II. Affairs of the Master.
| £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | ||
| Sept. 15. | Balance[a] | 1221 | 0 | 8 | |||
| 20. | Kate | 100 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 26. | —— at Venice, Antonio[b] | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Oct. 1. | Secretary | 25 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 3. | Downs | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 5. | Gift[c] | 20 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 10. | Loan | 200 | 0 | 0 | |||
| ” | Jackson | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||
| ——— | 495 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Oct. 15. | Balance | £726 | 0 | 8 | |||
[a] By report from Bank; but the ‘repayments’ named in it should not have been added to the cash account, being on separate account with the Company. I will make all clear in December. [↑]
[b] For Signora Caldara (Venetian botany). [↑]
[c] Nominally loan, to poor relation, but I do not suppose he will ever be able to pay me. The following £200 I do not doubt receiving again. [↑]
[[366]]
III. I print the following letter with little comment, because I have no wish to discuss the question of the uses of Dissent with a Dissenting Minister; nor do I choose at present to enter on the subject at all. St. George, taking cognizance only of the postscript, thanks the Dissenting Minister for his sympathy; but encourages his own servant to persist in believing that the “more excellent way” (of Charity), which St. Paul showed, in the 13th of Corinthians, is quite as truly followed in devoting the funds at his said servant’s disposal to the relief of the poor, as in the maintenance of Ruskinian Preachers for the dissemination of Ruskinian opinions, in a Ruskinian Society, with the especial object of saving Mr. Ruskin’s and the Society’s souls.
“September 14th, 1876.
“Dear Mr. Ruskin,—Mr. Sillar’s ‘valuable letter’ in last month’s Fors, (a) would have been more valuable if he had understood what he was writing about. Mr. Tyerman (in his ‘Life and Times of Wesley,’ p. 431,) gives the trifling differences between the present Rules of the Methodist Societies and the first edition issued in 1743. Instead of ‘interested persons having altered old John Wesley’s rules’ (he was forty years old when he drew them up) ‘to suit modern ideas’—the alterations, whether good or bad, were made by himself.
“The first contributions in the ‘Classes’ were made for the express purpose of discharging a debt on a preaching house. Then they were devoted ‘to the relief of the poor,’ there being at the time no preachers dependent on the Society for support. After 1743, when circuits had been formed and preachers stationed in certain localities, their maintenance gradually became the principal charge upon the Society’s funds. (See Smith’s ‘History of Methodism,’ vol. i., p. 669.) In 1771 Wesley says expressly that the contributions are applied ‘towards the expenses of the Society.’ (b) (‘Journal,’ vol. iii., p. 205.) Certainly Methodism, thus supported, has done far more to benefit the [[367]]poor and raise them, than any amount of mere almsgiving could have done. Methodist preachers have at least one sign of being in the apostolical succession. They can say, with Paul, ‘as poor, yet making many rich.’ (c)
“ ‘Going to law’ was altered by Mr. Wesley to ‘brother going to law with brother,’ in order, no doubt, to bring the rule into verbal agreement with 1 Cor. vi. 6. (d)
“ ‘Usury’ was defined by Mr. Wesley to be ‘unlawful interest,’ (e) in accordance with the ordinary notions of his day. He was greatly in advance of his age, yet he could scarcely have been expected to anticipate the definition of Usury given, as far as I know, (f) for the first time in Fors for August, 1876. I don’t see why we Methodists should be charged with breaking the laws of Moses, David, and Christ (Fors, p. 253), if we consider ‘old John Wesley’s’ definition to be as good as the ‘modern idea.’
“Of course St. George, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, will correct Mr. Sillar’s mistake.
“I am, Sir,
“Another Reader of Fors (which I wish you would sell a little cheaper), and
“A Methodist Preacher.
“P.S.—Why should you not copy old John Wesley, and establish your St. George’s Company on a legal basis? In 1784 he drew up a Deed of Declaration, which was duly enrolled in Chancery. It stated the purposes for which his Society was formed, and the mode in which it was to be governed. A Deed of Trust was afterwards drawn up for one of our chapels, reciting at length this Deed of Declaration, and all the purposes for which the property was to be used. All our other property is settled on the same trusts. A single line in each subsequent chapel deed—stating that all the trusts are to be the same as those of the ‘Model Deed,’ as we call the first one—obviates [[368]]the necessity and expense of repeating a very long legal document.
“Success to St. George,—yet there is, I think, ‘a more excellent way.’ ”
a. Mr. Sillar’s letter did not appear in last month’s Fors. A small portion of it appeared, in which I regret that Mr. Sillar so far misunderstood John Wesley as to imagine him incapable of altering his own rules so as to make them useless.
b. I wish the Wesleyans were the only Society whose contributions are applied to no better purpose.