The Henson Journals

[70]

January 1st, 1923.

[symbol]

My dear Bishop,

I think there are 4 points which should be steadily insisted upon in all discussions or controversies which may be raised in connexion with the preaching of English Clergymen in Nonconformist Churches:

1. The issue is really a new one as it presents itself to us now. The canons of 1604, which constitute our ecclesiastical code, have been (so far as they affect Nonconformist & Popish Recusants) entirely cancelled by the changes in the Statute Law. The status of Nonconformity is now fully legal, & no canonical regulations can alter the fact. This broad consideration must finally determine our general view of the practical questions.

2. Neither Bishop or Incumbent possesses any jurisdiction within a Nonconformist Church, which, so far as they are concerned, is indistinguishable from a private house. It follows that by preaching in such a Church there is no invasion of the Incumbent's jurisdiction: & accordingly no offence of which the Bishop can take Cognizance.

3. For one clergyman to 'preach' or 'officiate' within the jurisdiction of another, without his permission , would undoubtedly be a legal offence: but these are specific actions legally defined. To 'officiate' is to use publicly the services prescribed in the [71] [symbol] Prayer Book. To 'preach' is to give a religious address in a consecrated or licensed building belonging to the Church of England, as provided by the law.

4. The only point which properly emerges is the quality of the action in question. Is it unseemly, or scandalous , or inexpedient for the clergyman to preach in a Nonconformist Chapel ? The Incumbent has a locus standi (since his jurisdiction is not invaded, & no building under his control is entered) except as delating the clergyman to the Bishop for unseemly or scandalous conduct, This he is undoubtedly free to do, and theBishop must determine how far the accusation can be made good. For the case you describe it would appear to be quite frivolous.

When on Wednesday, March 31st 1909, I preached in the Digbeth Institute in Birmingham, a building connected with the Carr's Lane Congregational Church, I did so with an Inhibition from Gore, then Bishop of Birmingham, in my pocket. (The document now hangs conspicuously in my study wall in a suitable frame) A considerable correspondence passed between Gore and myself prior to my preaching, & this appeared in full in the Times April 2nd 1909. I have tried to unearth the cuttings for your benefit, but hay have gone adrift, & cannot be found. On April 13th I left for America with an understanding that on my return

[72] [symbol]

in the Autumn, I should be set in the Courts for defying the Inhibition, & I instructed a solicitor to take the necessary steps to defend the action. It appeared to me then very desirable that the matter should be threshed out in the Courts, & I still regret that this was not done. After my return I received a commumication from Gore announcing his abandonment of his intention to prosecute. I consulted the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, on his advice, acquiesced in this position. Thus I was left in possession of the field .

On March 25th 1917, I preached in the City Temple. My action had been preceded by a correspondence with the Bishop of London, which I subsequently published as an Appendix to the volume "Christian Liberty" published by Macmillans in 1918. Since then I have assumed that my main contentions are accepted, and I have observed with interest, & perhaps a little amusement, that preaching in the Nonconformist Churches has now become a common practice among "Catholics".

Now, my dear Bishop, I think I have said all that is necessary. If the Vicar complains to you, I suggest that you tell him that his grievance is imaginary, & that the foot–ball evangelist acted with your approval. You might add, that while you would always be ready to support the parochial clergy against any invasion of their jurisdiction, you could

[73] [symbol]

not encourage frivolous complaints.

Personally I urge very strongly the duty of heeding S. Paul's admonition "Let not your good be evil spoken of", & I advise the clergy not to accept invitations if their doing is likely to provoke local friction & controversy. I point out to them that where a parish clegyman's objections may be anticipated, & he is a good man at peace with his neighbours, it is not really fair to place him in the invidious position of having to refuse consent. Therefore a reasonable & charitable judjement of expediency must be cultivated.

I privately induced Rashdall to decline an invitation to preach in Monkwearmouth because I knew that Brown, an excellent High Churchman, would feel conscientiously bound to object. And this is my own rule. I preach from time to time in the Nonconformist Churches within the diocese, but I satisfy myself quietly beforehand that there will be no local friction.

Here is a screed for New Year's Day! All good luck to you my Friend.

Yours affec Herbert Dunelm:

The Lord Bishop of Ripon.

[74]

Monday, January 1st, 1923.

[symbol]

I celebrated the Holy Communion in the Chapel at 8 a.m. Then I dealt with the 'business' letters, & wrote a long answer to an inquiry from the Bp. of Ripon about preaching in Dissenting Chapels. After lunch I walked in the Park with the dogs.

Llewellyn Davies wrote of the Church of England very justly:–

"I have always thought that the comprehensiveness of our Church consisted not in its being a liberty hall in which every clergyman was free to deprave its doctrine and discipline as he pleased, but in the fact that its doctrine & discipline were themselves comprehensive. Any Communion can easily be comprehensive in the sense of letting its ministers do as they please…. It has been the glory of the Church of England to have a really comprehensive theology which is held in its own breadth and simplicity by the wisest of its members, but which allows, and is able to comprehend schools and parties which have further 'views' of their own to which they attach importance".

These words were quoted by the Rev. Hon. W. E. Bowen in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, June 2nd, 1904. He also quoted Bishop Lightfoot ("whose son in the faith I was at Auckland") that "If the foundation of Christianity be the first cause for thankfulness, the Reformation is the second". v. Leaders of Northern Church, p. 129.

---