Cecil H. Polhill Pentecostal Layman

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Cecil H. Polhill-Pentecostal Fr. Peter Hocken* Old Etonian missionary Angeles: such Henry Polhill. However, 116 Layman meetings of Tibet and an English in the back streets of Los life, the life of Cecil not for curiosity’s on the borders country squire at noisy multi-racial contrasts suggest an interesting this study is undertaken sake, but because Polhill was a significant figure in the origins of the Like his friend, the Revd. Alexander Boddy, Sunderland in north-east England, Pentecostal movement. vicar of All Saints, Monkwearmouth, Cecil Polhill was a Pentecostal faithful member of the established pioneer who remained until his death a Church of England. Unlike 1 Boddy, Polhill has not until now attracted any researcher. Background Cecil’s upbringing Brought up six miles north-east Bedfordshire and Emily Frances, his wife. Cecil Henry Polhill was bom on February 23, 1860, the second son of Captain Frederick C. Polhill-Turner2 was characteristic of the landed gentry of the time. in Howbury Hall, an early 19th century country house some of the county town of Bedford,3 Cecil was accus- tomed to the life of “the county,” his father having been High Sheriff for in 1875 and Member of Parliament for Bedford for a number of years. In due course he was sent to Eton, the most famous the elite English public schools, where he achieved the top distinction of inclusion in the college cricket team. He then proceeded to Jesus College, Cambridge in preparation for a career in the among sporting *Peter Hocken is the current costal Studies Gaithersburg, Maryland. and a member of the Secretary Mother of God community 1980), 2The name Turner was added for the Society of Pente- in 1 The life and work of Alexander Boddy has been studied Martin Robinson in his M.A. dissertation, later re-titled Two Winds by Blowing. See also the Alexander anonymous Boddy: Pastor and Prophet (author Peter Lavin, Sunderland, and Edith Blumhofer “Alexander Boddy and the Rise 1986) of Pentecostalism in Great Britain,” Pneuma 8.1 (Spring, 1986),3140. Both Boddy and Polhill are included in Donald Gee’s recollections entitled, These Men I Knew (Nottingham: Assemblies of God, a reprint of articles originally published in Redemption Tidings. when the Captain’s wife received a large legacy, but was later by their children. The gravestone of the parents in Renhold church- is marked dropped Polhill-Turner, whereas those of the sons and their families are shown In this paper, its subject is called Polhill, his designation his time as a Pentecostal Christian, though he was known as Polhill- Turner when he first went to China. 3Howbury Hall is just north of the Cambridge road (A428) and is still in the of the Polhill family. yard simply as Polhill. throughout possession 1 117 army. In accordance with a common custom in landed families, the eldest son Frederick was to inherit Howbury Hall, the second son Cecil would join the Army and the third son Arthur would be ordained and take the family living4 in the nearby village of Renhold Cecil Polhill became a Second Lieutenant in the Bedfordshire Yeo- manry in 1880, transferring to the Queen’s Bays, the Second Dragoon Guards, the following year, joining his regiment in Ireland in the autumn of 1881. At that time he was a typical young subaltern of means, enjoying the pleasures of life, particularly in the sphere of sport.5 Religion was of no obvious significance to him, and he rebuffed the evangelistic sallies of his sister Alice, who had experienced conversion. The only cloud in Polhill’s world at this time was the sudden death of his father as Cecil left for Ireland. It was over a year before Polhill’s indifference to religion was chal- lenged. During his winter leave in 1882-83, Cecil was shocked by a change in his, brother Arthur.6 Cecil remarked one day on Arthur suc- ceeding to the family living, and Arthur confided that he probably would not take the Renhold living as he was thinking of going to China as a missionary. After much argument about Arthur’s new devotion to Jesus Christ, seen as excessive for someone merely thinking of ordination, Cecil was persuaded to read a few verses from the Bible each day. Here we find a characteristic of Cecil Polhill that was constant throughout his life. He was a man of his word. He had promised to read the Bible, and unenthusiastic though he was at the start, he kept his promise. Through 1883, Cecil Polhill was becoming aware that God was after him, noting that during that summer and autumn “the Holy Spirit was quietly at work, putting thoughts into my mind. “7 Two months in Germany proved to be a time of ripening faith, and by his return to England in March 1884, he had “yielded to and trusted in Jesus Christ as my Savior, Lord and Master.”8 Through his brother Arthur, Cecil heard of Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission (CIM). Taylor, a Free Methodist from Barnsley, Yorkshire, one of the great missionaries of the 19th century, had founded CIM in 1865.9 In 1884, he was back in England in search of 4A family living in the Church of England is a parish in which the incumbent is appointed by the family head. 5Besides his ability at cricket, Polhill was keenly interested in hunting and riding. 6Arthur Polhill’s transformation resulted from the Cambridge mission of D. L. in November, 1882. He was one of many undergraduates initially amused that a Moody American preacher should presume to address the nation’s elite, but then poorly-educated touched by God through Moody’s preaching and prayer. 7John Pollock, The Cambridge Seven (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1955), 47.. 8Pollock, The Cambridge Seven, 47. 9The most detailed work on Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission remains Dr & Mrs. Howard Taylor’s two volumes: Hudson Taylor in Early Years: the Growth of a Soul and Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission: the Growth of a Work of 2 118 recruits, and Cecil Polhill sought out Taylor, sensing a call to serve the Lord in China. After some conversation, Hudson Taylor simply sug- gested they kneel down together and seek the Lord’s twill. 10 At the last minute Polhill and his younger brother joined five fellow Cambridge graduates going out to China in early 1885 with the CIM. I I John Pollock writes about the Polhill brothers in his book The Cambridge Seven, as this group came to be known: In view, however, of the suddenness of their acceptance they agreed to “without go being formally connected with the Mission, to see the work first”, a detail which enabled their mother, once they had gone, to speak airily of “my sons travelling in China”, thus hiding from titled and landed friends her disgrace at being the mother of missionaries.12 As a missionary, Cecil Polhill had his heart set on Tibet, a yearning that was later to influence the work of the Pentecostal Missionary Union. After a short time in Shansi province, he moved west nearer to Tibet. Polhill and his wife, Eleanor Agnes, whom he married in China, nearly lost their lives in a riot in 1892, and the rigors of the climate on the Tibetan border took a toll of them both. Polhill was ordered home by the doctors in 1900 and forbidden to continue his missionary vocation. In 1903, he inherited Howbury Hall, but at the end of 1904 lost in quick succession his youngest son and his wife, leaving him at the age of 44 a widower responsible for two sons and a daughter. 13 1905 then represented a crisis point in the life of the new master of Howbury Hall. He found himself landed with the social responsibilities of a county squire, shorn of the support of his wife, some twenty years after sacrificing his worldly and social ambitions for the sake of the gospel. Unable for health reasons to continue his missionary vocation, Polhill must have experienced some tearing of his heart between the cares of Howbury and his missionary zeal. Would he become primarily the country gentleman with higher than average moral and religious principles? Or would he still find a way of serving the evangelization of the “lost millions?” The answer to these questions came through an unexpected development in Los Angeles. Baptized in the Spirit Like many other earnest evangelicals in 1904-05, Cecil Polhill was excited by news of the Welsh revival, which broke out in the second God. London: Morgan & Scott, 1911 & 1918. lOpollock, The Cambridge Seven, 84. lithe other five included C. T. Studd, an England Test cricketer, and S. P. Smith, a rowing blue. The departure of these men for the missions at the same time caused quite a stir in the land. l2pollock, The Cambridge Seven, 91-92.. 13 At this time, Polhill’s surviving sons, Charles and Arthur were 14 and 13, and his daughter, Kathleen, was 11. .. 