The Henson Journals

[240]

Easter Monday, March 28th, 1921.

"In most things good and evil lie shuffled & thrust up together in a confused heap; and it is study & intention of thought which must draw them forth, and range them under their distinct heads."

South "Of the Fatal Imposture & Force of Words" 1686

This sermon is a truly astonishing evidence of South's power over the instrument of speech. It sparkles, scintillates, scorches, and stabs! But it is filled with almost insolent paradoxes, & its tone is utterly unchristian. The great orator was then in the full possession of his oratorical gift, 52 years old. Born in 1632, the tragedy of the King's Execution, & all the confusions that followed, had entered into his experience just at the time in a man's life when impressions are most vivid & permanent. He was 16 when Charles I was beheaded, and 28 when Charles II was restored. Those 12 years coloured his thought & preaching to the end. The Restoration created an atmosphere in which his distinctive gift of satirical rhetoric was infinitely welcome, and brought him into a position in which he had ample opportunity of exercising it. Then unquestionably he was himself affected by the low moral standard of the time. The blended passions of revenge and self–indulgence could not have helped anybody's personal religion: and South, moving in court circles, and drinking in the poisonous draughts of flattery which are always being offered to popular preachers, was worse placed than others for keeping his own level high. The wonder is that he preserved as much Christianity as he did preserve.

[241]

I wrote the following letters:

1. Captn Roberts. 2. F.F.H. 3. Smith (Sunderland) 4. Rev. S. Kearney. 5. Marion. 6. Fenwick (Sunderland) 7. Penelope. 8. Pemberton. 9. Fawkes.

After lunch I went into the park, and watched Colonel Boase inspect the C.L.B.: to whom I afterwards made a short speech.

Mr Little, The Secretary of the C.E.M.S. at Birtley, came to see me at his own request in order that he might bear witness to the excellence of the Vicar, and to the unscrupulous character of the men who were opposing. But he admitted that the majority of the Parochial Council were opposed to the Vicar. It is sufficiently evident that the situation in Birtley is the familiar one of a Protestant parish upset by a foolish soi–disant Catholick, who happens also to be a tactless and obstinate jackass. I doubt not, however, that the opposition is unscrupulous, insincere, & mainly irreligious.

I set myself to the difficult task of composing a letter to J. stating the decision which I have arrived at with respect to him. That decision lies open to the formidable criticism that it binds me to a course of action which is least offensive to my disposition. On the general principle that the standard of rightness in these cases, in which a choice of action is proposed, is the measure of personal discomfort implied, then I cannot be in any doubt that I am acting wrongly in taking a merciful course in this case. Yet the way of mercy seems in the circumstances to be also the way of equity.

---