A history of the origin and development of the governing conference in Methodism : and especially of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church

Front matter

A HISTORY

OF THE

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

Preface

r I ^HE reason for many peculiarities in ecclesiastical ■*■ economy must be sought in the circumstances connected with' their crystallization and incorporation. A knowledge of their history is absolutely necessary if we would understand their intention ; for, in many instances, an unhistorical interpretation of the language of a law will give it a false meaning.

The time has arrived for a re-study of the fundamental principles of the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism. The early generations have passed away; and the records of facts connected with the ecclesiastical beginnings are scattered in many books, manuscripts, fugitive productions, and fragmentary utterances. These should be collated, and logically arranged.

In a former book, entitled "The Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism," * we gave a study of the Methodist Episcopate, and of the initiation and development of organic Methodism. In the present work we trace the Conference idea from the first Conference, held by the Revv John Wesley

* Published by Hunt & Eaton, New York, 1888.

vi Preface.

in 1744, down to the Conferences of the present time. We study the English Conferences down to the period immediately following Mr. Wesley's death in 1791; and then, starting with the beginning of American Methodism, we show the growth of the Conference idea until it develops into the delegated General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and, finally, point out the various changes that have been made in the constitution of the General Conference down to 1888.

The General Conference of to-day is an evolution from a crude beginning. To trace its development is to reveal the fundamental principles of the polity and general history of Methodism. The study is of vast importance, and should be of great interest to every member, as well as every minister.

Trusting that this contribution to the study of the history and constitutional law of the Church may be of service in the solution of historical and constitutional questions, this book is now submitted to

the public.

T. B. NEELY.

Philadelphia, Pa., March 23, 1892.

Condensed Changes in Section on General Conference from 1892 to J888, 447

THE GOVERNING CONFERENCE

IN

METHODISM.

Chapter I. Wesley's Conferences

LORD MACAULAY declared that John Wesley's "genius for government was not inferior to that of Richelieu/' and time shows the statement was not too strong.

His talent for organization manifested itself at an early date. His executive force was felt in connection with the Holy Club at Oxford University and in all the movements of the Oxford Methodists. In his early ministry in Georgia his ability to govern was rather intense. Some, indeed, might term it excessive; but it is to be remembered that at that period he was a High-Churchman, with much to unlearn as well as learn.

He was prominent in the formation of the first Moravian Society founded at Fetter Lane, London, May 1, 1738.1 His impulse to direct manifested itself the same year — 1738 — in a set of rules which he drew

i Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, Vol. I, p. 282.

up for the regulation of the Moravian Band Societies.1 The natural bent of the Rev. John Wesley toward organization appeared in a very marked manner while he was associated with the Moravians. On Monday, the 12th of November, 1739, Mr. Wesley left London to return to Bristol. In the evening he reached Wycombe, where there was a little society, and where he preached. He writes:

"Here we unexpectedly found Mr. Robson and Gambold, with whom, after much prayer and consultation, we agreed: 1. To meet yearly at London, if God permit, on the eve of Ascension day. 2. To fix then the business to be done the ensuing year— where, when, and by whom. 3. To meet quarterly there, as many as can ; namely, on the second Tuesday in July, October, and January. 4. To send a monthly account to one another of what God hath done in each of our stations. 5. To inquire whether Mr. Hall, Sympson, Rogers, Ingham, Hutchins, Kinchin, Stonehouse, Cennick, Oxlee, and Brown will join us herein. 6. To consider whether there be any others of our spiritual friends who are able and willing so to do." 2

This was the first foreshadowing of the Conference idea, with its annual sessions, the quarterly meeting, and the monthly review of the work. It was a bold scheme of systematic and far-reaching activity.

As Dr. Whitehead, in his "Life of John Wesley," observes :

" Here we have the first outlines of a plan to unite the ministers together, and to extend their labors to different parts of the kingdom, under such regulations as might give i Rules of Band Societies, 4th Ed., 1744. Luke Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. I, p. 210.

2 W hitehead's Life of Wesley, Vol. II. p. 126. Dublin : John Jones.

them a mutual dependence on one another. In this sketch no one assumes an authority over the rest of his brethren — all appear equal. But this plan was never put into execution. When Mr. Wesley separated from the Moravian brethren, Mr. Gambold and some others gradually withdrew themselves from him." 1

The scheme, in this particular form, was never carried out; for only a few weeks afterwards he withdrew from the Moravians on account of their heresies and religious extravagances. Numbers who had belonged to these societies also withdrew, and these, with others, repaired to Mr. Wesley; and in the latter part of the year 1739 he formed in London the first Methodist society.2

Thus, at the age of thirty-six, he was thrust out as the leader of an independent movement, and his status was changed. Before he was one among equals; now he was recognized as the chief, whose will was law. Society after society was formed, and by his genius cemented into " The United Societies."

