File 4: Hassall family, correspondence, volume 2, pp. 1165-1708, 1814-ca. 1885

[Page 16]

4 You allege that the "Methodists have separated from the church of their forefathers, and gone out of her." As regards my own Church, I must be allowed to attribute this assertion to a misconception of historical facts. Our venerable father in God, the Rev. John Wesley, was indeed a member and a Minister of the Church of England,  and never "separated" or "went out" from her; but was rudely ejected from her pulpits,and despitefully used and persecuted by not a few of her dignitaries. If the bond of fellowship between her and him was broken, it was broken by herself. nor did the Wesleyan Methodist Church ever "separate" or "go out" from the Church of England, for to that Church she never belonged. Of her original membersl, some no doubt had been accustomed to attend the services of the Church by law established; others might have been connected with the various nonconformist churches of the day; but the history of her early times abundantly shows that the great bulk of them had belonged to no Church at all, but were gathered by the instrumentality of Mr Wesley and his fellow labourer from the moral wastes of the world.

In thus addressing you, Sir, I would wish not to be misunderstoodl. I do not complain of your having written this letter,* but I think you. out not to have published it. I cannot see the the circumstances called for such a step; and it appears to me that in taking such a step, you went out of your way to wound the feelings of many of your peaceable and unoffending neighbours.

I am, Rev. Sir, Your obedient servant, R. Mansfield

Hanley Ville, Parramatta, 24th August, 1870

No 2 To the Rev. G. F. Macarthur

Rev. Sir, - I have read with attention your long letter in the Cumberland Times of last week. My chief object in doing so was to see whether you had justified, or explained, or regretted, in a way that I could deem satisfactory, the improper act which had induced me to address you. You have done neither. Your explanation is an open avowal of the fact of which previously I had only circumstantial proof and your attempt at justification is a pitiable failure.

In contempt of the well understood usuages which regulate the intercourse of gentlemen, you had answered a private letter, without its author's consent, through the columns of a newspaper. You have not justified that. You had made your unauthorised answer the weapon of attack upon the religious tenets of many of your peaceable neighbours. You have not justified that.

[Foot note] * Meaning, not that I approved of his having written it, but that his having written it was not the point to which I was then addressing myself.

Instead, indeed, of either justifying or apologising you have repeated the offence in another form, and in more amplified detail, and in more insulting terms; and have attempted to unchurch not only the religious communion of which I am a member, but every religious communion in the world which does not submit to your own narrow dogma of priestly succession.

From the gentleman with whose private letter you had taken so unwarrantable a liberty, you have turned upon the humble individual who had publicly dealt you waht he thought, and still thinks, a well meritied rebuke. And you have turned upon me as if the main question between us was one of creeds and systems of Church government; while the question demanding your attention related to your own conduct. Admitting all you say about creeds and Church government, what can be said of your unprovoked onslaught on the religious concerns of your neighbours, dealing your "apostolic blows and knocks" right and left, in reply to a civial private note. Was such conduct becoming a Christian gentleman, a Christian minister and the Head Master of a school for Christian youth?. That is the point; and upon that point I think there are not many persons, either in your own Church or in any other, who will differ with me in the opinion that you had "gone out of your way" made a greivous mistake, and ought to be heartily sorry.

Of your flippant remarks upon my own Church, my former letter adverted to two points. You had insinuated that while she might glory in Apostolic doctrine, she did not or could not glory in Apostolic order. I met your insinuation by affirming that she gloried in both. For insinuation you now substitute direct assertion, and will have it that her glorying is vain; that all the glory belongs to your own Church, and not a glimmer of it to mine.

You have charged the Methodists with having foresaken the Church of their forefathers. I attributed your change, in so far as it was aimed at my own Church, to a misconception of historical facts. You reply by quotations which prove one part of my case, but do not disprove the other. They prove that Mr Wesley had not himself separated from the Church of England, and was unwilling that any of his adherents (such of them, that is, as had been wont to attend her services) should take a course different from his own; although he did not hesitate to acknowledge, "The Uninterrupted Succession I know to be a. fable, which no man ever did or can prove" - and acknowledgement which perhaps you did not find it convenient to quote. But your quotations do not disprove my assertion that the Wesleyan Methodist Church had never separated from the Church of England, seeing that to that Church she had never belonged. 

