386 Gareth Lloyd, Charles Wesley and the Struggle for Methodist

386 Book Reviews / Ecclesiology 5 (2009) 362–402 Gareth Lloyd, Charles Wesley and the Struggle for Methodist Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), xiv + 258 pp. £51.00. ISBN 978-0-19- 929574-6 (hbk). In the struggle for Methodist identity, Charles Wesley led the losing side. Th e history of that struggle was written by the victors and their heirs, and he still lacks a full and fair biography. Th is well-written book, though based mainly on published sources and avowedly ‘not a conventional biography’, brings Charles out of his brother’s shadow, explains what he stood for and documents his contribution to Methodism, which went far beyond the hymns for which he is justly famous. It also corrects the widespread misconception that Charles’ loyalty to the Church of England made him an isolated fi gure among eighteenth-century Methodists. Th e short account of Methodism’s earliest years is not entirely satisfactory. Th e London Foundery Society was formed by the Wesleys in 1739 in prepara- tion for their separation from the Moravian-infl uenced Fetter Lane Society; it was not an Anglican religious society that placed itself under their supervision (as suggested on p. 33). Lloyd’s claim that after 1740 Charles’ alienation from the Moravians ‘kept pace with that of his brother’ (p. 49) ignores evidence that for several months in 1741 he was drawn to them to the extent of considering reunion. For many years Charles breached church discipline just as much as John. To his life’s end he preached in parishes without the incumbent’s agreement (and, it might be added, celebrated Holy Communion in unconsecrated buildings). Lloyd argues that initially Charles supported lay preaching, which was essen- tial to Methodism’s growth, more than John. Th e Wesleys got away with breaching canon law, he suggests, because of a new Anglican spirit of toler - ance and inclusiveness born of earlier bitter experience. It was not some Latitudinarian but the high-church canonist Bishop Gibson of London who, when challenged by Charles to discipline him, backed away, saying, ‘O why will you push things to an extreme? I do not inhibit you.’ Lloyd highlights the brothers’ relationship, arguably for both the most important of their lives – a ‘strange yet complementary union’ of ‘mutual dependence’ that ‘existed on such a deep level as to defy rational explanation’. It was a ‘powerful weapon’ in the 1740s but ‘a source of great bitterness there- after’, the turning point coming in 1749, when Charles married Sarah Gwynne and prevented John from marrying Grace Murray. Trust was destroyed, and this was the context in which the brothers struggled over how to respond to pressure from some for lay presidency and separation from the Established Church. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI 10.1163/174413609X12466137866627 Book Reviews / Ecclesiology 5 (2009) 362–402 387 As Lloyd also points out, the Wesleys were ‘hoist on their own High Church petard’; they advocated frequent communion and proper celebration but lacked suffi cient ordained ministers to off er these where the Church did not. Charles resolutely maintained the distinction between breaching discipline and abandoning a fundamental principle such as episcopal ordination, whereas John convinced himself that he was as good as a bishop and eventually ordained presbyters himself. By 1756 Charles saw his role in Methodism as damage limitation, commenting: ‘I stay not so much to do good as to prevent evil’. He ceased itinerating and resided in Bristol, increasingly looked after the London society and moved there in 1771. Lloyd shows that Charles Wesley’s ultimate loyalty to the Church of England enjoyed more support among lay Methodists than is commonly supposed. Norwich, where lay preachers were presiding at Holy Communion in 1760, was unique in that most members there were ex-nonconformists. It may have been because church loyalists were in the majority elsewhere that John Wesley rejected the innovation. Indeed, Lloyd doubts ‘whether Methodist public opinion in Britain would have countenanced formal separation at any time during the eighteenth century’. John Wesley’s fi rst ordinations, for America in 1784, were unanimously opposed by his senior preachers, and in 1786 the Conference voted against an ordination for Yorkshire. Charles remained loyal to the original vision of revitalizing the Church of England rather than creating a new church. However, after the Wesleys’ deaths the 1795 ‘Plan of Pacifi cation’, whereby the sacraments could be administered with the consent of the majority of a society’s trustees, stewards and leaders, signalled the defeat of ‘Church Methodism’. In response, many Anglican loyalists left – a split that was hidden by Methodism’s phenomenal growth. Some stayed, however, remaining true to the original plan well into the nineteenth century. Th ey included Methodism’s wealthiest and most infl uential lay members, and many ordinary Methodists too. Th e trustees of Wesley’s Chapel prevented non-episcopally ordained itinerants from presiding at Communion there until 1826, 35 years after John’s death, and the Newcastle and Bristol trustees were equally staunch. ‘Anglican Methodism … remained an integral part of the denominational make-up’ and its contribution to the Wesleyan Methodist Church’s unique identity and character was Charles Wesley’s legacy. Th e Church of England has responded diff erently to the Methodists’ twenty-fi rst century counterparts. Canons have been amended to facilitate ‘mission initiatives’ which ignore parish boundaries and celebrate Holy Communion in unconsecrated buildings. ‘Church Methodism’, with its devo- tion to the Prayer Book liturgy, looks very Anglican by comparison. .

Load more