3 119 half of 1904 and continued unabated throughout the following year.14 Evangelical papers were full of reports about whole village communities being touched by God, chapels being filled daily, services continuing into the night, and notorious sinners being converted. It is quite likely that Polhill visited Wales to drink in this new life, for he begins his witness to his baptism in the Spirit by saying: At the time of the Welsh revival, the Lord gave me just one of His “touches,” opening my heart afresh to spiritual influences and making me hungry for more of his life and love and powers 5 Expectations were raised throughout the world. Many evangelical Christians prayed with new fervor for revival on hearing the news from Wales. 16 In Los Angeles this expectation ran at a high level. 17 In India, signs of revival accompanied by some pentecostal phenomena appeared around 1905.18 But it was in a small and ramshackle building in a poor quarter of Los Angeles that a revival occurred that caused the message to go forth “Pentecost has come.” Polhill mentions hearing of the Indian revival with “great interest and thankfulness” and of receiving the news of “the movement in Los Angeles”19 just before leaving England for a year’s re-visit to China on behalf of the CIM. In China, his main objec- tive was to open the way for new missionary expansion in the area especially dear to him, the Tibetan border.20 Excited and expectant about the news of “Pentecost” coming to Los Angeles, Polhill arranged to return to Britain via the United States. He arrived in Los Angeles around the New Year of 1908.21 He was sur- prised and delighted to find that his old friend from Eton and Cam- bridge, George S tudd22 was also interested in this new movement, and a personal seeker of the baptism in the Spirit. . 14The most detailed available study of this Welsh Revival is Eifion Evans, The Welsh Revival of 1904. Bridgend: Evangelical Press of Wales, 1969. 15A China Missionary’s Witness, 1. 160n the worldwide impact of the Welsh revival of 1904-06, see J. Edwin Orr, The Flaming Tongue. Chicago: The Moody Press, 2nd edn. 1975. l7See Orr, The Flaming Tongue, 78. The well-known Baptist preacher, F. B. Meyer, who had visited Wales, preached in Los Angeles in 1905. lBThe Pentecostal phenomena of tongues, prophecy, and spontaneous simul- taneous praise occurred in the homes for child widows founded by Pandita Ramabai at Mukti near Poona. See S. M. Adhav, Pandita Ramabai (Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1979), 216-236. 19A China Missionary ;r Witness, 1. … 20A China Missionary’s Witness, 1. 2l When describing his baptism in the Spirit on February 3rd. 1908, Polhill says: “it was just a month since reaching Los Angeles.” A China Missionary’s Witness, 6. Studd was an elder brother of the more famous C. T. Studd, who was one 22George of the Cambridge Seven (see note 11 above). 4 120 The seriousness of Polhill’s spiritual search is shown by his spending a whole month in Los Angeles seeking this fuller enduement of the Holy Spirit: It was a month of quiet, continued waiting upon God, as strength and health permitted day and night, and with some fasting.23 Polhill’s witness does not make any direct mention of the chapel at Azusa Street, the focal point of the Pentecostal revival. However, it is virtually inconceivable that one who had traveled specially to Los Angeles on hearing of this move of the Spirit should not visit its point of principal manifestation. However, the failure to mention Azusa Street may mean more than Polhill’s own baptism in the Spirit occurring privately not long after being much encouraged “at a small prayer meeting.”24 Thus Polhill wrote: the rightness of the movement as a whole commended itself to my spiritual instincts (though not of course everything that was done). Coming in contact with it, the Spirit within cried, “God is here! God is with these people!25 It seems likely that this is a description of Polhill’s reaction to Azusa Street, that he was deeply impressed by its basic authenticity, that he could not deny the evident presence of God in those people’s lives, and in their testimonies, but that there were less essential things of which he was less approving. The numerous reports of the almost continuous meetings at Azusa Street between 1906 and 1909 make plain that the services were frequently noisy and that there was much influence of black patterns of emotional expression with which ordinary white Christians, let alone Old Etonians, would not be familiar. It is possible that Polhill, deeply impressed by the extraordinary multi-racial worship and communion at Azusa Street, nonetheless felt that he would feel more at ease in smaller, less rowdy, settings. It may have been more the approach of Nicodemus, though without his fear, than that of the Galilean fishermen. The Lord’s sense of humor may have been manifest in the cir- cumstances of Polhill’s baptism in the Spirit. His major breakthrough occurred “sitting at tea with dear George Studd” when “the love of Jesus was revealed to me as if drinking from a goblet of royal wine. “26 Interestingly, this new level of knowledge of Jesus and the meaning of the cross are regular features of early Pentecostal testimonies, even 23A China Missionary’s Witness, 3. 24A China Missionary’s Witness, 5. 25A China Missionary’s Witness, 2. The pamphlet prints question marks after the last two phrases of this quotation, but these are here changed to exclamation marks, which make more sense in the context. 26A China Missionary’s Witness, 5. Polhill was not a gifted writer, and his attempts at more lyrical expression were often rather cumbersome. 5 121 . though they have not featured in Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit.27 formulations concerning Polhill received the gift of tongues on Monday, February 3rd, 1 908,28 an event which involved some letting go of his sense of respectability and dignity: Acting on a few simple instructions given in the Spirit, combined with words of promise, I yielded my mouth, and gave my voice, in filled with doing so, was twice laughter and sent to the floor. Then the Lord spoke me in a new tongue, making use of body and hands in gesture, for about a minute.29 through . Pentecostal tended the first Whitsuntide Britain, newly filled with after his return, Polhill at- Conference of the new move- Cecil Polhill then resumed his journey to zeal and enthusiasm. Not long (Pentecost) ment to be held in Britain. This was at Sunderland, hosted by the Revd. Alexander Boddy, whom Polhill now met for the first time.30 From that time until World War I, Boddy and Polhill dominated the British Pente- costal scene. Polhill Wai tional or formal links. communication World Promoter (1908-1914) in Britain, World 1914, the movement is a Confidence,31 edited by Boddy, unity and major channel of as Pentecostal Patron and In the development of the Pentecostal movement I marks a clear watershed. Before growing collection of prayer meetings and assemblies with few institu- The annual Pentecost conferences at Sunderland, together with the monthly magazine provided the main focus for Pentecostal within what was evidently one movement. By the end of War I, the movement is heading toward denominationalization and consequent Polhill’s period of greatest contribution is in the six years from his return from Los Angeles until the outbreak in 1914. His particular role can best be examined under three of Meetings Missions; fragmentation. of war headings: 1.. Promoter Promoter of Pentecostal Movement. and Conventions in Britain; 3. Leader in an International 2. ‘ (Spring 1983), 28A China Missionary’s Witness, 6. 29A China Missionary’s Witness, 6. 27See Peter Hocken, “Jesus Christ and the Gifts of the Spirit,” Pneuma 5.1 1-16. to 30Boddy’s search had included a visit to Wales during the Welsh revival and a trip Oslo, Norway on hearing of Pentecostal beginnings there under Thomas Ball Barratt. Boddy was baptized in the in Spirit on December 2nd, 1907, following Barratt’s visit to Sunderland earlier the autumn. See A. A. Boddy, “Pentecost” at Sunderland: A Vicar’s Testimony and Confidence (Feb. 1914), 23-26. 31 The first issue of Confidence appeared in April, 1908, the last in 1926, though in its later years it appeared with decreasing frequency. 