Mikel Lasa i l’spleen

The 1749 collection of duties and responsibilities also gives insight into the level of authority the assistants had been given. The assistant was to be Wesley’s eyes and ears in the circuit, and a ‘little Wesley’ in exercising oversight locally. There was the oversight of the other itinerants in the circuit, the societies and the accounts. There was the weighty authority to admit or eject a person from membership. He could also recommend and set men to travel as itinerants purely on his own authority. In a letter to John Wesley, John Pawson recalled that: ‘About Lady-Day 1762, the Assistant employed me among the local preachers… In August following, the Conference was at Leeds and the Assistant desired me to attend…Several young men were proposed as candidates for travelling…I was ordered for the York circuit.’¹⁰

It may be considered surprising that despite assistants being drawn from Wesley’s ‘lay’ travelling preachers, they were given so much authority and responsibility. Such a move could be interpreted as an act of desperation on Wesley’s part; he realising reluctantly, that without delegation, the expanding Connexion would become impossible to manage. Alternatively it may have been a brave display of confidence in people who generally had little previous experience of

‘management’. As noted in chapter four, the level of authority given to the assistants together with the concomitant lack of democratic involvement by the members became part of Alexander Kilham’s complaint about the Wesleyan system in the late 1790’s.

While Wesley did give his assistants a great deal of authority, he nevertheless monitored their performance very closely, and it would appear that his expectations of them often exceeded their ability to deliver on the many tasks he had given them. In 1763 he complained that ‘not one in three’ had executed the office of assistant to his satisfaction. Some of his complaint concerned practical matters such

10 From “An Account of Mr. John Pawson”, in the Arminian Magazine, 1779, 36-37.

174

as ensuring a private room and a bed to himself for every preacher.

Some concerned the fact that the societies were not receiving the approved literature.¹¹ However, he also appears to have given responsibility with one hand, only to take it away with the other. Having given responsibility, in 1749, for seeing that the other preachers behave well, he was fussing in 1763 about not having been ‘…sent word whether they did or no…’¹²

The qualification for the role of assistant was simple, yet profound. To the Question ‘How shall an Assistant be qualified for this charge?’ The Answer was: ’Not so much by superior gifts as by walking closely with God.’¹³ The emphasis on spiritual maturity rather than ‘gifts’ shows that in the eighteenth century at least, the role was not limited to those with a better education, seniority or talents in leadership.

Named assistants can be followed through the early Minutes of Conference and it can be seen that though the designation was annual, some retained the responsibility for some time, despite changing circuits mostly every year. For example John Furz, in the years 1766-1774, was successively assistant of the Cornwall East, Devon (2 years), Wiltshire North, Oxfordshire, Pembrokeshire, Brecon, Gloucestershire, and Cornwall West circuits. Eventually however, he returned to the ranks as the second man in Gloucester circuit in 1775 and the third man in Wiltshire North in 1776. A similar pattern was followed by Thomas Johnson, another name picked at random from the list of assistants. ¹⁴ No reason is given but possibilities are increasing

11 He expected Kempis, Instructions for Children and Primitive Physic, at least, to be

in every member’s house. Large Minutes 1763 edn. in Rack, Works, vol.10, 867.

12 Ibid, 866- 867.

13Q. 4, “Minutes of conference 1749” in Rack, Works, vol. 10, 232. The Large Minutes (1763 edn.) added ‘…by understanding and loving discipline, ours in particular, and by loving the Church of England, and resolving not to separate from it’. Rack, Works, vol. 10, 864.

14 Thomas Johnson served from 1766-1776 as assistant in the Cheshire, Derbyshire

(two years), Lincolnshire East, Yarm, Devon, Haworth (two years) circuits before becoming third, then second man in Birstall circuit (two years) then third man in Leeds circuit. “Minutes of Conference 1766-1776”, Rack, Works, vol.10.

175

age, a greater number of suitable candidates to choose from, or even expressed preference.

