The Henson Journals

[319]

6th Sunday after Trinity, July 10th, 1904.

A glorious summer day. At 8 a.m. I celebrated in S. Margaret's: there were but 17 communicants. There was a fair congregation at Mattins, among the members was Sir H. Fowler. I preached on "Prejudice".

Custard has broken down. He got thro' the morning service, & lunched with me. I told him to go to bed, & start on his holiday tomorrow.

I went to the Abbey in the afternoon, & heard a sermon from the Bishop of Hereford against war.

A wretched congregation at Evensong, when I preached again, not without difficulty on account of the heat.

[320]

On Monday (July 11th 1904) afternoon I went to Horley, and there stayed until Wednesday morning. On Tuesday we, Carissima, Podge, & I, drove to Worth, and looked at the remarkably interesting A.S. Church. The rector, Mr Bridge, has written a sufficient guide-book, which may be bought for a shilling from the sexton's (?) [sic] wife, who keeps the key.

I read through with much interest & appreciation Edward Caird's "Evolution of Religion".

On Wednesday evening we dined at the House with the Parker Smiths.

[321]

[symbol] [symbol]

The Rector to Hon. & Rev. J. G. Adderley

July 16th 1904,

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your letter. It would be something gained if we two could reach mutual intelligibility & a common course of tolerance at this juncture of many fanaticisms.

I draw a deep distinction between practical matters affecting the Church of England as such, and the wider questions which only affect the Church of England as they affect all Christian Churches.

There is an obvious propriety in the C. of E. "calling the tune" in the first: the last present a far more complex issue.

There is no wounding of conscience properly implied in the one: in the other that is precisely the difficulty to be met. Thus when you ask whether no latitude is to be granted with respect to communion in both kinds &c & yet latitude is to be granted with respect to the Virgin Birth, you really ignore a necessary distinction. There is no hardship to any man - no injury to his [322] conscience - in requiring him to conform to the system of the Church in matters of practical method; for the questions concerned are properly (the mere fact that the practice of this Church has varied in difficult periods, & varies today with respect to them shews this) included among Adiaphora, or things indifferent. Even if a man holding office in the English Church, came to think the Roman Catholic positions sounder, he might yet be fairly required to set aside his preference, & obey the rule of his own Church. Because in things indifferent there is no absolute right, or wrong: but only a balance of expediency. If men were to elevate Adiaphora into matters of conscience, setting aside the national & religious principle (on which all constituted order proceeds, for no men approve every detail of an old, large system) that 'to obey is better than sacrifice', then, I suppose, there is no help for it. They must be required to leave the Church, because they are unable to fulfil their legal obligations.

But when you come to the Creeds, you are [323] in another atmosphere altogether: here you must be extremely careful not to wound conscience, for here the power of external authority may be readily abused.

Not on the English Church only, but on every branch of Christ's Church, has come the trial & problem of the Transition. We have the treasure of the Faith in earthen vessels, - truth set out in ancient documents, defined with reference to other needs than ours, & in unconsciousness of much that we feel & know. How are we to use these aged Creeds? Are we to press their language closely, & insist that they are, like Papal decisions, irreformable? Or may we take them with a reasonable latitude, having regard to their history, and to our intellectual & moral necessities?

Here, surely, is a matter of quite cardinal importance, which must be faced charitably & thoughtfully.

Two facts are much to be remembered.

