LONDON SYNOD.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19451, 26 October 1928, Page 11

LONDON SYNOD.

CALLED BY BISHOP. PROPOSALS REJECTED-. PRAYER BOOK QUESTION. (united phkss association— by electric TELEGRAPH—COrYItIGRT.) LONDON, October 24. St.' Miirtins-in-the-Fields is the meeting place of 1400 clergy in London Diocese, called at the instance of the Bishop of London, this being the first Synod in the Diocese since tire Reformation. The Bishop, in an address lasting three-quarters of an hour, explained that he wanted tho clergy's guidance in connexion with the action of the Bishops following Parliament's rejection of the Prayer Book. They had not assembled as law-breakers, but in tho interests of peaco. The Rev. G. Millies, vicar of St. Chad's, Haggerston, stood up and declared that the Synod was illegal as implying the. right of the Bishops to override the House of Commons decision. Having protested, Mr Milnes withdrew. < Further Action. The Bishop submitted the following six questions oh which tho clergy voted by ballot: (1) Were they willing that the Bishop shdUld be guided by the rejected 11)28 Prayer Book until full order •Was re-established?— No. (2) Were they willing to prohibit any deviation from the Prayer Book of 1602 except when the parishioners and tho incumbent agreed?— No. (3) Were they willing to allow the use of tlie Consecration Prayer in the alternative Order of Holy Communion, provisionally, and subject to tho Bishop's special cdiiditions?—No. (4) Were they willing to allow reservation for known sicknes9 during any ond d&y?—Yfcs. (5) Were they willing to allow the Bishop to regulate permanent reservations, in the present emergency, ih accordance witli the rubtits of tho 192£j Book? No. (6) Were tliey willing to support tho Bishop in eiideavoUring to stop practices incdnsisteiit with the 1662 itnd 1928 Books? Yes. Tho voting on the fifth question wdi: Ayes 5!92, iides 653j and on the Sixth, 536 to 494. Oil tlie titilbr questions tho voting was fiiirty blbse. The' Lichfield Diocese answered the first five questions: Yes, yes no, yes, yes. the Liverpool Diocese voted against the first foUr questions; and accepted the fifth. ftliey aifco siippotted a question submitted by the Bishop of Liverpdtil that ho further action should bo titkeil until the 1£)28 Bobk was' sanctioned. —Australian Pi-baa Afisbciatioh. \

"A DEATH BLOW." DEFEAT OF* BISHOP'S POLICY. (Received October 25th, 10.50 p.irl.) LONDON, Octobfcr 25. It is regarded as most significant that an overwhelming majority of the L6hdbh blfergy refuse to follow tneir Bishop's lfead iii the matter of the Prayer Book. The ffesiilt was asilt-prise feven for the riibst tesolilib dpttcmeiits. . .... ' The "Diily Telegraph's'' ecfclesifistical cdi-r6stitihdeiit says the result was due ttt a cdh\biiiatibn of Protestants and Anfelb-Cfltholics for diametrically opposed reasons oil the subject of Reservation. , 1 ; , The, "Morning Post" says thttt the refusal of the London clergy to support the iJjshop's polity is Regarded as ii death bW to it. Since tbndoil is the most important Diocese of the Church'bf ErigltWd. It proves that this Diocese is unwilling to challenge the State—Australian Press Association.