Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 13.djvu/418

* KETHODISia. 382 METHODISM. suggested by exigencies in the growth of the re- vival of which it was the outcome. Methodism as an organization dates from 1739, the loosest possible in form. A few Christians met together weekly in 'classes' (the 'class meeting") to pray and to talk concerning the things of God. over whom a leader {a, layman) was a])point('d. whose duty it was to watch over their souls and tn give spiritual counsel. The societies were independent of each other, except a.s they were held together by the itinerating Wesley, who appointed their leaders, and to whom the.se leaders were re- sponsible. In 1743 Wesley drew up the rules for tile United Societies, which have remained the ethical and almost theohigical standard of teach- ing and practice from (hat day to this. As the work extended, preachers were aiijjointed. They were of two kinds : clergymen of the Church of England who alliliatcd with the movement, and who were permanent pastors; and laymen, who were 'itinerants,' moving at first every six months and then every year. In its inception Methodism was preeminently an episcopal movement, over- siglit, as in the Society of Jesus, being reduced to an exact science. Over the classes were the lead- ers, over both were the preachers assisted in out- appointments by 'hK'al preachers,' who were lay- men with the gift of public address, and from ■whom the itinerants were recruited. Each preacher had his 'circuit;' and several circuit preachers were under a head (whence arose the 'district,' and, in North .merica. the 'presiding elder'). There were 'quarterly' and 'district con- ferences.' and, afler 1744. the 'annual conference.' composed of both clergymen and lay preachers. Finally over the whole movement was Wesley himself, giving it vitality. dei)tli of im|)ression, and breadth of view, saving it from fanaticism on the one hand, and la.xity on the other, ever guiding and really, though not ollicially and narrowly, dominating it. A 'general conference.' meeting every four years, arose in the United States afler 179'2, owing to the great extent of the country. Tlic relation of the movement to the Church of England is not hard to define. Wesley was a sincere lover of the Church of his fatlicrs. and hoped that the bishops would ordain his preach- ers and in some way articidate his ivsults into the normal ecclesiastical life of the <ountry. In this he was disappointed, but nothing daiuited he went on his way independently, holding that ho was justified in this by the unique position he occupied as the providential leader of the move- ment, and consolidating what became a vast ec- elesiasticism. Wesley tried to be a loyal ehunli- man as far as circumstances allowed. Hut Eng- land's call always sounded louder than the Church's, so that he came to feel that he was sen'ing the Church l)est when disregarding her most. .fter Wesley's death in 1791 'the people called Methodists' were governed by the . nual Con- ference, composed of the Legal Hundred, as the lawnuiking body, and all the itinerant preachers as advisory and eoi">]>erative. The new di'iiomina- tion — as it has been le;;ally since 17.S4, when Wesley ent<Meil a deed into the Court of Chancery <iinstituting the Conference, and as it has lieen practically since 1740. when the movement sep- nrnteil from both Moravianism and Calvinism — came to be called the Wesleyan Methodist Con- nection or Church. The territory was divided into districts for more efficient supervision, whose interests were looked after by the district meet- ing, and subdivided into circuits whose alTain were governed by a quarterly meeting composed of ministers, local preachers, and stewards, of whom the two last were appointed by the super- intending pastor. 'arious cll'orts were made to tone down the hierarchical spirit and constitution of the Church by introducing laymen into the Annual Conference and by giving the local church the right to elect its own olhccrs, but these ef- forts were successful only at the cost of numerous divisions. Finally, in 1878. the Wesleyan Meth- odist Church introduced the principle of lay representation thus far: that it allowed laymen to sit in the Annual Conference and deliberate with the ministers on all financial and benevo- lent causes, those of a pastoral nature l)eing re- served to the clergy. In all the Methodist churches of Great Britain and her colonies there is oidy one order of ministers. In 17S4 Wesley ordained Thomas Coke (q.v.) superintendent for America, and at the Christ- ', mas Conference of 1784-85. held in Baltimore, !Md., the Jlethodist Episcopal Church was con- ' slitutcd by the ordination of Francis Asbury a superintendent and tlic drawing up of an episco- pal Cluirch constitution. The new overseers as- sumed the title of bishop, much to Wesley's dis- gust, who, out of deference to the Church of England, desired them to be called sim|dy su])erin- tendents. But that he considered thcni to be bishops in the full sense there can be no doubt. In his letter to the Conference stating and de- fciuling his position he says: "Lord King's ac- count of the Primitive Church convinced me many years ago that bishops and ])rcsbytcrs are of the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned to exercise this right:" but he refused out of deference to the established order. But in America the case was ditrcrent. There there were no bishops, so that for hundreds of miles there was no one to administer the sacra- ments. "Here, therefore, my scrujdes are at an end, and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order ami invade no man's right by ap- ]iointing and sending laborers into the harvest." Of course it is understood that the . ierican ^Methodist Episcopacy is in order presbytcrial l)urely. though it is certainly sufiiciently catho- lic in its powers of supervision. cspeeiall in its absolute control over pastoral a|)pointments — a control that is. however, limited in jiraetice when dealing with popidar preachers and wealthy churches. The other of the two orilers is that ot deacons, who are strictly diircrcntiated from eld- ers. It is, however, a principle of Methodism that no one type of Church order is of exclusite authority, that the Scripture lays down no moddi and tlnit therefore a Church may exercise lib- erty in matters of polity if she is true to the spirit and general complexion of the .po.stohe Church. The non-episcopal Methodist Cluirches are true to Wesley's idea of oversight through their conferences and districts, but presbyterian in ministry and congregational in some features of their administration. . peculiar feature of all Methodist polity is the itinerancy, or the IS- nioval of preachers from one charge to another, which is done by the bishops with the advice of the presiding elders in the Methodist Episcopal churches, and bv a stationing conunittec in the