6 122 1. Promoter and Conventions steady multiplication meetings were hosted by people of Meetings The Pentecostal movement in its earliest phase spread largely by word of mouth, by the diffusion of pamphlets of prayer meetings. Pentecostal and magazines32 and by the Several of the first prayer who had traveled to Sunderland to receive the baptism in the Spirit.33 By the summer of 1908, thirty-six centers with regular prayer meetings were listed in Confi- dence.34 The flavor of these small prayer meetings is conveyed in this report from Lancashire: quite . At times, great power has pervaded the meetings in a Holy hush, so that the dear people present feared to speak. At other times we were affected in . a different way. All would be filled with joy, and many would break out in Holy laughter and songs of victory and praise, and be bowed down in Holy worship and adoration of the Lamb.35 London, Cecil Polhill. In the autumn The November 1908 issue At this stage, the movement, particularly in the Home counties around received a strong boost through the promotional efforts of of 1908, Polhill acquired a London home with the express purpose of using it as a center for Pentecostal work.36 of Confidence reports: Tongues. prayer meet- ings brought into entered glesworth, the former plumber On Wednesdays at 3 a meeting is held which is open to all; on Fridays for those seeking the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the Sign of the The meetings continue until the second week in December. Pastor Polman and Mr. Niblock have been assisting, and the have been a meetings rallying time for many of the workers and leaders in and around London.37 The opening of Polhill’s London home for Pentecostal his parlor many people who would not otherwise have the front door of a gentleman’s house. Some like Smith Wig- from Bradford, by Stanley Wigglesworth (Bradford); came as speakers.38 32Another British Pentecostal magazine in the earliest years was Victory, edited Frodsham from Bournemouth. Polhill himself produced an occasional newsletter largely concerned with missionary news, originally entitled Fragments of Flame, but around 1911 renamed Flames of Fire. at 33 Among the prominent early Pentecostal leaders in Britain baptized in the Sunderland were: W. Hutchinson and Spirit Stanley Frodsham (Bournemouth); Smith W. H. Sandwith (Bracknell); H. Mogridge (Lytham); Mrs. Cantel (Highbury, London) and J. Tetchner (Sunderland). 341g in England, 13 in Scotland, 3 in Wales and 2 in Ireland. Confidence (July 15, 1908), 2. 35Report from H. Mogridge, Lytham in Confidence (April, 1908), 6. 36See Confidence (Sept. 15th 1908), 13. In later years, Polhill normally spent his summers in London and winters at Howbury Hall. (Information from interview of author with Mr. Anthony N. Polhill, Howbury Hall, August. 3, – 1981). 37Confidence (Nov.1908),10. 38Confidence (Dec. 1908), 7. 7 123 Polhill’s sister-in-law was disgusted at these goings-on,39 though her complaints have to be balanced against the fact that his daughter, Kath- leen, accepted the Pentecostal blessing after two years of opposition.40 Within a short time, Polhill-sponsored prayer meetings were occupy- ing much of his time. The February issue of Confidence announced a list of weekly meetings for the following two months: Mid-day at the Cannon Street Hotel four days a week from 12 to 2, Wednesday and Friday afternoons from 3 to 5:30 at the Portman Rooms, near Baker Street, and Wednesday and Friday evenings at the Grovedale Hall in Highgate, North London at 7 p.m.41 These venues were soon replaced by the Anglican-owned Sion College, near Blackfriars on the Embankment. By the end of March 1909, prayer meetings organized by Polhill were being held at Sion College on Tuesdays at 8 p.m., on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7 p.m., and on Fridays at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.42 The Friday meetings appear to have been the best attended, soon having 150 to 200 people.43 The records in Confidence show that Polhill exercised a definite control over these London meetings. In 1910, when his summer vaca- tion was followed by a six month trip to China, the regular prayer meetings ceased. A terse notice stated: Friday July 22nd, will be the last Pentecostal Meeting at Sion College for the present. Mr. Cecil Polhill expects shortly to be leaving home for some months.44 Cecil Polhill was both benefactor and leader in relation to these London prayer meetings. He provided the money to rent the halls, and for other related works, e.g. the compiling and printing of a Pentecostal hymn-book, Songs of Praises.45 Polhill also made promotional and evangelistic forays into other parts of the United Kingdom. He preferred to travel in his motor car, at that time rare enough to be an object of attention. In the summer of 1908, before his work had begun in London, Polhill organized open-air meetings in Bedford. With some visiting Welshmen “they motored into 39See G. H. Lang, The Earlier Years of the Modern Tongues Movement (Dorset, n.d.), 44-45. 4°Coqfildence (June 1913), 117. – 41 Confidence (Feb. 15 1909), 38. 42Confidence (Mar. 1909), 60. 43Con[uJence (Apr. 1909) 84. The frequency of the meetings decreased somewhat by early 1910, at which time they alternated between Sion College and the Institute of Journalists in Tudor St., E. C. Confidence (Jan. 1910), 23. 44Confidence (July 1910), 164. The monthly meetings of the PMU continued at Sion College, and there were regular prayer meetings at a small room in Caxton Hall, but the weekly meetings at Sion College did not resume until Polhill’s return from China. 45See Confidence (Aug. 1911), 189. 8 124 the town, taking a little harmonium with them.”46 This soon led to a Boddy describes two days of remained Polhill’s property In the autumn somewhat hectic motoring Beaconsfield, Ealing, and Croydon, visiting Pentecostal Whenever regional Pentecostal years, Polhill normally presided.49 continental speakers, thing of how the freedom meeting in Lime Street47 and later to the Costain Street chapel, which until his death. of 1908, Alexander in Polhill’s car with stops in St. Albans, the White City, Islington, Battersea, Wimbledon conventions people in most of these places.48 were held in these early In some cases, he brought visiting associated with Pentecostals can who were his guests while in Britain.50 Some- of worship influenced a man of Polhill’s military sense of order and discipline be sensed from an opening conference address: With sober reverence we may mingle holy liberty. Without to giving way any licence that might stumble others [sic.], we are free to shout from the depth of overflowing hearts! We want to offer no but the praise that springs from a deep, settled peace in the sou1.51 1 “Hallelujah” frothy emotion, in early summer, making use try for the International Convention Sunderland, the London War I. In his travels within the country, promising Polhill also began in 1909 an annual London convention of continental and American speakers in the coun- at Sunderland. Unlike those in conventions continued two young Jeffreys, brothers throughout World Polhill was on the lookout for and missionaries and otherwise closed to young men as budding evangelists sought to use his wealth to open up prospects them.52 During a visit to South Wales, he was struck by the potential of from a mining family, Stephen and George who became the most famous evangelists in the British move- ment.53 It was Polhill who urged George Jeffreys to leave the Co-Op stores in Maesteg and enabled him to begin studies with the Pentecostal in Preston. Polhill’s simplicity in mixing with people of lower social rank helped to win Donald Gee to the Pentecostal cause. Gee describes how as a Missionary Union 46Confidence (Aug. 15, 1908), 12. 47Confidence (Oct 15, 1908), 9. 48Confidence (Oct 1 S, 1908), 8-9. Confidence (June 1909), Cartwright, 49E.g. during 1909 at Cardiff, Confidence (Apr. 1909), 88, Bournemouth, 139 and S wansea, Confidence (Sept 1909), 212. Barratt and Polman, who came to the Bournemouth conference. 5 50E.g. 1 Confidence (Sept 1909), 212. 52Polhill. invited one young Welshman to come and minister in Bedford, Bro. Tomlinson from Port Talbot, Confidence, (Oct 15, 1908), 9. 53See D. Gee, These Men I Knew, 49. On the Jeffreys brothers. see also D. The Great Evangelists. Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1986. 