The Henson Journals

[89]

Saturday, June 30th, 1917.

1062nd day

The post brought me a letter from the Bishop of Newcastle thanking me "most heartily" for my letter to the 'Times'. He goes on to say with much justice:–

"There is a larger question, & that is the attempt to govern the Church by Archbishops' Committees. The Committee of the National Mission has no official position: as far as can be gathered, a few members of it go to the Archbishop, & induce him to appoint a Committee of themselves & their friends. Even if such a Committee asks for evidence, there is no guarantee that it will use it if it does not suit the views of the majority of the members. A report will be produced – a sort of composite magazine article – & meetings will be held to enforce upon the Church the views of the Committee. I see that the letter, to which you replied, attempts to claim in advance for the reports of these Committees a kind of sacrosanct character. It is a most anarchical method of procedure & is all part of an attempt to discredit and override Convocation in favour of this new edition of the Representative Church Council in which one or two additional talkers will be added to the restricted circle of orators to whom we listen by the hour in that strange assembly."

The strange thing is that though Bishops think like this – for Bishop Wild does not stand alone: the Bishops of Southwark, Manchester, Carlisle, & Durham hold with him – they never succeed in doing anything to prevent the impressive unanimity of the "Episcopate" in pursuing this fatuous policy.

[90]

June 30th 1917.

My dear Sir,

So much comes to me in the form of letters challenging me to discussions which, if I were to embark on them, would consume the whole of my time, that I cannot, even if I would, satisfy the writers. It is the case that many of these communications are left unanswered in the hope that the fact will carry its own interpretation, viz: that I have neither time nor will for such improvised controversies. Assuredly there is no discourtesy intended to my correspondents, who are complete strangers; and no reluctance to "give an answer for the faith that is in me" in suitable circumstances, & at fitting times. I hope, therefore, that you will not accuse me of discourtesy or lack of candour, if I decline embarking on the kind of discussion which you invite. It would be quite futile to do so until we have some common ground to go upon. For instance, you lay it down as an axiom that "the deepest intellectual thinkers & students of history doubt altogether the historical existence of Jesus Christ", and on that axiom you proceed to build the opinion that Christians generally, & clergymen in particular must be very ignorant or very dishonest people. Now I think that your axiom is almost ludicrously false, that the doubt of the historical existence of Jesus Christ is limited to a handful of paradoxical critics, like Drewes, whose whole attitude towards Christianity is marked by a grotesque & incapacitating bigotry. This is but a single illustration of the fundamental difference between us, which wd make discussion perfectly futile. You must, therefore, excuse me from wasting your time, and mine.

Yours v. faithfully,

H. Hensley Henson.

John T. Tripp Esq.

[91]

George came to tidy up my room. He and I are growing into one another quite closely enough to make his departure to submarine risks a personal concern of mine. He stayed to lunch. I attended Evensong. Miss Inge arrived for the week–end. After tea I shewed her the cathedral. On our way round, I picked up three pit–boys who went with us silent but interested. In the Monks' Garden, or rather, on the way there, I annexed a young officer with his inevitable girl. He told me that he was but 19, had been a clerk in Barclay's Bank, & was at one time a member of Queen's College, Cambridge. The Lillingstons came to dinner. I wrote to Ernest.

---