NEW PRAYER BOOK

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10727, 26 October 1928, Page 5

NEW PRAYER BOOK

CLERGY MEET IN LONDON.

QUESTIONS FROM BISHOP.

United Presa Assn, by £l. l'el. Oopyriiffll Australian Press Assn—United Service

LONDON, Oct. 24, St. Martins-in-the-Fields was the 'meeting place of 1400 clergy in the London Diocese called at the, instance of the Bishop of London, this being the • first synod •in tfie diocese, since the Reformation.

The bishop, in an address Tasting threequarters of an hour, explained that he wanted tlie clergy’s guidance in connection with the action of the bishops following Parliament’s rejection of the Prayer Book. They had' not assembled as law-breakers, but in the interests of peace. , The Rev. J„ Milnes, vicar of St. Chads, 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 Alilnes withdrew.

The bishop submitted six questions on which the clergy balloted l as follows:

(1) Were • they willing that tlie bishop should, lie * guided, by. the rejected 1928 Prayer Book until full order was re-established ?—Answer: “No.” .

(2) Were they willing to prohibit deviation', from the book of 1662, except when parishioners and the incumbent agree?—No(3) Were they' willing to allow the use of the word “consecrate” in The alternative order of Holy Communion, provisionally. and subject to the. bishop’s special conditions?-—No. (4) Were they, (willing to allow re-, servation for known sickness duringany one day?—Yes. , ((5) Were they willing to allow the bishop to regulate permanent reservation in the present ..emergency, in accordance to the rubrics of the 1928 hook?—No.

(6) AVer© they willing to support the bishop in endeavoring to stop practices inconsistent - with the 1662and 1928 books? —Yes. The Lichfield diocese answered the first five questions “Yes,” “Yes,” “No,” “Yes,” “Yes.” _ . The Liverpool synod voted against tlie first four eiuestions and accepted the fifth, also'a question submitted by the Bishop of Liverpool that no further action he taken until the 1.928 hook is sanctioned.

Voting on the fifth question was: Aye 292; no 655. On the sixth question it was 536 to 494. On Hie other questions the voting was fairly close.

SIGN LFIGANT SURPRISE. LONDON CLERGY REFUSE TO FOLLOW BISHOP. PROTESTANTS AND ANGLOCATHOLIC’S COMBINE. Uiut-ed Press Assn, by El. Tel. Copyright Australian Presa Association.) (Received Oct. 5, 11.15 p.m.) LONDON, Oct. 25. 1l is regarded as most significant that an overwhelming majority of the London clergy refuse to follow their bishop’s lead in the matter ot the Prayer' Book. The result was a surprise even for tlie most resolute opponents. ; The Daily Telegraph’s ecclesiastical correspondent says the result was due to a - combination of Protestants and Anglo-Catliolics for diametrically opposed reasons, on the subject or reservations. 'Pile Morning Post- says the refusal of the London clergy to ■ support the bishop’s policy is‘regarded- as the death blow to it, since London is the most important diocese of the Church of England. It proves that this diocese is unwilling to challenge the State.