Methodism at the Crossroads — Charles Wesley and the Struggle for Methodist Identity

Methodism at the Crossroads The year 1784 was described by John Whitehead, biographer and intimate of the Wesleys, as the 'grand climacterical year of Methodism'.1 Whitehead was referring to two events that impacted on the movement on each side of the Atlantic. In Britain, John Wesley appointed the annual Conference of preachers as his successor and by registering this Deed of Declaration in the courts he ensured that the Methodist movement could survive its leader's death. A few months later in September 1784, he ordained two preachers for the United

States formally establishing for the ﬁrst time a distinctive Methodist ministry and thereby a de facto denomination independent of the parent Anglican Church. Taken together these events represented the culmination of the movement's early institutional development. They also appear, on the surface at least, to have dealt a fatal blow to Charles

Wesley's hopes that Methodism would remain a part of the Church of England. Before analysing the events of the year in detail, it is necessary brieﬂy to sketch in the background with regard to Charles

Wesley's continuing involvement in Methodism and the trends within the movement that reached a climax in 1784.

In the years since the Norwich dispute of 1760, Charles had maintained his retirement from the itinerancy, much to the disappointment of John, who periodically attempted to rouse his sibling from 1 John Whitehead, The Life of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A. some time Fellow of Lincoln

Couchman, 1796), ii. 404.

Methodism at the Crossroads 181 what he regarded as incomprehensible inactivity. All such eﬀorts were resisted and domestically these years were the happiest of Charles Wesley's life. In 1771 the family settled in London; a decision prompted by the need to provide specialist musical training for Charles's talented sons and the realization that his ministry would be more eﬀective in the capital. It also suited John Wesley to have his brother close at hand to keep an eye on the important London society.2

The pace of Methodist expansion was accelerating both at home and abroad. Membership in Britain and Ireland increased from 25,911 in 17673 to 49,167 in 1784,4 by which time there were hundreds of preaching houses, many of them purpose-built. Advances at home were matched by events overseas: West Indian Methodism was born in 1759 with the return of the lay convert Nathaniel Gilbert to his native Antigua, and by 1785 Methodist membership in the region stood at 1,100.5 In North America, eﬀorts commenced in the 1760s, and by 1789 membership in the United States had reached

43,265.6 One of the striking characteristics of this early overseas activity was the lack of oﬃcial support from Britain, indicating a level of energy that not even the Wesleys could anticipate or dictate. The ﬁrst formally appointed missionary did not arrive in the Caribbean until 1785, while North America did not receive British itinerants until 1769. This tradition of 'unplanned voluntary evangelism'7 contributed to the establishment of an independent Church in the United

States at an early date and this in turn helped to pave the way for events in Britain.

By 1784 Methodism was clearly outgrowing its original purpose of revitalizing the Church of England and was forcing its way onto a much wider stage. This is not to say that the majority of British

Methodists were in favour of formal separation from the Anglicans, as will be made clear. In seeking to explain how de facto separation

2 John Telford, The Life of John Wesley (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886), 292.

3 Conference Minutes, i. 71.

4 The ﬁgure of 64,155 recorded in 1784 included an American membership of 14,988. Ibid. i. 172.

5 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 476–7.

6 Wesleyan Methodist Conference, MS journal, 1789 (MCA: Wesleyan Conference collection).

7 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 483.

182 Methodism at the Crossroads did occur, despite Methodist opinion being against it, it is necessary to describe in some detail the sequence of events whereby John Wesley took what is commonly regarded as the deﬁnitive step in establishing a Methodist Church.8 The other side to this question is the role played by Charles and his supporters, who appear to have been more representative of the views of the Connexion, and yet were the losers in this crucial battle. What has never been revealed is the extent of the underlying animosity and the unsavoury tactics indulged in by the contesting parties with the full knowledge and implied cooperation of the Wesleys. This gap in our knowledge of Methodism's inner workings is nowhere more apparent than in the coverage of the 'climacterical year'. An analysis of two connected episodes from the 1770s will help to set the scene by providing a glimpse into Methodist party politics as the struggle for control of the future of the movement gathered pace.

THE MARK DAVIS AFFAIR One of the central questions from the 1750s onwards was the leadership succession. John Wesley's extraordinary vigour was the occasion of much amazement, yet there could be no denying the fact that one day his guiding hand would be removed. Their leader's periodic bouts of ill health served to concentrate the minds of his followers on this thorny question. Charles Wesley, who in the early years had been the obvious candidate to replace his brother, expressly ruled himself out of consideration, even before his retirement from the itinerancy,9 although stepping aside from the succession did not mean that he abandoned any of his interest in the future shape of Methodist government.

Charles and John were in agreement that the leader of the Methodists had ideally to be an Evangelical clergyman. The two

8 'If ever there was a year when Wesley could be said to have irrevocably severed himself and Methodism from the Church of England it was 1784.' Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 218.

9 At the time of his brother's illness in 1753, Charles publicly declared to the London society that he 'neither could nor would stand in my brother's place'. Quoted by Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 188.

Methodism at the Crossroads 183 favoured candidates at diﬀerent times were William Grimshaw and John Fletcher, both of whom were reluctant to commit themselves to full-time itinerancy, and who in any case predeceased the Methodist leader. A third option was the Irish clergyman and onetime Methodist preacher Mark Davis. His time under consideration was short-lived and has merited only a brief mention in the secondary literature,10 but the events surrounding his candidature are interesting, both for the fact that they are well-documented in Charles's papers, and also for the picture that they give of the pro-Anglican section of Methodist opinion.

A native of Dublin, Davis served as a Wesleyan itinerant for fourteen years before taking Anglican orders in about 1770.11 His

Methodist ministry had been well regarded12 and in 1772 Davis and the Wesleys engaged in conversations with a view to his rejoining the movement as an ordained clergyman. It appears likely from the extant correspondence that it was John Wesley who made the ﬁrst approach and he also seems to have been the more enthusiastic of the brothers.13 In a letter to Davis written on 10 December 1772, Charles outlined the situation with regard to the leadership question:

All which we would or can do for keeping them [preachers and societies] together after our departure is to commend them to the most solid and established of our preachers ...whom we advise to keep close together and regulate the Society as near as may be, according to their old rules. Now this is impossible without a clergyman or two at their head. Wherefore my brother has so often and so warmly invited you to come and help.14

Having raised the tantalizing possibility that Davis could be the next leader of the Methodists, Charles assured him that he would not be subject to the authority of the itinerants: 'both they and the Society must be under your government. It is not in my brother's or my power

10 See e.g. Baker, Charles Wesley as Revealed, 129–30; Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 254.

11 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 207.

12 In 1762, Davis was described by the Dublin society as 'a choice servant, wonderfully endowed with uncommon talent, which he used with unwearied application for his Master's glory, and their spiritual advantage'. Quoted by Charles Crookshank,

History of Methodism in Ireland, 3 vols. (Belfast: R. S. Allen, 1885–8), i. 154.

13 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 4 December 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/43).

14 CW to Mark Davis, MS letter, 10 December 1772 (MCA: DDCW 7/60).

184 Methodism at the Crossroads to order it otherwise after our death ...the people after us will choose for themselves; and the major part of them prefer a clergyman to a lay preacher.'15 Charles invited Davis to accompany him to London to commence a trial period at the Foundery, and if things worked out, then the people would 'all look upon you as their future father and guardian'.16 Davis spent about a year in the capital, but his ministry was not a success. His demands for a salary of £80 were grudgingly accepted,17 but his insistence on compensation for alleged expenses tried the patience of London Methodists.18 Davis's ministerial labours were unimpressive,19 and to add insult to injury, he was strongly suspected of cheating Charles Wesley in the matter of a horse.20 His connection with the Methodists was severed by mutual consent in March 1774.21

Much of what we know concerning the Mark Davis aﬀair comes through the medium of letters written to Charles Wesley by his friend

John Horton and these also provide valuable information concerning the leadership of the important London society. Horton was a wealthy merchant, prominent in the capital's civic and business aﬀairs and a member of the Common Council of the city.22 He was on close terms with both Wesley brothers and served as an executor of John Wesley's will, as well as attending Conferences in London and Bristol.23 Horton was, in short, one of a select group of Methodist laymen who exercised considerable inﬂuence behind the scenes: other examples include William Marriott and Edward Allen in London,

Henry Durbin and William Pine in Bristol, William Hey in Leeds and James Walker in Sheﬃeld. It was such men, rarely mentioned in the pages of Methodist history, whose ﬁnancial generosity facilitated the 15 CW to Mark Davis, MS letter, 10 December 1772 (MCA: DDCW 7/60).