9 125 young man of 22 he attended an all-night prayer meeting led by Polhill in a North London home: We were short of red-backed Redemption Songs and he shared his well- wom copy with the kitchen-maid. I was not used to seeing that kind of thing, and it made a deep impression.54 2. Promoter of Pentecostal Missions The long-term results of Polhill’s Pentecostal zeal lay in the sphere of missionary promotion. Polhill’s contribution needs to be situated in the context of the world-wide Pentecostal movement, which from Azusa Street on had a dynamic missionary character.55 This apostolic thrust was fed by the widespread conviction among the first Pentecostals that the end of the world was near, and thus the gospel must be proclaimed throughout the world to save the maximum number before the end came. The supernatural power of Pentecost was seen as empowering believers to fulfill this divine mandate. There was perhaps a particular attraction toward those regions where the gospel had never been preached. Tibet was like a symbol of this desire. With this strong missionary thrust among the first Pentecostals, the idea of missionary service did not need much extra fanning into flame. What Polhill brought into “Pentecost” was a body of convictions about missionary work based on his experience with the CIM, with which as a board member he was still closely associated. He was well acquainted with the problems caused by well-meaning “free-lancers” arriving in a strange country and culture. So at the first German Pentecostal Confer- ence in Hamburg at the end of 1908 Polhill spoke “at length on the important subject of interest in Foreign Missions, on the selection of candidates and their training.”56 Polhill evidently had Boddy’s support, for within a month at a preliminary meeting in Sunderland decided it was to establish “The Pentecostal Missionary Union for Great Britain and Ireland.”57 An Executive Council was set up, initially having seven members, Polhill being described as “Secretary for England and Treasurer. “58 The first need was to establish training homes for missionary candidates. Initially the plan was to have separate training homes in England and Scotland, but the English homes launched by Polhill were the only ones estab- lished. 54Gee, These Men I Knew, 75. j50n the effects of the Azusa Street revival on missionary work, see Gary B. McGee, This Gospel shall be Preached (Gospel Publishing House: Springfield, Mo., 1986), 43-49. 56Confidence, Supplement (Dec. 15, 1908), 2. 57 Confidence (Jan. 1909), 13. 58The initial members of the PMU Council besides Polhill were 4 men from Scotland, Revd. A. A. Boddy and a lawyer from Croydon, T. H. Mundell, Confidence (Jan. 1909), 13. 10 126 The Pentecostal Missionary Union (PMU) was very much Polhill’s creation, and was dependent on his financial support.59 He was soon elected its president.60 Though the other Council members could some- times thwart Polhill’s purpose, nothing directly contrary to his will was ever voted through by the Council. Not surprisingly, China was the first proposed destination for PMU missionaries. From his own missionary experience, Cecil Polhill was alert to the difficulties faced by the new missionary society. Unlike the CIM, whose founder was already an active missionary, the PMU began without any base abroad. Most of the early candidates were young (the Council hesitated to accept candidates over 30 without missionary expe- rience, because of the rigor of foreign climates) and in need of steady supervision. It was Polhill who had the major say in the appointments of the superintendents of the PMU training homes and sought to find appropriate forms of superintendency on the mission field.6 1 Polhill’s experience with the principals he recruited for the PMU men’s training home was never very happy.62 It seems that Polhill looked for qualities in the principal for the men’s home (e.g. ordination and the ability to instill some culture) that precluded the type of down- to-earth Pentecostal stalwart that proved to be so successful in the women’s home at Hackney in the person of a rather formidable lady, known simply in all the records as Mrs. Crisp.63 The first principal of the men’s home opened in London in July 1909 was Pastor A. Moncur Niblock.64 Niblock was the first but not the last of Polhill’s disappointments. After six months of leading a group of ten or so young men,65 Niblock’s spending habits incurred Polhill’s dis- 59po1hi11 paid for the three-year lease for the women’s training home, PMU Minutes (Oct 14, 1909), 1:14-15, advances £84 to pay PMU bills, Minutes (Feb. 21, 1910), 1:47, pays £80 for travesl costs of two PMU recruits, Minutes Oct. 7, 1910), 1:82; pays £109 in relation to a loan, Minutes (June 7, 1911), 1:108; for land pays bought in Tibet, Minutes (June 25, 1913) 1:259; pays PMU students’ vacation expenses, Minutes (Mar. 29, 1915), 1:410. 6°The PMU Minutes ( 1:13) show that Polhill resigned as treasurer and and was secretary immediately elected president at the Council meeting in October 1909, not in January 1909 as was stated in Confidence (Oct. 1911), 237. The new H. treasurer, W. Sandwith of Bracknell, held the office until January 1915, when he was replaced by W. Glassby, one of Polhill’s tenants in the village of Renhold. 6 1 See notes 79 and 80. 62gesides the difficulties with Pastor Niblock and the Revd. H. E. Wallis, there was disagreement with Mr. Hollis, principal, from 1919-20. 630n Mrs. Crisp, see Gee, These Men I Knew, 34-36. She served as principal of the PMU women’s training home from its foundation in 1910 until its closure in 1922. She died on Oct. 16, 1923, Flames of Fire (Dec. 1923-Jan. 1924), 2-3. 64Niblock came from Aston, Birmingham to open the Pentecostal home at 7 Howley Place, Harrow Road, Paddington, Confidence (Apr. 1908), 13; – (Feb. 1909), 50). 65″There are now nine young men at the Training Home, two from Scotland, 11 127 pleasure. Despite Boddy’s conciliatory efforts, no more is heard of Niblock as principal, and he is not mentioned as being present at the valedictory meeting for the first missionaries he had trained.66 Two months later, the PMU column in Confidence asks prayers for the students in training at Preston under Thomas Myerscough.67 The arrangement between the PMU Council and Myerscough, an estate agent (realtor) and leader of a recently-formed Pentecostal assem- bly in Preston,68 seems to have been provisional as a result of Polhill failing to find a new principal for London. Interestingly this three-year spell of PMU training in Preston was the most successful in terms of forming the young men who later became major figures in the move- ment.69 How the men’s home came back to London is a tale that illustrates some developing tensions between Polhill and the grass-roots Pente- costal leaders, almost all men from much simpler backgrounds.7° Early in 1913, Polhill reports preliminary negotiations with the Revd. H. E. Wallis of Cambridge to help with the training of the PMU men.71 Wallis then had no charge of souls, but intended to remain in the Church of England. The Council defers its decision to discover if Wallis is pre- pared to move to Preston.72 Wallis declines the move, but at the April meeting is engaged to take charge of a new training home for young men in or near London.73 At the next meeting of the Council in Sun- derland, there were objections to the April resolution engaging Wallis from members not then present.74 The way this crisis was handled .three from Wales, three from London, and one, a young Persian…”. Report in Confidence (Aug. 1909), 183. 66The details of the dispute are in PMU Minutes, 1:31-38, 52-53, but never surfaced in the pages of Confidence. 67Confidence (Nov. 1910), 269. 680n Myerscough see Gee, op. cit., 67-69. 69″georgie Jeffreys’ fellow students included Mr. W. F. P. Burton and Mr. Jas. Salter, the God-honoured pioneers of the Mission, N. Dean of the Elim Bible College, and Pastor E. Congo Evangelistic Percy Corry, J. Phillips, the General of this famous Elim Alliance.” Secretary- (E. C. W. Boulton, George Jeffrey-a Ministry of the Miraculous. (London: Elim Publishing Office, 1928), 13. 7°Leaders of local Pentecostal assemblies on the PMU Council included W. H. Sandwith (Bracknell, 1909-15); H. Small (Wemyss, 1909-20); A. Murdoch (Kilsyth, 1910-13); E. W. Moser (Southsea, 1915-end); S. Wigglesworth (Bradford, 1915-20), T. Myerscough (Preston, 1911-15). Wigglesworth resigned in November 1920, with Polhill stating at a Council meeting: “the circumstances be which the (which he thought it would well not to go into) under resignation was made had been fully consid- ered by him Polhill and the Hon. Secretary and he asked the Council to accept the same and which was thereupon agreed to.” Minutes (Nov. 16, 1920), 2:248-249. 71Minutes (Feb. 21, 1913), 1:230. 72Minutes (Mar. 6, 1913), 1:233-234. ‘ ‘ 73Minutes (Apr. 15, 1913), 1:235. 