To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, November 29, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, I am well pleased that it is you who give me an opportunity of considering this important question, because you are able to bring the whole strength of the cause; so that in answering you I may answer all. I will first endeavor to state the case, and then argue a little upon it. When our Lord preached on the mountain or St. Paul by the river-side, there was no such thing as patronage. But as soon as Christians grew rich some of them built preaching-houses (afterwards called churches); and those who built were called patrons, and appointed whom they pleased to preach in them. When revenues were annexed to these houses,-they disposed of houses and revenues together. Indeed, the patrons generally gave the lands from which the revenues arose. At the Reformation many rich men built new churches, and still claimed to dispose of them; and many Presbyterians and Independents built preaching-houses at their own expense, and placed in them whom they pleased. But others entrusted their powers with a few friends whom they could confide in. I built the first preaching-house which was built for the people called Methodists namely, at Bristol in the year 1739. And, knowing no better, I suffered the first deed of trust to be drawn in the Presbyterian form. But Mr. Whitefield, hearing of this, wrote me a warm letter asking, Do you consider what you do If you let the trustees name the preachers, they may exclude you and all your brethren from preaching in the houses you have built. Pray let the deed be immediately canceled; to which the trustees immediately agreed.

Afterwards I built the preaching-houses in Kingswood and at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But I took care that none but myself should have any right to name preachers for them. About this time a preaching-house was built at Birstall by contributions and collections. But John Nelson, knowing no better, suffered a deed to be drawn without my consent or knowledge giving twelve or thirteen persons a power not only of placing but even of displacing the preachers at their pleasure. Had I then known of this I should have insisted on having it altered as that at Bristol. Soon after this I was informed that the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle were my property, and as such liable to descend to my heirs. I immediately procured a form to be drawn up by three of the most eminent counselors in London, whereby not only these houses but all hereafter to be built might be settled on such a plan as would infallibly secure them from the heirs of the proprietor for the purpose originally intended. In process of time, Birstall being too small for the congregation, it was moved to build a new one; and a deed was prepared which (like the old) gave a few people the power both to place and displace preachers at pleasure. When I heard this, I vehemently objected to it, and positively refused to sign it. But in the evening several came and strongly urged me to sign, averring that the old deed could not be altered; on which consideration I at length unwillingly complied. This was mentioned at the ensuing Conference See Works, viii. 329-32.; and it was asked What can be done with regard to the preaching-house at Birstall 'The answer was, If the trustees still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan, (1) let a plain state of the case be drawn up; (2) let a collection be made throughout all England in order to purchase ground and to build another preaching-house as near the present as may be.

But why should not all our houses be settled like that at Birstall Because, if the trustees have a power to place and displace preachers, then (1) Itinerant preaching is at an end. When the trustees in any place have fixed a preacher they like, the rotation of preachers there is at an end at least, till they pick a quarrel with him and turn him out. (2) While he stays, how he will be gagged, since if he displeases the trustees he will lose his bread! and how will he dare to put a trustee out of the Society (3) If any beside the Conference name the preachers, surely it should not be twenty or thirty men, but all the Society unless you would say all the congregation. (4) The power of these trustees is greater than that of any noble-man-yea, or of the King himself. He can put in a preacher where he is patron; but he cannot put him out. 'But since this power will not commence till after your death, why should you oppose it' Because none else can oppose it so effectually. I have more influence than any other person is likely to have after me. And every one sees I am not pleading my own cause (as they would say the other preachers were); I am pleading not for myself, but for every preacher who desires to act on the old Methodist plan. I am pleading for Mr. Hopper, Mr. Bradburn, Mr. Benson, that you may not be liable to be turned out of all or any of our houses without any reason given at the pleasure of twenty or thirty men. I say 'or any'; for I see no sufficient reason for giving up any house in England. And if one were given up, more would follow; it would be as the letting out of water. 'But you did consent to it with regard to this house.' Yes, I was worked into an unwilling consent and even this was grounded on the positive assertion that the deed could not be altered. Whereas it was actually altered in the second deed, not in one but in twenty places.

The plain conclusion is, if the trustees will not alter the deed, they must keep their house, and we must bu'11d another. 'But then you occasion endless strife, animosity, confusion, and destroy the work of God.' No, not I: it is these trustees that cause all the strife, animosity, and confusion. I go on in the old way. It is they that, by going out of it, hinder, yea destroy, the work of God. I sit down with the loss; leave them the house, and go on as if they were not in the world. It is they who do the wrong, who bawl with all their might and pour out bitter words. But let them take care; for God heareth, and He will arise and maintain His own cause. I am Your affectionate brother.