A CLERICAL STORM IN A TEACUP.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3642, 15 March 1883, Page 4

A CLERICAL STORM IN A TEACUP.

The stately composure of the Church of England has been ruffled, and the outrage comes from tho hand of one of her most distinguished sons. Dr. Bromby has actually invited a Scotch minister, Mr Charles Strong, to preach in an Anglican church, and Mr Strong has delivered an excellent address from the consecrated pulpit.

"Where is this sort of thing to stop I'"

asks a disconsolate canon of Melbourne in the columns of a contemporary. "Dr. Bromby syxnpathiscs with Mr Strong, another clergyman may sympathise with the Irvingite angel, another witli the Swedeuborgian minister, and a third with a Plymouthite evangelist ?" To us the inference suggested does not seem either very natural or'very terrible. Clergymen of the Church of England do not as a rule s\ mpathise with that emotional and erratic religion which is the distinguishing mark of the three bodies instanced. In England the ministers of the State Church oscillate toAvards Rome, Germany, or Geneva.; and in this Colony nine out of ten among them are wisely content to work on toi-iiis of good fellowship with their Presbyterian, AVesleyari, and Independent brethren. The chances uvo that if exchanging pulpits comes to be the rule, we shall not find a Swedenborgian or a Plymouth Brother in an Anglican pulpit from one year's end to the other. The best preachers of what arc known as the orthodox churches will bb asked now and then to address a foreign congregation ; and we do not suppose the sermon-attending public •will object. As for the other point which Dr. Bromby's impugnors have raised, that he is violating the law of the Church of England, it is one which wo imagine can only be decided by tho Bishop and by the Church Assembly. Dr Bromby, M.kc a wily disputant, turns the enemy's position, and afliims that while certain functions are severely restricted to the minister, " other parts are left open to approved members of the church— e.g., the psalms, the anthem, the lessons, and, a fortiori, the homilies." We confess to thinking that Dr. Brombcy has not exactly proved his position by this argument. Mr Strong was not invited to read one of tho Church of England sioir.il ics, but to deliver a discoir.-se of his own. There was a time when the Church of England tolerated the services of lay preachers, but that liberty was stamped out more than 300 years ago, and we know of no instances of it in orderly times. AVesley of course tried to revive it, but the experiment only ended in his followers having to set up churches of their own. Nevertheless, apart from his illustration, Dr. Bromby's position is based, we think, upon an unassailable truth. The Church of England does, wo apprehend, bei; cve that a layman is competent to discharge any single duty of a clergyman, even a bishop, except reading the absolution, consecrating the eucharist, confirming, or ordaining. Tho prohibitions against lay baptism and lay preaching have only been adopted as matter of convenience, and nvay be set asido in a day. Therefore, even ii we chose to regard Mr Strong as no better than a layman to Anglicans, even so there is no reason why he should not preach in an English Church provided the authorities of the diocese and of the particular church give him leave. In this case the Bishop appears to have raised no difficulty; and Dr. Bromby assures us that he showed all due respect to his churchwardens. If the head of the church in Melbourne and the representatives of the congregation see no objection to Mr Strong's preaching, a formal protest by mere outsiders looks wry much like an impertinence.—Age. j