USE OF VESTMENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 189, 11 August 1928, Page 7

USE OF VESTMENTS.

DEFENDED BY THE DEAN. CHAPTER'S POWER DENIED. "ABSURD DECISION" 50 YEARS AGO. < T( !e~mp!i—own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. Dean Barnett, in a statement to-day, said he considered the best thing was to bring the whole position before parishioners at a general meeting, though unfortunately, owing to the incomplete state of the parish roll, a number of parishioners would be disqualified from voting. The issue, he said, seemed to be narrowed to this: Until vestments are banished from the parish and until matins is instituted as the main Sunday morning service, in the opinion of a majority of the members of the chapter there will be no peace and no progress, nor will the parish be financial. Vestments, said Deau Barnett, were introduced by Archdeacon Cowie five and a-half years ago. This caused no dissension, nor any shortage of finance. It had always been the mind of the Church, as expressed in the Prayer Book, that vestments were right and proper, and that Holy Communion should be the main Sunday morning service. In face

of these facts he (the Dean) was not convinced, there was a reasonable call to disuse the vestments. He had entered the parish when times were not normal, and under the stress of high feeling it was difficult to obtain a free, frank and unbiassed decision on these matters. He thought the arrangements made for services should make it possible to work together for the good of the parish. Neither the chapter members nor the laymen generally had any jurisdiction over forms of worship and Church services, declared the Dean. Those in opposition were basing their objections on a decision of the Privy Council of over 50 years ago, to the effect that vestments were illegal. Since then leading historians, churchmen and scholars had deplored that absurd ruling, and vestments had been freely worn all over the world. When asked what his attitude would be if the same chapter were re-elected, Dean Barnett 6aid he would be guided by future events. He pointed out, however, that even if 90 per cent of the parishioners desired him to resign they had no power whatever to compel him to do so. He said he did not imply that he would necessarily remain in the face of overwhelming opposition. The position of the diocesan rolls was most unfortunate. He felt sure that the election at the last meeting would have been different had all parishioners had a vote. The Dean hinted that personal animus was being directed against him by a section of the parishioners, and this had not improved matters. The trouble had never ceased, even after the appeal made by the Synod. "I propose to carry on ae I am doing and do my best, as I havt endeavoured to do all through," he said