Similarities To, and Differences From, The Wesleyans
Perceived irreconcilable differences led to the schism of the Methodists movement and the formation of Primitive Methodism. In the early twentieth century, however, the Wesleyans and Primitives were reconciled and reunited.
The structure of the Primitive Methodists, though superficially broadly similar to the Wesleyan Connexion, also showed some pronounced differences. Both Primitives and Wesleyans employed a connexional system, employing a combination of itinerant and local preachers. Both their organisations included an array of local, circuit, district, and connexional officials and committees.
According to James Obelkevich, Primitive Methodism was more decentralised and democratic. Julia Werner concurs that the movement was decentralised. Most decisions and day-to-day policy were decided at a local level. The circuits were virtually autonomous and their administration was not dominated by church officials, but by the laity.
The expansion of the movement, through the commissioning of new missions, was directed by individuals or circuits, and not by a central authority. Decisions affecting the whole movement were taken at the annual meetings. Even these meetings were highly democratic, with the laity outnumbering the itinerants in voting power. The "church" could not dictate policy to its members. Compare the expulsions of Kilham from the Wesleyans (1795) and an outspoken "malcontent" from the Primitive Methodists (1824). While Bourne had to engage in a long and difficult argument before winning a vote, Dr Coke rejected a democratic decision-making process. In the early years of Primitive Methodism the membership had considerable power and freedom.
Primitive Methodist preachers and communities differed from their Wesleyan counterparts. Although the Wesleyans tended towards respectability, Primitives were poor and revivalist. According to J. E. Minor Primitive Methodist preachers were less educated and more likely "to be at one with their congregations" or even "dominated by them". Primitive Methodist preachers were plain speaking in contrast to Wesleyan services "embellished with literary allusions and delivered in high-flown language". Primitive Methodist preachers were plainly dressed and poorly paid. Though Wesleyan ministers in 1815 could command about £100, a house and a horse, the Primitive Methodist superintendent of the Gainsborough circuit received £62 12s in 1852. The second minister at the Gainsborough circuit received £36, about as much a farm labourer. If Primitive Methodist preachers did not have enough money they were expected to turn to the Lord for support. There was also a disparity between the wealth of their congregations. The Wesleyan congregations were more likely to be from a lower middle class, or artisan, background than the Primitive Methodists. Primitive Methodists were most likely to be small farmers, servants, mill workers, colliers, agricultural labourers, weavers and framework knitters.
The Primitive Methodist movement exalted its poor congregations by glorifying plain dress and speech. They promoted it for two reasons. Firstly they thought plain dress was enjoined by the Gospel and secondly because it made them distinctive. In a time when Wesleyans sought assimilation and respectability, they wanted to stand out as a "peculiar people". The Primitive Methodist movement made a virtue out of their difference.
Read more about this topic: Primitive Methodism