SYNODICAL ANOMALIES.

Press, Volume XLVII, Issue 7524, 14 April 1890, Page 3

SYNODICAL ANOMALIES.

TO THB BDITOB OF THB PRESS; Sib,—Now that the Primacy question has been happily settled, and as there is to be a meeting of the General Synod shortly, allow mc to direct the attention of its members to what appears an anomaly in Title A, canon 1, clauses 16,17,18,19.

It refers to the lunacy of ■ a Bishop. It assumes that a Bishop may be lunatic, and in chat case provides that the Primate should take certain steps, but it makes no provision for the Primate himself, being a lunatic, and if lunacy is to be judged by lunatic acts, who can tell what the acts bf^the next Primate may be. 1 would suggest that some such clause as the following ought to be inserted in the Canon.

"If the Standing Committee shall have cause to believe that the Primate has become lunatic, it shall be the duty of such Standing Committee to inform the senior Bishop thereof," &c, giving him the same power in the following clauses.

In the same Canon, clause 9, there is another anomaly. There it is the Parnate who is to take the necessary steps for the consecration of the Bishop elect. Which is at variance with clause 23 of the constitution where it says it is the senior Bishop is to take the necessary stepi Unless this is altered it may lead to trouble in the future. There are several other similar anomalies; and I think it would be a wise step if the legal members of the General Synod would carefully revise -them and have them put right by Synod. There is another thing to which I beg to draw attention. At the last meeting of the General Synod held in Punedin, a new Canon on the compulsory resignation of a clergyman- was passed. Why not make it apply to bishops as well "as parochial clergy. Surely it is possible that itmay be for the welfare of a diocese for a bishop to resign, as for a clergyman to resign h|s parish. What is "Sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander," as the saying is. During the debate this was suggested, but the bishops had not the manliness ncr the courage to allow it to be inserted. Moreover, I hold that this Canon is inoperative, for though by the Constitution "It shall be lawful for the General Synod to alter, amend, or repeal all or any of.the provisions," except those declared to be fundamental, there is a proviso that no such alteration shall be made until it shall have been first proposed in one General Synod and made known to the several. Diocesan Synods and finally agreed to in the meeting of the Gener&l Synod next ensuing. > And the Bishops of the Diocesan Syaods are directed to lay the matter before their Synods and to invite discussion thereon, to see whether the proposed change meets with approval or otherwise. This coarse in reference to the above obnoxious Canon has not been complied with. Not only so, but when Arcndeacon , Cholmondeley brought forward a motion on the subject in the Chriatchurcn Diocesan Synod he was asked to withdraw It, which he reluctantly did. Apologising for taking up so much of your space, but believing they are of very serious importance to the welfare of the Church, and hoping that the same may be remedied.—Yours, See. Country Parson.