But suppose you had disproved it. What then? Had she not a right to separate if she thought proper to do so? Had she not as good a right to separate from your Church as your Church had to separate from the Church of her forefathers? And if it was right for you to come out from the Roman Catholic Church because of what you believed to be her corruptions, was it not just as right for us to come out from the Church of England because of what we

[Page 17]

6 believed to be the corruptions of the great bulk of her clergy, many of whom even Mr. Wesley, with all his High Church prejudices, was constrained to brand as ""Heathenish Priests and Mitred infidels""

If you reply that your Church was a branch of the Catholic. Church long anterior to Martin Luther's day, your answer applies to my church as well as to your own. Methodism is a branch, and not an unfruitful branch, of the Church Catholic, and exister long anterior to John Wesley's day. The essence of Methodism, sir is a branch, sir, is holidness of heart and life. It flourished on the day of Pentecost; under many names and many outward forms, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, Quaker, Methodist, &c., &c.,has come down to us from generation to generation, and will surely grow and prevail until. it cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.*

And now, sir, I must tell you that I shall not follow you into that interminable wildernessof bootless controversy into which you have thought fit to wnader from the cnetral point at issue between us, namely, the rightness or the wrongness of your own conduct.

To put that conduct the more plainly in what I conceive to be its true light, allow me to suppose a case. Let me suppose that a member of your Church sends me a private note asking a subscription towards the erection of a Protestant Episcopalian place of worship. Let me suppose that I answer him through the columns of a newspaper to the following effect: -""Dear sir, - I cannot conscientiously send you a subscription for the following reasons: - Although your Chruch professes to glory in Apostolic order, I do not believe there is on the face of the earth a Church that exhibits so shocking a spectacle of Disunity, both in doctrine and in worship, as she does; she is torn to pieces by schisms, not only among her laity, but among her Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; they have marshalled themselves under the antagonistic banners of High Church, and Low Church, and Broad Church; of Ritualism, Rationalism, Puseyism, Colensoism, and Evangeliscism; some of them extol their Church as the bulwark of Protestantism, others execrate the name of Protestant, and hold up their own noble army of martyrs to ridicule and scorn; some of them insist that her baptismal water regenerates the soul, others that the fable of baptismal regeneration is a perilous delusion; some that at the bidding of her priests her sacramental elements of bread and wine are miraculously turned into flesh and blood, others that this pretence is downright popery; some that her clergy can. forgive sin, others that to forgive sin is the incommunicable perogative of Deity. You will therefore admit, dear sir, that I see good cause for declining to give one farthing to a Church so deformed with error, and so frightfully divided against herself. I am, dear sir, &c."" 

And if, Mr. Macarthur, I should be blamed, as well I might be, for taking so impertinent a method of dealing out my asperities upon a large body of my fellow Christians, I could plead that I was only following the example of the Rev. Head Master of the King's School at Parramatta.

Your personal allusions to myself are scarcely in good taste, and wer certainly no more called for than your original attack upon your Methodist neighbours. If I, though an ordained Minister, am earning my bread in a secular pursuit, you, sit, though an ordained minister are doing the same thing. And if you can account for the anomaly of your position by reasons satisfactory to your own conscience, so can I. +

It may not be out of place to remark, that towards the venerable Church of England I have ever cherished. kindly and respectful feelings. For half a century I have occasionally attended her services, and partaken of her Holy Communion; and with not a few of her clergy it has been my privelge to enjoy brotherly intercourse, both in the private circle and in public movements.

Nor may it be unreasonable in me to refer to the odd coincidence, that some one and thirty years ago it developed upon me, as a public journalist, to defend your late respected father, Hannibal Hawkins Macarthur, Esq., against the censures of his Bishop for having laid the foundation stone of the Wesleyan Centenary Chapel in this town of Parramatta; and that now, in this same town of Parramatta, it has developed upon me to rebuke the son of the lamented gentlemen for having gone out of his way to insult the very Church to which his father had thus publicly bidden God speed.

Here, sir, our contest ends. On this arena I shall have nothing more to say to you about yourself or your Church; nor shall i read anything more that you may say about my Church or me.

