The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1877-10-23 00:00:00

THE SALISBURY DIOCESAN SYNOD.
To the lidttor.

Sias—The constitution of the Diocesan Synod is a
fair subject of criticism, but I am obliged to differ
widely from the conclusions at which my valued friend
Mr. Hob's; has arrived. He thinks the "general
opinion of the Diocese cannot be ascertained by means
of the Synod, because its supporters are only a very
limited minority." By what facts he has been led to
this conclusion he does not tell no; all that have come
to my knowledge lead to the opposite one. His state-
ments would lead an outsider to sums ise that the
constitution of the Synod is narrow and partial,
instead of being broad, liberal, and popular. I would
invite him to construct a constitution that shall be
more broad or more liberal than that with which he
finds fault. It is far broader and more liberal than is
the constitution of the British Erni ire, which last has
by general consent, been regarded WI the best exam) le
the world has ever seen ot orderly free and representa-
tive Government. In our Synod all male nienalwrs of
the Church aelli hare at'ained the age of ei are entitled
to vote for their representatives; in the State the
constituency is much more limited. If Parliament
expresses the general opinion of the country, and not
of a party, much more does the Synod express the
general opinion of the Diocese. If any clergymen or
laymen abdicate their proper function of taking a
part in the election of representatives, whose fault is
it but their own? As a matter of fact the immense
majority of both clergy and laity do discharge their
duty in this respect, and the result at the Last election
was that out of the whole number of lay representa-
tives who might peenibly have been returned (which
amount to about 1100) 945 were actually returned.
The election in every parish is absolutely free. How
this can be regarded as a " very limited minority" I
am unable to conceive. In the letter of your corces.
prmdent it wan objected that the result of the Synod
must be is, " concede arbitrary power to the Bishops
whicA rill lead to an rep/scion that will rend the Charch
into fragments." Allow me to say, in reply, that the
Bishops are poseemed of considerable power, and they
osigkt to be, unless they are to be mere cyphern,
without any means of checking evil or doing good.
Such power is either arbitrary or it is not. What I
contend for is, that in whatever degree it is " arbi.
trary" it must be lessened, and not increased, by being
, shared with isthem. Arbitrary rulers, who wish to
preserve their authority, do not call upon their 'sub-
jects to meet, and freely to elect representatives,
who shall act as their o attired, anil shall be
enabled to discuss, to call in questi in, and thereby to
check the purposes; and the policy of their ruler.
Such rulers do all they can rather to keep the
absolute power in their own hands, and to cheek the
free expression of renionntrance and of opinion. Which
course the Bishops, and notably our Diocesan, have
taken, is well known to every intelligent Churchman.
My good friend further objects that the Synod is not
a "free Parliament.' because the Bishop claims the
right f 'putting an extinguisher on topics which,
in his judgment, are quite awl entirely beyond the
I proper ;sphere of its pewee-dings'," and then he con-
trasts this with the House of Commons, in which, he
says, any member may bring any motion before the
House, it being competent to the House to entertain
or reject it. Mr. Hobbs compares with the freedom
of Parliament, what he appears to consider the
bondage of the Synod, for he says " The Synod can
not decide for itself, even by an overwhelming
majority, whether any subject is fit to be discussed in
it, There Mr. Hobbs pubs an urtrenie case, one which
never has occurred, and is not likely to occur, but he
, forgets that Parliament itself is subject to the same
I c mdition, for if, "emit omen," the House of l'ommons
were, by an overwhelming majority,
_to vote for the
abolition of the throne, or of the Howie if Peew,
&c., &c., the Throne could put an extinguisher upon
it by dissolving the Parliament Such 14 the coined-
' tution of England, such, also, is the conetitution of
I every Diocesan Synod. This right of a veto is
inherent in the Bishop's office, without him a Diocesan
Synod cannot exist; it is right, and for the interests
of the whole church, that its chief rulers should have
this power isf extinguishing discussions; which, in
their judgment, are sure to light up the flame of din-
; cord, to be oppressive V; a minority, or otherwise
; injurious to religion. Icistwithstanding the Royal
; favour id "veto' l'arliament is free, and k itself
; to be free, and, notwithstanding the Episcopal power
t• veto." the Synod is free, and knows itself to be
so. Let good Mr. Hobbs come among us, and he
will find that the 'supporters of the Synod are quite
an much men of " independent minds- as are its
, opponents. Perhaps 110 was thinking of certain
arbitrary proceeilinsw in a far-distant Diocese (in
which he himself formerly slid an excellent work)
when he was betrayed into the assuniption that
opisments of Bishops are the only men of independent
mind'. As to the Synod winsisting only of men who
I are " Bishop's supporters, I would suggest that if
they bee.', it is only in the sense in which (Are /ism/
rig/ism in a nopporter if the Throne awl Government
of his country. In the same 'sense (erre foes/ Cheri-S-
-em is a supporter id' his Bishop, i.e., under the
limitations which must necessarily be supposed, viz.,
that the Bishop " ministering the Doctrine and
Discipline of Christ, as this Church and Realm have
received the saute," awl that lie is doing this, not in
accordance with the views of any one party, but with
that wise awl generous Catholicity id spirit by which
, the Church is so usefully 111,1 WI honourably &I-
I tinguished from the narrow mean. I cannot help
; hoping that, on essconsl thought, the oppments of the
Synod will come to the conclusion that if there be
; any ar/aWrore power in the Episcopate it will be
moderated arid checked by the encouragement of free
dismission, instead of being increased thereby. If ;
there be "a., explosion that will rend the Church is,
fragments," not they who provide a safety-valve will be
amenable; but they who try to stop it. There is no
better " safety-valve " than public discussion, in
which men of all parties, the laity as well as the
clergy, are invited freely to speak their minds.
By calling Councils of the Diocese the Bishops are,
to a large extent, sharing their power with others.
instead of keeping it absolutely in their own hands.
May I remind your hearers; that as no vote of the
Synod can be voted witlimit the Bishop's assent, so
likewise the seiserate assent of the laity and the clergy
is required to give validity to such votes. Either of
these two orders can stop a measure which is brought
before the Synod, even though the Diocesan may
earnestly desire to see it passed. Thus far their in-
fluence is increased, and a check is placed on the
arbitrary exercise if authority. I am sure your
correspondent is thoroughly concientioun, but I
appeal from himself to himself, and to all who may
have been led by his former letter to stand aloof from
the elections that are now going on. Thereby they
simply "extinguish and efface themselves, they
Injure the general welfare of the Church, which nev.;
the combined aid of all her members. Surely we
shall be better acting the part of loyal churchmen
by heartly co-operating with our Diocesan, and with
the great majority id our brethren, than by opposing
their wishes, or by adopting a policy of inaction and
isolation.
--