SCENE IN ST. PAUL’S.

Grey River Argus, 30 November 1927, Page 7

SCENE IN ST. PAUL’S.

Bishop Barnes.

DENOUNCED BY CANON. LONDON, October 19. When public protests have been made jn churches in the past they have generally been based on a. Protestant objection to what were regarded as Romanising tendencies. The reverse was the case when Canon G. R. Bullock-Web-ster made his protest in St Paul’s Cathedral prior to the sermon delivered by the Bishop of Birmingham. The protest was made by an exponent of the extreme Anglo-Catholic school against a so-called modernist. Bishop.

It was an extraordinary scene, and very painful to the large congregation that had assembled to hear Bishop Barnes preach. So great was the congregation that long before the service began every available seat had been taken, and people were standing in hundreds all round the Cathedral. There was an unusual proportion of men in the (congregation, ami a great' number of clergymen, but until the dramatic moment when Dr. Barnes appeared in the .pulpit there was no indication of the scene to follow. Then a great crowd surged into the nave from the sides of tlr? cathedral, and the vergers were brushed aside. The congregation was amazed to see a clergyman in his robes suddenly appear in th? centre aisle and make his way, accompanied by a number of men walking in twos, to the vicinity of the alter not many yards from Dr. Barnes, who stood in the pulpit above, calmly regarding the crowd below. Above the noise of shuffling feet there arose the voice of the clergyman. ‘‘ln the name of God. Amen. I, George Russell Bullock-Webster, Clerk in Holy Orders, Afaster of Arts, Rector of St. Alic.hael Royal in the City and Diocese of London, and Honorary Canon of the Cathedral Church of Ely, here, and now. in the presence of this congregation, in my own name, and in the name of a large body of th'? clergy and faithful laity of this diocese, do solemnly denounce Ernest William Barnes, Doctor of Science, Bishop of Birmingham, for that by the false and heretical teaching in his frequent public utterences he has denied ami poured contempt upon the doctrines and sacraments of the Holy Catholic Church. Ami because thereof, we do most fervently protest against the invitation given to the said Bishop of Birmingham to preach from the pulpit of the Alother Church of this diocese; and forasmuch as the presence of the .said Bishop in any church is an indignity to Almighty God, ami a scandal and offence to the faithful, we do now call upon our Right Reverend Father in God. Arthur Foley, Lord Bishop of this Diocese, to inhibit the said Bishop from preaching or ministering in any church within his jurisdiction; and further we call upon the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury to try the said Bishop in respect of these alleged heretical am! profane

utterences, and, if he be found guilty, forthwith to d pose him and cast him out of the Church of God until such time as he do repent himself and recant his grievous errors. And may God, in 11 is infinite mercy, grant him

a speedy repentence. In the name of the Father, >ml the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amon. “And now brethren, lest our ears should he defiled, with fresh profanities, I invite all faithful believers here present to join me in leaving this church before the sermon is delivered, ami 'to continue our worship elsewhere. ’ ’

Two notices of the protest were pinned on the door of the Church of St. Alicha 4 Royal, alongside of the no-tice:“To-day, sung Mass, noon instead of 11 a.m.”

Before many sentences had been spoken the organist had realised what was happening, ami began to play. When the organ was at its loudest’ th? protesting voice was unheard, but in the softer passages it rose above the music with almost an uncanny effect. Long before the Canon had finished it was evident that ho had hundreds of supporters in the congregation. The atmosphere became electric, and

“Amen’s” arose from various parts. “Good! Good!” called one or two of the congregation. There were loud responses when the Canon’s denunciation came to his invocation: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Ghost. —Amen.” At last, amid further ejaculations, “Amen” ami Good!” the reading was finished, and Canon Bullock-Web st er, having called on “all faithful believers” to follow him, walked slowly towards the door, ami people from most quarters of the cathedral hurried to join him. Two or three indignant persons raised cries of “Shame! Shame!” and somebody shouted “No Popery.”

“This is a Protestant cathedral.” called out another excited man. “It will soon be Roman Catholic,” retorted someone else. “Tn the name of th? Father, and of the Son, turn him out,” cried a supporter of the protest.