74The minutes do not record who raised the objection, but four members absent 12 128 throws an interesting light on the relationship most other members of the PMU Council: between Cecil Polhill and After considering and discussing the matter very fully the Council were not prepared to adopt the resolution contained in Minute No. 1 of the meeting held on the 15th ult. and it was decided without putting forward any formal resolution that the cost of any arrangements made with Mr. Wallis and also of the establishment of the proposed new Home should not be borne by the PMU but that the carrying out of the Resolution in question should be left solely to Mr. Polhill and to his own respon- sibility should he think it desirable to do this, which would leave him free to receive students either from the PMU or elsewhere on such terms as might be mutually agreed upon. Mr. Polhill thereupon promised to give the matter further consideration.75 This decision indicates that neither Polhill nor the opponents of Mr. Wallis and the London move were prepared to concede defeat. How- ever, the Council members were realistic enough to recognize that the PMU homes could not continue without Polhill’s support, and that a public rift between Polhill and others would be disastrous. For his part, Polhill evidently did not want to antagonize other members unnecessar- ily or flaunt his authority. However, by the following meeting, Polhill has decided to go ahead. He tells the Council he is trying to open a new training home for young men under Mr. Wallis at South Hackney.76 The Wallis episode did not surface in print, other than a brief an- nouncement in Confidence that Mr. Polhill was establishing a men’s training home in Hackney “in friendly cooperation with the PMU.”77 While Polhill effectively got his way, it was at some COSL78 A rift began to develop between the social classes, between the Anglicans and the independent assemblies and to some extent between the South and the North. Once the PMU missionaries arrived on the field, they were fairly free of the restraint experienced in the training homes. Polhill made vigorous ‘ _ in April were present in May: Messrs. Breeze. Murdoch, Myerscough and Small (1:244-245). It is a fair assumption that Myerscough objected to the transfer of the home from his charge in Preston. However, it is also likely that Murdoch, from Kilsyth, the home of Scottish Pentecostalism and a strongly to the independent assembly, objected appointment of an Anglican clergyman. Murdoch never attended further any meetings of the Council. , 75Minutes (May 14, 1913), 1:251. 76Minutes (June 25, 1913), 1:260-261. The women’s home was already in Hack- ney, an area in London’s East End some three miles north-east of the Tower of London. 77Confidence (Aug. 1913), 165. ?8In (Nov. 1913), the Council accepted as PMU candidates two students already at the Hackney men’s home, Minutes 1:284. Within two years the home was run by the PMU as before. with Polhill paying the bills. The reassumption of PMU living control followed Wallis’ departure early in 1915 when E. J. G. Titterington, a diplomat, was appointed. 13 129 attempts to provide some kind of oversight, at first with senior mission- aries of other societies 79 and later by appointing a superintendent for the PMU missions-80 One of the major disciplinary questions concerned marriage. The students at the PMU homes were all single, and there was no provision for married candidates.81 After the first four male missionaries sailed for China in 1910, Polhill traveled across Siberia to welcome them at their destination. Within a few weeks, Polhill informs the other Council members that all four men had engaged to marry without notifying the Council. Their initial response was to fix a four year waiting period, which was the requirement of many other mission- ary societies.82 This must have been Polhill’s recommendation, as he was the Council member in touch with the practice of other societies. Two of the four married without waiting for the expiry of the four-year period, and both had their PMU affiliation terminated-83 Polhill found the Pentecostals less amenable to discipline than the missionaries he had known in the CIM. The Pentecostals were for the most part from a lower social class with less education and formation. They also believed that God spoke personally to them. In several in- stances PMU missionaries acted following personal revelation.84 Polhill was always suspicious of precipitate action on this basis. In one of these cases, he expressly stated: …that Mr. Boddy’s and his own reason for concern was that the letter ‘ savoured too much of special and private prophecies, and that he feared .. 79Polhill kept in close touch with the director of the CIM. D. E. Hoste, a fellow member of “the Cambridge Seven,” and often arranged for new PMU missionaries to China to spend their first months at a CIM station. The PMU missionaries in Yunnan were placed under the supervision of a missionary of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in 1913 unsympathetic to the Pentecostal witness (Minutes, (Sept. 4, 1913), 1:270. In what is now Pakistan, near the Afghan frontier, two PMU missionaries were sent to work under the Director of the Central Asian Pioneer Mission, who the following year received the baptism in the Spirit, Minutes (May 13, 1913), 1:245-246. 80Despite several efforts to obtain suitable superintendents for the PMU work in both India and China, the first to be appointed was Bro. Boyd, who went out to China in 1915 and became superintendent there in 1921, Minutes (Feb. 21, 1921), 2:302. 8lSome married couples were accepted as PMU missionaries, but these did not receive any training under PMU auspices. 82Minutes (Dec. 2, 1910), 1:88. In the previous February, the Council had decided that “all missionaries going abroad under the PMU should be asked if they would be willing to keep themselves free for at least two years after being sent out” Minutes (Feb. 21, 1910), 1:43. 830ne transferred to the mission society to which his wife belonged. 84Two lady missionaries, both in India, offered their resignations in connection with claims to personal revelation, Minutes (Feb. 21, 1910), 1 :44 ; (July 28, 1914), 1:346). 14 130 There surfaced between the Anglicanism of in the church community. tion to the form they work Lord? “g6 the native influence which often told adversely on Europeans and that Miss Miller might be captivated and drawn away by this. 58 here another contrast Boddy and Polhill and the independents concerning authority As a result, the PMU Council added a further ques- asked the missionaries to sign: “Are you willing to in harmony with those who may be placed over you in the 3. Leader British leaders resulted from their education, and Polhill both traveled widely guages to participate conference of December leaders, Humburg, gathering stemmed Leaders’ international conventions, of attendance. His gifts The Hamburg for the first time many T. B. Barratt, J. Paul, E. that took place during the leading in 1912 to the Council.88 in an International Movement The early emergence of Alexander Boddy and Cecil Polhill as the main from their assumption of leadership, flowing their social status and their funds. Thus Boddy and had sufficient knowledge of lan- freely in European gatherings.87 1908 brought together of the main European including and G. R. Polman, as well as Boddy and Polhill. From this Meetings especially Sunderland, formation of the International Pentecostal Polhill’s role was the least important of those leaders with a high level were not theological, and his contribution to the International Council’s deliberations would have been wholly practical, e.g. efforts to curb extravagance and eccentric behavior. In fact this of the Council’s advertised against “soulish experiences tions,”g9 against a teaching against marriage9? and revelation on a par with Sacred Scripture.91 These warnings are wholly consonant mon sense outlook manifested in the PMU Council. A statement on the importance of missionary work reflects Polhill’s influence.92 formed a sizeable part include warnings literature” putting private inspiration 85Minutes, 1:44-45. 86Minutes (Oct. 18, 1911), 1:139-140. Stutt art agenda. Examples or fleshly demonstra- and against “spurious with Polhill’s com- 1911) ( 1987), 89Confidence (Dec. 1912), 277. 90Confidence (July 1913), 135. 91Confidence (June 1914), 108-109. 87PoIhiII learned good German during his stay with his Catholic uncle in in 1883.. 