He attracted regular clergymen to his assistance, and also raised up a lay ministry. In a few years his preachers had increased to such numbers that Mr. Wesley deemed it wise to invite them to meet him in Conference; and his first "Yearly Conference" began on the 25th of June, 1744. From that time until his death, on the 2d of March, 1791, he held " Conferences" annually, making forty-seven in all.

The most of the ministers who met Mr. Wesley on these occasions were lay preachers, but some of

i Whitehead's Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, pp. 126, 127, Dublin Ed. *Tyerman, Life of Wesley, Vol. I, p. 282.

them were regularly ordained clergymen of the Church of England.

No one had any inherent right to attend these Conferences, as they were composed, not of all the preachers, but only of those Mr. Wesley "invited to confer" with him. They met him, not by natural or acquired right, but by permission. " Mr. Wesley at first invited all the assistants1 to meet him, but afterwards only a select number; and he gave the name Conference, not to what was said, but to the persons assembled."2 On March 3, 1785, Mr. Wesley gave a condensed history of the origin and development of the Conference idea in these words :

" In June, 1744, I desired my brother and a few clergymen to meet me in London, to consider how we should proceed to save our own souls and those that heard us. After some time, I invited the lay preachers that were in the house to meet with us. We conferred together for several days, and were much comforted and strengthened thereby.

"The next year I not only invited most of the traveling preachers, but several others to confer with me in Bristol. And from that time for some years, though I invited only a part of the traveling preachers, yet I permitted any that desired it to be present, not apprehending any ill consequences therefrom.

"But two ill consequences soon appearedone , that the expense was too great to be borne ; the other, tbat many of our people were scattered while they were left without a shepherd. I therefore determined: (1) That, for the tune to come, none should be present but those whom I invited ;

1 An assistant was defined in the Large Minutes of 1770 as " that preacher in each circuit who is appointed from time to time to take charge of the societies and the other preachers therein." He was the superintendent, so to speak, of the preachers and preaching-places on the circuit.

2 Peirce's Wesleyau Polity, 3d Ed., p. 448.

and (2) that I would only invite a select number out of every circuit.

"This I did for many years, and all that time the term Conference meant not so much the conversation we had together as the persons that conferred; namely, those whom I invited to confer with me from time to time. So that all this time it depended on me alone, not only what persons should constitute the Conference, but whether there should be any Conference at all — this lay wholly in my own breast — neither the preachers nor the people having any part or lot in the matter."1

The first Conference began on Monday, June 25, 1744, and continued the five following days, and was held in the Foundry, London. It consisted of the Rev, John Wesley; Rev. Charles Wesley; Rev. John Hodges, rector of Wenro; Rev. Henry Piers, vicar of Bexlev; Rev. Samuel Taylor, vicar of Quinton; and Rev. John Meriton, of the Isle of Man; all of whom had been regularly ordained in the State Church.2 There were also four lay preachers ; namely, Thomas Richards, Thomas Maxfield, John Ben net, and John Downes.3

The day before the Conference commenced, besides the ordinary preaching services, a love-feast was held, at which six ordained ministers were present, and the sacrament "was administered to the whole of the London society, now numbering between two and three thousand members, and at this grand sacra-

1 " Thoughts upon Some Late Occurrences," Wesley's Works, Vol. VII, p. 309, Amer. Ed.

2 Wesley's Works— Conversation I, Vol. V, p. 191, Amer. Ed.

'Smith's History of Methodism, Vol. I, p. 227; William Myles, Chronological History of the Methodists, London, 1803, 3d Ed., p. 22.

meutal service, five regularly ordained clerygmen of the Established Church assisted.1

The Conference was opened with solemn prayer, a sermon by Charles Wesley, and the baptism of an adult, who, it is recorded, there and then found peace with God.2

Not pausing to dwell upon the fact that even at that early day the Methodists received the sacraments outside the consecrated Churches of the Establishment, we proceed to notice the Conference itself. The Rev. William Myles, one of Wesley's preachers, and an intimate friend of the founder of Methodism, tells us: "The subjects of their deliberations were proposed in the form of questions, which were amply discussed, and, with the answers, written down and afterward printed under the title of 'Minutes of Several Conversations Between the Reverend Mr. Wesley and Others/ but now commonly called ' The Minutes of the Conference.'"3

Mr. Wesley opened the proceedings of his first Conference with the following introduction :

" It is desired that all things be considered as in the immediate presence of God ; that we meet with a single eye and as little children, who have everything to learn ; that every point which is proposed may be examined to the foundation ; that every person may speak freely whatever is in his heart; and that every question which may arise should be thoroughly debated and settled.

