The Henson Journals

[18]

Friday, October 26th, 1917.

1180th day

I finished reading through Prof. Whitney's little book on "The Episcopate & the Reformation, our Outlook", which is much belauded by the Church papers. There is a good deal of learning in it, but its central thesis appears to me grotesque. Its exultation of the "historic episcopate", i.e. the episcopate as it exists; & now exists only, in the Anglican Church, is silly enough, but the ludicrous complacency with which he dilates on the rapid extension of the colonial episcopate, & the perfection of synodical machinery in the colonial churches as if nothing else were needed to prove the sole & sufficient ability of Episcopacy to solve the spiritual problems of the XXth century is more saddening than silly. For this is the nonsense that can win approval at Lambeth, & "carry" any meeting of "good" Churchmen. The post brought a letter from the Bp. of Manchester, which I answered at once (copy inserted here). Also a letter from Harold Cox, & one from Rashdall. I attended Mattins & Evensong.

The weather has suddenly become very cold. Snow–showers alternated with sunshine most of the day.

Alice Hewitt came to continue her work. We set her in the smoking room, where there was a fire.

[19]

To the Bishop of Manchester

October 26th 1917

My dear Bishop

What do you say to our moving on Nov: 27th an amendment to Lord Parmoor's motion in some such terms as these:

"To omit all words from "churchmen" in line 5 to "that" in line 8, and also the word "accordingly" in line 8, and to substitute for the words "its next meeting" in line 10 the words "its first meeting after the conclusion of Peace".

The amended Resolution would then run thus:

"That whereas the Recommendations contained in the Report of the Abps' Ctee on the Relations of Church & State vitally concern the whole field of the Church's life & work, & whereas these recommendations have been commended by the Convocations to the attention of churchmen, the Abps be requested to appoint a Ctee of members of the R.C.C. to prepare a Report thereon to be presented to the Council at its first meeting after the conclusion of Peace".

I think, perhaps, it might be better to read "at a special meeting convened at the first opportunity after" instead of what I have written, but that is detail. The effect of that amendment being carried wd defeat the "hustlers", & compel a general discussion.

I am convinced that we must avoid the appearance of being simply obstructive: & rather take the ground of recognizing that [20] reforms are needed, & large changes inevitable, but that frank–dealing with Church & Nation demand that these shd be handled after the War, & that the actual proposals of the Ctee could not, as they stand, be acceptable in themselves, or reconcileable [sic] with any form of national establishment.

On Wednesday morning, at his own request, I called on Lord Portsmouth in order to talk over the "Report". He is anxious to make some kind of a protest against the manner in wh. the question is being handled, & to restate the case for the Establishment. He suggested that it might be well to have a letter, carefully drafted, signed by a number of as representative & weighty clergy & laymen as can be obtained, & sent to the "Times". This letter wd point out what, in fact, the purpose & value of an Estd & Endd. national church are, & wd indicate quite clearly that before pushing on with projects which, whatever their merits, wd assuredly destroy the present position of the C. of E., it might be well for churchmen to "count the cost". He suggested that you shd be in the first instance consulted, & I promised to write to you. I think there is something to be said for this procedure, IF the right men will join in, but Lord P. himself hardly carries any great weight on these issues, & something more than his invitation wd be requisite for success. On the other hand, we must not lightly put aside any allies.

I am, my dear Bishop, sincerely yrs

H. Hensley Henson

---