8 See Cornelis van der Laan, “The Proceedings of the Leaders’ Meetings (1908- and of the International Pentecostal Council (1912-1914)” EPTA Bulletin 6.3 76-96. _ ‘ ‘ 92″We further believe the Lord’s object in carrying out this purpose with the Body of Christ to include and demand the presentation of the full Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Ghost, accompanied by signs as in the days of the to the whole wide world in the shortest possible time. In full sympathy, Apostles, 15 131 The close contact and friendship between the main European leaders in the first few years of the Pentecostal movement is one remarkable feature of its pre-war phase. This was true particularly of Boddy, Paul and Polman, and for the first years with Barratt. Polhill was not outside this circle of fellowship and friendship, but with a lesser degree of personal warmth, he does not seem to have been a man who made deep and lasting friendships. C. van der Laan has commented on the exclusive character of the Leaders’ Meetings and the International Pentecostal Council. When Barratt effectively withdrew from these meetings “the council became dominated by the German and the two English leaders.”93 The meetings thus acquired a rather aristocratic character, excluding much of the grass-roots leadership.94 Van der Laan concludes: “It is this restricted representation of the wider Pentecostal movement that accounts for its limited success. “95 Polhill’s Diminishing Role Amid Growing Tensions (1914- 1925) Until the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Boddy and Polhill were seen as the main leaders in the Pentecostal movement in Britain. By the end of the war, their position was seriously eroded and there is abundant evidence of a growing gap between the two Anglicans and the main body of Pentecostal assemblies. The gap is seen most clearly in the attitudes of the assemblies toward the PMU. From a position of thor- ough-going and wholehearted support, the situation slowly degenerated to that in 1922 where the women’s training home had to be closed for lack of financial support. When the PMU merged with the Assemblies of God in 1925, the Council had to assure the Pentecostal assemblies that the PMU was still in existence.96 therefore, with the urgent appeal for an increase of evangelistic and missionary zeal, as given, e.g. by the Edinburgh Missionary General Conference, we should train our churches and circles to a more intelligent interest and active in this great work.” It is participation Confidence (Dec. 1912), 277. interesting in the light of later Pentecostal antipathy to the ecumenical movement that the Council should so endorse the appeal of the Edinburgh Conference of 1910 that is commonly recognized as the inaugura- tion of the modem ecumenical movement. 93C. van der Laan, “Leaders Meetings,” 92. ‘ 94Thus among attendees at one or more of these conventions, Smith Wigglesworth was never invited to attend, nor were Thomas Myerscough, Frank Bartleman or Robert Brown of New York. C. van der Laan, “Leaders Meetings,” 90- 91. 95″Leaders Meetings,” 92. 96″There appears to be an impression in the minds of some who are keenly inter- ested in the Missionary Work that the PMU has ceased to exist, and on this account, it is quite probable that some may be withholding their support.” Redemption Tidings (June 1925), 16. 16 132 When did the first signs appear that Polhill lacked the full support and approval of local Pentecostal leaders and activists? While World War I was a crucial period in this process, signs of unrest were evident before 1914. With this growing gap, we need to examine whether the discon- tent was directed equally at Boddy and Polhill, or whether some was more particularly concerned with Polhill. In 1913 two developments occurred indicating a rift between Polhill and some Pentecostals, especially from Lancashire. One, the dispute within the PMU Council over the appointment of the Revd. H. E. Wallis has already been described. This decision terminated the tempo- rary arrangement whereby PMU men were trained in Preston under Thomas Myerscough, who had emerged as one of the most respected assembly leaders. The other development concerned some of the men who had studied under Myerscough in Preston, especially W. F. P. Burton. During 1912, the PMU was making arrangements for Burton and another Preston student to go out to Africa in association with the African Inland ;Mission.97 After various difficulties, Burton wrote a highly critical letter to each member of the PMU Council. This letter raised objections that throw light on the subsequent developments. The objections can be reduced to (i) that the PMU Council acted in a high- handed and authoritarian manner98 and (ii) an attack on Boddy con- cerning teachings of the Church of England. 99 What was involved in the difficulties between Preston, especially Burton, and the PMU leadership in 1913? The issues in contention included (i) the question of authority, and 100 specifically God’s authority versus that of the PMU Council; (ii) the character of the Pentecostal movement, whether it is inherently secessionist or whether it should comprise those, still part of the older churches, particularly the Church of England. Inevitably these more theological questions were com- pounded with other differences, e.g. of social status, of attitudes toward education, of age and maturity. The PMU Council did not attempt to formulate their understanding of authority and the Spirit, but merely repudiated Burton’s charge, and rebuked him for the spirit of his letter.101 The charge of “lording” was probably directed more at Polhill, granted his role in the Wallis episode, whereas the attacks on Anglican ‘ ‘ 97See Minutes (Apr. 19, 1912), 1:169; (Nov. 8, 1912), 1:202-203. 98Burton specifically objected to the manner in which another student had been brought from Preston to the London home, Minutes (Nov. 20, 1913), 1:286. 99The teachings are not specified in the Minutes, but it is likely that Burton’s objections concerned regeneration and the practice of infant baptism. 1 °°Minuies (Nov. 20, 1913), 1:286. 101 “There has never been any desire or attempt on the part of the Council to unduly interfere with the actions of the Missionaries, nor have the Council in any way acted as if ‘lording it over the charge allotted to them’.” Minutes, (Nov. 20, 1913), 1:287. . 17 133 teaching were directed more against Boddy as an ordained priest. However, it is unlikely that Burton saw much difference between Boddy and Polhill. Both were upholders of order in the Spirit and opponents of what they perceived as spiritual anarchy.102 Both were part of the Anglican establishment, though in different ways; neither were rooted in local Pentecostal assemblies. Both Boddy and Polhill were men of experience in church affairs, seeing protests like Burton’s in terms of youthful immaturity and lack of respect. However, the result of the Preston complaints of 1913 was that Burton and others from Preston went out to the Congo under indepen- dent auspices. Thus began the Congo Evangelistic Mission, run from Preston by Myerscough, a mission in effect founded and supported by one local assembly.103 The existence outside the PMU of a British Pentecostal mission, especially with men of heroic stature like Burton and Salter, came to provide an alternative focus for Pentecostal mission- ary zeal once doubts to ; ‘ began spread about the PMU’s representative character. The relationship between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the sign of speaking in other tongues was an issue arising in various parts of the world-wide movement. By 1916 it caused some tensions within the PMU Council, which issued a statement: . whilst all who are now being so baptized do speak in tongues, more or less, yet this is not the only evidence of this Baptism but the Recipient should also give clear proof by his life and “magnify God” Acts x 46.10’4 This statement was amended after complaints from elsewhere. Polhill proposed and Boddy seconded.105 The opposition were not satisfied, and Smith Wigglesworth again raised the matter.106 As a result yet another revised statement was issued: The members of the PMU Council, hold and teach that every Believer should be baptized with the Holy Ghost and that the Scriptures shew that the Apostles regarded the speaking with Tongues as evidence that the Believer had been so baptized. Each seeker for the Baptism with the Holy Ghost should therefore expect God to give him a full measure of His sanctifying Grace in his heart and . 102At the Sunderland conferences, run by Boddy, admission was by ticket after signing a declaration which included the statement “I also undertake to accept the ruling of the Chairman.” Confidence (Apr. 1908), intro. 103See Harold Womersley, Wm. F. P. Burton Congo Pioneer. Eastbourne: Victory Press, 1973 and Colin Whittaker, Seven Pentecostal Pioneer, (Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1983), 146-169. 104 Minutes (May 23, 1916), 1:464. 105Tbis first revised ‘wording read: “That the Council express their unanimous opinion that all who are baptised in the Holy Spirit may speak in tongues as the Spirit giveth utterance, but the recipients should give clear proof of their life and “magnify God” Acts 10:46.” Minutes, (July 24, 1916,1:471-472. 