" Q. Need we be fearful of doing this? What are we

JTyerman's Life of Wesley, Vol. I, p. 443. "Charles Wesley's Journal, Vol. I, p. 367.

3 William Myles, Chronological History of the People called Methodists, London, 3d Ed., 1803, p. 23.

afraid of? Of overturning our first principles? A. If they are false, the sooner they are overturned the better. If they are true, they will bear the strictest examination. Let us all pray for a willingness to receive light, to know of every doctrine whether it be of God.

" Q. How may the time of the Conference be made more eminently a time of watching unto prayer. A. 1. While we are conversing, let us have an especial care to set God always before us. 2. In the intermediate hours let us visit none but the sick, and spend all the time that remains in retirement. 3. Let us therein give ourselves to prayer for one another, and for a blessing upon our labor.

" Q. How far does each of us agree to submit to the judgment of the majority? A. In speculative things, each can only submit so far as his judgment shall.be convinced. In every practical point, each will submit so far as he can without wounding his conscience.

" Q. Can a Christian submit any farther than this to any man, or number of men upon earth? A. It is undeniably certain he can not; either to BlsJiop, Convocation, or General Council. And this is that grand principle of private judgment on which all the reformers proceeded, ' Every man must judge for himself ; because every man must give an account of himself to God.' " 1

The principles Wesley thus proposed to his first Conference, composed of six regularly ordained clergymen and four traveling lay preachers, were extremely liberal and courageous. They were foundation principles, not only of that Conference, but of genuine Methodism. They proclaimed the duty of a free, fearless, and full investigation, which would lead to the truth, even if error must be eliminated from former views; and they also maintained the right of private judgment even against combined or concentrated authority, while the suggestions as to practical

iMyles, Hist, of Methodism, 1803, 3d Ed., pp. 23, 24.

conduct during the session might be practiced to advantage by other religious bodies.

With Wesley's recommendation, "that every question proposed may be fully debated and l bolted to the bran/"1 the Conference proceeded to discuss three points, namely: " 1. What to teach? 2. How to teach? 3. What to do? that is, how to regulate doctrine, discipline, and practice." 2

These inquiries covered doctrine, discipline, and general economy, including methods of teaching and modes of executing discipline. Under these general heads many questions were propounded and answers formulated, so that the Minutes of the Conferences appeared in the form of question and answer. In this way, in the course of years, the discipline of Methodism was gradually developed from the simple elements that existed at the beginning.

That questions of discipline must have occupied

much of Wesley's attention at this time is evident

from a note which he makes in his Journal shortly

after the adjournment of this Conference. He says:

"The next week we endeavored to purge the society of all that did not walk according to the gospel. By this means we reduced the number of members to less than nineteen hundred. But number is an inconsiderable circumstance. May God increase them in faith and love !" 3

In course of time, the order of business in the Conference became more regular, as well as more

» Minutes, 1744, Vol. I, p. 22; Peirce's Polity of Wesleyan Methodists, London, 1873, 3d Ed., p. 446.

2 Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VI, p. 194, Minutes of Convcr- Ration I; Myles, History, p. 24.

» Wesley's Journal, Wks., Vol. Ill, p. 317, Amer. Ed.

Wksley's Conferences. 9

elaborate, so that "The Large Minutes" give us the following form :

" Q. 52. What is the method wherein we usually proceed in our Conferences ?

