THE KAIAPOI RITUALIST.

Evening Star, Issue 4318, 29 December 1876, Page 3

THE KAIAPOI RITUALIST.

The case of the Rev. Hubert Edward Carlyon bids fair to become us cele brated as those of the Rev. Mr Maoonochio and the Rev. Mr Purchas; but it is to bo hoped, for the sake of the peace of mind of the public, that the incumbent of Kaiapoi will be disposed of with greater facility than his troublous brethren in the Old Countryhave been. It seems a pity that the Colonial Church, when it started free from the trammels of Establishment, did not also recognise the advisableness of dispensing ■with public courts for the trial of ecclesiastical offences. It may be very satisfactory to the British taxpayer who contributes to the support of Mother Church to see heretics arraigned, and to know the nature of the pecadilloes ■which disentitle them to any moie of his money. But in the Colonies it is ▼ery different. Eour-fifths of the people care not one jot what doctrines a Church of England minister chooses to preach. His offence is nothing to the general public. The denomination whose pay he hus been taking alone has to do with him, ' and it should deal with him privately, according to its rules and regulations, just as a company would quietly cashier a lazy or unfaithful servant. Courts of Assessors and Benches of Bishops, with their chancellors and registrars, and the fiddle-de-dee of presentments, pleas, replications, and so forth, are utterly absurd, and if retained at all should

flourish in the vestry. Coming back to the case of Mr Carlyon, we fancy the public has about had enough of him. He has been railed at by churchwardens, anathematised by vestries, and sat upon by standing committees, and yet he lives to fight. Lait week he met a Court of Assessors, and pUaded to a presentment containing a dozen counts—the whole of which were either admitted by him or proved against him. The charges alone occupy a space of nearly three columns in the Christchurch papers. The gravamen of his offence consists in having taught the Romish doctrines of auricular confession and the real presence, and in truth he does not give forth any uncertain sound on these subjects. He admits, for instance, that he believes " that it seems to be the duty of every priest in his church (the Church of England) to teach private or auricular confession to the people committed to his care;" "that it is the divinelyappointed means for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism." Then —" To be told that the bread which we break is the communion (Koinonia) of the body of Christ, and then to be expected to believe that the body of Christ is not one with the bread (I. Cor. x. 16); to have a thing given into my hand which the giver tells me is the body of our Lord Jeßus Christ, and to be required to realise that it is not the body of Christ, is far too great a task for my mind." The following passage was also admitted by the rev. gentleman to be part of fc sermon of his : "For example, with regard to the Holy • Eucharist, 1 would be a coward if believing I did not preach, and I believe in the real presence, and believing, I adore." This is tolerably plain. The Court of Assessors found the reverend gentleman guilty on these charges, and next he is to appear before the Bench of Bishops for judgment.— <N. Z. Times.'