The Henson Journals

[76]

10th Sunday after Trinity, August 8th, 1920.

A brilliant day, ideal for the concluding function of the Lambeth Conference. Ella & I drove to the Cathedral in good time. The Bishops of London, Durham, & Winchester robed in the Chapel of St Michael, with the two English Archbishops. The procession of the bishops was really an impressive sight, but there was nobody to witness it. I was surprised that, even in August, the spectacle did not attract a crowd. Inside the Cathedral there was a great congregation. The Archbishop's strongly–expressed desire that there should be a real "corporate communion", i.e. one at which the members of the corpus did actually communicate, bore fruit, for the whole body of the bishops, exceeding 230 persons, received the Sacrament. The Bishop of Tennessee preached the sermon, which began well but tailed off woefully. It was rather too long for its quality. Before giving the Benediction, the Archbishop bade farewell to the Bishops in a few simple but moving words. The singing of the final hymn was very impressive. As I was leaving the Cathedral, Gilbert Box, with his wife and infant, introduced themselves. Miss Mundella drove us both to Garland's Hotel, & then we went off to lunch with the Gows in their new house at Hampstead. He is woefully blind. I asked him whether he would care to be one of my chaplains, & he seemed pleased. After lunch we went to Lambeth, where the Archbishop awaited me. Between us we drafted a letter which [77] should be sent to the Press, to prepare the way for the Reports &c. of the Conference. It invokes the sympathetic interest of all men of goodwill. Then we had tea in the garden, where we found several bishops. The Archbishop told me that a dozen of the High Church Bishops had sent him a "round–robin" just before the Conference urging that some doctrinal declaration should be put forth: & that he had categorically declined to include it in the agenda. They had (at the instance of the Bishop of Winchester) acquiesced in this, but he had felt doubtful up to the end whether something might not be attempted. It is sufficiently evident that the Archbishop is immensely relieved at having got the conference successfully over. We walked back to the Hotel, stopping on the way to look at the statute of Abraham Lincoln, opposite the Abbey. It is a fine sculpture & compares well with the other statues in Parliament Square, but they have had the smoke of London to blunt their line, and give them an aspect of squalor. We dined in the Hotel, and then I walked to the Deanery of St Paul's, and had some talk with Ralph. I shewed him sub sigillo the resolutions of the Congress. He thought them disappointing, & on some points reactionary but agreed that they must be made the most of. I was interested to observe the generally unfavourable view which he took of our performance, for which the members of the Conference are for ever thanking God, as if it were a marvel. Perhaps the ardour of the gratitude discloses the measure of the fear!

[78]

Looking back on the Conference, & summing up my impressions, I note the following. The Bishops themselves impressed me as a body of men intensely in earnest, not (with few exceptions) either learned or men of marked intellectual power, but devoted to their work. They represented an immense variety of experience, endeavour, and circumstance. It is no exaggeration to say that the Conference had something of the range & largeness of spirit of a genuinely Catholic assembly. Some of the missionary bishops are ecclesiastical statesmen of no mean quality [e.g. the Bishops of Hankow (Roots) and Tinnivelly (…).] Several men struck me as genuinely apostles e.g. Brent now Bishop of Western New York. The prevailing spirit of the Conference was neo–Tractarian, though there were a good many bishops who would call themselves Evangelical. Mainly the latter were the senior bishops. The younger & abler men have "no use for" either Protestantism or Anglicanism. There is a real desire for union with non–episcopalians, but no adequate perception of the difficulty. Episcopacy is exalted far beyond what its history or its present influence justifies. It is not perceived that this lofty claim for Episcopacy cannot & in fact does not stand alone. The type of Christianity, of which the fact & doctrine of Episcopacy form an integral factor, is not really possible for modernly educated Christians. The choice for them lies between Rome & some form of Protestantism. i.e. between authority and private judgments.

---