17 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 30 July 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/41).

18 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 28 February 1774 (MCA: DDPr 1/47).

19 'He [Davis] is very quiet, but not very useful.' JW to CW, MS letter, 13 January 1774 (MCA: MAM.JW.5.51). See also, John Horton to CW, MS letter, 4 December 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/43).

20 Charles Wesley, MS entitled 'The Conscientious and Xtian behaviour of the Revd. Charles Wesley, when shamefully treated by a hypocritical clergyman [Mark

Davis] and cheated in a horse' [1773] (MCA: DDCW 7/111).

21 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 28 February 1774 (MCA: DDPr 1/47).

22 Joseph Benson, 'Character and Death of John Horton', Methodist Magazine, 1:26

Methodism at the Crossroads 185 building of chapels24 and the work among the poor for which the Methodists were famous.25 This is not to say that the Wesleys did not also value the widow's mite; it was one of the strengths of the movement that everyone contributed according to their means, but a reliance on wealthier members was inevitable. This was the case in provincial towns as well as large cities and it would be fair to say that most societies had at least one benefactor.26

Early Methodists were well aware of the need to attract rich recruits; the itinerant Samuel Bardsley wrote in June 1773 of keeping the best seats in the newly built Nottingham chapel for the 'strangers: gentle folks' who sometimes 'drop in'.27 John Wesley, who had a marked suspicion of wealth and gentility, would have felt uncomfortable with Bardsley's sentiment, but such insights into the reality of early Methodism are valuable. It is hardly surprising that the wealthy and respectable tended to occupy prominent administrative positions as circuit stewards and chapel trustees—they were the major contributors to chapel building projects and possessed the necessary ﬁnancial and management expertise to run Methodism at the local level. The fact that many were conservative with regard to AnglicanMethodist relations was a major factor in the movement's internal wrangling.

The link with the Church of England was of particular importance for the wealthy and socially prominent of the Wesleyan movement.

In addition to the spiritual comfort that many genuinely derived from attendance at the parish church, there were other more secular considerations. The late eighteenth century was a time of increasing religious toleration, but there remained advantages to be gained

24 For example, the wealthy merchant Edward Allen 'was one of those friends who came forward when the New Chapel [London's City Road] was erected, and to enable Mr Wesley ...to place the chapel quite out of debt, advanced several hundred pounds ...In other ways he aided Mr Wesley and the London Society with his means, as well as with his personal services.' Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 524.

25 It is estimated that William Marriott gave away as much as £10,000 per year, and while not all his philanthropy was Methodist-related or publicized, his membership of the society would have reﬂected credit on the movement. Stevenson, City Road

26 The annals of local Methodism frequently record the generosity of men such as the banker Thomas Doncaster, who in 1776 gave £50 towards the erection of the ﬁrst chapel in the Lancashire town of Wigan. Marjorie Swindlehurst, John Wesley and Wigan (Wigan: Owl Books, 1991), 19.

27 Samuel Bardsley to John Shaw, MS copy letter, 16 June 1773 (MCA: BRD 1/4).

186 Methodism at the Crossroads by membership of the Established Church. In England and Wales, Dissenters remained subject to certain restrictions—they were not allowed to graduate from the universities, act as the executor of a will, hold commissioned rank in the military, or be appointed to many civil oﬃces.28 Many of these restraints were theoretical rather than real,29 but there were still instances of religious discrimination as well as social and political stigma attached to the label 'Dissenter'.30

Such a consideration would have meant little to the poverty-stricken Methodists who formed the majority, but for men such as Horton, to leave the Church of England would have been to step away from the Establishment in more than just the religious sphere, which would have been no small matter in an acutely class-conscious society.

Horton's letters reveal that he was a member of a committee that met with Davis and advised John Wesley with regard to how matters should proceed.31 Little is known about this group although it appears to have been a standing body connected with the Foundery and was not specially created to handle the Davis aﬀair.32 The fact that the committee was deeply involved in delicate negotiations that had a possible bearing on the future national leadership of the Wesleyan movement indicates its importance. The exact membership is unclear, although it included Richard Kemp33 and John Folgham,34 two prosperous tradesmen35 who subsequently became trustees of City Road Chapel (a body that became well known for its conservative inclinations), and the Anglican minister William Ley was also on 28 Michael Watts, The Dissenters: The Expansion of Evangelical Nonconformity

1791–1859 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), ii. 417–18; Paul Langford, Public Life and the Propertied Englishman 1689–1798 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 72–3.

29 'The penalties were those attending conviction under the law, and conviction was virtually unknown.' Langford, Public Life, 73.

31 For example, John Horton to CW, MS letter, 11 December 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/44).

32 Horton refers to a committee secretary and to the fact that Davis was only one of the items on the agenda. Ibid.

33 Kemp attended meetings with Horton and others with regard to the Davis situation a about 30 July 1773 (DDPr 1/41), 24 January 1774 (DDPr 1/46), and about 28 February 1774 (DDPr 1/47).

34 Folgham attended the meeting held about 30 July 1773. John Horton to CW, MS letter, 30 July 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/41).

35 Kemp was a framework-knitter and Folgham was a cabinet-case maker. Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 530, 569.

Methodism at the Crossroads 187 hand during part of the negotiations.36 The pro-Anglican viewpoint was obviously well represented, although the itinerant Alexander

Mather also attended at least one of the meetings.37

Horton and his associates wielded considerable inﬂuence and were not backward in expressing their opinions. During the deliberations held in July 1773, John Wesley began to read out a letter that referred to the opposition to Davis's appointment of the preachers Thomas

Olivers and Alexander Mather: Horton interrupted and asked him to desist because of Mather's presence.38 Concern was expressed at several points in the correspondence that John Wesley was weak and that he was taken in by Davis's 'smooth tongue'.39 Horton even expressed satisfaction that the committee could take on much of the responsibility for direct negotiations,40 and it was the committee rather than

Wesley himself that appears to have taken the ﬁnal decision with regard to Davis's severance payment.41

Horton's correspondence with Charles Wesley underlines the fact that John's brother still enjoyed considerable inﬂuence, even if that was exercised away from public gaze. He expected to be kept informed of developments and his alignment with prominent laymen added weight to the powerful Church-Methodist faction. The issue of Methodism and the Church was never far from Horton's mind, or that of Charles Wesley. The comment was made in the letter of 30 July

1773 that Davis's faults would damage the standing of Anglican clergy within the societies and that this was worsened by John Wesley's inability to see that his recruitment was a mistake.42 Horton's own view of separatist preachers was made plain in his letter of 6 August

Your Brother is drawing up a plan for settling all the preaching houses in one general trust, if he can accomplish this, there may be a possibility

36 For example, John Horton to CW, MS letter, 24 January 1774 (MCA: DDPr 1/46).

37 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 30 July 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/41).

39 For example, John Horton to CW, MS letter, 11 December 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/44).

41 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 28 February 1774 (MCA: DDPr 1/47).

42 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 30 July 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/41).

188 Methodism at the Crossroads of keeping the preachers in some tolerable order, but if something is not done ...I should not wonder if many shake oﬀhis authority and if he is unable to govern, what can be expected from those who may succeed him in the management of these headstrong gentlemen [?]43

On another occasion, Horton reported to Charles that someone had complained to John Wesley of the hatred felt by the preachers Olivers and Mather towards Anglican clergymen in general.44 He recorded with satisfaction that John 'listened to it with attention as a matter of consequence in its aspect on the future'. In fact, John could not have been too concerned, as both Olivers and Mather remained high in his estimation.

