The Henson Journals

[208]

Friday, October 10th, 1919.

I wrote to Bulmer invoking his aid in persuading his relative, the Vicar of Canon Pyon to resign his benefice. He is quite incompetent for his duty either in Church or in parish. Also I wrote to Mrs Spooner telling her that the Conference was postponed. After lunch I walked with Lilley. He and his wife were caught by the Railway Strike at Carlisle where they remained as the guests of the Dean. The Deanery seems to have been charitably opened to shelter several stranded travellers.

Fred Tisdall came to say Goodbye: he has been ordered to Pembroke. Godfrey & Dorothea arrived at 6.4 [sic] p.m. for the week–end.

Bulmer came to see me after dinner in order to answer personally the letter which I had addressed to him earlier in the day. He expressed himself in the friendliest fashion but can evidently do little. His uncle, the Vicar of Canon Pyon, is barely on terms of acquaintance with him. He suggested that I shd address myself to his, the Vicar's, son, who farms in the parish. He told me that Mr Bulmer had expended a large sum in building the vicarage of Canon Pyon, & to that extent had constituted for himself a personal claim not to be evicted. Moreover he could not imagine where the old man would be able to find another house.

[209] [symbol]

My dear Bishop,

So many things have intervened since your letter of Sept. 22nd came into my hands that it yet remains unanswered. In it you ask me what the legal position really is. I do not pretend to any adequate knowledge of ecclesiastical law. But I feel pretty clear on the point.

Frankly, I have no doubt at all that any preaching or praying within consecrated buildings other than that of Anglican clergymen is illegal, save in so far as the special legislation for the War has modified the position. On this point I have no information, as I can't get hold of the Act. But the Law has now broken down so largely, and so generally, that it were the height of unreason to make mere legality the measure of our liberty.

The question is, shall departures from the law only be suffered when they express & establish the theory of so–called "Catholic" exclusiveness? or, shall there be some attempt to make sure that the new anarchy shall not revolutionize the very character of the English Church?

Nonconformity was itself, like Christianity among the imperial pagans, an offence, & so far the enactment of the canons & the statutes of the realm coincided. The present situation is that while Nonconformity is fully [210] [symbol] legalized by statute, it remains still prohibited by Canon. On this two observations are to be made.

1. Canons cannot be pleaded against statutes . By the Submission of the clergy any canon conflicting with statute loses validity ipso facto .
2. Canons do themselves become obsolete if they are not enforced for a certain number of years .

The Gallicans held 40 years desuetude to abrogate canons; the Romans are divided, some insisting on as many as 60 years, & some requiring no more than 12. An obsolete canon cannot be put in use save by the originally enacting authority. It is certain that the Canons of 1604 placing Nonconformists under a mighty series of anathemas have been dead for generations. Nobody pretends to regard them as more than an ecclesiastical curiosity. We are then "shut up to" the Act of Uniformity which was enacted as long ago as 1662, & presupposes a view of Nonconformity which is no longer maintained by the Law. If it be, in all the circumstances of the modern church, reasonable for the Bishops to authorize, or acquiesce in, breaches of the Law in the matters of incense, reservation, non–use of the Athanasian Creed, speaking of Women in the Churches, &c., &c., how much more reasonable [211] must it be to allow departure from the law which prohibits all ministrations of Nonconformists within our Churches. The matter must be argued on its merits. The legal aspect is no longer really worth considering. If you raise & stand on the legal rights, you cannot but be defeated.

I do not think the permission to exchange pulpits is in itself of much importance. Its value lies in the proof of ecclesiastical character which it provides, and the disproof of ecclesiastical pretensions which it constitutes.

Consider the amazing letter of the Bp. of Zanzibar. Remember that his Commissary is the Bishop of Winchester, & that Bp. Gore is an intimate friend. Note, that never at any stage of the continuing controversy since the 1st Kikuyu Conference have these Bps disclaimed agreement with the Bp. of Zanzibar. Realize that the Bp. of Gloucester's action is almost certainly collusive with Bishops Talbot & Gore; & that the Abp. of Canterbury is a tool in their hands; and can you doubt that the real question at issue is the character of the C. of E. as a Reformed Church?

You have raised the standard: you must not lower it. I am quite content to put aside details, on which I may not wholly agree, in order to strike home & hard on the main question. We shall have a wealth of tearful [212] appeals, & half–uttered threats. These are only bluff, & shd be as politely as possibly ignored. They dare not act on their brave words. Secession – why secession wd prove our point, & open wide our door. Schismatic action without secession – it wd be a nine days wonder, & cd not persist. Only go forward. The lawless liberty wh these "Catholics" have claimed & taken can only be defended on a view of the law wh justifies our little freedoms also.Only, whereas Protestantism is patient of much ecclesiastical variation, & is tolerant on principle; this precious "Catholicism" must persecute to live!! I think it wd have been far better to have taken no step at all than, having taken an important and (as the response of the Nonconformists show) well–chosen step, to stop, or go backward.

Believe me, Yours ever,

H. H. Hereford

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

---