The Henson Journals

[249]

20th Sunday after Trinity, October 25th, 1903.

I celebrated at 8 a.m. Sherwood served for the first time. There were 22 communicants. The rain held off till about 10 a.m., & then fell with great violence. Thus the congregation at Mattins was reduced to about half its normal size. I preached a sermon on Prayer.

At Evensong, I preached again to a large assembly. The Offertory was £6.15.5.

[250]

[symbol]

[symbol] To: J. K. Spender Esq. M.D.

Oct: 26. 1903

My dear Sir,

I must not leave your very kind & interesting letter without acknowledgment. The political course of the Nonconformist leaders is very unfortunate, &, I think, very indefensible: I am sure its consequences are most unhappy, both on the Nonconformists, and on Churchmen. In the case of the former, there has been a resurrection of old hatreds which had better been allowed to die out: & in the case of the latter, there has been a most sad quickening of resentment, & a renewed acquiescence in alienation which is intrinsically irrational & wrong. We must strive not ourselves to be swept along by the passions of the hour. We ought resolutely to refuse to accept Dr Clifford's version of Nonconformity, &, allowing to the full the great extenuations which the history of civic inequality continued up to the precincts of our own generation, can offer for present bitterness & unreason, steadily address ourselves to the fraternal instincts of men, who are, after all, our fellow-disciples.

[251]

I feel absolutely certain that this storm will pass: its very violence suggests to me that it has in it the desperation of conscious failure: &, presently, if we reserve ourselves in patience for the work of reconciliation, the hour will come, & our chance.

Believe me,

v. sincerely yours

H. Hensley Henson

[252]

[symbol]

[symbol][symbol] To Lady Frances Balfour

Nov. 4th 1903

My dear Lady Frances,

Robertson Nichol is the editor of the "British Weekly", a very widely read Nonconformist journal. He also edits an excellent theological journal called "The Expositor", & carries weight (deservedly) with the reading & teaching religious public. He is a man of wide reading, considerable literary power, great ambition (as I judge) and of great duplicity (as I suspect). It is hard to combine in a single view so much that is admirable, & so much that is intellectually & morally squalid. To him, far more than to any other individual, the competitive success of "Passive Resistance" is due.

As you are generous enough to fight my battles, I should be base not to give you such an Apologia as I can fitly offer: though I own to being constitutionally neglectful of my own reputation, & very averse from self-defence. I always say when I read or hear (as is often enough the case) unkind & unjust things about myself. "Well, well: everything [253] [symbol] comes right in the end: and, for the rest, if I don't deserve abuse on this count, I probably do on some other. If my critics knew as much against me as I do, they could make out a much more effective case!["]

But frankly, they do me great wrong, whoever they are, who accuse me of instability. I sometimes think I am rather open to the charge which was gibingly brought against the younger Pitt of being ‘cast' and not growing - so curiously constant have I been to the ideals of my boyhood. Let any one (if there be any who care enough for me to wish to know the truth) recall the 20 years (not quite) since I have been (as the papers say) "before the public". I started – it was my first public interest – as an earnest defender of the principle & fact of Establishment. Will any deny my present devotion to that cause?

I started with a passion for religious unity. If you'll promise not to laugh I will confess to you that, when I was being prepared for Confirmation, as a lad of sixteen, I drew up a splendid & detailed [254] [symbol] scheme for the Reunion of the Protestant Churches under the hegemony of Canterbury, which I still think was as practicable as & far more generous than most such schemes I have since seen. Will any one deny that the same passion for religious unity sways me at 40?

I started with an intense love of personal independence. When I took Holy Orders, one of the main difficulties I felt was the dread of being in bondage to a system. I remember walking by myself to the Norman Church at Iffley (a favourite place of pilgrimage to me in those days), standing at the Altar in the empty church, & taking a vow "that I would never let considerations of my personal reputation & advantage influence my public course". I was then poor and unknown: I knew that independence, which is the heritage of the powerful & wealthy, must be the trophy of the poor: & therefore it is these last to whom ambition, the noblest in the world, is the worst temptation: & so I took my vow. Will any just man, however hostile to my line of thought and [255] [symbol] action, deny that a broad view of my course since I was ordained suggests that it has not been wholly unworthy of that initial vow?

