THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
As his societies must have houses to worship in, he began in 1739 to provide chapels, first in Bristol, and then in London and elsewhere. The
5. Chapels Bristol chapel was at first in the hands and Organ- of trustees; but as a large debt was izations. contracted, and Wesley’s friends urged him to keep its pulpit under his own
control, the deed was cancelled, and the trust became vested in Himself. Following this precedent, all Methodist chapels were committed in trust to him until by a “ deed of declaration” (see Mrrxopists, I., 1, § 6) all his interests in them were transferred to a body of preachers called the ‘‘ Legal Hundred.’’ When disorderly persons began to manifest themselves among the members of the societies, he adopted the plan of giving tickets to members, with their names written thereon by his own hand. These were renewed every three months. Those who proved to be unworthy did not receive new tickets, and thus dropped out of the society without disturbance. The tickets were regarded as commendatory letters. When the debt on a chapel became burdensome, it was proposed that one in every twelve of the members should collect offerings for it regularly from the eleven allotted to him. Out of this, under Wesley’s care, grew, in 1742, the Methodist class-meeting system (see Mrruopists, I., 1, § 3). In order more effectually to keep the disorderly out of the societies, he established a probationary system, and resolved to visit each society once in three months. Thus arose the quarterly visitation, or conference. As the societies increased, he could not continue his practise of oral instruction; so he drew up in 1748 a set of ‘‘ General Rules ”’ for the “‘ United Societies,’ which were the nucleus of the Methodist Discipline, and are still preserved intact and observed by most Methodist bodies. As the number of preachers and preaching-places increased, it was desirable that doctrinal matters should be discussed, difficulties considered, and that an understanding should be had as to the distribution of fields; so the two Wesleys, with four other clergymen and four lay preachers, met for consultation in London in 1744. This was the first Methodist conference (see Meruopists, I., 1, § 5). Two years later, in order that the preachers might work more systematically, and the societies receive their services more regularly, Wesley appointed his “‘ helpers ”’ to definitive circuits, each of which included at least thirty appointments a month. Believing that their usefulness and efficiency were promoted by being changed from one circuit to another every year or two, he established the itinerancy, and ever insisted that his preachers should submit to its rules. When, in 1788, some persons objected to the frequent changes, he wrote, ‘‘ For fifty years God has been pleased to bless the itinerant plan, the last year most of all. It must not be altered till I am removed, and I hope it will remain till our Lord comes to reign on earth.” As his societies multiplied, and all these elements of an ecclesiastical system were, one after another, adopted, the breach between Wesley and the Church of England gradually widened. The question of separation from that church, urged, on the one side, by some of his preachers and societies, and most strenuously opposed on the other by his brother
Charles and others, was constantly before him, but was not settled. In 1745 he wrote that he and his coadjutors would make any conces-
6. Ordina- sion which their conscience would tion of permit, in order to live in harmony with
Ministers. the clergy; but they could not give up
the doctrine of an inward and present salvation by faith alone, nor cease to preach in private houses and the open air, nor dissolve the societies, nor suppress lay preaching. Further than this, however, he refused then to go. ‘‘ We dare not,” he said, “administer baptism or the Lord’s Supper without a commission from a bishop in the apostolic succession.” But the next year he read Lord King on the Primitive Church, and was convinced by it that apostolic succession was a figment, and that he [Wesley] was “ a scriptural episcopos as much as any man in England.’’ Some years later Stillingfleet’s Irenicon led him to renounce the opinion that Christ or his apostles prescribed any form of church government, and to declare ordination valid when performed by a presbyter. It was not until about forty years after this that he ordained by the imposition of hands; but he considered his appointment of his preachers an act of ordination. The conference of 1746 declared that the reason more solemnity in receiving new laborers was not employed was because it savored of stateliness and of haste. ‘“‘ We desire barely to follow Providence as it gradually opens.”’ When, however, he deemed that Providence had opened the way, and the bishop of London had definitely declined to ordain a minister for the American Methodists who were without the ordinances, he ordained by imposition of hands preachers for Scotland and England and America, with power to administer the sacraments. He consecrated, also, by laying on of hands, Dr. Thomas Coke (q.v.), a presbyter of the Church of England, to be superintendent or bishop in America, and a preacher, Alexander Mather, to the same office in England. He designed that both Coke and Mather should ordain others. This act alarmed his brother Charles, who besought him to stop and consider before he had ‘‘ quite broken down the bridge,”’ and not embitter his [Charles’] last moments on earth, nor “ leave an indelible blot on our memory.” Wesley declared, in reply, that he had not separated from the church, nor did he intend to, but he must and would save as many souls as he could while alive, “‘ without being careful about what may possibly be when I die.”’ Thus, though he rejoiced that the Methodists in America were freed from entanglements with both Church and State, he counseled his English followers to remain in the established church; and he himself died in that communion.
Wesley was a strong controversialist. The most notable of his controversies was that on Calvinism. His father was of the Arminian school in the church;
but John settled the question for him-
7. Advocacy self while in college, and expressed of Armin- himself strongly against the doctrines ianism. of election and reprobation. Whitefield inclined to Calvinism. In his first
tour in America, he embraced the views of the New England school of Calvinism; and when Wesley