The Henson Journals

[14]

Thursday, January 29th, 1920.

I walked to the Athenaeum, & there found Dibden. He says that he has decided to be a candidate for the "National Assembly". He told me that the clause in the Union of Benefices Act was the result of a compromise arranged with Wolmer. It is indeed humiliating that a conceited puppy like that should have to be gravely accepted as an authoritative factor in the Church.

I walked to Westminster, and called on Colin Smith the patronage–secretary. He said there wd be no opposition to linking up Hatfield with some adjacent parish, if, as seems probable, the present incumbency shall be terminated. Buckle lunched with me in the Club, & then I walked to Lambeth with Ernest. We wasted two hours at the Bishops' meeting in discussing whether the "National Assembly" should meet before the autumn, & then left the matter undecided. Then the Bp. of Winchester launched a muddled but vehement discussion of "the World Conference of Faith & Order". I said that it was high time we cleared our minds of cant, & ceased to pretend that we were agreed on first principles: that Gore was no more than the spokesman of a party in the Church, & had no right to pose as anything more: that the "Faith & Order Conference" was a characteristically American exhibition of unreal completeness. The Bishops were, of course, properly scandalized, but I think they begin to perceive that the epoch of serene mutual admiration & compliment is ending.

[15]

K. sent me a bundle of papers relating to the recent conference in Oxford on Reunion. Among them was a letter addressed by Armitage Robinson to Parsons of Wells, which, though not for publication, might be used as the said Parsons thought fit. After stating that the existing freedom in the C. of E. has resulted from "the practical failure of the law–courts to restrain ecclesiastical aberrations" he proceeds:

"A disestablished church must necessarily lose this freedom, or else, if it be full of fresh life, must break into fragments. Meanwhile it is, while we have it, potent for good or for ill, according to the disposition of the more eager & controlling spirits".

Then he tries "to frame some answer to the question, why could I not accept an invitation to take part in a Nonconformist Celebration of the Lord's Supper?", and this is his reply:–

"I cannot express the depth of my conviction that I shd wrong the Holy Eucharist by a wilful & unnecessary departure on my own part as an individual from the practice of that part of the Catholic Church to wh. my loyalty is due... For myself I cannot see any hope of the restoration of Unity in any measure except its centre be the one Eucharist celebrated by the Historic Ministry".

He then refers to the recent conferences with ecclesiastics of the Eastern Church, & goes on:–

"I have seen enough in Greece & in Russia to know how anxiously & sympathetically Eastern Christendom looks to us [16] at the present moment. And at home Nonconformity in its best exponents, so far as I am aware, does not ask for this concession at our hands, & possibly feels that in the interests of the whole our present isolation is right".

Then he concludes with a general statement of present policy:–

"I shd wish to say in conclusion that in my view our great need at the present moment is a careful study of the fundamental principles on wh. the C. of E. rests. This might perhaps lead the way to a reasoned appeal to the English Nonconformists to return to their Mother Church, purged & quickened as she has been since their forefathers felt compelled to leave her. I have long felt that the question of Holy Orders will not be found to be the most serious obstacle to such a return, when once the desire for Unity is in the ascendant. But in the Holy Eucharist we have that to give them wh. they cannot get in its fullness outside the limits of historic Catholicity – the union & communion of the present with the past – the supreme offering of Worship to God 'with angels and archangels & all the company of heaven – the Mystery of union with Christ in His Body in wh. the saints of all ages are one with the saints & penitents of today – "One Body, for we all partake of the one Bread".

[ … ] can offer this to them on terms far less [17] restricted than other branches of the Catholic Church in the West or in the East. We are providentially called to keep this precious thing for them until they are ready to receive it".

Now, if this be the attitude of one who was bred an Evangelical and passes for an advocate of Reunion with the Non–conformists, it is easy to estimate the measure of sincerity which is likely to belong to the negociations with Noncon: divines, which are so much in fashion.

The Conference in Mansfield college, Oxford, on Jany 7–9th 1920 reached the following decisions:

We are in entire accord in our common recognition of the fact that the denominations to wh. we severally belong are equally, as corporate groups, within the one Church of Christ; & that the efficacy of their ministrations is verified in the history of the Church. We believe that all dealings between them shd be conducted on the basis of this Recognition, wh. is fundamental to any approach towards the realisation of the Re–United Church, for which we long and labour and pray."

We agree that, in order to give outward & visible expression to this principle of Recognition, the approach shd be made along the following lines, as parts of one scheme:–

1. Interchange of pulpits under due authority.
2. Subject to the same authority, mutual admission to the Lord's Table.

[18]

Acceptance by Ministers, serving in any one denomination, & who may desire it, of such authorisation as shall enable them to minister fully & freely in the churches of other denominations: it be clearly stated that the purpose of this authorisation is as above set forth, & that it is not to be taken as re–ordination, or as repudiation of their previous status as Ministers in the Church Catholic of Christ.

Among the signatories are the following:–

Rev. Harold Anson. Exam: Chap: to Bp. of Lincoln.

" C. C. B. Bardsley. Hon. Sec: of L. M. S.

Rt Rev. Bishop of Barking

" " " Hamilton Baynes

Rev. C. R. Davey Biggs. Vicar of SS. Philip & James, Oxford

" Preb: Burn, Vicar of Halifax

Canon E. A. Burroughs

Rev. A. J. Carlyle

" Stuart H. Clarke, Vicar of Tonbridge

" J. R. Darbyshire " " S. Luke's, Liverpool

" Percy Dearmer. Prof: of King's Coll. London

" A. C. Don, Vicar of Norlon

Rt. Rev. Bishop of Gippsland

Canon Harford, Vicar of S. Matthew's, Mossley Hill, Liverpool

Rev. H. J. Gooding. Principal of Wycliffe Hall.

Archdeacon Gresford Jones. Sheffield

[19]

Rev. Bernard Jackson. Rector of Farnborough

" W. Stanton Jones. Vicar of Bradford

Canon T. A. Lacey. Worcester

Rev. H. D. Major, Principal of Ripon Hall.

" Oliver C. Quick Vicar of Kenley

" Charles E. Raven, Chap: of Emmanuel Coll. Cambridge

Canon A. W. Robinson, Canterbury

Rev. T. Guy Rogers. Vicar of West Ham

" H. R. S Sheppard. Vicar of St Martin's

Canon Temple. Westminster

Rt Rev Bishop of Uganda

" " " " Warrington

" " " Welldon

Rev. C. M. Williams. Ed: Sec: C.M.S.

" E. S. Woods, Vicar of Holy Trinity Cam.

The underlined names are those of High Churchmen. Those with a double underlining are advanced sacerdotalists. There must surely be an amazing lack of candour in these subscriptions. Until they have made some kind of public abjuration of their publicly expressed beliefs, their signatures cannot be accepted as genuine. But what have they to gain by this voluntary wallowing in humbug? There must be a painful hour of discovery & disillusionment reserved for them & their dupes. Meanwhile honest men find the Church of England asphyxiating!

---