itself exercising despotic powers over its own agents, and energising them with the despotic spirit for their individual spheres of action. We regard it as the result of a policy which aims at effecting, by law and authority, what can only be effected by love and moral suasion. We look upon it as tending only to evil; as destructive of the family feeling in Methodism, promotive of irritation, incentive of suspicion and distrust, and generative of superstition and corruption. Its tendency is to convert superintendents into tyrants, and all others into slaves; to make the former an object of dread rather than of love; the latter a commodity more than a fraternity. spirit and genius harmonise with nothing in Christendom so much as with the Papacy itself."-Page 63.

Its

In reference to the insolent reply of the preachers to the reformers and remonstrants, "If you don't like us, leave us!" Mr. Carter well

retorts:

"Leave you! how can we leave you without leaving what have become the most cherished things of life to us? To leave you is to leave the sanctuaries we have built, the institutions we have maintained, the people we have chosen, and loved, and served,