THE KAIAPOI CHURCH CASE.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1022, 4 October 1877, Page 3

THE KAIAPOI CHURCH CASE.

[By Telegraph.] [from the correspondent of the press.] Dunedin, October 3. The "Churchman" publishes the full text of the judgment in Mr Carlyon's case, and says editorially : —" The whole document is characterised by extreme moderation, and, dealing as it does only with matters almost beyond question, the verdict of the Bishop 3 will be received by the body of the Church with thankfulness, and accepted, as it should be, •with almost complete unanimity." The following is the judgment:— The assessors haying found that Edward Carlyon is the author of a pamphlet entitled "Does the Church of England Sanction Auricular Confession?" printed at the "North Canterbury Independent" office, in January or February, 1876, in which, among other passages, he writes that " Confession is the divinely appointed means for the forgiveness of sin committed after baptism," we, the undersigned Bishops, "do decide that the doctrine complained of is contrary to the authorised teaching of the Church of the Province of New Zealand, and that the said Edward Carlyon is guilty of the offence charged against him. Charge 2. The said assessors having further found that in a letter addressed to the editor of the "New Zealand Church News," and published by Edward Carlyon as a separate pamphlet, as well as in the June number of the aforesaid paper, Edward Carlyon explains his teaching thus : —"Before consecration there is on the altar, on the paten, and in the cup, one reality. After consecration there are on the altar, on the paten, and in the cup, two realities —an earthly and a heavenly." Again, in the same letter, are the following words, referring to the writer's former letter : —" In my letter there are three points which appear with more or less clearness, and upon which you have commented. Ist. That I hold and teach that the words ' This is my body,' ' This is my blood,' are to be understood in a literal sense. Certainly I do so understand these words." We, the undersigned Bishops, do decide that the said statements are contrary to the authorised teaching of the Church of the Province of New Zealand, and that Mr Carlyon is guilty of the offence charged against him. Charges 3, -1, and s.—We, the undersigned Bishops, do not consider it necessary to pronounce formal judgment on the inaccurate use of language, on au unwarrantable assumption, and on an contained in thosa

written statements of Mr Carlyon which form substance of charges 3,4, and 5 respectively. Charge 6.—The said assessors having found that in 1875, in the parish church, Kaiapoi, the aforesaid Edward Carlyon did administer, or purport to administer, the sacrament of baptism to certain adults—namely, to two children of Frederick Say Funston, of Kaiapoi, after the* close of the evening service. We, the undersigned Bishops, decide that the act complained of is contrary to the authorised practice of the Church of the Province of New Zealand, and that Edward Carlyon i 3 guilty of the offence charged against him; but how far general prevalence of irregularity as to the administration of holy baptism at prescribed times, ought to weigh in condonation of the offence, the Bishops leave to the judgment of the one who has to pronounce sentence in this case. Charge 7 (and 8?). —The said assessors having found that in 1875 in the parish church, Kaiapoi, the said Edward Carlyon did administer, or purport to administer, the sacrament of baptism to certain adults —namely, to two children of Frederick Say Funston, of Kaiapoi, but did not before proceeding with the order appointed for the ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years ask " whether any of the persons here presented be baptised or no." We, the undersigned Bishops, pronounce the said Edward Carlyon to have been guilty of an irregularity, but believe it possible that he might, in coming to the font, commence service in momentary forgetfulness of the rubric which precedes it. Charge 9. —The said assessors having found that on Christmas Day, 1875, the said Edward Carlyon did make use of unleavened bread, or of such bread as is not usually eaten, we, the undersigned Bishops, decide that the act complained of is contrary to the authorised practice of the Church in the Province of New Zealand, and that Edward Carlyon is guilty of the offence charged against him. Charge 10. —The said assessors having found that Edward Carlyon, in a paper read by him before a commission of inquiry on November 26th, 1875, alleges " Neither do I know what Mr Wilson means by the elevation of the host. He only says it is something usually called this. What I suppose he is thinking of is that after consecration I always elevate the blessed sacrament. Much that I have said about the mixed chalice applies to this. I oidy wish to add (a) The order of communion 1548, forbade the elevation at second consecration of the'chalice. (b) The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1549, ordered the consecration to be performed without any elevation or showing the sacrament to the people. (c) The Second Prayer Book removed the prohibition, and it has never since been revived. I think therefore that if the withdrawing of the order to mingle water with wine at the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion be taken as prohibiting the ceremony, the withdrawal of the prohibition to the elevation of the blessed Sacrament, must be taken as allowing the ceremony." We, the undersigned Bishops, decide that in elevating . the Sacrament the said Edward Carlyon acted : contrary to the authorised practice of the Church of the Province of New Zealand, and i is guilty of the offence charged against him. Charge 11—We, the undersigned Bishops, consider the words complained of to be too indefinite to form the subject of any judgment from us.

Charge|l2—The assessors having found that on Christmas Day, 1875, and on every occasion on which he celebrated Holy Communion in the parish church, Kaiapoi, the said Edward Carlyon did and doth stand while saying the prayer of consecration in the communion service in such wise that during the whole time of saying the said prayer he is between the people and communion table with his back to the people, so that the people cannot see him break the bread or take the cup into his hands, we, the undersigned Bishops, decide that the practice complained of is contrary to the authorised practice of the Church of the Province of New Zealand, and declare the said Edward Carlyon guilty of the offence charged against him. (Signed by the Bishops, Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Dunedin.)