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
Leave a Reply