The fact that John Wesley leaned on a group of lay advisers, some of whom had their own agendas, should not be seen as evidence that he was abdicating any aspect of his authority. He made similar use of a cabinet council of senior itinerants, but remained until the end of his life possessed of the ﬁnal word in policy matters. It was an important element of John's gift for leadership that he used the talents of the people around him, while appeasing and satisfying conﬂicting viewpoints. Not least among such entrenched interests was that represented by the people who to a large degree funded

Methodism and lent respectability to the movement.45 There have been many debates concerning the reasons for John Wesley's aversion to formal separation, but little has been said concerning the obstacle represented by pro-Church Methodists of wealth and inﬂuence. To put it simply, the Methodist leadership in Britain could not aﬀord to alienate such people.

CHARLES WESLEY AND CITY ROAD CHAPEL With the opening of London's City Road Chapel on 1 November 1778, the animosity between Charles and the preachers surfaced again over the issue of pulpit control. City Road was a visible sign

43 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 6 August 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/42).

44 John Horton to CW, MS letter, 30 July 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/41).

45 In London ordinary collections proved insuﬃcient to cover expenditure, with the result that extra giving by wealthy Methodists was required on an annual basis.

John Horton to CW, MS letter, 11 December 1773 (MCA: DDPr 1/44).

Methodism at the Crossroads 189 of burgeoning Methodist conﬁdence and stature after forty years of struggle. The new chapel at the heart of the world's greatest city was both an elegant place of worship and a centre of administration,46 and to oﬃciate in what the veteran itinerant Joseph Sutcliﬀe called the 'temple of Methodism'47 would have been a source of considerable pride to itinerants. Unfortunately for their ambitions, Charles

Wesley was determined to exclude them from both the pulpit and the altar. To his mind, preaching at the new chapel and celebration of the Sacraments was the preserve of Anglican clergymen, of which there were several oﬃciating at Methodist chapels in London. The reaction to this stand was predictable: in a letter to his brother written on 16 June 1779, Charles related that the London preachers John

Pawson, Thomas Rankin, and Peter Jaco, had written to their brethren elsewhere 'of their ill usage by the clergy here; not, I should suppose by quiet John Richardson,—not by passive Dr Coke, for he, they say, is gone to Bristol, that he may not be a witness of their cruel persecution. The persecuting clergy, therefore, are neither more nor less than your own brother.'48

The preachers' complaints were voiced two months after John Wesley had tried to ease tension by allowing the itinerants to preach at the new chapel whenever his brother was absent.49 That Charles was proving obstructive is made clear by his admission in the letter of June 1779 that he refused to be absent, continuing to oﬃciate at City Road twice each Sunday,50 despite advancing age and supposedly fragile health. He defended his stand on the grounds that he had the best right after John himself, and that it was where he could do the most good. Charles acknowledged that the itinerants disagreed and were claiming that his poor performance in the pulpit was aﬀecting attendance. After assuring his brother that this was not the case,

Charles denied that he had any quarrel with the preachers, whom he accused of being led astray by pride. In this letter, Charles was at 46 John Wesley underlined its signiﬁcance by mounting a national appeal for help with the building costs. Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 65.

47 Joseph Sutcliﬀe, MS history of Methodism in 4 volumes, 1853 (MCA: Wesley collection), ii. 917.

48 Quoted by Tyerman, John Wesley, iii. 299–300.

49 Sutcliﬀe, MS history of Methodism, ii. 917.

50 CW to JW, Published copy letter, 16 June 1779. Tyerman, John Wesley, iii. 299– 190 Methodism at the Crossroads pains to be seen as a model of reason and tolerance and even oﬀered to vacate the capital in favour of Bristol, if John decided that was the best course. He went so far as to claim that far from being an enemy of the preachers, he was in fact their true friend for if there was no 'man above them, what would become of them? How would they tear one another in pieces? Convince them if you can, that they want a clergyman over them, to keep them and the ﬂock together.'51

This accusation that Charles's ministry reduced attendance at the premier chapel in the country needs to be considered, as it lends weight to the impression of Charles as an isolated ﬁgure, devoid of contemporary relevance. Tyerman, in one of the most inﬂuential

Methodist biographical works, quotes from a manuscript written by the itinerant John Pawson that 'the [City Road] congregation fell oﬀ exceedingly; and that the society was brought into great disorder'.52

Tyerman goes on to state that: 'though in years past, Charles Wesley's ministry had been exceedingly attractive and powerful, what shall we say now? John Pawson writes: "When he was favoured with freedom of mind, which was but seldom, then his preaching was truly profitable; but in general it was exceedingly dry and proﬁtless."'53

It is true that Charles's preaching could be disappointing, as testiﬁed to thirty years previously by Ebenezer Blackwell, but this was not always the case. The following eyewitness account from 1786 illustrates both the positive and negative aspects of his pulpit ministry:

On arriving in Bristol (says J.S.) I heard singing and joined the congregation just before the text was read ...The preacher was an aged gentleman in a plain coat and white wig. His voice was clear, his aspect venerable and his manner devout. In his introductory sentences, he was very deliberate and presently made a pause of some moments. This I attributed to his age and inﬁrmities, but in a while he made a second pause twice as long ...This to me was painful but the people took no notice of it. However, he helped himself out by three verses of the hymn 'Five bloody wounds he bears ...' And when I was most aﬀected with sympathy for his inﬁrmities, as I then thought, he quoted his text in Greek with remarkable ﬂuency ...Coming then to the great Salvation, he was on his high horse, age and inﬁrmities were left behind. It was a torrent of doctrine, exhortation and compulsive eloquence bearing down all before him ...I said at last ...the preacher must be Mr Charles.54

51 Tyerman, John Wesley, iii. 299–300. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. iii. 301.

54 Thomas Marriott, MS memoranda book, c.1800 (MCA: Diaries collection).

Methodism at the Crossroads 191 In any case, the eﬀectiveness or otherwise of Charles's sermons should not be regarded as the only measure of his ministry—such was the quality of his pastoral work that it was still remembered ﬁfty years after his death.55

There certainly appears to have been a measure of disruption within London Methodism. In October 1779, John Wesley reported a considerable membership decrease, which he attributed to jealousy between the preachers,56 but there was in fact no serious damage.

The membership of the society fell by just 114 from 2,550 recorded at the Conference of 1779 to 2,436 a year later, after which it gradually recovered. As for City Road itself, the Sacramental collections recorded in the accounts do not indicate a long-term pattern of poor attendance.57 The connection that has been made between Charles

Wesley's failing ministerial eﬀorts and shrinking numbers in the London society should probably be viewed as exaggeration.

The preachers were certainly angry over Charles Wesley's treatment of their London colleagues. Sutcliﬀe, writing decades later in his manuscript history of Methodism, displays a very palpable outrage even after the passage of sixty years:

What would the ﬁfty superintendents ...think, who had denied themselves of bread, by not making the yearly collections and solicited aids from every member, and every friend to build this temple of Methodism, and now to be totally excluded from the pulpit, and be branded with epithets of laymen, ambition and pride etc—laymen? How can we call them laymen, who had been ...twenty or thirty years in the work, had formed circuits, built chapels ... 58

The existence of such hostility, nursed long after Charles Wesley died, had an inevitable eﬀect on the writing of Methodist history.

This is particularly the case when one considers that nineteenthcentury Wesleyan scholarship was almost exclusively a preserve of the ministry.

55 Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 433.

56 Quoted by Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 76.

57 In 1779, the ﬁrst full year that the chapel was open, Sacramental collections amounted to £193 16s. 7d. This dropped to £176 a year later but increased to £192

9s. 10d. in 1781 and remained stable during the rest of the decade. London Society, MS steward's accounts, 1766–1802 (MCA: Wesley collection).

