AN ECCLES ASTICAL APPEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1919, Page 3

AN ECCLES ASTICAL APPEAL.

JUDGMENT OP THE COURT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Dunedin, Last Night. The Court o£ Appeal of the Church province of New Zealand delivered judgment to-day in the case of the lie v. C. H. Gosset v. tiie Kev. 0. E. I'erry. This wa> an appeal from the judgment of the 'Bishop of Christchurch in a case •brought inthe Bishop's Court, Christchurea, wherein Archdeacon. Gosset made certain charges against Rev. Perry, of the parish of St. Michael and AH Angels. The first charge was that Perry, on various occasions, reserved the fast am' consecrated the broad ana wine contrary to the 28th article of religion and its provisions of clause 2, canon ~, title D. The members of the court, except the Bishop of Auckland.- think the reservation of the sacrament is not contrary to any doctrine of the church, and that the practice l>ecoir:efl a question order or fortu, regarding the permissibility of which the bishop is the lawful authority. In dealing with the other charge, the court states it regards the use of the prayer, entitled a colloquy, before the reserved sacrament as foreign to the mind, and tho acting of the church. The conditions laid down by the Bishpp of j'Chriatchurch lor reservation in future prevent the opportunity for such practice.

In the opinion of the oourt, tlio teaching of the invocations of tWißloosed Virgin Mary is contrary J;o 1 22nd article of religion, and clause i. canon 2, titlo D, but it is very questionable if Perry's admission amounts to more that an admission oi" the use of the words, not necessary involving an invocation.

The charge that tho celebrant at St Michael's, on more than one occasion turned to the people and hald towards them tho consecrated bread, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God," is stated to be without the authority of any kind. The court agrees with tho judgment of the Bishop of Christchurch in regard to the charge of ringing the bell after the consecration of the bread and wine. Regarding the charges of using an epistle and gospel other than those prescribe, using the epistle and gospel from Roman use, adding a prayer to th 3 prayer of consecration, and celebrating himself without other communicants, the court says the Bishop of Christchurch admonished Mr. Perry and as the latter agreed to accept the ruling, the matter need not be further dealt with.

As regards the charge of encouraging and constantly permitting people habitually to kneel and prostrate themselves during the saying of the Niccne Creed, the oourt holds that no question of doctrine is involved.

Regarding the use of the tabernacle, the court states that it" it is regarded a3 a receptacle for reserved elements it agrees with the action of the Bishop of Chrwtciiurch in ordering ita removal. This actiofi of the Hishop in ordering the removal of the light before the tabernacle, or immediately before the consecrated bread and wine, is endorsed. The placing of a crucifix on the wall above the pulpit, and the use 0 f a crucifix on tha processional cross is not held to be wrong teaching. That confession and absolution thereafter are necessary i 3 held to he contrary to the doctrine of the church, and if. is for the Bishop of Christchurch to decide what penalty, if any, should be imposed Tue teaching's itr the Parish Magazine on the subject of fasting communion appear to be contrary to the doctrines of the church, though the court agrees that fasting communion is a laudable custom. The givincr of the sacrament grudgingly and- without the word? of Administration to certain persons is held to he an offence for which the penalty, if any, should be imposed by the Bi3hop of Cbristchjireh. The court adds that when the revised prayer boo!.- has been sanctioned by j arliament, the church in New Zealand will no doubt have an opportunity of flMsrhifr its mi,ul on .various matters but in the meantime, unless thereto be complete legal bondage, the bishonj must exercise their discretion and take the order and quieting and appeasing of doubts and diversities. The costs of appeal, wfy rt taxed by the Chancellor of the Diocese at Dunedin, are to be paid bv appellant and respondent in equal proportions.

Tha judgment was sinned ty the Primate, the Bishops of Wellington and Waiapu. In a separate judgment, the ■Bishop of Auckland says he cannot concur in the decision regarding the first two charges. TTo holds that the church m Aew Zealand has 110 authority to order reservation of the sacrament for any purpose, and that reservation for any purpose is contrary to the Cth mVic at the end of the commission offide, though he approves of reservation for (he sick in extreme cases, when specially desired, and when it is administered at once. He concurs in the Teat of the ju^jjneni