ECCLESIASTICAL INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 275, 9 August 1918, Page 6

ECCLESIASTICAL INQUIRY

ALLEGED BREACHES OF ANGLICAN . CHURCH LAW. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, August 8. An ecclesiastical inquiry into allegations of alleged breaches of tho Anglican Church' law in regard to doctrine and ritual at St. Michael's' Church was hold to-day. The charges had been made by thjs Ven. Archdeacon Gossot against tho Rev. C. E. Perry, vicar of St. Michael and All Angels'. Church. Bishop Julius presided, with Mr. W. D. Andrews, Chancellor of tho Diocese, assisting him. Archdeacon Gosset was rem'esented by Mr. H. D. Acland, and. the Rev. Mr. Perry was represented by Mr. Tfphani. Mr. Andrews, in. explaining the confutation of the inquiry, said that it was not a Bishop's Court, for that would have been necessary only if the facts alleged had been challenged or traversed. In the present case, advisedly he believed, no answer wasmadoto the charge, and consequently the matter had to be dealt with under tho Canon Title D, canon 1, clause 17, page 397. The Bishop had desired that the matter should bo gone on with under his own presidency. Tho questions wore entirely of church law. "If now or in consequence of the argument of tho law," Mr. Andrews continued, "it be admitted that any of the matters complained of in the charge cannot be justified or are not permitted by the law of the Church, then the present is a. fitting and proper occasion for such admission to be made, and for an assurance to be given as to the futuro in respect of any such matter." Mr. Upham said that some time ago, during Canon Burton's period of ofhee at St. Miohael's, it was permitted to re-' servefthe Sacrament in certain cases and under certain restrictions. They were known to Canon Burton, but not fo the vestry a.nd churchwardens, and were not known to tho present vicar. In certain particulars these limits had not been kept, and it was admitted that there could be no reservation without His Lordship's permission. The Bishop had called attention io these irregularities, and an assurance had been given that they would not be repeated. The error was one cf. inadvertence. Mr. Upham, in conclusion, said that Mr. Perry desired to bow to His Lordship's opinion on any connected with the Church.

Mr. Acland repeated that they were bound by the constitution, and as for the sorviceß in tho church, all church pi'oporty in Canterbury was vested in tho Church Trustees, who might go to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining any clergyman from carrying out services contrary to the constitution, and this might even be done by any church member.

Bishop Julius thanked counsel for their arguments, and assured them that tho matter would receive his most careful consideration.