106Minutes (Nov. 7, 1916), 1:493-494. ‘ 18 134 The sequence emphasis any suggestion the moral they In other words, the PMU marily spiritual-moral approach. taught first, the refusal of the Many dogmatic for the Council’s Pentecostal educated grass roots Polhill,. also to speak with Tongues and magnify God as a sign and confirmation that he is truly baptized with the Holy Ghost.l07 of revisions demonstrates: Council (especially it would seem Polhill and Boddy) to espouse the absolute equation between Baptism with the Holy Spirit and tongues summed up in the phrase “no tongues, no baptism;” secondly, their was on practical holiness: they instinctively reacted against that tongues alone manifested the baptism irrespective of life of the recipient; thirdly, they were willing to go as far as could in asserting the normalcy of tongues accompanying Baptism with the Spirit, but falling short of any absolute equation. Council adopted a non-dogmatic and pri- assemblies however already the more dogmatic position later adopted by the British Assem- blies of God. The Council’s willingness to amend while falling short of affmnation no doubt reflected their awareness that the support PMU depended on the local assemblies having confidence in the convictions. But these debates illustrate from another angle the growing gap between the largely uneducated or self- 10g and the more nuanced position of Boddy and World War I served to widen whatever between the PMU and the local assemblies. Sunderland Conventions eliminated Pentecostal leaders military conscription. rift had been opening up The enforced ending of the Alexander Boddy’s powerbase and Polhill were strong patriots, while many local objection to were suffering indignities Jardine, for ten years the Pentecostal within the movement. Moreover, Boddy ardently supporting the war effort against Germany, were pacifists with strong conscientious While Polhill was ending the prayer meetings at Sion College with the national anthem,109 other Pentecostal as conscientious pioneers objectors.110 Robert A. pastor in Bedford, I I writes in his 1944), (1924) part 107 Minutes (Dec. 5, 1916), 1:501-502. Present for the unanimous approval of this declaration were Polhill, Glassby, Small, Wigglesworth, Mundell and Mrs. Crisp. The Minutes ended with the statement: “And the Hon. Sec. was asked to send a copy of the same to Mr. Boddy asking him kindly to insert the same in this month’s issue of “Confidence”.” ” 108While the majority of British Pentecostals at that time lacked higher educa- tion. there were men with professional qualifications, such as T. Myerscough, T. H. Mundell and W. F. P. Burton. 109Donald Gee, Wind and Flame (n. p.; Assemblies of God, 1967), 101-102. 110Several were imprisoned in Wakefield gaol, while others, like Donald Gee, had to work on the land. 111R. Anderson Jardine, The Supernatural in a Commonplace Life (Los Angeles: 147. Jardine was somewhat of a maverick, later becoming an Anglican priest and in that capacity achieving notoriety as the man who broke ranks to take in the wedding of the Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson, following which he 19 135 autobiography how Polhill objected to his praying for the people of both sides during the war.112 While Polhill did not condemn conscientious objection, there is no doubt that war-time attitudes widened the gap between him and the rank and file Pentecostals. It also seems that the PMU came to represent the South of England much more than the North,113 where most of the strongest Pentecostal centers were located.114 The Pentecostals were mostly drawn from working-class and lower-income groups, and the methods and mores of Howbury Hall were far removed from the life-style of Nelson Parr, Thomas Myers- cough, Smith Wigglesworth and Mrs. Walshaw. In the heady days of first beginnings, these differences were but an added sign of the extent of God’s love. But as the movement developed and practical decisions had to be made, the social and educational differences came to be more divisive. This divisive potential was fur- thered by other differences, as with attitudes toward the war, and Polhill’s continued insistence on methods and values not supported by the movement as a whole. Thus he advanced men with university degrees but no clear pentecostal witness. The insistence on Mr. Wallis, an Anglican clergyman, in 1913, was repeated years later in the ap- pointment, first as a Council member115 and then as PMU Vice-Presi- dentll6 of Dr. Robert Middleton of Rugby. The choice of Middleton was opposed by Ernest Moser, who argued that this appointment “would considerably affect many of our supporters who held strong views against the teaching of the Church of England as defined by the Baptismal Services in the Prayer Book.”1 17 The fact that this was one of Boddy’s rare appearances at the Councill l8 suggests that Polhill may have urged Boddy to come to support Middleton’s candidacy. In . left the Church of England. 112Jardine’s recollections may be of doubtful reliability, being written in his old age. He incorrectly attributes this incident to World War II (The Supernatural in a Commonplace Life, 172-173), by which time Polhill was dead. However, the story has a plausible air and the probability is that the incident occurred during World W ar I. 113pEter 1915 only Boddy and Wigglesworth came from the North of England, and both were irregular attendees as World War I came to an end. 114For example Preston (T. Myerscough); Manchester (J. Nelson Parr); Bradford (S. Wigglesworth); Halifax (Mrs. Walshaw); Lytham (H. Mogridge). 115Middleton was proposed on Nov. 7, 1921 and invited to join on Nov. 21, 1921, Minutes, 2:422, 425-426. 116Minutes (June 8, 1922), 2:505. Middleton’s appointment as Vice-President probably was in view of Polhill’s proposed trio to the Far East. 117 Minutes (June 8, 1922), 2:505, 425-426. The meeting setting aside Moser’s objections was only attended by Polhill, Boddy, Glassby and Mundel. 118B?dy?s previous attendance was six months earlier on the occasion of the Pentecost London conference, and the only one apart from the London conferences for almost two ‘ years. 20 136 February 1921, some nine months earlier, when Boddy agreed not to press his resignation, he did say that “beyond a health reason he had a doctrinal reason which he would like to bring before the Council at a future date.”llg There is no record of Boddy’s doctrinal question ever being discussed by the PMU Council,120 but Boddy is known to have opposed the moves toward the formation of Pentecostal denominations. Polhill would have known that Boddy would strongly favor appointing an Anglican clergyman of standing to the Council. By this time, Boddy was much less active than Polhill, and in less of a position to assess the reactions within the movement to such an appointment. Polhill’s promotion of educated clergy out of touch with the thrust of the movement was also evident at the Pentecost conventions in London. Donald Gee recalled these gatherings: The latter became positively dreary when, apparently to give an aura of respectability, he [Polhill] filled the platform with obscure Welsh “reverends” who accepted the wealthy chairman’s hospitality in a London Hotel but scorned the little Pentecostal Assemblies in Wales. Their ministry was dry, to say the least.121 Polhill’s reaction to growing disaffection at home was to throw himself into missionary promotion with renewed zest. While Boddy’s health declined and his participation in Pentecostal gatherings dimin- ished, Polhill’s health held and he made a long visit to China as soon as the war ended122 with further trips to the Far East in 1922-23123 and 1923-24.124 Polhill no doubt hoped that the expansion of the PMU missions would generate further interest and support in the Pentecostal assemblies. In fact, the PMU income declined, while the number of missionaries on the field increased.l25 In retrospect, this erosion of financial support can be seen as an inevitable consequence of the growing gap between the local assemblies and the PMU leadership, especially Cecil Polhill. In 1925 Polhill agreed to the PMU becoming the missionary arm of the newly-formed Assemblies of God of Great Britain and Ireland, and I I 9Min uies (Feb. 8, 1921), 2:291. 120?e November 1921 meeting with its vote on Middleton was probably the last attended by Boddy. He did not attend any between then and June 26, 1922, which is the last for which the minutes are available. 12 1 These Men I Knew. 75. 122po1hi11 left England for China on January 31, 1919, Flames of Fire (Feb. 1919, 8 ; returning to London on December 31, Flames of Fire (Feb. 1920), 4. 123From summer 1922 to spring 1923. See Flames of Fire. 124From Sept. 1923 to May 1924. See Flames of Fire. 125The treasurer’s report at a Council meeting in March 1922 mentioned “the liabilities of the PMU arising from additional Missionaries being sent out, and the decreasing support from the several Assemblies which might be accounted for increasing by other Pentecostal Missionaries claiming support, as well as the state of the general present Country.” Minutes (Mar. 27, 1922), 2:486. ., 21 137 the work to which he had devoted his time, energies and income126 ‘ passed into the hands of others. 