24 JULY 1886, Page 10

THE WESLEVAN DISPUTE.

THE part which the clergy and ministers of religion should take in politics is a question which always excites interest in clerical circles, and unless the whole sect belongs to one party in the State, is a very difficult question to settle. Some of the more stalwart of the Nonconformist sects have consistently attached themselves to Liberalism in a party sense time out of mind. Their ministers have spoken on party platforms with a vehemence of party feeling which lost nothing in well-turned Biblical expression. Such men have been known to refer to their " weak-kneed Wesleyan brethren," among whom existed a well-known " general understanding" that no Wesleyan minister should engage in party politics. But the question of Union or Home-rule has cut deep. The tide of political feeling has run above the ordinary high-water mark. Dis- tinguished men who laughed at the Wesleyans for being weak-kneed on Disestablishment, have written and spoken against Mr. Gladstone, and, for aught we know, have voted against him ; while in the Wesleyan body itself the general understanding has developed into a general disagreement, no less widespread than the original understanding. The ball was opened by the Irish Methodist Conference, which passed a very vigorous address in favour of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and a no less pathetic appeal to. their English brethren to support a cause which, in the opinion of the Conference, involves not only party politics, but " morality, liberty, and the social as well as the religious welfare of the people." This was followed by the publication of a pamphlet in the same sense by the " venerable and venerated Mr. Arthur," an ex-President of the Wesleyan Conference, and one of the most influential leaders among Methodists. The case was further complicated by the efforts of certain Irish Methodist ministers who spoke in different parts of England for the Loyal and Patriotic Union, and the rivalries of two, if not three, religious newspapers. Last, and not least, the President of the Wesleyan Conference, who, when appealed to for his opinion, had expressed himself strongly in favour of the "general understanding," wrote a letter no less strong, dated " Methodist Conference, Dublin," in favour of a Conservative candidate. This, of course, produced an outburst on the other side. Letters and telegrams flew about from distinguished ministers for and against Parliamentary candidates, culminating, as we think, in a telegram in which Mr. Arthur, the eminent man before referred to, said :—" Had I a thousand votes, they would be given against any Disunionist, and especially a Wesleyan one." The last hit, if we may be allowed to say so, seems to an outsider the unkindest cut of all. It will not surprise oar readers, therefore, to learn that there has been the usual crop of paragraphs and leaders of the most sprightly and sarcastic tone, in which " our Tory brethren" and " our Home- rule friends " are given thrusts which strike home in a way that only friendly thrusts can strike. Thus, the President of the Conference defends himself by. saying that his letter was a private and confidential communication, not intended for publication ; and the rival journal, of course, comments on this in the most lively strain :-- " 19e hasten," it save, "to give the utmost publicity to this gratifying information, and can only regret that the President so far forgot human nature as to imagine that such a letter, written at such an hoar, would be consigned to the waste-paper basket. The style and character of the letter were admirably adapted to the use for which Mr. Atkinson [the candidate] wanted it, and, as it was not marked private, be was guilty of no breach of confidence in giving it prompt publicity. We hope this incident will teach the President to write atriotly private and confidential' at the the head of every political letter which he may pen hereafter to a political friend in the midst of a General Election. Perhaps the best plan of all will be to abstain entirely from writing such letters until electoral contests are over. In the meantime, the President's letter bas been reprinted as a political leaflet by our active Conservative friends, and used all over the country to prejudice the claims of Methodist candidates for Parliament."

The present state of the controversy is that a circular has been issued inviting Wesleyan ministers to sign an address of sympathy with Mr. Gladstone, which was signed by four hundred Wesleyan ministers in three days, while a hundred and fifty more who approve the address only declined to sign it in deference to the " general understanding." On the other side, great pressure has been brought to bear to induce all Wesleyan ministers to sign a new political pledge " to abide by the general understanding which has hitherto prevailed among us." As the Wesleyan Methodist Conference is taking place this week and next in London, we anticipate that the matter will not stop precisely where it is, and that some further amenities may be expected.

In such a case, it would be presumptuous for an outsider to say who is right and who is wrong. There will, of course, be a difference of opinion in the Wesleyan body as to who first broke the " general understanding." But apart from the particular squabble, the matter raises some very in- teresting questions. We commented last week on the motives of the Liberal clergy in not deserting Mr. Glad- stone, in common with the Liberal laity. Some of the reasons we then gave for their action apply equally to the Wesleyan ministers who have adopted his policy. But the action of the Liberal clergy does not raise any storm in the Church of England, as the action of the Home-rule ministers has done among the Wesleyans. This is, we believe, because the clergy took no one with them but themselves, whereas the action of the ministers probably divided their congregations into two dissentient bodies. Again, the political action of the clergy of any sect is likely to depend greatly upon the interests of the Church to which they belong ; and we suspect that it is because the Gladstonian ministers believe that now, more than ever,. Methodism must be advanced by getting hold of the democracy that they are so anxious that influential Methodists should not support Tory candidates. Another thing which strikes us about the controversy is the religious zeal with which it is carried on on both sides. Not content with appealing to political considerations, both sides appeal, we think somewhat too freely, to abstract ideas, such as liberty, morality, humanity, and religion. Both sides are anxious to prove that this is a religious, and not a political question. But this only shows the extreme difficulty of the case. Political questions may at the same time have the narrowest party character and the widest moral and social significance. No one, we imagine, would at the present day accuse a clergyman who preached on the slave-trade of trenching upon party politics ; but we imagine that a clergy- man who proposed to preach the same sermon in the Southern States of America immediately before the war, or in Liverpool during the agitation for the abolition of the slave-trade, would have had to make up his mind to brave that accusation, or not to preach his sermon. For our parts we should heartily approve of his preaching it ; but we should not say the same if he introduced party politics of any less serious moral signifi- cance into his pulpit addresses. For the most part we think that ministers of religion should express their own political mind quite freely out of the pulpit, but should take the greatest pains not to break friendship with political opponents unless the deepest moral interests of mankind were at stake.