The Henson Journals

[209]

5th Sunday after Trinity, July 12th, 1903.

There was but a small congregation at Mattins. The Bp. of Ripon came in for the Sermon. In the course of the afternoon, Kirshbaum came to show me a note from the Dean offering him the Chapter living of Shoreham. I advised him to take it.

[210]

[blank page]

[211]

Letter to The Rev. E. F. E. Wigram

St. John's College

Lahore, India

July 13th 1903

My dear Sir

Let me thank you very kindly for your very interesting & important letter. As you anticipated, Mr Clarke has written to me, & I have answered his communication at some length. I have not seen any report of the Bishop's address on "Reunion", but I think it is not difficult to understand its drift. Along the line of a rigid insistence on Episcopal Ordination as of primary importance there is no reasonable hope. Let us concede the point of episcopacy as essential & agree that the matter of organization is not one of the essentials of Christianity, & we at once open a prospect of unlimited hopefulness.

With respect to the literature of the subject it is of course vast: but, so far as I know, there is no serious disputing [212] anywhere of Mark Pattison's dictum that "before the rise of the Laudian School, the English Church & the Reformed Churches of the Continent mutually recognized each other as sisters (v. Isaac Casaubon p. 349)

I put together some evidence in an article entitled "Our unhappy divisions" a plea for the recognition of non-Episcopal Churches in the Contemporary Review Dec. 1901. This article was included in the vol. called "Cross Bench views of current Church Questions" published last year by Mr Edwin Arnold. It would not be difficult to collect passages from the Anglican Divines in support of this position, such as this from Bishop Hall (Works IX.48) which I read to the Lower House of Canterbury Convocation "I reverence from my soul (so doth our church, their dear sister) those worthy foreign churches which have chosen & followed those forms of outward government that are everyway fitted for their own condition". [213] But I doubt if it be wise to raise again a question which is really no longer open. The mere fact that the Reformers largely drew on their continental brethren for direction throughout the long & chequered process of reformation demonstrates that the episcopal organization was not in their judgement of primary importance; nor is there anything in the Prayer Book which properly declares the contrary.

I venture to think that your strongest grounds are

• (α) the admitted fact that episcopal government was gradually evolved, & not positively ordained.
• (β) the urgent & unmistakeable requirement of the present situation.
• (γ) the injury to the Christian Conscience implied in maintaining an exclusive attitude.

Wishing you, from my heart, all success, I am, very sincerely yours.

H. HENSLEY HENSON

[214]

Letter to The Rev. C. W. A. Clarke

Noble College

Masulipatam, S. India

July 13th 1903

My dear Sir

Your letter interests one deeply, & I wish that it were in my power to answer it in some adequate way: but the pressure of work grows increasingly great, & it is with difficulty that I vindicate the time for writing even this brief & (I fear) unhelpful, but certainly not unsympathetic letter. I send you a few suggestions which may be worthy of consideration in drawing up any representation of the character suggested in your letter.

1. The Act of Uniformity has no bearing whatever on the question of clerical attendance at "united communion" either in this country, or elsewhere. Technically & canonically such attendance would involve the guilt of "schism" but it is to be remembered that since the canons [215] of 1603 there has been passed a series of Acts of Parliament, the whole effect of which is to give legal recognition to non-Episcopalian Churches: & accordingly in so far as the Canons assume the schismatic character of these churches, they have no binding power, as contravening the statutes of the realm.
2. The objection to "united Communion" can only be based on a rigid doctrine of Episcopacy, which has never been universally held in the reformed English Church; was certainly not held by the Church generally before the Restoration, & is not now held by a very large number of the Anglican clergy, & by the overwhelming majority of the Anglican laity.
3. The practice of the Church of England has not been unanimous. In the 16th and 17th centuries intercommunion with non-Episcopalian Churches was common & it has, probably, never altogether ceased. It therefore would be a distinct narrowing [216] of an historical liberty to prohibit such intercommunion now.
4. The situation you have to consider is a new one, imperatively calling for freedom of action. There is really no precedent in Christian history which quite meets the case, which we have to face. Therefore exceptional weight attaches to the suggestions of experience. Here it seems to me that great good might result from a solemn & careful statement by experienced Indian missionaries affirming, as they are entitled to affirm, their own conviction as to the properly non-essential character of episcopacy however practically serviceable, & offering, as I think they are bound to offer for the help of their fellow-churchmen everywhere, the testimony of their own experience as to the mischiefs of the rigid, exclusive attitude towards non-episcopalian Churches pressed on them by authority. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, as [217] one who has been brought into some degree of prominence in connection with this question, that nothing would strengthen my hands more than a careful & strongly signed declaration of the kind I have indicated. These are no days for narrowing the too narrow liberty which history has bequeathed to us, & this is a question pre-eminently in which the lessons of religious experience are to be gathered & allowed for.
5. I note with special agreement the emphasis you place on the wounding of conscience inflicted by such episcopal prohibitions of intercommunion. The Lord's Supper is not the peculium of any denomination, but the right of every disciple: & though, no doubt, under all the mingled circumstances of the world, it is the case that some formal conditions of Communion must be formulated & insisted upon, still it is of the utmost & evident importance that those formal conditions should not [218] offend the very conscience of discipleship. To refuse to communicate with those whom we do deliberately confess to be in essential belief, in morals, in religious work, truly disciples of our Lord - & all this we do confess with regard to the great non-Episcipalian Churches - is intrinsically indefensible, & must wound the conscience of Christian men. And, if it be said as, I suppose, it may fairly be said, this is a matter of ecclesiastical system, for which individuals cannot be held responsible, I must answer that the responsibility of individuals is proportionate to their weight & office, that none can be wholly irresponsible, & no man ought to acquiesce in any system which wounds his conscience.

I fear what I have written is not merely unhelpful but wearisome. You must forgive me & remember that you brought it on yourself. In conclusion let me say how earnestly [219] I wish for you, & all others who are directly sustaining the apostolic witness before the non-Christian world, the help & comfort of the Spirit of Christ, giving you not merely courage & consolation in your personal labours but also a sane & liberal mind, open to the teachings of experience, eager to learn the purpose of God that you may serve it. Believe me, my dear sir

Most faithfully yours –

H. HENSLEY HENSON

---

Issues and controversies: recognition of/reunion with non-episcopal churches