Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/200

Rh 190 METHODISM of the ministers and laity which was made in 1877-78. It was also to be the period of the gradual completion of the pastoral idea, in its practical application to the ministers of the body. This period may be denned as extending from the revolutionary epoch of 1791-97 to the epoch of political and municipal reform agitation, 1828-35, which coincides with a second period of politico- ecclesiastical agitation in Wesleyan Methodism. In 1797 the Conference, as already mentioned, had refused to allow elected laymen or lay delegates any place either in the Conference or in district committees. Within a few years after 1800, however, the practice grew up for the circuit stewards to attend the district committees during the transaction of financial business, and in 1815 this usage was recognized in the Minutes of Conference as an established &quot;rule,&quot; and it was enacted that no general increase of the income of the ministers should be sanctioned by the Conference until approved by a majority of the district committees during the attendance of the circuit stewards. Since the adoption of this rule the lay element in the district committees has steadily increased and developed. Another characteristic and important feature in the organization of Wesleyan Methodism, which grew into distinct form and prominence during the period now under review, was that of the administration of all the Con- nexional departments, except such as were regarded as properly pastoral, by means of mixed departmental committees, appointed at each successive Conference. These committees made recommenda tions to the Conference in regard to such new legislation as they thought desirable and to the appointment of the members of com mittee ; and, for each department, a large committee of review, of which the members of the ordinary committee of management formed the nucleus, came to be held each year immediately before the Conference. In these committees the numbers of ministers and of laymen were equal. On this principle, between 1811 and 1835, provision had been made for the management of all the funds of the Connexion and their corresponding departments of administra tion. The first mixed committee appointed by the Conference was the committee of privileges in 1803. The development of the pastoral position and character of the ministers of the body after 1797 could not but advance on a line parallel to the development of the position and claims of the laity. In 1818 the usage of the Conference was conformed to what had long been the ordinary unofficial custom, and the preachers began to be styled in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine and in other official publications &quot;Reverend,&quot; a fact which may seem trivial, but which in reality was of important significance. In 1834, after the idea had been long entertained and the project had been repeatedly discussed, it was determined to establish a theological institution for the training of ministerial candidates. There are now four colleges, with two hundred and fifty students. In 1836 the practice of ordination by imposition of hands was adopted. Such advances, however, as these in the general organization and development of the Connexion, and especially in the status and professional training of the ministers, could not be made in such a body without offence being given to some, whose tendencies were to disallow any official distinction between the ministry and the laity, and who also objected to the use of the organ. This levelling element was strong in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, and in 1828, on the placing of an organ in Brunswick Chapel, Leeds, by the trustees, with the consent of the Conference, a violent agitation broke out. The consequence was a disruption, the first since 1798, under the title &quot; Protestant Methodists.&quot; But this was absorbed, some years later, in a more considerable secession. In fact, the Connexion was in 1828 entering on a period of agita tion. The current of political affairs was approaching the rapids of which the Reform Act marked the centre and the point of maximum movement. A body like Wesleyan Methodism could not but feel in great force the sweep of this movement. It is true that Wesleyan Methodism as such has never been political, that few of its numbers cultivated extreme politics, and that the ministers and the better classes of the &quot;Society &quot; were strongly Conservative in their general tone. Nevertheless the mass of the community shared in the general movement of the times, and the Conservative tone of the ministers and of most of the well-to-do laity was not in full har mony with the sympathies of the people generally. Accordingly the elements of disturbance, which only partially exploded in the &quot;Protestant Methodist&quot; secession, continued to make themselves felt, in different parts of the Connexion, during the following years of political controversy. The decision of the Conference in 1834 to provide a college for the training of ministerial candidates gave special offence to the malcontents. Such an occasion was all that was wanting for the various discontents of the Connexion to gather to a head. The demands made by the agitators proceeded on a basis of democratic ecclesiasticism such as it is very difficult to apply suc cessfully to a system of associated churches. The result was a third secession, based on the same general ground of ecclesiastical prin ciples as the two preceding, which was organized in 1836, and with which the &quot;Protestant Methodists&quot; eventually coalesced. This new secession was known first as the &quot; Wesleyan Methodist Associa tion &quot; ; but for a number of years past it has been merged in a still larger body of seceders designated &quot; The Methodist Free Churches.