Would the General Synod have the authority to change the canon of holy scripture? If not, why not?

The question of authority in reli­gion is a vexed one. From the Eliza­bethan Settlement, as apparent in Article XXXVII, Anglicanism generally resolves this into two differing auth­orities.

The overwhelming authority is that of the State as a power that is ordained by God. Reserved to the bishops and clergy is the inherent authority that they have from Christ over the exposition of the Bible and the administration of the sacraments.

All authority exercised in the Church, and even as exercised by a single individual, is derived from one or other of these two sources. Thus, following the 19th-century Gorham case, R. J. Phillimore ex­plained that a bishop was a servant of the state in administering the presentation of a qualified clergy­man to the temporalities of a living, whereas the same bishop was exercising his own inherent auth­ority in the matter of ordination. In the former, he could be compelled or overruled; in the latter, he was independent of, and irresponsible to, the State.

The General Synod, which is the Church Assembly reconstituted and renamed, has its origin in an address from the two Archbishops and their Convocations to the King for permission to form the Church Assembly independent of Parlia­ment. Once formed, it was given privileged access to Parliament through the Enabling Act of 1919. This access meant that when civil enactments were required, there was an efficient process, and, if deemed expedient by Parliament, they were quickly given the force of law.

The two Convocations constitu­tionally predate, and in the 19th century were deemed independent of, Parliament. These have loaned some of their mixed authority to the General Synod. From all this, it would seem that the General Synod exercises only the qualified dele­gated authority of our Convoca­tions, or must effectively petition Parliament to legislate civil enact­ments on its behalf.

Should the General Synod seek a radical alteration to the canon of scripture for both civil and Con­vocation purposes, its proposal must be endorsed by the Con­vocations, acceded to by Parliament, and gain the Royal Assent. Of course, if it did not achieve moral unanimity in our Convocations, a schism might follow, with two dif­fer­ing opinions over the validity of the change. If Parliament felt that the change was inexpedient, we might have a repeat of the position over the 1928 Prayer Book, where the Bishops, Church Assembly, and Convocations authorised the change, but Parliament refused permission.

Alan Bartley
Greenford

In my local church, the clergy do not mind if the consecrated wine left over after a communion service is disposed of down the sink (when in earlier days it had to be con­sumed entirely); but, when a com­munion table was recently replaced by another, the old table had to be burned in the presence of a clergy­man, and not broken up and dumped. This seems inconsistent.  Have your readers any views?

Address for answers and more questions: Out of the Question, Church Times, 3rd floor, Invicta House, 108-114 Golden Lane, London EC1Y 0TG.
letters@churchtimes.co.uk