127 From that time he played no further part in the British Pentecostal movement,128 which had now become thoroughly denominationalized.129 He always remained a staunch Anglican, and on his death in March 1938 was buried alongside other members of his family in Renhold churchyard. He left £96,000 in his will, with bequests to a number of Christian bodies, none of them Pentecosta1.130 The Costain Street chapel was left to an evangelistic society in Bedford. Polhill’s own papers were largely destroyed during World War II, when Howbury Hall was requisitioned for military use. ‘ An Evaluation ‘ This article is entitled “Cecil Polhill-Pentecostal Layman” to catch in this phrase the paradox of the Old Etonian squire in an inherently egali- tarian movement. It was central to the spiritual genius of the Pentecostal movement that all participants had an equal Christian dignity. The Holy Spirit was poured out on “all flesh,” not just ordained clerical flesh, not just educated degreed flesh, not just aristocratic propertied flesh. The least educated, the least affluent, those with no social status, all could be equal recipients of the spiritual gifts; all could become instruments of the Lord in word and act. “God is no respecter of persons” is a truth amply demonstrated in early Pentecostal history. Polhill was virtually unique among early Pentecostals for having social status, education, property and money. True, he was not quite in the top flight. Socially he was “county” rather than “court.” Education- ally, he was Eton and Cambridge, but his gifts were not academic. _ Propertywise, he owned a country mansion and surrounding village (2,000 acres), but he was not one of the major land-owners, even in his own county. Financially, he was well off, but nowhere near a million- aire, as was shown by his sale of 75% of Renhold village in 1919.131 1 . 126gesides those payments mentioned in note 59, Flames of Fire records the Polhill to the PMU: following payments by £1,000 and £S00 (1920), E500 and £200 (1921), £ 500 (1922), £500 and £5,000 (1923) and £250 (1924). 127The Home Missionary Reference Council appointed by the Assemblies of God in December 1925 to continue the work of the PMU had seven members. Of these, three had been members of the PMU Council: T. H. Mundell (throughout); E. W. Moser (since 1915) and T. Myerscough (1911-15). 1281t appears that Polhill did not visit the Bedford Pentecostal Church in his old age (Interview with Mr. A. N. Polhill cit.). 129?e three major groupings into which the British movement had divided were in order of size: The Assemblies of God of Great Britain and Ireland: the Elim Pente- costal Alliance (to become in 1926 the Elim Four Square Gospel Alliance and later the Elim Pentecostal Church); and the Apostolic Church of Great Britain. 130The Times (April 26, 1938), 10d. 131 Information provided in interview with Mr. A. N. Polhill cit. ‘ . _ 22 138 Nonetheless, it remains true that he was virtually unique among Pente- costals in combining all these characteristics. Cecil Polhill was very much the dedicated layman. His heart was on fire for the Lord and his gospel. His messages reflected this basic dedi- cation. They were calls to action. There was little schematic about the messages Polhill preached and wrote. 132 His doctrinal convictions reflected his forthright character and this lay mentality. He held finmly to the central Christian convictions about the Incarnation, the atoning death of Jesus on the cross, and his resurrection to new life. He was suspi- cious of subtlety. To answer objections of which he received many, he had immediate recourse to the text of Scripture and to that which we now see and hear. He did not instinctively turn to learning and scholar- ship. However, he did not support the widespread Pentecostal denigra- tion of learning. After all, he was a graduate of Eton and Cambridge. His attitude was characteristically lay, that is, he recognized the learning of the “clerk” and its place, but without that learning playing a major role in his own thinking. Another lay characteristic was Polhill’s “common sense.” He was opposed to extravagance, and always took a firm line in dealing with odd teaching and behavior that threatened to bring the movement into disrepute. A recurring instance concerned the “Bride teaching” that disturbed some Pentecostal assemblies, namely that there was a distinc- tive experience of the Christian being ‘ embraced by Jesus and so being chosen as his bride.l33 This combination of traits resulted in Polhill being a man of a few solid convictions. If others violated or denied these, they found in Polhill a doughty opponent. But beyond these core convictions, Polhill was not a dogmatist, and his emphases would be pragmatic and concil- iatory. Polhill firmly believed that the Pentecostal movement was a move of God. But he did not tie down this work of the Spirit to particular for- mulae, and always remained ill at ease with attempts of that kind. His language was primarily descriptive: From all sides, since this “refreshing from the presence of the Lord” arose, one hears of old standing diseases healed; of heavy burdens spiritual relieved; of glad service in power, in place of feebleness and uselessness; of the uniting together and cementing of brethren in the Lord; of a wonderfully increased power and efficacy in prayer; of a clearer grasp of Scripture doctrine and truth; 134 of a more wonderful unveiling of the power of the Lord Jesus Christ . ‘ 132For Polhill’s written messages, see especially Flames of Fire. 133Two members of the PMU Council, Messrs. Sandwith and Breeze, were asked by the Council in Dec. 1914 to answer questions as to whether they subscribed to the “Bride” teaching. Both gave evasive answers, Minutes (Dec. 10, 1914), 1:381-384. 134From the preface written by Polhill for T. B. Barratt’s book The Truth about 23 139 Polhill was a humble man willing to look a fool for Christ. He did not stand on his social dignity when the Lord’s call dictated otherwise. He was willing to pray, sing and preach on the streets of Bedford, an activ- ity that surely occasioned disapproving gossip in the drawing rooms of the county. Other examples already provided also show that Cecil Polhill was influenced by Christian convictions to behave in ways foreign to old Etonians and county squires. However, Polhill’s Pentecostal convictions did not modify in any noticeable way his views on church, society and nation. He presided over the PMU the same way he would have run Howbury Hall or any other responsibility had he not been a Pentecostal Christian. His views here reflected social norms, rather than anything stemming from the gospel. So he kept the money in his own hands; he was generous towards those he chose to benefit. The same pattern can be seen in his patriotism, and his instinctive aversion to pacifism and conscientious objection. Polhill was an Anglican through and through, though he never had difficulty having fellowship with other evangelical Christians. His gut Anglicanism was more a total commitment to the order of society, to church and nation. He had no trouble endowing an independent chapel, but he had instinctive difficulties with any mentalities of insubordina- tion, as can be seen in the episode of Willie Burton’s attack on Anglican practices. The growing gap between Polhill and the Pentecostal grassroots was therefore not surprising, for there was an inner contradiction or incom- patibility between his aristocratic style and the popular egalitarianism of the movement. However, this problem was exacerbated by Polhill’s lack of mental flexibility. He was not that intelligent a man, and he was uninterested in ideas for their own sake. This combination produced a lack of flexibility in contrast to Alexander Boddy, always a devourer of information, who from a middle class background had served for years in the unappealing back streets of Sunderland. There is something verging on the tragic in the rising lack of Pente- costal confidence in Polhill, seeing his total personal investment in the movement. It seems futile to speculate on what might have happened had Polhill shown greater flexibility. However, it would be a mistake to dismiss Polhill’s life as a failure, ending in final disappointment with his withdrawal from the movement and the absorption of the PMU into the Assemblies of God. For his heart was in China, and the bringing of the gospel to the Chinese people. There the work he had established with its headquarters in Yunnan continued to flourish in his lifetime. It probably mattered more to him that many Chinese had come to know Jesus Christ and the power of his Spirit than that the PMU was taken over by a new Pentecostal denomination of which he was not part. To him, withdrawal the Pentecostal Revival, published in 1909. 24 140 from active direction of the PMU may have seemed more like a natural ‘ retirement at the age of sixty-five. 25