The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3512, 26 May 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1874

It gives us pleasure to observe that a 3^ r y great innovation, ban been made in victoria. A Presbytemn minister has made his appearance in. tie pulpit of an Episcopalian Church, and has actually preached a sermon there. This minister was the Hey., W. Henderson, of St Andrew s Church, Ballarat, and the church in which he preached was' St, Stephen’s, Hichnhond. Some time ago Professor Max M uller of Oxford was invited by Dean Stanley to preach—to lecture it was said—in Westminster Ahbey. But then, although the Proessor was not exactly a clergyman, he belonged to tl«, Church of England, and might therefore be fairly supposed through confirmation or some other rite, to be in possession of some part at least of those gifts and virtues which am, as is wellknown,tobe derived through Apostolical Succession, iben, too, he is an Oxford don. But a au outsider, one who had never come oven under the hands of a parson, inuc less of a I dshop, in the rites of ap ism, confirms -tion, or in any other a^owe d to enter a Church of Englai id pulpit, is indeed a marvellous Slgu 0 f the times. It affordr just cause for won der f s hat the Episcopal Church should hj ave allowed herself to appear, to he so very awrogant, as she undoubtedly has appeared in assuming to herself the sole > _ right _ 9 f ordaining ministers, for thai b is what it amounts to, when she refuse s to, acknowledge that

other ministers are properly equipped for th ;iv duties, unless they have been or kitted by her bishops, and refuses th om admittance to her pulpits. ' The la :i ty of this Church hold, ware sure, nc such ridiculous doctrine ; and we th nk it would be doing injustice to the cl rgy to suppose that any large proporti"u of them believe in it either. hence comes it, then, that this preposterous claim—unique as far as Protf'itant Churches are concerned —still holds its ground ? We believe that it arises solely from the fact that the Church of the England is a very large and very wealthy body. This alone has made her so Conservative. If an. impulse in any direction is given to one part of the Church—if tlxex’e is any sort of agitation whatever there—before the effects‘of this impulse can spread through the Church its results have died away in tlie quarter in which the impulse first originated. Besides this, the property of the Church, and its immunities and privileges, act as a dead weight : in tending to prevent progression of any kind in the Church. In this important particular, what has been often said about lawyers as a body may also be said about the clerical profession—that its members have a direct interest in keeping things as they are. There is a further resemblance, too, in this respect, that real reforms of the abuses connected with either of these professions have, as a rule, to be initiated, if they are not entirely carried out by the “ laity.” It is true that there have been occasional and great exceptions to the rule, but no one can deny that this is the true state of the case in general. Neither can it be wondered at. Human nature always counts for some-, thing. The clergy are certainly not in duty bound to be constantly clamoring for reform, to be ‘‘ the ill birds that foul their own nests,” or the constant “ criers of stinking fish.” Be that as it may, however’, there can be little doubt that, as we said, the wealth and the size of the Church of England have been the main cause of her very great vis inertia;. It may be said, by-tlxe-by, in favor of this view, that the Gouservatisiix of lax’ge religious bodies is always in striking contrast with the extreme mobility, almost fickleness, of smaller bodies. Thus the Greek Church, which is larger than the Anglican, is also more conservative, while the Roman communion, by far the largest of all the Christian sects, is without doubt the least liable to change of any kind. Again, if we descend in the scale as far as numbers are concerned, we find the Presbyterian body far less conservative than the Episcopalian, though even its membersaresaid to hold with great tenacity certain crotchets which people outside their body feel to be matters of no moment whatever, and which involve no principle of any kind—snob are their intolerance of organs, and their liking for extempore preachers as opposed to readers, the importance attached to cex’tain postures at prayer or singing, and so forth. It is noticeable, however, that the Anglican Chui’ch in the Colonies, and especially in the Province of Otago, is neither lax-ge nor wealthy. Consequently the two principal caixses of an extx’eme conservatism have been removed as far as we are concerned, and there is little indeed to prevent tlxe Anglicans from fraternizing with the Presbyterian Church, which has always, as far as we know, been ready to respond to any invitation from the members of the weaker body to co-operate with them. It is hopeless, we fear, to expect a complete fusion; of the two .churches ; but there is no earthly reason that we can see why they should not be on friendly terms, and not be constantly assum ing towards each something very like a'hostile attitude. We r repeat .that it gives us great pleasure to learn that the Rev." W. Henderson has preached a sermon in an Episcopalian pulpit, and we hope that the same tort of thing may before long occur here.