Hide Article Text (OCR)
novaTHE LIBERTY OF PREACHING.THE BISHOP OF LONDON AND THE REV. DR. SPENCER.A very remarkable correspondence thalf has taken place between the Bishop of London and the -Rdv. Dr. Spencer, a clergyman of the Established Church, is published in the Christian Standard. It sens that the latter was announced to take part in a mission week meeting to be held in Mr. Gordon Forlong's Tabernacle, in the parish of Paddington, on the 5th of May. The Rev. John Light, vicar of All Saints, Kensington-park; seeing the bill to that effect, wrote to Dr. Spencer to ex-S‘€«s his regret that he should “ publicly associate tnself wit a schismatical body of persons who, toy printed papers, publicly deprave the teaching of the 'Book of Common Prayer; and by local action,pfetsisi sly stri e to mdermine the Church's ndthc ity and influence.” Mr. Light threatened toebmplain to the Bishop of London of thia “ in. tnifeiOnw into his parish, and was as good as hu word, for the very next day Dr. Spencer received the following letter:—London House, S.W., April 23, 1874.SDear Sir,—A bill has been Dlacea i Oh vou are---' • J «V| AV| AtA bill has been placed in my hands,Speoial Service ” in the Talbot Tabernaelej n Tuesday, May 6th. It is my duty to remind yon that any pWgsmpn who oonduets any religious service in i * uilaiqg not oonsecrated or licensed, unless he is the ohnibent, or authorised by the incumbent of theIt . i A . - . . ^parislL ’ incurs serious penalties.-I 'ianhot help adding that, independent! obfeOtiont, it surely betrays a sad forg- -brotherly oourtesy, and the duty of doing to othersofas we would they should do unto usIt does notpyen trench op. the perilous ground of doing evil that good may come— when we allow ourselves to intrude into tfye , parish of another, to whom—not- to us—is intrusted the cure and government of the souls of the pwi loners. and even to weaken his hands, and soanda-Bhe1 most Cnurohmen, by taking part in the services of ANonconformist chapel.I am, dear Sir, your faithful servant,J. London.Rev. Dr. Spenoer.To this reproof Dr. Spencer returned the following drastic reply:—April 28, 1874. My Lord Bishop,—I beg leave to acknowledge theI havewas made for thetruth, and not the truth for the Chnroh rutreceipt of your letter, and, in reply, to say that eVer ’ considered that the Churcn ifartherhowhver fjoodand Scriptural the framework may be, iticdim of propag ,ing and perpetuating the truth as it iA in Jesus, Nay, on the contrary, the more *iuable the framework, the more effective engine it becomes for spreading the most soul-destroying errors, of Popery especially, through the length andit do t,ub Means oi nooaing me iana wun ropi superstition or Rationalistic infidelity, both of which are rife within its pale.”As regards the violation of the law of the Church, i.e., of the land, I would like to know where that law is to be found, especially Bince the passing of Lord Shaftesbury’s Act. Let me recall to your lordship a circumstance which you may have forgotten, or may not have known. Some years since, services were held in Exeter Hall by men—some of whom were then, or subsequently, bishops—and the then incumbent of St. Michael’s, Burfeigh-street, in which parish the hall is situated, Mr. Edouart, consulted and complained to your lordsbip’s predecessor—the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who told me that the law officers of the Crown, when consulted, were agreed that no law was violated, nor oould an action be maintained, when no ministerial act—as the administration of a Sacrament, or the performance of a Bervice of the Church of England, with Church of England rites, was celebrated; and this worship was continued by these ministers and biBhops, even, with ut the consent, and in defiance of the inoumbent. Has not the same thing been done over and over again in the oase of the theatre services, against the expressed wishes of the incumbents of the various parishes ? Did not the present Archbishop of York, and the late Bishop of Winchester minister within the so-called unconseorated walls of a Nonconformist meeting-house in Scotland? and has nob the present Dean of Westminster done the same? and not a word of remonstrance was ever uttered against these prelates and dignitary, for their preaching in so-called schismatical places of worship. 