LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
A CHURCH BODY FOR ENGLAND. •
[TO TON EDITOR OF Till “SPISCTATOIC1 SIR,—Mr. Littledale, in the S pect a tor of the flth, writes,—" I need hardly say what a scandal the lay element in the Irish Synod has been." I can assure you that nothing is known of this scandal here in Ireland. I agree with you that the Church of England ought to have the power of self-government, through a General Synod, with lay representation ; and I write this letter for the purpose of showing that the difficulty of framing an Act of Parliament for the purpose is much smaller than may be thought. If it were necessary that such an Act should define every jot and tittle of the constitution of such a General Synod, saying who are to be the electors, laying down the electoral law, and providing for the procedure of the Synod when it meets, there is probably no statesman who would not shrink from the difficulty of framing a Bill for the purpose, and then passing it through Parliament. But this is not at all necessary. Such a measure ought to be so framed as to throw the responsibility of working out the details on the authorities of the Church, and on the Synod itself. The heads of the Bill ought to be something like these :-
" Within a year from the passing of the Act, it shall be the duty of every Bishop of the Church of England to convene and hold a Diocesan Synod, which shall have power to consider and transact such business as shall be regularly laid before it by the Bishop, or any of its members. If the Bishop is nimble or unwilling so to do, this duty shall devolve on (some Diocesan officer to be named in the Act). The Synod shall consist of all the beneficed clergy of the diocese, and a Synodsman elected by and representing the laity of each congregation. The clergy- man of the congregation shall be the returning officer, but if he is unable or unwilling so to act, this duty shall devolve on the churchwardens, or one of them.
"The lay members of the Diocesan Synod shall elect in Synod a number of representatives equal (say) to the total number of the members of the Lower House of Convocation from that diocese, e.c officio, as well as representative. These, when elected, shall constitute the Houses of the Laity in the Provincial Synods.
" The Provincial Synods shall consist of the two Houses of Convocation already existing in each of the Provinces of Canter- bury and York, with the Houses of the Laity elected as provided above. The Royal licence shall be no longer necessary to the holding of Convocation. It shall be the duty of each of the Archbishops to convene and hold the Provincial Synod of his province within (say) a year and a half from the passing of the Act, and in every following year ; but if he is unable or un- willing so to do, this duty shall devolve on (some ecclesiastical officer, to be named in the Act).
" The Provincial Synod shall have all the powers now pos- sessed by Convocation, and its Acts shall be law in the Church; provided that no such Act shall come into force until it has lain for (say) six weeks on the tables of both Houses of Parlia- ment, without being disallowed by a vote of either House ; and provided also that any clergyman having a benefice of the date of the Act of Parliament constituting the Synods may, so long as he continues to occupy the same benefice, protect himself against the effect of any Act of the Synod by a protest. (This last provision is copied from the Irish Church Act.) " Every Act of a Provincial Synod shall be valid only when passed by a majority of the members present of the three Houses of Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, voting separately."
In the above outline of a possible Act of Parliament, I have inserted only what is necessary to provide that Synods shall be held ; that the laity shall be represented in them, with powers equal to those of the clergy ; that they shall be the legislature to the Church ; and that Parliament shall preserve its right to control. Everything that could be omitted is purposely omitted. I have not even proposed to provide for the union of the Synods of Canterbury and York. They ought to, and probably would, unite spontaneously, but I see no reason why Parliament should compel them. It may seem absurd to order elections without providing an electoral law, and so it may be theoretically ; but practically the experience of the Church of Ireland after disestablishment warrants the belief that all would go on orderly, that congregations and synods would know their own minds, and that persons not actual members of congregations would not attempt to vote. A difficulty arising here and there about rights of voting and modes of election would not prevent the Provincial Synods from being constituted, and once they were met, they would have power to solve such difficulties by legislation. Perhaps the most important of all the questions that can arise concerning their internal con stitntion is, whether the clergy and laity should debate separ- ately or together. I am very strongly in favour of their debating together, as in the Irish Synod ; but the Synods should settle this for themselves.
The Rev. Ll. Davies, in the Spectator of the 9th inst. thinks that the "House of Commons," having a veto, "would be felt to be the real depositary of power." I do not at all agree with him. There are only three possible cases in which Parliament would interfere. One is if the Synod were to do something outrageously foolish, such as making a dogma of verbal inspiration or everlasting punishment; but this has not been attempted in Ireland, and would not be in England. Another is if there were to be any unwise or dangerous legis- lation respecting the judicature of the Church ; and a third is if proprietary rights of any kind were affected. Parliament will pass no satisfactory laws respecting the "burning ques- tions " of judicature and patronage, but a General Synod might succeed in so doing; and the knowledge that its Acts would need the assent of Parliament would be a security, if such is needed, that they should be framed in a moderate and practical
Previous page