58 Sutcliﬀe, MS history of Methodism, ii. 918.

192 Methodism at the Crossroads It would be a mistake to assume that Charles Wesley was the only obstacle to preachers oﬃciating at City Road Chapel. The twentyfour original lay trustees were men of means and pro-Anglican sentiment;59 they included Ebenezer Blackwell, John Horton, John

Folgham, and Richard Kemp. As trustees, they enjoyed considerable authority under the terms of the Model Deed of 1763, and they and their successors were able to prevent itinerants from administering the Sacraments at City Road until 1826,60 nearly forty years after Charles Wesley died. Nor was London the only society where trustees acted as a brake on separation: in other centres such as Newcastle and Bristol, their counterparts were equally staunch in support of the Church of England. The involvement of the trustees is not documented in the historic reporting of the City Road aﬀair, but their presence behind the scenes is unmistakable. The children and grandchildren of early trustees often preserved a link with the movement,61 and Victorian Methodism would have been careful to avoid criticism of families whose generosity had made possible the construction of chapels across the country.

Charles was very aware of the importance of the ﬁnancial consideration. Writing to his brother on 2 April 1779,62 he slyly observed that with regard to the chapel's building costs, 'many of our subscribers you know, were not of our society, but of the Church: out of goodwill to them ...I wished the Church service continued there'.63 It was not just the opinions of men such as Horton and Kemp that had to be taken into consideration, but those sympathizers who attended worship and helped the movement ﬁnancially, yet never sought formal membership.

59 They included one banker, one silk-broker, three merchants, and one gentleman.

Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 250.

61 For example, the family of the City Road trustee Charles Greenwood maintained a link with Methodism until the death in 1811 of his son Thomas (also a trustee).

Ibid. 361–2; John Buttress, the grandson of the trustee William Cowland was himself a trustee of City Road and a treasurer of the Methodist Missionary Society until his death in 1861. Ibid. 577–8.

62 Sutcliﬀe, Ms history of Methodism, ii. 917.

63 Quoted by Baker, Charles Wesley as Revealed, 132.

Methodism at the Crossroads 193 THE DEED OF DECLARATION The issues that have been highlighted in the examination of the Davis and City Road aﬀairs came to a head in 1784. The ﬁrst was that connected with the leadership succession. With John Wesley in his eighties, it was obvious that something needed to be done if Methodism was to survive. The great worry was that his followers would divide and scatter in the event of his death: as early as 1763 the Irish itinerant John Johnson summed up the situation in a letter to Charles

Wesley: 'I dread the day when your brother and you shall be taken from us ...sometimes I think the Lord will stand by us ...at other times I think we shall be suﬀered to divide: and be destroyed.'64

For some years, the Methodists had taken gradual steps towards establishing a legal position with regard to the status of chapels and the right of itinerants to preach. Now the time had arrived to take that process one stage further by appointing a legally acceptable hierarchy that would eventually form the government of the Connexion. During the 1770s various avenues had been explored, ranging from the itinerant Joseph Benson's suggestion that the best of the preachers should be ordained by the Wesleys and their clerical colleagues, to John Fletcher's proposal that Methodism be formed into a 'general society' of the Church of England.65 By this time, it was clear that there would have to be a form of collective leadership after John

Wesley's removal, although this was not incompatible with the idea of a Church of England minister as the titular head of the movement; in addition to preserving a link with the Church, such an arrangement would have helped to prevent a dogﬁght between ambitious preachers eager to step into Wesley's shoes. There was also of course, another scenario and one that certain itinerants were no doubt considering, namely collective power in the hands of preachers independent of any

In 1777, an important player arrived on the scene in the person of the clergyman Thomas Coke. A graduate of Oxford, Coke had been ejected earlier in the year from his curacy at South Petherton

64 John Johnson to CW, MS letter, 2 June 1763 (MCA: EMV), 92.

65 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 466.

194 Methodism at the Crossroads in Somerset for attempting to incorporate Methodist practices into his ministry.66 In the face of this undeniably rough treatment, he reacted against his Anglican background: he did not go so far as to repudiate his orders or speak openly against the Church, but his actions after joining the Methodists suggests that he was driven in part by anger against the Church establishment. Coke later claimed that he turned against the Anglicans only in about 1782 or 1783,67 but there is little to indicate that he possessed much loyalty in the earlier years of his Methodist involvement. He allied himself with proseparation itinerants such as John Pawson and, in 1779, distanced himself from attempts to bar preachers from the City Road pulpit.

These were hardly the actions of a man who was later to describe his attitude at this time as that of a pro-Anglican bigot;68 certainly

Charles Wesley was quick to point out to his brother that his latest recruit was siding with dissident preachers.69

Young and ambitious, Coke swiftly achieved a position of prominence in John Wesley's inner circle and within a few years was suspected, probably correctly, of regarding himself as the heir apparent to the Methodist throne.70 Coke's recruitment represented a radical departure from the earlier pattern of ordained helpers such as John Richardson and Mark Davis. Unlike them, he felt little or no loyalty to the Church of which he was a minister, but at the same time, he was willing to use his clerical status to enhance his personal standing within Methodism. This is not to say that Coke's ambition was incompatible with spirituality or administrative gifts, but it does explain why there was mutual animosity in his relationship with Charles Wesley. By his own admission, Coke, as early as 1779, regarded John's brother as an enemy of Methodism and was

66 Coke was publicly dismissed in the presence of the congregation. His replacement as curate was waiting to step into the pulpit where he preached a sermon directed against his predecessor. Vickers, Thomas Coke, 35.

67 'For ﬁve or six years after my union with Mr Wesley, I remained ﬁxed in my attachments to the Church of England, but afterwards ...I changed my sentiments and promoted a separation from it.' Thomas Coke to Samuel Seabury, Typescript copy letter, 14 May 1791 (MCA: PLP 28/7/17).

69 CW to JW, Published copy letter, 16 June 1779. Quoted by Tyerman, John Wesley, iii. 299.

70 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 496.

Methodism at the Crossroads 195 inﬂuenced by working alongside individuals who felt the same.71 The introduction of such a man into an already volatile situation was a major factor in the events of the 'climacterical year'.

Coke was one of the prime movers behind the 1784 Deed of Declaration, the legal document that established Conference as the successor to the Wesleys. The Deed was a product of the realization that there was no institution that could exercise legally sanctioned Connexional control over the Methodist movement. Fears were expressed on this point by the preachers at the Conference of 1782 whereupon Coke sought the advice of the lawyers William Clulow and John Maddocks; their opinion was that Wesley needed to clarify the situation.72 A deed was accordingly drawn up on John Wesley's instructions, with Coke's assistance, and enrolled in Chancery on 9

March 1784.73 The deed appointed one hundred named itinerants to form the legal Conference, which after the death of the Wesleys, would guide the aﬀairs of the Connexion and be presided over by a President, elected for one year. Other aspects of organization were also outlined, but it is unnecessary to enter into detail concerning them. It is suﬃcient to say that the deed ensured that Methodism had a legal constitution and could survive the deaths of its founders.

One might assume in retrospect that the Deed of Declaration was a crucial stepping-stone on the way to an independent Church and this is true in certain respects. However, the question of whether or not Methodism would continue to exist in association with the Anglicans was left unresolved. In fact, it was important for both separatists and Church Methodists that the deed was executed, as otherwise the future of the movement would have been dependent on the lives of two elderly men.

Charles Wesley's reaction has not been recorded in the primary material, but it is unlikely to have been negative for the reasons outlined above. He attended the Conferences of 178274 and 178375

71 Thomas Coke to JW, Typescript copy letter, 15 December 1779 (MCA: PLP 28.3.10).

72 Vickers, Thomas Coke, 62–3.

73 John Wesley, MS Declaration and Appointment of the Conference of the People called Methodists, 28 February 1784 (MCA: Accession 1977/075).

74 This Conference was held in London so it is most unlikely that Charles was absent.

75 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter [July/August 1783] (MCA: DDCW 7/86).