1 could name many others in your lordship’s diocese who have done the same thing, and have been utterly ignorant of any such law as that to which your lordship Alludes. I know £ oould not introduce any one who was not in Church of England orders into my pulpit, and this I shall not do ; but, in point of principle, I see no difference between speaking to three persons in the street or three thousand in a house—of “Jesus and the Resurrection,v especially in'parishes where the bread of life is not ministered. Immortal souls are not saved by Ritualistio displays of “perniciousnonsenseby every word-of God doth man livebreadth of the land; and, besides, I have made it a role, of which I trust your lordship would own the obligation, that all whom I expeot to meet in heaven— •I'Wnl—»I must love upon earth. We are washed in the Same blood and sanctified by the same Spirit, and why should we “fall out by the way? Why should a godless world say, “See how these Christians hate QPC another ”? I am charged by Mr. Light with “ assooiafing myself with a schismatical body, who, by printed, papers, publicly deprave the teaching of the Bhbk bif Common Prayer.” This I maintain to be a lander and an untruth; and, by your lordship, with “ Bokndalising most Christiana by taking part in the service of a Nonconformist chapel.” Oh, how different is the language, not of Paul, but of the Holy Ghost, “ Grace be with all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity”; and again, “To all that in every place oall upon the name of Jesus Christ Our Lord, both theirs and ours, grace be unto you and peace”; and again. “Christ is preached and I therein rejoice, yea, and shall rejoice.”• With regard to the absence of “brotherly courtesy” to which your lordship alludes, I would request to know in what respect I am to consider men as brothers wh® are not preaching the Gospel of Christ, but are making use of their position as ministers of the Church of England, to betray the very doctrines and principles of our glorious Reformers and martyred fathers, who perished at the stake to transmit to us the blessed legacy of Protestant worship and an open Bible. 1 tell you, my lord bishop, it is these men who are the schismatics and the creators of schism, and who are shattering the confidence of all who are good in thisland, in the ministrations of the Church of England.not by histrionio buffoonery, such as iff practised in too many churches of this diocese, as your lordship well knows, but by the faithful preaching of the glorious Gospe' of the blessed God. Far better that 'yonr lordship would send all the curates out of the diocese, who are introducing Popery into the churches, and habituating all the thoughtless and many of the educated to her superstitions, which your lordship might do as well as the excellent Bishop of Durham or the ite Bishop of Manchester. Your lordship might also cease to hold confirmations in Ritualistic churchesj or give them any countenance. You might also enjom the incumbents remove all candles, crosses, crucifixes, pictures of the Virgin Mary and Child from the reredos, which are notoriously causing scandal, and are decidedly illegal. Look at the accounts, as furnished in the papers, of the doings in certain eh rohes on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, and say, ‘ Is this Church of England worship ? Is this the Church of our fathers ? Was it to set up suoh a system as this that our fathers perished at the stake?”Now, my lord, as a minister who serves a higher Bishop than your lordship, even Jesus Christ, I say we owe a great deal to the Nonconformists for whatever piety there is in the Church of England—a church into which, unhappily, too many have entered, who are thoroughly unsound in the faith and immoral in their lives. Your lordship is now advancing in years, and your and my term of life will soon have passed. May we enjoy the blessed luxury of living in the hope that, when the day of reokoning shall come, we may hear from the Chief Shepherd and Bishop of souls these delightful words, “ Well done, good and faithful servants, ye have been faithful over a few things: enter ye into the joy of your Lord.Until that blessed day arrives, I must preach “in season— out of season,” ane take advantage of every open door, till I hear my blessed Master say, “ Friend, oome up higher.”I am, with much respect, your lordship’s faithfulservant, K. F. SFenceu, B.A., LL.D.The Bishop of London.P. S.—I shall reserve to myself the right of publishing this correspondence.