But in retiring from the lists, let me say a few heart-breathed words: May you long be spared. to sit under the vine and under the figtree. of the Church of your affections, resposing in quiet beneath her tranquil shades, and banqueting on her pleasant fruits; and may you have grace to breathe a like kindly prayer for all your neighbours who love the Lord Jesus. Christ in sincerity, whatever name they bear. And with regard to that better land in which I humbly hope to

* That Methodism is not an unfruitful branch of the Church Catholic is shewn by the following statistics, taken from Dr. Jacoby's History of Methodism, recently published in two volumes at Bremen, in the German language. Number of Methodists throughout the World: Enrolled members, 3 389 166; Ministers, 19 049; Local Preachers, 57 934; Sunday School Scholars, 3 654 215; besides probationers and attendants on Public Worship not included in these numbers. The figures comprise Wesleyan Methodists, Primitive Methodists, the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and other branches of the Methodist communion. The attendants on Public Worship who are not enrolled members. average about 5 or 6 to 1 of the latter. This gives for the whole Methodist family an aggregate of above Twenty Millions of Souls.

+ The circumstances which, many years ago, induced the writer to withdraw from the service of the Wesleyan Missionary Society have been publicly explained by him more than once. They involved nothing of which he ever was or ever needed to be ashamed, though much that he deeply lamented. He is not aware that the circumstances which induced Mr. Macarthur to exchange the cure of souls for the business of a school-master though pretty well understood, have ever been explained by him to the public. It is known that he left the incumbency of a Church in the suburbs of Sydney; that he set up a school at Macquarie Field; that the speculation was not a commercial success; that he thereupon turned to his present enterprise at Parramatta; and that his friends entertain the hope that this adventure, if not damaged by imprudence and mismanagement on his own part, may prove remunerative.

[Page 18]

8 meet you when we shall have done with the conflicts of the Church Militant, allow me to relate an anecdote of good and large hearted John Wesley: "It is said that once, in the visions of the night, he found himself at the gates of Paradise, and asked who were within. "Any Wesleyans here" "No" was the answer. "Any Presbyterians" "No" "Any Church of England men "No" "Any Roman Catholics" No" "Whom have you, then, here" he asked in astonishment. "we know nothing here" was the reply, "of any of those names that you have mentioned; the only name of which we know anything is Christian; we are all Christians here, and of these we have a great multitude which no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues." To that great multitude may you and I, sir, be added in the day of our Lord's appearing.

I am, Rev. Sir, your obedient servant,

R. Mansfield

Hanley Ville, Parramatta, September 6, 1870

[Footnote] To this letter a rejoinder appeared in the Cumberland Times of Saturday last, the 17th instant. I have not seen it, nor do I intend to see it; but I am informed by many persons that for malevolence and vulgarity it excels its predecessors. The mildest epithet I have heard applied to it is that it is "shameful!"

R.M

[Page 19]

Sydney 20 Octr. 1873

My dear Sir

In reply to your letter of 17th inst. informing me of your being appointed to a charge near Brisbane & asking for the papers necessary to enable you to receive a license, I write to say that I have instructed Mr. Norton to send you a copy of the usual testimonial which when signed by [indecipherable] first clergyman of this diocese & returned to me for my countersignature is the only paper required for [contd. on page 20]

Goulburn 24 Nov. 1870

My dear Mr Hassall

Mrs Thomas & I were very much grieved to hear of the death of Miss Morris, your Governess. We received great kindness from her at Yangar Lake in 1864 & had great regard for her. She was a very intelligent & vigorous & clever person, & at Yangar was [contd. on page 20]

[Page 20]

the Bishop of Brisbane.

I sincerely think that this charge may be of service to you in every way.

Believe me My dear Sir Fly yrs. B Sydney

The Revd. Jas. Hassall

always curious about the religious welfare of the people. You will not easily replace her. Yet the Lord will provide!

Believe me Very faithfully yours B. Goulburn

Rev. James Hassall

Goulburn 24 Nov. 1870

My dear Mr Hassall

The Bishop of S. & Mrs Barker mentioned that you required a Governess: & when I named Miss Nelson, whom they knew well, they at once said that she was just the person you needed. I accordingly wrote to her & today she replies that she wd. at once write to you