New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-02
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.


Mr.. WEST CHARGED WITH NYENTING IT BY TIE
BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
| lrRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUHEl
LONDON, Dec 16.-Bishop Colenso was announced
to preach on Sunday at st. James Chapel in York-st
| out of St. James Square, This is one of those
churches to which strangers, well a large regu-
lar congregation, much in the habit of resorting
drawn by the fame of the Rev. StopfoFd Brooke one
of the most eloquent aud most liberal cergymen in
the Church of England. To hear Bishop ColensO
there came greater crowd than usual 1 don't
know whether the Bishop breaches popular sermons,
but of his own great personal popularity there can
be no doubt. The bitterness with which he is pur-
sued by the more bigOted churchmen is enough to
account for that. There hope that he would
have been asked by Dean Stanley to preach at West
minister Abbey If he had been, that venerable fab
nc would have of its greatest throngs. ST.
James Chapel is not large, and hundreds were
| turned away; other hundreds filed the asles and
stairs But those who got in as far from hear
| ing Bishop COenso as those who were kept out He
| did not preach, and Mr.. Brooke explained to the
| congregation why he did not Late on Saturday
| evening he had received he said letter from the
Bishop of London. The Bishop of London stated
that he had seen the advertisement that the Bishop
of Natal would preach next day at Mr.. Brooke's
chapel, and he hoped the matter would be given up
tary Oprepare an inhibition and nhibt the Bishop
| of Natal from preaching Mr.. Brooke replied that
lie regretted that the Bishop of London should feel
obliged to take such step, and told his congrega-
ton that in the circumstances, he could only sub
| NIT lie went on to say that, in his opinion, the
| Bishop Of London had acted with great courtesy,
for he might have inhibited the Bishop of Natal at
| the door Of this church." 1t may be doubted
whether his congregation shared their pastors high
| opinion of the Bishop Of London's courtesy They
responded to the statement, say the reports by an
outburst of indignant feeling, such as is not often
witnessed in any place of worship, and which in this
instance took the form of deliberate and loud hiss
ing. After which Mr.. Brooke delivered sermon to.
which his audience listened in frame of mind
| which may be imagined.
The kissing was meant Of course, for the Bishop
of London. 1t was the readlest means of indicating
an appreciation OF the intolerance shown by his Lord
Ship Mr.. Brooke, it is thought, might have shown
more frmness. 1t is very strongly affirmed that the
Bishop has no legal authority to issue an inhibition
of the kind he threatened or at least that such
inhibition would have legal force, and that
clergyman dsregarding it would incur legal
| penalty. If tins view be correct, there can be no
reason why Mr.. Brooke shonld have felt bound to
obey inhibition from the policy of which he
obviously dlssented. Still less need he have come
down before the shot was actually fired. Whether
an inhibition has any legal validity not it is GER
| tain that letter announcing intention to issue
one cannot have. The Bishop of London carried the
day too easily so far Mr.. Brooke aud The sermon
| of last Sunday are concerned. But l am slow to
believe that the Bishop of Natal really be pre-
vented from preaching in London. if he wishes to
preach in London. There seems to be some doubt
whether he himself cares for conflict with the
ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. 1t is stated
that IN consequence of the threat of inhibition, he
declines an invitation to preach in the church of the
Rev. DIR. Hawcis next Sunday. Even should this be
So there can be for calling in question the
courage of the stout old Bishop. He has proved it
in one of the most protracted and apparently des
perate contests ever waged in the Church.
The Bishop of London sought to soften the as
perity of his act by expressing almost with fer
vorn says Mr.. Brooke, " his sympathy with the eff
forts the Bishop of Natal had made to bring about
Justice in the colony over which he was Bishop"
To which the Bishop of Natal replies in letter to
friend, from which an extract is published: "The
Bishop of London cannot see that, whatever have
done in this matter worthy of his sympathy 1t is
only Christianty-ho Christianity Of Christ, not of
the Churches-which has compelled me to do It,"
Well, if there were Bishops of Natal and
fewer Bishops of London, the difference between
the Christianity of Christ and the Christianity of
the Churches might not be so striking
Of late, however the Bishops, to do them justice
have been more amusing than usual find myself
with some SURPRISE devOtng frequent paragraphs to
them. Two of them have now come forward-qult-
ting for the moment the seclusiOn of their episcopal
palaces to face the glare of daylight in newspaper
to contradict Mr. Temple Vests pleasant story
about their interview with Mr.. Gladstone touching
the Public Worship bill last session. AS this story
(which gave in a recent letter. represented Mr..
Gladstone as declaring himself free the disestab
lishment question, it was from Mr. Gladstone that
denial might naturally have been looked for. Ii
Mr. Gladstone had really made so pOrtentOus an an
nouucement to the Bishops of Winchester and Ely.
there would have been nothing to wonder at in their
| telegrapbing to their brother Bishops to come up
| and vote against O clause which was to have the
result of raising Mr.. Gladstone's hand against the
| Church. There was however, another tag to the
| story. to the effect rs ! now learn from the
| Bishop of Wincbestr- naelf-that one Bishop had
! sent word he had q & i'len party and could not
come thinh. it IL s- Ave been this sprightly tic-
ton which reused the ire of Winchester. He pub
fishes letter oOntradicting part of the story. His
letter is so worded that IL is difficult to make out
how much he means to deny All that he does in fact
deny is the statement that he and the Bishop of Ely
teegraphed to their colleagues to vote against par
ticuar clause because disestablishment touched
by it. and that one Bishop replied as above. Did,
then Mr. Gladstone say what he is reported to have
said and did the Bishops telegraph, but for differ
| ent reasoni The Bishop of Winchester leaves much
20 conjecture but not the fact that he is very angry
with Mr. Temple West, for he goes out of his epis-
| copal way to suggest that Nr. Temple West in
vented" the statement which the Bishop contra
| diets
xlofI. l.,