The Henson Journals

[230]

15th Sunday after Trinity, September 20th, 1903.

Another Ordination Sunday filled with stern & solemn suggestions. Alfred is with me today. I had hoped that he would take Orders: but it was not so permitted. It is something to have retained the boy's friendship, & to see him still - a boy no longer - holding to his discipleship. We went to the Holy Communion together: I Celebrated not without difficulty from a sore throat.

A rude letter from a Baptist minister lay on the Vestry table: and, after breakfast, I made answer, gentle I hope, but also stern: & I sent him a copy of "The Education Act – and after". Between the unreasoning bigotry of the orthodox on one side, and the frenzied fanaticism of the sectaries on the other, there seems little to choose: perhaps a wise man would hold his peace at such a time as this.

Pardon for the Past}
Strength for the Present}	Grant me, O Christ.
Guidance for the Future}

There were large congregations both at Mattins and at Evensong, and the services seemed to be more than commonly religious – but who [231] can know? George Rudge came into the Vestry and asked me for the MS. of my sermon, and I let him have it. If even one butcher's lad is the better for the preaching, laus Deo.

Edwin, Harold, & Chart came to tea: & Custard to supper.

The congregation at Evensong seemed to me of a humbler social type than heretofore: & this impression gained verisimilitude from the fact that more than 45/- in pence & half-pence was contributed to the Offertory.

[230]

The Rector to the Revd W. Ayerst.

Sept. 21st 1903

My dear Sir,

1. The law recognizes the new parishes for all purposes of banns & license: & I cannot therefore take residence in Holy Trinity parish as equivalent to residence in the parish of S. Margaret.
2. Membership of the National Club would not constitute a parochial qualification. The minimum is a fifteen days residence: which, on the laxest interpretation which even lax custom tolerates, would mean more than membership in a Club.
3. As the date on which you propose to be married is so near, I assume that you have taken the legal steps as to calling of Banns &c.

I am really sorry not to be able to meet your wishes, but, as you will see, I have no power to do anything else.

Believe me,

Faithfully yrs

H. HENSLEY HENSON

[231] [symbol]

To the Secretary of the Balkan Committee

Sept. 26th 1903.

[symbol] Dear Sir,

I beg to return the enclosed tickets, which you were good enough to send me. It is not my intention to attend the meeting in S. James's Hall because, although I desire as earnestly as any man that the existing anarchy in Macedonia may be terminated, and a stable system of government established in that unhappy district, yet I do not see any reason for doubting that the influence of Great Britain is steadily being directed to those ends, & I doubt whether public agitation will serve any good purpose. In the main I am disposed to think rather meanly of popular agitations especially with respect to the action of this country abroad. Information is not generally very good, & almost always a party turn is given to the proceedings. We have, moreover, had too much of parsons in politics lately: and, though it might be a welcome change from "passive resistance" at home to turn the stream of clerical rhetoric on to active intervention abroad, [232] I cannot bring myself to assist the attempt.

Believe me,

Faithfully yours

H. HENSLEY HENSON

(I marked this letter ‘private'.)

Mr Walter C. Copeland called on me & introduced himself as Editor of the Rock. He would know if my sympathies were with the Protestant ‘movement': & I gave him pretty clearly to understand that they were not. I particularly mentioned the insulting language with respect to good men who happened also to be High Churchmen, & the unrighteous obstruction of the Birmingham & Southwark Bpk. Bills.

[233] [symbol]

Sept. 30th 1903.

[symbol] Dear Dr Sanday,

I don't know whether I ought to thank you for the copy of the ‘Independent Review', which I found awaiting me on my return from Birmingham yesterday, but I thought it was not wholly improbable that you had sent it to me, since I found that it contained an article from your pen, in which some notice was taken of a recent sermon of mine. In any case I make the assumption that you are the donor in order to thank you for the Article, & to make one or two observations which otherwise I should not have had the opportunity of making.

1. I think less than justice is done to me (I will speak of no one else, for in this & in all other matters I act alone) by the practice - natural because polemically effective - of protesting against ‘fiery rhetorical appeals' &c. It is bare matter of fact that I have been forced into the field immensely against my will. But what was the situation? The question of the Virgin-Birth had been raised - crudely, unfortunately, even offensively as I thought & think, by Dean Freemantle. There was an outcry – not unnatural under the circumstances. [234] [symbol] Bishops began to make pronouncements of policy. I might have added London to Bristol & Norwich, but personal friendship held me back. I knew that the question was troubling some of the best & devoutest men in the world: it did not trouble me, because, while I felt that the historical evidence for the affirmation in the Creed was quite insufficient, I also felt that the whole matter could not be reduced to that issue: & that what you say on p. 110, as to the effect of belief in the Incarnation might justify an acquiescence, if it could not command a conviction. I felt it was a mean thing for me to hang back, & keep silence, when a wrong was being done to Ordination candidates, & a narrowing of legitimate liberty effected in a panic. At least it would make some people think a little if a Teacher, in no corner, but at the centre of things, openly chose the side of theological liberty, & one moreover with all to lose & nothing to gain by doing so: & therefore I said what you have read in ‘Sincerity & Subscription'.

