The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-11-06 00:00:00

THE REV, H: R. HAWEIS AND THE
BISHOP OF LONDON,

A more than ordinarily large congregation was pre-
sent at St. James's Church, Westmoreland-street,
Marylebone, on Sunday, it having been announced on
Saturday that the Rev. H. R. Haweis (the vicar)
wolild explain, in the course of his sermon on Sun-
day, the exact nature of the Bishop of London's in-
hibition of him to preach at the City Temple, Hol-
born-viaduct, on Thursday last. In the course of his
sermon, the rev, gentleman said he wished it to be
clearly understood that he had taken no part in the
controversy that had been going on in the newspapers,
and he had not expressed an opinion as to the action
the Bishop of London had seen fit to take. He had,
however, received a vast number of letters abusing
his Church and himself, but he was happy to say
that he had also received as many sympathising with
him in his position. There seemed to be great
confusion in the minds of many people as to the pro-
priety of Dr. Parker's invitation to him—a clergy-
man of the Established Church—to preach in a Non-
conformist pulpit, and likewise as to his acceptance
of the same. As to the exact nature of the Bishop
of London's intervention, it resolved itself into a very
compact compass. He accepted the invitation firstly
because he heartily sympathised with the work of the
Saviour wherever it was being carried on; and,
secondly, be did so in accordance with the teaching
which was to the effect that "what God has cleansed
thou shouldst not call unclean." There was nothing
illegal in Dr. Parker having asked him to preach in
the City Temple, nor was there anything illegal in his
having accepted the invitation, and from the bishop's
point of view there was nothing illegal about the
proceeding. A Dissenting place of worship was not a
chapel at all. It was simply a room. An Episcopal
clergyman was as a simple layman in such a build-
ing, and there was nothing that forbade a Church of
England minister going into a room and uttering any
number of words. Then again he had the matter of
precedent on his side. He was proposing to do
nothing more than had been done in the past by the
Bishop of Liverpool, the Dean of Westminster, Canon
Fremantle, and he himself. It was announced
throughout the whole land that he intended to preach
at the City Temple, and yet the bishop did not know
anything about it till Dr. Parker wrote and apprised
him of the fact, and then he merely communicated
to Dr. Parker and himself, saying that he did not
wish the sermon to be delivered, and that if it was de-
livered it would be without his sanction. The bishop
in this instance reminded him of the story of Nelson's
blind eye on one occasion, when he did not see a cer-
tain signal he did not want to see. The bishop did
not threaten to prosecute him (Mr. Haweis) if he
preached, and indeed he was even kind enough to
say that he did not think he would do so; but in a
second letter he wrote he stated that he had power to
inhibit him from preaching in his diocese. He had
never rebelled against his bishops, and he agreed
. that every man should be loyal to his bishop until
he felt he would violate his own conscience by
being loyal, and then it was time for him to go out
of the Church. He bowed to the administration of
the Church of England, but he did not think of keep-
ing the law. No clergyman did so. He did not sup-
pose there was one clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land who kept it as it was laid down in the statutes
and rubrics. He could not say what motive led the
Bishop to forbid him to preach at the City Temple.
The Bishop had in a letter pointed out that by so
doing he would embitter tha -"^m --hich now existed
between the different 5eei,..7..r
bitterness of feeling would have been still more pro-
voked by his not availing himself of Dr. Parker's in-
vitation. The present state of things, however, was
not so black as it appeared to be. Everyone must
keep his head cool, and exercise forbearance and
charity, and abstain from in any way forcing the
present position of affairs. Mr. Haweis then pro-
ceeded to argue in favour of united Christian action,
according to the teaching of the New Testament,
against the powers of sin and wickedness.