The Henson Journals

[194]

Thursday, October 2nd, 1919.

[symbol]

My dear Rushton,

I have to acknowledge your letter of October 1st. in which you tell me that "the All Saints Church Council" have asked you to introduce incense into the public services of the parish church: and add that you are "anxious to take steps towards this end". You also asked [194] me to sanction for use a form of "Vespers of the dead", & inquire whether I have already authorized the use of the Revised Lectionary, or am intending to do so.

I will deal with the matters in order.

1. You are, of course, aware that the ceremonial use of incense in the public services of a parish church is, as the law now stands, illegal. It was declared to be so by both Archbishops as lately as 1899. I must assume, therefore, that you desire me, as Bishop to accept the responsibility of sanctioning a religious observance which is not authorised by statute.

If I do not reject the suggestion as evidently inadmissible, it is because I must needs acknowledge that, in the present circumstances of the Church of England, the limits of what is legal have been found too strait for the legitimate needs of popular religion, and that episcopal authority is, as matters stand with us, the only [195] [symbol] alternative to naked individualism.

There are, however, two conditions which must govern my action when I consider whether I can rightly give such sanction as a Bishop can give to what is illegal.

(α) I must be convinced that the proposed innovation is congruous with the mind of the Church of England as expressed in her standards and in her history.

(β) I must be convinced that no substantial injustice is done to the parishioners.

As the first condition. I have no doubt in my mind. 'Incense' is an expressive symbol commended by many Scriptural references, which in no way conflicts with the mind of the Church of England. When in 1899 Archbishops Temple and Maclagan issued an Opinion pronouncing the ceremonial use of Incense illegal, they were careful to add that they were 'far from saying that Incense in itself is an unsuitable and undesirable accompaniment to Divine Worship'.

As the 2nd condition I must ask for some further assurance. You tell me that the request that you should use incense was supported by all present at 'a meeting of the All Saints Church Council'. Did that meeting include the Churchwardens? I cannot ignore the fact that the Parish of All Saints contains between five and six thousand parishioners, [196] every one of whom has rights in the parish church. Among these rights none can be accounted more precious than that the public services should, always in the spirit and as far as possible also in the letter, be conducted according to the Law. How far is your Church Council fairly representative of religiously disposed parishioners of All Saints? Would they approve, or disapprove, the introduction of Incense into the public services of their noble parish Church?

Satisfy me on these points and I shall be willing, not indeed to sanction, but certainly to acquiesce in an innovation which, albeit illegal, is neither incongruous with the mind of the Church of England nor unpleasing to the religious parishioners of All Saints.

2. As to the service of 'Vespers of the dead' which you ask me to approve, I have read it through carefully, and find nothing to which I feel it necessary to object except the title, which is unknown to Anglican usage: the first of the three prayers, which seems to me unreal & incongruous with the simple dignity of the Prayer book: and the sentence enclosed within brackets in the 2nd prayer. With these omissions I am ready to approve the use of the form.

[197]

3. With respect to the revised Lectionary I have not approved its use in the diocese, & I have no intention of doing so. But I shall be very willing to sanction other lessons in place of those prescribed in the Prayer book on occasions when the latter are objected against for reasons which I can recognize as sufficient.

This letter may be published for the guidance of other clergymen in the diocese, who may desire direction on the points dealt with.

With kind regards,

I am, ever sincerely yours

H. H. Hereford

After lunch I called to see the Mayor who has been prostrated by an attack of enteritis, & is very much enfeebled. The strike has taken an unexpected development. Negotiations between the Government and the Railway men's union have been renewed at the instance of other Unions. The Prime Minister, however, is said to have stipulated that the men should first return to work: but whether this condition has been accepted seems to be doubtful. I am afraid we shall have another patched up settlement evading the real trouble. If so, we do but postpone the evil day.

[198]

The 'Times' reports the death of two men, with whom I have had some acquaintance – Prof. T. J. Haverfield and Sir Edward Cook. The one was born in 1860 and the other in 1857. Both were educated at Winchester and New College. Death is beginning to strike down my own contemporaries.

I read through again Prof. Bowley's pamphlet on "The division of the Product of Industry, an analysis of National Income before the War" with a view to my Sunday sermon. His conclusion is certainly disconcerting, & should give pause to these reckless organisers of strikes:–

"The wealth of the country, however divided, was insufficient before the war for a general high standard; there is nothing as yet to show that it will be greater in the future. Hence the most important task – more important immediately than the improvement of the division of the product – incumbent on employers & workmen alike, is to increase the national product, & that without sacrificing leisure and the amenities of life".

If this condition is to be satisfied, then the only means by which the indispensable increase of the national product can be secured is a considerable introduction of labour saving machinery which would have the effect of quickening and cheapening production.

---