2. It is not the case that I forget the influence of the belief in the Incarnation on the credibility of the Gospels: but I am not clear how far that influence may rightly be permitted to extend. [235] [symbol] There are many persons who make that consideration justify a total prohibition of the critical examination of the Gospels. Where are you to stop? So stupendous a fact as the Incarnation makes everything (not morally incongruous) possible: and nothing, however historically incredible, can be properly irrational in that connexion. But it is the case that the actual historical circumstances of the Incarnation are only certified to us in testimonies, the worth of which must be critically appraised. There are ‘strata' in the Gospels of varying value as historical evidence: &, frankly I don't see how you may plead the Incarnation against a rejection of the Birth narratives, & not allow the legitimacy of the same plea against a rejection of, say, S. Matt: 27. 52f. I – as a public teacher, not for a moment claiming any more authority on the questions debated by professed & professional critics than that character must imply – am concerned with claiming the maximum liberty which an honest belief in the Incarnation can allow.

3. My personal beliefs are of comparatively slight importance to any one but myself: yet – since some persons are good enough to credit me with a disbelief of the Virgin Birth, & I am not [236] [symbol] sure whether you do not yourself do as much – I will take leave to say that nothing in ‘Sincerity & Subscription' justifies that statement, and that it is not true. I, to repeat my own phrase on p. 39, ‘acquiesce in an inevitable agnosticism' as things stand at present. I do not share your estimate of the evidence: Dr Knowling's Sermon - which I read carefully - seemed to me to be elaborately proving what is not disputed, viz. that at an early period the general belief of Christians was that of the Creed. Believing as I do that the Birth narratives in S. Matthew & S. Luke are older than any other evidence we have, & that the mere fact of their presence in those Gospels indicates their general acceptance at the time these Gospels took their present form. I do not see the value of elaborate arguments to prove the Christian belief in the first years of the 2nd century. If I could see that there was any inherent necessity for a Virgin Birth in order to [word missing] the Incarnation, or that there was an obvious conspicuousness in it, or that religious and moral interests were properly at stake in it, I think personally I should waive the critical question, & advance from agnosticism to such a measure of assent as that kind of inferential belief implies. [237] [symbol]

But these positions I do not see my way to accept; & the mere fact that there are devout Christians, living their lives by the faith of the Incarnation who yet repudiate them, seems to go far in the direction of disproof. I accept & thank you for your conclusion on p. 114, ‘The total effect is the important thing. Let it suffice that, by subscribing to the Creed as a whole, the man declares himself heart and soul a Christian'. That would quite satisfy all I contend for in ‘Sincerity & Subscription'.

You will, I am sure, forgive this long letter, & ascribe it to the deep regard which I must always have for your opinions, & the desire which I freely confess, not to stand worse in your judgement than is absolutely necessary. I cling to the conviction that on the broad issue which lies behind all particular contentions, the issue of Christian liberty itself, you would still be ready to throw your shield over ‘honest doubters', & keep the door of the church open.

Believe me, dear Dr Sanday,

very sincerely yours,

H. HENSLEY HENSON

[238] [symbol]

The Rector to Mr Hutchinson.

Oct. 3rd 1903

[symbol] My dear Sir,

I cannot allow your letter to remain unanswered. The trouble which you describe has caused me more distress of mind than anything in ecclesiastical politics that I can recall. I sympathize most deeply with your position, & would give much to be able to strengthen your hands in sustaining from within the Congregational Church a protest against the reckless trading in political passion which now seems to be carrying all before it. But I must answer your questions.

1. Undoubtedly there are many, probably most, Anglican Bishops who would ‘accept for ordination a candidate, otherwise eligible, who held that episcopacy is of the bene esse but not of the esse of the Church.'

I would name the Bishops of Durham, Hereford, Southwell, Ripon, Winchester, Liverpool, and, I should believe also, both the Archbishops.

2. The period of interval before Ordination would probably be determined by the Bishop's requirement as to theological training – much [239] would depend on previous educational record.

I should suggest that you write discretely to one of the Bishops, stating your position and desires, if on a careful and prayerful review of the facts you think your duty lies in the direction of seceding from the Church in which you have received Baptism and Ordination. On that point I cannot advise you; but I think it a very difficult and solemn step to take. Believe me, there is a reward for patience in these conflicts, and a steady witness bravely maintained to spirituality at the present juncture would be greater than most secessions I can imagine.

With much sympathy & good will, I am

Yours sincerely

H. Hensley Henson.

^Mr Hutchinson, a Congregationalist minister of St Ives, had written to me in despair at the pressure put upon him by the political zealots of his own communion, to make enquiry as to taking Orders in the Church of England.^

---

Issues and controversies: resurrection; virgin birth