But - it will be said - I have altered my views? On one point – a very important point, I admit it: & I claim that I did so in the frankest & honourablest way in the world: giving my reasons, making such apologies & withdrawals as were necessary. I have nothing to add to what I said about myself in the Preface to ‘Godly Union & Concord'. I started on the assumption of the High Church Party that the Apostolic Succession is vitally necessary to a Christian Church. Experience destroyed the conviction: inquiry disproved the theory. I now know that ecclesiastical organisation is not primary: & I drew the inferences frankly.

But in a society ordered on party lines, such a man as I am is in hard case. I hate & deplore religious division. Every high Churchman concludes that I must be a rigid "Catholic". I exalt [256] [symbol] individual responsibility & freedom. Every Dissenter claims me as an ally. But I am in neither camp – a 'cross-bench' man, abhorrent to all good partisans everywhere.

I have never at any time opposed clerical matrimony on principle, & I have always prophesied that I myself should marry some day: but I have always felt very strongly about reckless marriages too common among our clergy: & I have always agreed with Lord Bacon's dictum as to fitness of the single life for Churchmen. I have urged that men ought to give their first 10 years in Orders to hard work. I gave my first sixteen: & my critics will allow that my own example has accorded with my precept. If you want the key to the indiscretions charged against me: you will find it in what I can but describe as a Quixotic honesty. I won't be taken on false pretences. 'Let us understand one another', I say to everybody who claims me as a comrade. And as to my pronouncement in favour of an 'open door' into the National Church [257] [symbol] with respect to the dogma of the Virgin Birth, it was dictated by a motive which might be fairly called chivalrous. I knew of men being distressed on the subject, &, though every way fitted to Holy Orders, & genuine believers in the Incarnation, yet unable to reconcile it to their conscience to affirm as an historical fact the clause in the Creed. I felt the intrinsic force of their objection: I saw & could not but own the historical weakness of the 'orthodox' case: I saw, moreover, Bishops, the least intellectually considerable on the Bench rushing into a repressive policy. I held (with Mark Pattison) that the Church of England (like the Roman Church at the Reformation) 'had to choose between conforming its doctrine & discipline to the accumulated knowledge of the time or of breaking for ever with the intellectual progress of Europe': I resolved that at least the issue should not be an affair between individual bishops & Ordination Candidates. I took my side, openly in Convocation, publicly in 'Sincerity & Subscription' [258] [symbol] with the cause of Theological liberty. A wise man said to me, 'You are committing professional suicide': & he may be right: but my conscience approves my course as one of the worthiest episodes in my life.

Now, my dear Lady Frances, you will be sufficiently punished for having moved me to write, what in the 17th century would have been called an "Apologeticall Narration". 'Tis precious tiresome work for writer & reader: & hideously egotistic. And only half the truth at best. If I were writing my 'Confessions', after the manner of the Saints, everything would be otherwise.

I acknowledge that my critics & foes have excuses. I give myself away wantonly in conversation when I think myself to be among friends, &, at no time have I been able to ‘bear fools gladly' – which is bad for my credit with that great majority which we know, on Carlyle's authority, consists of ‘mostly fools'. I don't allow enough for honest ignorance, & the loyalty of party, which [259] [symbol] though perverted, is not always also unworthy. I am careless of my dignity in public, & of the impression I make in mixed company – I hit hard, & sometimes hurt more than I mean to: &, though I never bear malice, & rather despise the personal aspect of controversy, there are many who can't understand either my indifference or my scorn.

Still, such as I am & have been, I am still prepared to plead "Not guilty" to the charge of inconstancy: & I am sure you may defend me on that count with a good conscience: if indeed your legitimate resentment at this immense letter permits you ever to defend me again.

May I add a request? If you have the opportunity, I should be grateful if you would convey my defence to Lady Gwendolen. I know enough of her generosity of character to be well assured that, though she may still condemn, she will no longer either [260] [symbol] misunderstand or wrong me, even in her thought.

There, that comes of writing civil letters to a cranky canon.

Believe me,

my dear Lady Frances

most gratefully & sincerely

H. Hensley Henson

---

Issues and controversies: apostolic succession; recognition of/reunion with non-episcopal churches; clerical matrimony; virgin birth; defence of establishment; passive resistance campaign