ORDER OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13324, 2 November 1906, Page 8

ORDER OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD.

Sir,—l find that my statement in the Synod of the reasons why I, as a member of the Cathedral Chapter, declined to carry_oi.it the direction of (he Synod as expressed in a resolution of the session 1904 has been much misunderstood. I have been accused of striking a deadly blow at Synodal authority. Probably I am to blame for not entering more fully into my reasons. Will you please allow me to do so now? Every member of the chapter has to sign a declaration stating " I will hold my office in duo subordination to the Bishop of Auckland and to the General Synod of "the Church of the Province of New Zealand and to the. Synod of the Diocese of Auckland." It is important to ask what is meant by " due subordination." My answer is to render obedience to law. When a Bishop or a Synod gives directions tinder the canons and regulations of the Church I am bound to obey. J am not bound to obey directions in other matters, though good feeling will always make mc willing to obey any reasonable command. Now Jw Diocesan Synod has enacted regulations for the control of the chapter, and it is the bounden duty of every member of the chapter to obey those laws. That is what 1 understand by due subordination. But the Diocesan Synod has itself recognised the objection to requiring obedience to mere resolutions of the Synod. Regulation No. ■ 116 says, "All legislation affecting the position, rights, duties, or liabilities of any member of the Church . . . shall be made by statute." (Note, not by resolution.) 1 have never challenged Synodal authority when expressed according to law. I have the right to exercise my own judgment when I receive directions which have not the force of law behind them. Th© control of the Synod over the General Trust Board and the Standing Committee is very different from its control over the chapter. A canon of the General Synod directs, "The diocesan trustees shall, carry out the objects of each trust in such manner ... as the Diocesan Synod shall direct." Again, "The Standing Committee shall have and exercise all such powers and authorities as may be granted to them by such Diocesan Synod." Hero again the control of the Synod is manifest. On the other hand the chapter is primarily a council of advice in spiritual things to the Bishop, and the only duties laid down by Synod are to be found in Regulation 49, "Every member of the chapter shall be responsible for the performance of some specified work of a dioccsan character subject, to the approval and direction of the Bishop." There is no hint of the Synod controlling the, chapter other than through the regulations made by statute. The position I have taken up is one which makes for the strength and permanency of Synodal authority. I obey that authority when exercised according- to law I. use. my own judgment when I receive a. direction affecting mv "duties" when it is not lawfully formulated. A point of secondary importance to this great question of principle may be. noted : The order given by the Synod was one which the chapter had not power to obey. The chapter was ordered to revise the constitution of the Order of the Good Shepherd. Now the power of. the chapter to revise that constitution did not come from the Synod, but from a trust deed, and that gave the chapter only the power to revise, when moved thereto by the order, and consequently when the resolution of the Synod came before the chapter for consideration it could- do no other than resolve that the chapter had no power to revise the constitution except when moved thereto by the order through the Bishop. Personally I regret if this was not communicated to the Synod last year. 1 am not awa-ro of what was in the chapter report to the Synod, as I was absent. George MacXlurrat.