Assistants were not always men of long experience. In 1792 the travelling preacher John Braithwaite wrote that while still a probationer,¹⁵ he acted as an assistant, although he felt he fulfilled the role ‘in a defective manner’. He was so challenged by the responsibility that he thought he would rather stop travelling than find himself as an assistant again.¹⁶ In a statistical study of the ages of assistants, John Lenton noted that the most common pattern was to be an assistant

‘after four or five years from entry until middle age then not again’.¹⁷ He offered the suggestion that Wesley chose younger men because of the need for administrative ability, and what Lenton called ‘business considerations’.¹⁸ But as mentioned earlier, spiritual maturity appears to have been the principal qualification. By the end of the nineteenth century, assistants must have tended to be older men. The 1891 conference resolved that:

Any senior minister in health and vigour who wishes to be relieved of the cares of superintendency, and is willing to take the second or third position in a circuit, with the conditions of that position, may be so appointed.¹⁹

This suggests that returning to a non-superintendent position was considered an unusual step at that stage. It also hints that reverting to a more lowly position could present problems.

15 At this time, travelling preachers had a four-year probationary period (but no formal

education) before being received into Full Connexion. Note 438 in Rack, Works, vol.10, 416 refers to Michael Moorhouse still being ‘on trial’ when designated an assistant in 1773.

16 Robert Dickinson, The Life of the Rev. John Braithwaite, Wesleyan Methodist

Minister, compiled from his letters by Robert Dickinson, containing an account of his travels, labours in the ministry and writings (London: 1825),121.

17 John Lenton, John Wesley’s Preachers: A social and statistical analysis of the

British and Irish preachers who entered the Methodist itinerancy before 1791 (Milton Keynes. Colorado Springs. Hyderabad; Paternoster, 2009), 83.

18 Ibid, 83

19“Miscellaneous Resolutions”, Minutes of Conference 1891 (London: Wesleyan-Methodist Bookroom, 1891), 229.

176

Over a number of years the list of assistant’s duties was added to and adapted, as can be seen from the list in The Large Minutes (1791 edn.).²⁰

As the years progressed, the usefulness of having an assistant in each circuit became apparent. When the question of providing for preacher’s wives was raised at the Conference of 1753, it was the assistant who was given the task of finding out what ‘wants’ each wife had and making sure these were met first out of the circuit funds.²¹ He was also required to monitor the activities of the stewards, having first instructed them in their duties.²² In the Minutes of 1755, in a section on maintaining discipline among the preachers, the question was asked:

‘What Assistant enforces uniformly every branch of the Methodist plan on the preachers and people? Visits all the societies quarterly?’²³ The assistant was thus also an instrument of discipline and control in the application of Wesley’s demanded discipline in the societies.

Reading the early Minutes of Conference, it is noticeable how both detailed and miscellaneous are the further instructions to the assistants. It is as though Wesley put together a random list from whatever came into his head as something needing attention. A good example is found in the 1766 Minutes.²⁴ At question 27 Wesley asked if a number of his sermons were being distributed, and if not, the assistants are to ‘…do it now’. The same question 27 had an additional paragraph about each assistant insisting on cleanliness and decency everywhere and also giving ‘an account to his successor of the state of

20Minutes of Several Conversations between the Rev. Mr. Wesley and others. From the year 1744, to the year 1789. [referred to as the Large Minutes] (London: 1791), 28, ECCO. Following this list, Wesley reprimanded assistants who have failed to attend to these duties with sufficient rigour.

21 Q.8.A.,”Minutes of Conference 1753” in Rack, Works, vol.10, 267.

22 Q.10A, ibid.

23“Minutes of Conference1756”, Rack Works, vol.10, 276. In his sermon In God’s Vineyard Wesley wrote that because members were so numerous and the risk of backsliding great, he expected the ‘principal preacher’ in each circuit to examine every member each quarter. Albert Outler, ed., Works, vol. 3, Sermons III, (Nashville Abingdon Press, 1986), Sermon 107.

24“Minutes of Conference1766”, Rack, Works, vol.10, 324-325.

177

things in his circuit’. A third paragraph under the same question reminded assistants so to organise the preaching in their circuits ‘that no preacher may be obliged to miss the [parish] church more than two Sundays in a month’. These points illustrate again, Wesley’s concerns for puritanical discipline, the general and spiritual education of the members, and his belief in his movement as continuing to be within the Church of England.²⁵ In the years up to Wesley’s death in 1791, various other duties were added to the work of the assistants, including the ‘diligent’ superintendence of building ‘houses’ [preaching houses] to avoid poor construction.²⁶ While it is a mistake to think that Wesley set up a preformed connexional structure he certainly had firm ideas of the type of movement he wanted it to be and how these ideas were to be implemented. The assistants were an important element in achieving his objectives.