" A. We inquire, 1. What preachers are admitted ? Who remain on trial? Who are admitted on trial? Who desist from traveling? 2. Are there any objections to any of the preachers, who are named one by one ? 3. How are the preachers stationed this year? 4. What numbers are in the Society? 5. What is the Kingswood collection? 6. What boys are received this year? 7. What girls are assisted? 8. What is contributed for the contingent expenses ? 9. How was this expended? 10. What is contributed toward the fund for superannuated and supernumerary preachers? 11. What demands are there upon it? 12. How many preachers' wives are to be provided for? By what societies? 13. Where and when may our next Conference begin ?"*

It is easily seen how these questions would at that day draw out every point connected with the condition of the Methodist Societies, as they touched the ministry, the membership, the benevolences, and the cause of education ; and it is manifest that this interrogatory order of business was the basis of the order which is still used in the conduct of the Conference work in the United States, as well as in British Methodism.

Mr. Wesley encouraged those who were members of the Conferences to express their judgment with the greatest freedom. But let it not be supposed that the Conferences which Mr. Wesley called had any governing power. The members of the Conference

1 Large Minutes of Conference, printed 1770; Whitehead's Life of Wesley, Vol. II, p. 308, Dublin Ed., 1806; Wesley's Works, Large Minutes, Vol. V, p. 231.

discussed, but Mr. Wesley decided. They debated, But he determined. Mr. Wesley was the government; and, though he invited the preachers to confer with him, he did not propose to abandon any of his original power. They had a voice by his permission, but he reserved the right to direct.

After the lapse of years his course was criticised, so that he deemed it necessary in 1766, about twenty-two years after *the first Conference was held, to issue an explanation.

Reviewing the history of the Conferences, he said :

"In 1744 I wrote to several clergymen, and to all who then served me as sons in the gospel, desiring them to meet me in London, to give me their advice concerning the hest method of carrying on the work of God. They did not desire this meeting; but I did, knowing that 'in a multitude of counselors there is safety.' And when their number increased, so that it was neither needful nor convenient to invite them all, for several years I wrote to those with whom I desired to confer ; and these only met at the place appointed, till at length I gave a general permission that all who desired it might come. Observe ! I myself sent for these, of my own free choice ; and I sent for them to advise, not govern me. Neither did I at any of those times divest myself of any part of that power above described, which the providence of God had cast upon me without any design or choice of mine. What is that power? It is a power of admitting into and excluding from the societies under my care ; of choosing and removing stewards ; of receiving or of not receiving helpers ; of appointing them when, where, and how to help me; and of desiring any of them to meet me when I see good. And as it was merely in obedience to the providence of God and for the good of the people that I at first accepted this power, which I never sought— nay, a hundred times labored to throw off— so it is on the same considerations, not for profit, honor, or pleasure that I use it at this day. But several gentlemen are much offended at my having so much power. My answer to them is this :

"'I did not seek any part of this power; it came upon me unawares. But when it was come, not daring to bury that talent, I used it to the best of my judgment ; yet I never was fond of it. I always did, and do now, bear it as my burden — the burden which God lays upon me— and therefore I dare not yet lay it down.' But if you can tell me any one or any five men to whom I may transfer this burden, who can and will do just what I do now, I will heartily thank both them and you.

"But some of our helpers1 say, ' This is shackling free-born Englishmen,' and demand a free Conference ; that is, a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be determined by most votes.

"I answer: 'It is possible, after my death, Something of this kind may take place ; but not while I live. To me the preachers have engaged themselves to submit to serve me as sons in the gospel. But they are not thus engaged to any man, or number of men, beside. To me the people in general will submit. But they will not yet submit to any other.'

" It is nonsense, then, to call my using this power ' shackling free-born Englishmen.' None needs to submit to it unless he will ; so there is no shackling in the case. Every preacher and every member may leave me when he pleases. But while he chooses to stay, it is on the same terms that he joined me at first.

" ' But this i£ arbitrary power; this is no less" than making yourself a pope.'

" If by arbitrary power you mean a power which I exercise singly, without any colleagues therein, this is certainly true ; but I see no hurt in it. Arbitrary in this sense is a very harmless word. If you mean unjust, unreasonable, or tyrannical, then it is not true.

" As to the other branch of the charge, it carries no face

'A "helper" was a preacher on a circuit, bvit subordinate to the " assistant."

of truth. The pope affirms that every Christian must do all he bids, and believe all he says, under pain of damnation I never affirmed anything that bears any the most distant resemblance to this. All I affirm is: 'The preachers who choose to labor with me, choose to serve me as sons in the gospel ;' and ' the people who choose to be under my care, choose to be so on the same terms they were at first.'