196 Methodism at the Crossroads at which the issue was debated, and the decisions with regard to the necessity of the deed were described as unanimous.76 He was also personally involved, to the extent that his own 'life-estate' in Methodist chapels was preserved intact, which meant that Conference could not take control until after the Wesleys had both died—a sobering thought for certain of the preachers. The 1784 Deed may not in itself have represented a certain break with the Church of England, but taken in conjunction with the other event of that year, namely the North American ordinations, it did increase the likelihood of separation becoming a reality.

AN ORDAINED MINISTRY FOR THE UNITED STATES The ordinations were a direct result of the establishment of an independent United States. The position of the Anglican Church in the American colonies had never been as dominant as in the mother country, and was further damaged by the upheavals associated with the independence struggle. According to one contemporary account of the situation in Virginia: 'a large number of the churches were destroyed or irreparably damaged; 23 of her 95 parishes were extinct or forsaken; and of the remaining 72, 34 were destitute of ministerial services; while of her 98 clergymen, only 28 remained'.77 In such a chaotic situation it was virtually impossible for Methodists to have easy Sacramental access and this had been the case even before the war as the Church struggled to cope with an expanding frontier society.

John Wesley's dilemma was that ordination of itinerants was the only viable solution to the American problem. Yet this would signify formal separation by allowing preachers to become ministers, qualiﬁed to perform the Sacraments. His brother Charles underlined this fact in the immediate aftermath of the ordinations when he obtained the opinion of his old school friend Lord Chief Justice

Mansﬁeld to the eﬀect that 'Ordination was Separation'.78 Typically, John refused to accept even this unequivocal statement by one of 76 Vickers, Thomas Coke, 63. 77 Quoted by Tyerman, John Wesley, ii. 427.

Methodism at the Crossroads 197 Britain's most eminent judges and continued to deny to his dying day that he had broken with the Church.79

The suggestion has been made that John was manipulated into taking this step; Charles for example blamed his brother's senility and Thomas Coke's ambition, while Whitehead attributed the ordinations to the ambitions of a party of the preachers.80 However, it is widely accepted by modern authorities that John Wesley acted in this matter, as in most others, in accordance with his own will.81 The timing was forced on him by circumstances beyond his control but ultimately it was his decision.

There were conversations between John Wesley and Coke concerning the American problem in October 1783 and again the following February, during which Wesley broached the possibility of ordinations;82 Coke was initially hesitant but came round to Wesley's point of view.83 At the Leeds Conference of 1784, Wesley informed the assembled itinerants of his intention to send Coke to America, but said nothing about ordaining;84 he did however reveal the full details to his cabinet council of senior preachers. According to John

Pawson, who was present, their reaction was hostile: 'the preachers were astonished ...and to a man opposed it. But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr Wesley's mind appeared to be quite made up.'85

Wesley also consulted several Evangelical clergymen during his visit to Leeds; they pointed out that it 'seemed inconsistent with ...former professions regarding the Church'.86 Wesley walked out of the meeting in a ﬁt of pique, which suggests that he was interested only in their approval, not their opinion. Despite this ringing lack of endorsement,

Wesley remained ﬁxed in his intention. On 1 September 1784, with the assistance of the Anglican ministers James Creighton and Thomas

Coke, he ordained the preachers Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey as deacons. A day later, they were ordained as presbyters, on 79 Ibid. 320–2. 80 Whitehead, John Wesley, 404.

81 For example, Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 266; Vickers, Thomas 82 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 263.

83 Thomas Coke to JW, Published copy letter, 9 August 1784. Quoted by Vickers, Thomas Coke, 77–8.

84 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 264.

85 Quoted by Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 512.

86 Quoted by Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 265.

198 Methodism at the Crossroads which occasion Coke was appointed Superintendent.87 The level of secrecy was such that the ordinations took place at four in the morning in a private house.88

The preceding brief narration of the circumstances attendant on the ordinations covers well-known ground. What has not been fully examined is the reaction of the various parties within Methodism and this will be the focus next.

If one accepts that Methodist opinion by the 1780s was tending towards separation, which is the impression that has often been given,89 then the response of the itinerants is surprising. We have already seen that the cabinet of senior preachers was unanimously opposed and their colleagues appear to have been equally aghast as shown by the following reaction from an unnamed preacher: 'Ordination among Methodists! Amazing indeed! ...Who is the father of this monster, so long dreaded by the father of his people and by most of his sons ...Years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary of our religious madness for gowns and bands.'90

This comment provides a valuable sidelight on the complex nature of feelings about separation, as it suggests that there was feeling within Methodism that the preachers, unlike Anglican ministers, simply did not need 'gowns and bands' to validate their divine calling.

Another anonymous itinerant wrote: 'I wish they had been asleep when they began this business of ordination: it is neither episcopal nor presbyterian; but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies.'91

Later in the decade as ordinations were carried out for ﬁrst the Scottish and then the English work, opinion was similarly lukewarm if not negative. In 1786 for example, when Wesley was urged to ordain a preacher for Yorkshire, a majority of Conference was against.92

It is diﬃcult to draw ﬁrm conclusions concerning this lack of enthusiasm, although some explanations can be put forward. Separation had long been a distinct possibility, but the decisive break with 87 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 513.

88 Harrison, The Separation of Methodism from the Church of England, 7.

89 For example, ibid. 12–13; Church, More about the Early Methodist People, 255–6; Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 525; Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 377.

90 Quoted by Tyerman, John Wesley, iii. 439. 91 Ibid.

92 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 519–20.

Methodism at the Crossroads 199 the Church had been avoided. The preachers could have been excused for feeling uncomfortable at this radical step, especially when a man who professed himself a strong churchman presented them with a fait accompli. Their discomﬁture would have been aggravated by the fact that the ordinations followed soon after the Deed of Declaration: in appointing just one hundred named preachers to form the voting body, Wesley had given oﬀence to many of their colleagues.93 Men such as John Hampson, who had been a preacher since the 1750s, discovered that he was not in the so-called Legal Hundred, unlike

Charles Atmore, a travelling preacher for just three years. The fact that it was a matter of common sense to make the Legal Hundred representative of the cross-section of itinerants, rather than based simply on seniority, did not prevent anger with Wesley's selection.

Now the preachers discovered that not only would a small number of their colleagues be given additional status, but that Thomas Coke was appointed 'Superintendent'—his ambition and special place in Wesley's counsel was already causing hostile comment and eyebrows would have been raised even further at this unprecedented mark of favour.94 It is true that these ﬁrst ordinations applied only to the United States, but their signiﬁcance would have been lost on few observers.

The preachers may also have been nervous of reaction within the societies. Lay opinion will be considered later, but at this juncture it is appropriate to point out that during the ﬁrst half-century of the movement's history, the majority of itinerants had shown themselves to be pragmatic in their approach to church order. Where there had been pressing local circumstances that justiﬁed a breach, as at Norwich in 1760, then the itinerants had been ready to act, but not otherwise, despite grumbling by individuals. In this they demonstrated themselves to be true gospel sons of John Wesley, and of course of his brother, who had shown a similar approach before his reinvention as the champion of the church.

A ﬁnal possibility should also be considered, namely that there was more attachment to the Church of England among the body of preachers than is commonly supposed. Fervent expressions of loyalty

93 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 231–2.

94 Vickers, Thomas Coke, 64.

200 Methodism at the Crossroads to the Establishment are virtually non-existent, but if separatist views were standard, than one would expect the ordinations to have been greeted with enthusiasm or anticipation, even if accompanied by nerves. Yet this was not the case. There were certainly preachers who wished to separate; John Pawson makes this clear when writing about the Conference of 1785: 'It was generally expected that something eﬀectual would have been done ...respecting our separating from the Church of England, which it was thought by many of the preachers and people also, would be much for the glory of God: But this happy time is not yet come.'95 But there were others who did not see a need to break with the parent body; the book steward John

Atlay was an Anglican loyalist and was outspoken on the issue at the 1785 Conference,96 while his fellow itinerant James Watson was also against separation, despite his own dissenting background.97 Some well-respected ministers of the younger generation such as Joseph

Benson and Adam Clarke, both of whom served as President of Conference, retained aﬀection for the Church until the end of their lives. Consideration should also be given to the following statement by Joseph Sutcliﬀe: 'Having known many of the preachers of that day

[1778], I think they were sincerely attached to the Book of Common Prayer. Most of them, anterior to their conversion, had attended the Church and Sacrament and in their principles they had long defended themselves against the charge of dissent.'98 Sutcliﬀe goes on to criticize the Church for not 'taking them [the preachers] by the hand', but this is not the statement of an enemy, but of a man who felt let down by his parent denomination.