1. The Creeds have been silently revised by the progress of knowledge, so that it is absolutely certain that the meaning now attached to some [324] of the articles by intelligent Christians differs most widely from that of the early Christians, & even from that of our own fathers. Use has blinded us to the change, but none the less it has taken place. If you are now going to insist on an acceptance au pied de la lettre of the Creeds, you must at least settle with yourself, what stage in the evolution of Christian belief is to be selected in order to give the standard of interpretation. If you take, what is most reasonable, the standard of the age in which the Creeds were drawn up, or are first clearly received everywhere, you will find yourself committed to an impossible situation. If you prefer - as I gather that you do - to construct a standard of your own, & to draw the line at the clause about the Virgin Birth, how can you refuse to your fellow-believer the liberty that you claim for yourself? If he says that he understands "Virgin" to mean in the Creed what it means in Isaiah vii, and that he holds the core of vital truth in the article to be the assertion of the true Humanity of the Incarnate, what have you to say against [325] him? It is nothing to the point to argue that that was not the sense in which the Evangelist used the word, or the Church of the past understood it: for you have already yourself set at naught both the New Testament, & the general belief of the Church, when you read into the first Article of the Creed your notions of biological evolution, & quietly abandoned the obvious literalism of the articles which affirmed the ascent into Heaven & the Descent into Hell. Further, if you say, as I suppose you will, that there is a theological necessity for the Virgin Birth, which cannot be shewn for the other articles, then you are only free to hold that opinion for yourself, on condition that you concede a similar liberty of speculation in others. What have you to say to a fellow-believer who maintains that, for his part, he finds both in S. Paul's writings & in S. John's no suggestion that the Incarnation implied a Virgin Birth, & a good deal that suggests the opposite? He has as good a right to speculate as you.

1. This is not the first transition of the [326] kind. Christian history records notable instances which we cannot ignore. In the 16th-century the traditional sense of the Creed with respect to the ‘Holy Catholic Church' was challenged. In the 17th-century Galileo contradicted the current notion, derived from the Bible, or at least justified by the Bible, about the Universe, in the name of astronomical science. Geology, Biology, and now in its turn Criticism have in succession brought the same situation to be faced. How has the Church (i.e. the authorities of the Church) hitherto invariably acted? You know the melancholy story as well as I. Canon Newbolt is faithfully traversing the beaten road of official panic inducing intolerance always & wherever possible persecution. Now, I say, ‘Why can't we learn something from all these admitted blunders, which weigh so heavily on the fair-fame of Christianity? Why can't we avoid the old, old blunder of panic, & calmly look the new truth in the face, & see what we ought to accept in the way of decision? If History can teach us anything, then we shall have [327] to do this ultimately: why not avoid the injustice & scandal of bigotry? Surely the leaders of the Christian Church ought to be able to reach the level of a Jewish Rabbi's tolerance, & with reference to the Biblical critics say what he said with reference to the apostles."Refrain from these men, & let them alone: for if this counsel or this work is of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them: lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.'

There can be no difference between clergy & laity in the matter of credenda. Of course the Church is bound to take securities that her official teachers are (1) of satisfactory character. (2) of suitable ability, (3) of adequate knowledge. These are quite consistent with the position (which indeed is actually that of the Prayer Book) that the credenda are identical. Responsibility varies with opportunity of influence: & no two men have quite the same.

I demur decisively to your suggestion [328] that doubts disqualify for teaching. It depends on the doubts. No historically trained student could avoid doubts about the Virgin Birth, for the obvious reason that the documents by which it is held to be certified, are found, when examined, to yield a doubtful testimony. Into this I do not enter here, save only to observe that it begs the question to say, as if that were an exhaustive dilemma, "The Virgin Birth is a fact, or not". The point is, have I sufficient ground for affirming that it is a fact? There may be many facts, which yet are no facts to us, because we have no sufficient evidence for them: and it is immoral to affirm more than you are entitled to affirm. Until quite recently everybody assumed that the N.T. gave clear & unequivocal testimony to the Virgin Birth. The dissection of the documents has shown that this is not so. How can you rightly require that this fact shall not affect the nature of the [329] assent you will exact?

I wish you would find time to read the volume which the Church Times calls my "Apologia". It does - read fairly, & not in snippets cut out for an unfriendly purpose - give you insight into my general attitude, & make it possible for you to rise above the excited clap-trap, which has been so copiously poured out on me of late.

Yours affectly

H. Hensley Henson.

---

Issues and controversies: Nicene Creed; Athanasian Creed; virgin birth