—R. F. Spencer.This able and outspoken response brought a severer rebuke from the bishop in the following form :—London House, S.W., April 29, 1874.Rev. Sir,—If you will have the goodness to refer to Lord Shaftesbury’s Act, 18 and 19 Vic., cap. 86, you will see that it does not apply to such a congregation or assembly as that which you purpose to address, and which will meet, not in a private dwelling-house, norin a building not usually appropriated to purposes ofI would add, they are not stronger than the crisis which is impending, and the necessities of the case fully warrant and j ustify ; nor are they stronger or less called for than th language most righteously used by that noble standard-bearer, the Bishop of Durham, who designates these wicked men “a band of traitors,” “disloyal,” “a dangerous'party,” exhibiting “syuV ; patby with the grossest errors and most offeugive rites Of the Church of Rome.”Now, my Lord Bishop, can there be piety where there is not common honesty ? Can the Glt; 1 of truth, who requires “truth in the inward parts,” look upon these wretched men or their doings with complacency ? Men who, to use the not stronger than true language of the two Archbishops in the Declaration issued last year, “ desire to subvert the principles of the Reformation.” You call my language “uncharitable,” but I have no charity for error on vital points, much less for deceit. Charity to the soul is the soul of charity, and I cannot cry “ Peace, peace ; when there is no peace,” and no foundation for peace.I know, on many minor matters, the Church of England has left a margin for the exercise of prayerful thought, but on essential, vital truth, she has left nom Her very position is one of undying antagonism and hostility to Rome. She is essentially E angelical. She requires all her members to belong to this partyj aud in th matter she impliedly avows that a man' of no party is a man of no prinoiple, much less a man who i, ghts under the Church’s Danner, and is secretly or openly in league with her enemies.Since I last wrote, I have heard that another of these wicked men had joined the foul apostate Church of Rome—the curate of an adjoining parish. Would that they all went! or that God would give them grace to repent and retrace their footsteps.I do not, therefore change one iota of the sentiment, nor retract one sing! e expression in my former letter, to every word of which I most rigidly adhere ; and I repeat, in the words of the Apostle, that ** neither against the law ” of the Church, rightly interpreted; “ neither against the tempk ” of believers; “ nor yet against Csesar have I offended anything at alL”R. F. Spencer, B.A., LL.D.P. S.—I still reserve to myself the liberty of publishing this correspondence.—R. F. Spenoer.It seems that the Bishop of Worcester has thought better of a similar prohibition issued in that city, and has announced that he will allow the clergy to take part in certain mission services in the Music Hall in conjunction with Nonconformist ministers on condition that, * ‘ there be not introduced into the service anything, except anthems or hymns, which does not form part of the Holy Soriptures or Book of Common Prayer.”THE DISSENTING DEPUTIES.TheThreeminusannual meeting of the Deputies of the Denominations was held at the City Ter-Hotel on Thursday evening, Mr. John Glover in the chair. The minutes of the last meeting ' having been read and continued, the treasurer presented his account, Bhowing the receipts during the past year to have been £226, and the expenditure .179. The secretary then read, the report,which commenced by referring to some proceedii ;s in Parliament, especially to the motion of Mr. Miall (to whom a resolution of thanks had been passed), the Irish University Education Bill, Mr. Fawcett’s bill for the Abolition of Tests, which had become law, as had also the Sites for Places of Worship Bill introduced by Mr. Osborne Morgan j the Burials Bill, which, after being read a second time by a majority of sixty-three, was afterwards withdrawn. It had not been thought advisable to re-introduce it this session, but from recent scenes which have been enacted, it was plainly a very necessary measure. The Endowed Schools Act Amendment Bill awl also been passed, but the Act would expire in December next, and any bill introduced on the subject would need to be carefully watched by the committee. They had opposed the Union of Benefices Bill, and one of their committee (Mr. Ellington) gave evidence before the commissioners. The Education Act Amendment Bill had also passed into law, but it had been thought necessary to introduce a Bhort bill for the abolition of the 25th clause. In accordance with a resolution passed at the laBt meeting, a conference had been held, at which the question was fully discussed, and the resolution proposed by Mr. Watson carried. While it was clear that unanimityon the question did not exist amongst them, it was
Newspaper Details
Nonconformist
London, Middlesex, GB
Wed, May 27, 1874
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
Familysearch
Utah, USA 21 Jul 2022
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