The state of the majority opinion is diﬃcult to estimate. On the one side, there were itinerants such as Pawson, who exhibited such personal antipathy towards Anglican clergymen that it perhaps ﬂavoured his view of what his colleagues were thinking:99 on the other side of the fence were loyalists such as John Atlay and Joseph Benson.

95 Joseph Entwisle, MS account of the life of John Pawson, c.1820 (MCA: Diaries collection), 32.

96 Moore, John Wesley, ii. 329.

97 Marion Banks, 'Diary of a Birmingham Methodist', Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 39 (February 1974), 102.

98 Sutcliﬀe, MS history of Methodism, ii. 919.

99 'What miserable readers are nine in ten, not to say ninety-nine in an hundred of the clergy, with all their learning? ...I do really believe that to separate from the Methodism at the Crossroads 201 In the middle was Sutcliﬀe and others of a like mind, who felt that the itinerants were part of an Anglican family that had spurned their eﬀorts, leaving separation as the only way that their ministry could be completely fulﬁlled. This is not to say that they felt pleased at the prospect of schism—even Pawson was convinced that separation could only be achieved by stages,100 which may account for his initial hostility towards John Wesley's dramatic announcement that he would ordain for North America.

There was of course no such ambivalence in the reaction of Charles and his supporters. John had kept him completely in the dark concerning his plans—Thomas Coke, senior preachers, and select Evangelical clergymen were all informed in advance about the ordinations, but not John Wesley's brother. It is interesting that even men whom

Charles would have regarded as friends and allies maintained secrecy; Anglican clerics such as John Fletcher and Walter Sellon,101 despite their own reservations, all respected John Wesley's conﬁdence. One suspects that they were only too aware of how John's impetuous brother would react and did not wish to provoke the storm that would surely break.

On 4 November 1784, the wealthy lay Methodist Henry Durbin wrote to Charles from Bristol with the news that his brother had issued a printed letter announcing the ordinations.102 John's letter was dated 10 September,103 but was not released to the public for nearly two months after that date, probably to coincide with the anticipated arrival of Coke's party in New York. Durbin, who was very much of Charles's own persuasion with regard to the separation issue, declared that henceforth John 'should not preach in the churches, or read the prayers, as he has renounced [the Church of England]'. Durbin reported that such was the horror felt within parts of the Bristol society that some members felt that they could no Church would be much the better for our people.' John Pawson to Charles Atmore,

MS letter, 30 March 1786 (MCA: PLP 82.2.7).

101 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 265.

102 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 4 November 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

103 JW to Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury, and 'Our Brethren in America', MS copy letter, 10 September 1784 (MCA: DDCW 9/3).

202 Methodism at the Crossroads longer receive the Sacrament from John Wesley's hands.104 It is apparent from this letter and other unpublished correspondence between Charles and the Anglican-Methodists Henry Durbin and William

Pine that the ordinations were part of a complex tale of rivalry and struggle over the Methodist future. This is not an episode that portrays either party in a favourable light, which is perhaps one reason why the letters have remained largely unpublished.

In his draft response, written in shorthand on the back of Durbin's letter,105 Charles attributes his brother's action to 'extreme old age' and to his being outmanoeuvred by the ambitious Thomas Coke.

John had apparently broken a promise to Charles that he would not separate from the Church without his brother's consent. He also makes the interesting statement that John's treatment of Pine, and Durbin is now 'fully explained' and this allusion provides an opportunity to look deeper at the prevailing tension.

On 23 September 1784, the Bristol printer William Pine had written to Charles Wesley with an update of events connected with a bitter dispute between Thomas Coke and John Wesley on the one hand, and Durbin and Pine on the other.106 The roots of the controversy went back to the previous summer of 1783 when Durbin, Pine, and their fellow trustees at the New Room refused to change the terms of the chapel deed allowing John, and after him the Conference, the right of appointing preachers to serve at the chapel.107 This refusal stemmed from the trustees' view that by controlling access to the pulpit, they were safeguarding the New Room 'for the use of the Methodist Church, in connexion with the Church of England'.108

Charles Wesley did not play a public role in the aﬀair but was kept informed of developments by his Bristol friends. His opinion can be found in an annotation on his personal copy of the trustees' minutes refusing to change the deed—'Durbin and Bristol Stewards refusing to betray their trust'.109

104 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 4 November 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

106 William Pine to CW, MS letter, 23 September 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

107 Vickers, Thomas Coke, 59.

108 Bristol New Room Chapel Trustees, MS minutes of a trustees' meeting, 29 July 1783 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

Methodism at the Crossroads 203 The controversy lasted for over a year and became very personal indeed. Coke denounced his opponents from the pulpit referring to them as 'wolves in sheep's clothing' and, rather implausibly, as a 'savage ruﬃan band'.110 Several accusations were levelled speciﬁcally against Durbin, including telling lies and 'insidiously endeavouring to undermine us, by making Mr Charles Wesley one of your party, etc'.111

Coke based this second allegation on the grounds that Charles had known nothing of the aﬀair until Durbin spoke to him in London.

Pine's response on Durbin's behalf was equally caustic, referring to his opponents as 'busy-bodies, who are ever meddling in other men's matters; and make it their business to cringe and fawn, and traduce their brethren, in order to raise themselves on the ruins of the reputations of others'.112

The little that has been said concerning this unsavoury dispute has concentrated on the role of Thomas Coke.113 The extent of John

Wesley's personal involvement has remained undisclosed, yet it is clear that he himself was ruthless in his dealings with the trustees.

In a letter of 15 October 1784 to Charles, Durbin related that because of Coke's accusations he had been judged: not a proper person to be in the society, till my character was cleared up, which your brother has not the right proper to do ...so I am put on trial ...he

[John Wesley] said I had not been in the society for some time, as I had not met a class, but he forgot, that about three years ago he declared ...that any serious person might have a ticket and meet in the society without meeting a class and I have always had a ticket ...indeed your brother's letter has much stunned me ...it has taught me to call no man rabbi.114

By the time that Durbin wrote again to Charles on 5 January 1785,115 his resentment had intensiﬁed. His treatment at the hands of John

Wesley, which by now included an unspeciﬁed slander, was much talked about within Bristol Methodism and, if Durbin is to be believed, nowhere approved of. Even after making due allowance for 110 William Pine to CW, MS letter, 23 September 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

113 For example, Vickers, Thomas Coke, 59–60.

114 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 15 October 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

115 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 5 January 1785 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

204 Methodism at the Crossroads Durbin's bias, it appears that the Methodist patriarch was in some measure pursuing a grudge against the rebel trustees. One of Durbin's colleagues, Joseph Flower met Wesley at New Passage near Bristol in September 1784 with some personal items for the evangelist's use. He waited until the late afternoon but was refused a lift back to Bristol in Wesley's carriage when it ﬁnally arrived. If other transport had not fortuitously passed by, Flower would have had an eleven-mile walk back to the city.116

Such vivid insights into the reality of life with the Wesleys are minor in themselves, but they accumulate to give a picture, which is sometimes at odds with the popular image of John Wesley as a saintly patriarch. Charles's brother possessed charm and charisma but he was also dictatorial and could be vindictive when crossed. These traits appear to have formed part of the family character—Samuel Wesley senior was notoriously unforgiving and dogmatic, while Charles's own volatility is well known. The Methodist leader had many positive qualities that have rightly received considerable attention, but there was a darker side to his personality. Durbin was certainly of the opinion that John was trying to frighten him into silence in advance of the ordinations and saw signiﬁcance in the timing of the attacks against him.117

Corroboration concerning John Wesley's sharply honed political instinct comes from a man on the other side of the Anglican–

Methodist divide, namely John Pawson, who wrote this critical assessment of Wesley's character just after the old man died in 1791:

In a great variety of aﬀairs ...he acted as a politician, and one could not help seeking something that looked artful and designing and there was a manifest want of that simplicity, sincerity and uprightness, which are so amiable both in the sight of God and man ...his best friends always looked upon it as a very great and blameable weakness in him.118

It is against this background that Charles Wesley's comment concerning his brother's treatment of Durbin and Pine should be viewed.