&quot; Its leader at the first was the Rev. Dr Warren, who left it, however, not many months after it was formed, and took orders in the Church of England. 1 The controversies of 1835-36 left their mark on the legislation and official documents of the Connexion. The principles of 1797 remained intact, some farther guards only being added to prevent any danger of hasty or irresponsible action on the part of super intendents, and at the same time &quot;minor district meetings&quot; being organized in order to facilitate appeals. One error was, however, committed by the Conference. In 1797 no provision had been made for bringing the circuit, through its quarterly meeting, into direct relations with the Conference. In 1836 a right of direct memorial to the Conference was given to the circuit quarterly meeting ; but it was so fenced round with conditions and limitations as to make it practically inoperative, and at the same time provocative of sus picion and irritation. The effect of the secession of 1836 on the general progress of the Connexion was not great. The number of members reported in 1835 in Great Britain and Ireland was 371,251 (there being a decrease in England of 951), in 1836 381,369, in 1837 384,723. For the next ten years the advance of the Connexion in numbers and in general prosperity was apparently unprecedented. The Centenary Fund of 1839-40 amounted to 221,000. In the midst, however, of all the outward prosperity of Methodism partly perhaps in con sequence of it very perilous elements were at work. The revolu tionary ideas of the Chartist period (1840-48) and of Continental politics (1848-49) reacted on Wesleyan Methodism as the political ideas of 1791 and of 1831 had done at those epochs. The embers of old controversies ecclesiastical, quasi-political, and personal still smouldered, and at length burst into fresh flame. From 1844 a strong spirit of opposition to the leaders of the Connexion, and especially to Dr Bunting, was fanned by the circulation of anony mous &quot;fly leaves&quot; of a very scurrilous character. At the same time the policy of the Conference and of the ministers in their cir cuits had proceeded more than was wise on the old lines. The general administration relied too much on the footing of implicit confidence on the part of the people and on the power of official prerogative in the hands of the minister. The memorial law of 1836 was indicative of the too exclusive spirit of pastoral govern ment which had prevailed. The wisdom of Dr Bunting had for five and twenty years led the way in gradually liberalizing both the polity and the policy of Methodism, and adapting them to the changing conditions of the times. But this wisdom seems to have found its limits before 1849, when the internal dissensions reached their climax. In that year James Everett, the chief author of the fly sheets, and two other ministers, Samuel Dunn and^William Griffith, who had identified themselves with him, were expelled. A disastrous agitation followed. No distinct secession took place till after the Conference of 1850. The union of the &quot;Methodist Free Churches,&quot; in which was incorporated the &quot;Wesleyan Association&quot; (of 1836), was formed by the seceders. The &quot;New Connexion &quot; also received some thousands of the seceders into its ranks. But by far the greatest part of those who left went with neither of these bodies. Between 1850 and 1855 the Connexion in Great Britain and Ireland lost 100,000 members, and not till 1856 did it begin to recover. In that year the numbers were returned as 282,787, showing a small increase over the preceding year. Since then peace and unity have prevailed unbroken. The convulsion of 1849-52 taught the Connexion, and in par ticular the Conference, lessons of the highest importance. In 1852 the quarterly meeting was so defined as to make it the great repre sentative meeting of the circuit, including stewards, leaders, local preachers, and trustees. The right of memorial to the Conference was given to it in the widest and freest sense. These powerful bodies invite ministers to the circuits, or decline so to do, deter mine and pay their &quot;allowances,&quot; as salaries to ministers are still called in the Connexion, and review all the interests of the circuits, spiritual or financial. They had also conferred upon them in 1852 the right to appoint a circuit jury of appeal from the verdict and findings of a leaders meeting in certain cases of discipline. Since 1852 Conference legislation has still proceeded in the direction of recognizing and enlarging the functions and rights of the laity. The committee of review system, already spoken of, had been con siderably developed between 1835 and 1849, and included every department of ordinary administration. In 1861, however, whilst a representation of the departmental executive committees formed still the leading element in each committee of review, a great im provement was made in their constitution by giving to each of the districts of British Methodism the right to send a lay representative 1 This &quot; Warrcnite&quot; secession, as at first it was commonly called, gave rise to a lawsuit which led to the judicial recognition by the Court of Chancery of the Conference Deed Poll of 1784, and the &quot;Large Minutes&quot; of 1797, as documents having the force of public law in the administration of Wesleyan Methodism.