"Therefore all talk of this kind is highly injurious to me, who bear this burden merely for your sakes. And it is exceedingly mischievous to the people, tending to confound their understandings, and to fill their hearts with evil surmisings and unkind tempers towards me, to wrhom they really owe more — for taking all this load upon me, for exercising this very power, for shackling myself in this manner— than for all my preaching put together; because preaching twice or thrice a day is no burden to me at all, but the care of all the preachers and all the people is a burden indeed." *

Again, in a letter written January, 1780, Mr. Wesley once more explains the situation, and defends himself as follows :

" It pleased God by me to awaken first my brother, and then a few others, who severally desired of me, as a favor, that I would direct them in all things. After my return from Georgia, many were both awakened and converted to God. One and another and another of these desired to join with me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few plain rules (observe, there was no Conference in being!) and permitted them to join me on these conditions. Whoever, therefore, violates these conditions, particularly that of being directed by me in the work, does, ipso facto [by the act itself], disjoin himself from me. This, Brother M. has done ; but he can not see that he has done amiss, and he would have it a common cause; that is, he would have all the preachers do the same. He thinks 'they have a right so to do.' 80 they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves

» Minutes, 1776, Vol. I, pp. 61, 62; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, pp. 447, 448 ; Wesley's Works, Airier. Ed., Vol. 5, pp. 220-222.

from me whenever they please ; but they can not, in the nature of the thing, join with me any longer than they are directed by me. And what if fifty of the present preachers disjoin themselves? What should I lose thereby? Only a great deal of labor and care, which I do not seek, but endure because no one else can or will.

"You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a Conference. For above six years after my return to England there was no such thing. I then desired some of our preachers to meet me, in order to advise, not control me. And, you may observe, they had no power at all but what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation and gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken from their head. But as long as I remain with them, the fundamental rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins with me, he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see, then, that Brother M., whatever his intentions might be, acted as wrong as wrong could be ; and that the representing of this as the common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction — the way to turn all their heads and to set them in arms? It was a blow at the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do less than I did ; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil should spread.

"I do not willingly speak of these things at all, but I do it now out of necessity; bec'ause I perceive the mind of you and some others is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true light."1

It was quite natural, after many years had passed, that preachers who had entered the ministry at a remote period from the early days and primitive conditions would feel a little restive in view of the fact that, though members of the Conference, they had no power of self-government, and it would not have been unnatural for some who had been with

1 Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 228.

Mr. Wesley from the early days to think the conditions had so changed that there could, with safety, be a division of power.

On the other hand, it was quite as natural and logical for Mr. Wesley to reason as he did. It was his movement, and the people and preachers had voluntarily asked him to assume the sphere of rulership. He felt that the responsibility for the success of the movement was upon him, and he saw no way of shifting that responsibility which would have been satisfactory to the preachers and people, and which at the same time would have insured the success of the cause. On his theory he need not have held any Conference, and his call for a Conference was really a concession; and, as he remarks, he "sent for them to advise, not govern him." He was willing to confer with them that he might gain valuable suggestions from their discussions, but he did not propose that the preachers in the Conference should " control " him. He was under no obligation to have a Conference at all; but, like a wise general, he called a council of his officers, listened to their ideas, and then issued his orders for the campaign of the year immediately following.

In the remarks just quoted, Wesley indicates his desire to place the burden of power upon others, but he does not see how it can be done, and therefore says: "I dare not yet lay it down." He also suggests that after his death power might be reposed in the Conference of all the preachers, who should determine their action by a majority vote.

Speaking of the power which he exercised through those who composed the Conference, it is to be observed that he says : " I chose to .^exercise the power which God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation, and gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken from their head;" so that he was preparing the preachers and people for a time when, death having released him from his responsibility, the power which he had possessed would be lodged in the Conference of ministers. For the present, however, he believed that it was absolutely essential to the existence of Methodism that the power of government should be exerted by him, for he said : " To me the people in general will submit. But they will not submit to any other." In a document which Mr. Wesley published in 1790 appears the following passage :

" As the number of preachers increased, it grew more and more difficult to fix the places where each should labor from time to time. I have often wished to transfer the work of stationing the preachers once a year to one or more of themselves. But none were willing to accept of it ; so I must bear the burden till my warfare shall be accomplished." 1

In course of years Wesley not only had his Conference, but also what has been called his "select committee of consultation,"2 which was composed of a favored few, upon whom he felt he could place special reliance. It was, indeed, a sort of cabinet or private council, where, perhaps, there was greater freedom of speech than was deemed judicious in the i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 330. STyerman's Life of Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 428.