116 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 5 January 1785 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

117 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 4 November 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

118 Entwisle, MS account of the life of John Pawson, 40.

Methodism at the Crossroads 205 Charles was stunned by news of the ordinations, although he does not appear to have made a public response.119 Published records documenting his reactions to this issue are lacking, which raises an important point concerning nineteenth-century attitudes towards the primary material. No letter written between the Wesley brothers is extant for nearly two years between May 1783 and April 1785,120 and while it is true that letters between them had declined in number since the 1750s, one would have expected some written communication during this crucial period.121 The possibility should be considered that controversial material was destroyed by the Wesley family or by representatives of the Methodist Church. One should recall in this context the well-known incident of John Pawson burning large quantities of John Wesley's papers in 1797 at the back of City Road

Chapel.122 Such destruction was not always the product of intent to protect reputations,123 but for certain proof of Methodism's propensity to tamper with the record, one should turn to Whitehead's life of John Wesley. The ﬁrst edition of 1793–6 contains the following contentious statement:

The year 1784 brings us to the grand climacterical year of Methodism ...if we regard the changes which now took place in the form of its original constitution. Not that these changes destroyed at once the original constitution of Methodism; this would have been too great a shock; but the seeds of its corruption and ﬁnal dissolution, were this year solemnly planted, and have since been carefully watered and nursed by a powerful party among the preachers.124

A second edition was published in 1806, two years after Whitehead died but containing his revisions. In this work the passage quoted above was changed to omit any disparaging reference to preachers or 119 'Like Brer Rabbit, however, Charles lay low and said nothing.' Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 273.

121 It is known from references in other letters that Charles and John did indeed correspond at this time concerning the ordinations, although the letters in question have not survived.

122 Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 135–6.

123 Pawson apparently considered any documents that did not centre on the study of divinity to be worthy only of destruction. Stevenson, City Road Chapel, 135.

124 Whitehead, John Wesley, ii. 404

206 Methodism at the Crossroads the corruption of Methodism's constitution.125 Fortunately, a document has survived that illustrates the very process whereby Whitehead was pressured into making this change. In June 1798 John Pawson wrote the following to the preacher Henry Moore:

I have read Dr Whitehead's Life of Mr Wesley ...I have marked every part of it which I think wrong ...There are some things in it misrepresented, I know, but he was led wrong by Mr Charles Wesley's papers. These chieﬂy are:

Mr McNabb's aﬀair; the preaching in the New Chapel when it was ﬁrst built; the Sacrament, Ordination, and the Conference Deed. But if the Conference is willing, he [Whitehead] would be glad they print a new edition ...He would read the book over with a few of the preachers who are acquainted with those things and leave out what is judged wrong, and alter what is misrepresented.126

Such evidence shows conclusively that in the post-Wesley period there was a largely successful and deliberate attempt to write the history of early Methodism from a speciﬁc viewpoint, namely that which was most sympathetic to separatist preachers, while at the same time downplaying the existence of Methodism's bitter in-ﬁghting.

Charles Wesley may have been lying low, but he was certainly not idle. In the months after the ordinations, he was in constant communication with his Bristol allies and consulting Lord Chief

Justice Mansﬁeld regarding the legal position. He also wrote verse attacking his brother which was circulated in Bristol,127 to which he must have consented. Charles's replies to Durbin and Pine survive in shorthand on the back of their letters and reveal the extent of his anger and the lengths to which he was prepared to go, or at least to contemplate going. On 3 December 1784, Durbin sent to Charles a 125 Whitehead, The Life of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A. some time Fellow of Lincoln

College, Oxford. Collected from his private papers and printed works; and written at the request of his executors. To which is preﬁxed, some account of his ancestors and relations; with the life of the Rev. Charles Wesley, A.M. collected from his private journal and never before published. The whole forming a History of Methodism, in which the principles and economy of the Methodists are unfolded copied chieﬂy from a London edition, published by John Whitehead, M.D. To which is subjoined, an appendix, containing characteristics of the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, as given by several learned contemporaries,

2 vols. new and revised edn. (Dublin: printed by John Jones, 1805–6), ii. 383–4.

126 Wesley Swift, 'Headingley Papers IV: Two Letters from John Pawson to Henry Moore', Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 29 (1953–4), 135.

127 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 273.

Methodism at the Crossroads 207 document that Durbin himself had written but signed 'a dissenter'.

This applauded John Wesley for ﬁnally acknowledging 'that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain ...so he is convinced of his error, in what he has wrote in defence of the Church of England ordination ...we hope that Mr

John Wesley will continue ﬁrm ...and he may bring many thousands over to us dissenters'.128 In his covering note, Durbin suggested that Charles give this to a friend to insert in the London press, which was something that Charles himself had mentioned as an option.129

This deliberate attempt to damage John Wesley's credibility was the tactic that one might have expected from anti-Methodists, yet it was proposed by inﬂuential men within Wesley's own movement who had good reason to expect that Charles would endorse their action. In his shorthand response on the back of Durbin's letter, Charles drew back:

'I thought I owed it to my brother to talk over the aﬀair in plain[?] calm love. My letter was not lost. He disclaims any design of further

[ordinations?] ...You see then [this] is not the time for his friends to argue with him. I shall screen him all I can and stop slings ...Your letter I lay by for the present.'

Charles may have hesitated at conniving in this speciﬁc public attack, but it was not long before he did cross the line. In 1785,

Strictures on the substance of a sermon preached at Baltimore at the ordination of the Rev. Francis Asbury ...by Thomas Coke was published in London. Its anonymous author described himself as a 'Methodist of the Church of England' and its contents constituted a sharp attack on Coke and by implication, John Wesley. In their listings of AntiMethodist publications,130 Green and Field identiﬁed the author as Charles Wesley based on a comment in a letter from the preacher

Charles Boone to Samuel Bardsley:131 'I suppose you have heard of Mr C. Wesley's Strictures on Dr Coke's ordination sermon and 128 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 3 December 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

129 'as you say, a friend may put something in the papers'. Ibid.

130 Richard Green, Anti-Methodist Publications issued during the Eighteenth Century (London: C. H. Kelly, 1902), 139; Clive Field, 'Anti-Methodist Publications of the Eighteenth Century: A Revised Bibliography', Bulletin of the John Rylands University

Library of Manchester, 73:2 (Summer 1991), 237.

131 See MS annotation to that eﬀect in an unknown hand in the MCA copy of Green's work.

208 Methodism at the Crossroads his further reactions against a separation from the Church.'132 John Wesley's thoughts on this matter have not been recorded, although if his preachers had known the identity of the anonymous 'Methodist of the Church of England', it is inconceivable that he did not.

There are many gaps in the historical coverage of the ordinations and their background. Durbin's 'Letter by a Dissenter' has never been referred to despite its illustration of the bitterness that the ordinations caused, and what may be termed the persecution of the Bristol trustees has never been discussed in detail, at least with regard to the role of John Wesley. The Church Methodists were convinced that ordinations would in time be extended to the British work133 and in this they were proved correct. At the Conference of 1785,

Wesley ordained three preachers for Scotland on the grounds that the Anglican Church was not the Established Church in that country and ordinations did not therefore constitute separation;134 others followed in 1786 and 1787 for Scotland, British North America, and the West Indies.135 Finally in 1788, shortly after Charles Wesley died, his brother ordained Alexander Mather for the work in England. The events of 1784 had clearly paved the way for the establishment of a separate ministry in Britain as well as overseas.