“Unfrock him,” exclaimed another. Canon Bullock-Webster and his followers at length reached the door and marched out of the cathedral. All this time the Bishop had stood quietly in the pulpit, unmoved by the demonstration below. The objectors were still marching out when Dr. Barnes’s clear, incisive tones, announced his text: “The Book of Job, chapter 33, verse 4: The Spirit of God had made me, and the breath of the Almighty giveth me

After th 1 dramatic scene in St. Paul’s three hundred men ami women, led by Canon Bullock-Webster, marched through the City to the Church of St. Michael Royal, Cannon Street. They first lined up on the steps of St Paul’s and formed into fours mar Dean Inge’s residence. Thou. singing fervent they marched in and out of the City lanes. Churchwardens met the procession at St. Alicliacl’s and th? crowd filed in.

After the service Dr. Barnes was asked by a Press representative if he had any comment to make on the incident. He smiled: “1 think not,” he replied. “No, I make no statement.” “Had you any inkling that there was

to be such a protest?” he was asked. He smiled again, “Well, there are always rumours, you know,” he said with perfect unconcern, and went to lunch. Dean Inge sard: 1 have nothing to say in reference to a brawler like that. We could if we liked take proceedings against him. I do not suppose we shall.”

Wh?n Canon Bullock-Webster returned to his own church he read out the protest again. Describing what had happened at St. Paul’s, he said: “When 1 walked up to the alter I handed a copy of my protest to a verger and asked him to take it to Dean Inge, but he refused to do so.

“But I was determined that my protest should be heard, so I bowed first to the alter, then to the Dean, and then to Bishop Barnes, for I wanted the whole proceedings to be in every way dignified.

“A moment before I walked up the aisle, the Dean had begun to read out a notice, and I had to make my protest then. If I had waited a moment longer the churchwardens would have stopped me. As it was I had difficulty in reaching the steps near the pulpit. “This protest was made because Dr. Barnes has with gross profanity attacked the most treasured beliefs of Christian believers. He has denied the truths which he is obliged to teach. Dean Inge, by inviting Bishop Barnes to preach in St. Paul’s Cathedral, has forfeited the confidence of thousands of loyal and devoted Churchmen ami Churchwomen, and has become a partner in the crime. This only a beginning of the protest.”

Canon Bullock-Webster al§o stated in an interview: “I hope my protest is not going Io (‘nd in smoke. I hope we shall go on doing a good deal more, 'there is all over the country a latent indignation which has not been able to find expression, and now that this step has been taken it is probable that the protest will be come vocal.

“We knew that technically we were engaging in a brawl, and we were sorry to do so; but unfortunately, there was no other path of action: No constitutional machinery exists for doing what we did. It is the power of the Bishop to inhibit and of the Archbishop to degrade any unsuitable Bfshop or priest. But unless the authorities choose to do this of their own volition, the matter has to be brought to their notice somehow.

“We did this in the most decent and respectful manner we could. But we all felt sorry for Dean Inge. Last light we sent a copy of the protest to every Bishop in England.

“Unfortunately, the excommunication of a Bishop does not take effect in law. If a Bishop is excommunicated by an Archbishop or expelled from the Church, he remains a Bishop in the eyes of the law until his death, continuing to administrate his diocese and to draw his salary. He can only be replaced by a successor at death.” It appears that “brawling” by a person in Holy Orders may be dealt with under various statutes. If a beneficial clergyman is convicted of brawling and is sentenced to imprisonment, instead of suffering the £5 penalty, th? Bishop may deprive him of his preferment within twenty-one days. In the case of. a cathedral only the Dean and Chapter can institute proceedings. The Bishop of the diocese would certainly not take any steps, for a cathedral is outside his jurisdiction. Dean Inge is not likely to take any legal action over the ev?nt, for he once said at Oxford to an unruly undergraduate that when you had to argue about rules and regulations their chief aim had been defeated. Dan Inge then had a theory that punishment quite often failed of its purpose.

Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the City of London Corporation have an interest in the Sunday morning preacher at St. Paul’s Cathedral, as they contribute towards the fee paid for preaching the- sermon. This contribution is made in accordance with a tradition that has existed for years. The Corporation also provide refreshment for the preacher, which takes the form of a pint bottle of sherry. This custom, it is suggested, owes its origin to the hospitality that was extended to the preachers at St. Paul’s Cross. The practice now is, at the beginning of every year, to supply the Cathedral with 52 bottles of sherry —one for each Sunday morning preacher.

“It seems almost incredible in these days,” says the “Times” in the course of a leading article on the subject, “that heated arguments on the subject of the Sacraments should even he required, and the great body of Churchmen, whose profound interest in it is not in dispute, are tempted to cry perdition alike on those of every school of theology who cannot touch it without a public quarrel. They have no more liking for the interruption of an orderly service than they have for the want of sympathy which provoked it. Both come of an egotism which is utterly remote from the Christian spirit.”