On 14 August 1785, Charles wrote to John begging him to desist from further ordinations until God had made his will known.136 John published his response in the Arminian Magazine,137 but without naming his brother as the recipient—it is tempting to speculate that he may have been prompted to go into print by the fact that Charles had recently published his own attack on Thomas Coke. In this reply,

John defended his right to ordain, but reiterated his determination not to break with the Church. He also displayed a stinging irritation with his correspondent: 'If you will go hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept close to 132 Charles Boone to Samuel Bardsley, MS letter, 3 November 1784 (MCA: PLP

133 Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 4 November 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

134 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 276–9. 135 Ibid. 279.

137 John Wesley, 'On the Church: in a Letter to the Rev. [Charles Wesley]', The Arminian Magazine for the Year 1786, consisting chieﬂy of extracts and original treatises on universal redemption, 9 (January 1786), 50–1.

Methodism at the Crossroads 209 me, I might have done better. However, with or without help I creep on.' Charles replied on 8 September 1785 pleading with his brother to see that Coke had already separated and was intent on founding a 'new episcopal Church of his own'.138 Losing all patience, John replied that as there could be no agreement between them, the matter might as well rest.139

The reaction within the societies to this sequence of events has never been touched on in detail and it is to this that attention is now turned.

Chapel trustees such as Durbin and Pine were ﬁercely opposed to separation and events from later in the 1790s indicate that the majority of their colleagues would have agreed with them. The trustees were, however, only a small minority within the movement and their views may not have been representative. Unfortunately, the written opinions of ordinary Methodists concerning the ordinations are virtually non-existent and instances of general society reaction are also few in number, but suﬃcient evidence does exist to allow certain theories to be aired.

The Bristol Methodists were apparently against the ordinations, although this view is based on Durbin's testimony which may be unreliable.140 There was also a separation in 1785 at Plymouth

Dock led by the itinerant William Moore. Writing in 1829, Adam Clarke stated that Moore and over one hundred people had left the Methodists to establish their own congregation.141 The separatists accounted for slightly less than half the membership in the Plymouth circuit;142 the rest remained loyal and Clarke, who was sent to repair the damage, was able to report that 'we had a great revival of religion that year'. Moore's justiﬁcation for leaving the Connexion touches directly on an important aspect of the Anglican-Methodist question.

He claimed to be responding to concern that people could not receive 138 Quoted by Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 277.

140 'hundreds in Bristol know of the apology and ordination, and are much concerned at it'. Henry Durbin to CW, MS letter, 25 November 1784 (MCA: Letters chieﬂy to the Wesleys, vol. ii).

141 Adam Clarke, 'Original Letter of Dr Adam Clarke', Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 18 (1931–2), 22.

142 Based on the membership ﬁgure of 222 given for the Plymouth society in 1784.

Conference Minutes, i. 171.

210 Methodism at the Crossroads the Sacraments from the itinerants—'the instruments of their Conversion', and that rather than receive them from others, they would rather leave both the Methodists and the Church of England.143 This grievance may have applied to some of the Plymouth Methodists, but not necessarily to all, and when one looks at the local circumstances, other explanations do suggest themselves.

Plymouth Dock came into being in 1691 with the construction of a naval dockyard two miles from Plymouth,144 and by the end of the eighteenth century the Dock had a population of over 23,000,

7,000 more than Plymouth itself.145 The opportunities for Anglican worship in the two towns were very poor; until 1823, there were just two churches to serve a combined population that had reached 55,000 by 1820,146 and neither of the churches was situated at the Dock. It is hardly surprising that local Methodists felt starved of the Sacraments and as many of them would have only recently immigrated in search of employment, they would have had no sentimental attachment to the local parish church. Plymouth

Dock appears therefore to represent a good example of Methodism ﬁlling a vacuum left by Anglican failure to respond to demographic change. In such cases, a strong argument can be made that many people were, initially at least, separatists of convenience rather than conviction.

Clarke's letter of 1829 raises other interesting points about Methodism in the early days of his itinerancy, which commenced in 1782. He had apparently 'found many people in most places ...very weary of not having the ...Lord's Supper administered in our own chapels',147 but it was not until 1788 that he began to view this as evidence of a wish to separate from the Church of England. In that year, he was surprised to discover that many people in Bristol were indiﬀerent when he tried to distribute printed copies of a sermon in favour of remaining within the Church, and this 'among the people that were considered the purest Methodists in England'. He went on to state the startling opinion that 'it was not our Societies who held the 143 Clarke, 'Original Letter of Dr Adam Clarke', 24–5.

144 Richard Worth, History of Plymouth from the earliest period to the present time, 2nd edn. revised and augmented (Plymouth: W. Brenden & Sons, 1873), 83–4.

145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 159.

147 Clarke, 'Original Letter of Dr Adam Clarke', 22.

Methodism at the Crossroads 211 High Church opinions—but the preachers'.148 It is clear from the rest of the letter that Clarke, despite his own pro-Anglican sympathies, reached the conclusion that by the end of Wesley's life, the majority of British Methodists supported separation and that the preachers were simply responding to popular demand.

If Clarke is correct, one would expect a deﬁnite call to leave the Church by the majority within a large number of the societies during the 1780s, but there does not appear to have been any such widespread agitation. The Plymouth Dock separatists wanted the Sacraments but that may have stemmed from nothing other than an inability to celebrate in a parish church. As for the Bristol society in 1788, their indiﬀerence to yet another development in a long running saga may have been precisely that, indiﬀerence rather than dissatisfaction. After all, Clarke himself, for all his later conviction, did not equate a call for administration of the Sacraments with a wish to leave the Church until at least 1788.149 The most perceptive comment concerning the relationship with the Church of England was voiced by John Wesley that same year when he spoke in Conference against Coke's formal proposal that Methodism part company with the Anglicans: '[Coke] skips like a ﬂea; I creep like a louse. He would tear all from top to bottom—I will not tear but unstitch.'150 Wesley knew through experience and instinct, the pace at which to proceed with regard to silent opinion within the movement. In this context, it must again be emphasized that Methodism was not just the societies, the trustees, the preachers, or even the Wesleys, but also encompassed the many thousands who attended worship, but did not seek formal membership and would never have countenanced a deﬁnitive break with the Church.

The events of 1784 were a watershed, as John Wesley steered the societies onto a course that resulted in Methodist independence in the United States and de facto separation in Britain. With regard to the ordinations, the catalyst was North America, but it could be argued that Wesley would have ordained in any case, if not necessarily at that time. For nearly ﬁfty years he had laboured tirelessly to build a 'Connexion' and he had not allowed loyalty to denomination, marriage, or family tradition to stand in his way. For a man with such a sense

148 Ibid. 23. 149 Ibid. 22–3. 150 Ibid. 25–6.

212 Methodism at the Crossroads of destiny and matching determination, it was inconceivable that this monument to God's glory would die with him.

Charles on the other hand remained true to Methodism's original aim of breathing new life into the national Church. In the early years he was as radical as his brother and until the end of his life, continued to acquiesce in breaches of church order, such as leading Methodist worship in the hours of Anglican services. Such contradictions paint a picture of a man who, in true Wesley fashion, was prepared to stand on a point of principle, but there were innovations that Charles

Wesley refused to contemplate, ordination being a prime example, and his was not a lone voice. Without the beneﬁt of hindsight, there was little reason to believe that he was incorrect in his fears for the future. The foundations for the eclipse of his brand of Methodism, which was in truth the original vision behind the Revival, were laid in 1784: it was not the preachers, Anglican prejudice or the wishes of the societies, but John Wesley's will that was the decisive factor in this transition from revival movement to denomination.

The ordinations did not, however, represent the end of the ChurchMethodist story. In the United States the break with the past was clean and decisive—separation would have certainly occurred without John Wesley's intervention, and the ordinations can even be seen as his last desperate attempt to retain some inﬂuence over Francis

Asbury and the upstart Americans, but in Britain another generation was to pass before the separation controversy was ﬁnally laid to rest; even then the legacy of Charles Wesley's struggle did not completely fade away.