The Henson Journals

[119]

Tuesday, August 23rd, 1921.

Yesterday I bought "The Daily Graphic", and read a report of Rashdall's speech at the Cambridge "Modern Churchmen's Conference" into which had been dove–tailed an explanatory note of his own. The report is quoted from the 'Daily Telegraph' of Aug 13th. It is carefully expressed, but is essentially a categorical denial of the doctrine of the creeds. He does, indeed, employ the word 'unique' of God's 'self–revelation' in Christ, but he makes it plain that the uniqueness is, not one of kind, but one of degree.

"The divinity of Christ did not necessarily imply the virgin birth or any other miracle. The virgin birth, if it could be historically proved, would be no demonstration of Christ's divinity, nor would the disproof of it throw any doubt upon that doctrine, nor did the divinity of Christ imply omniscience".

But the virgin birth, if historically proved, would imply Christ's uniqueness in a very different sense than that of Dr Rashdall's argument, and the doctrinal insignificance of miracle which Dr R. asserts cannot possibly be reconciled with St Paul's teaching about the Resurrection in Romans I. Nor is it easy to understand what 'worship' can mean on Dr R.'s view. For Christ being fully and merely a man; and it being postulated that 'there is much in human nature that is not divine at all': such 'worship' of Christ as is rendered must be rendered to the Divine elements in Him, which only differs in extent from the Divine elements in every other human being. We should 'worship' every man in some measure.

[120]

My dear Fawkes,

I have been moving about seeing newspapers only occasionally, and ecclesiastical newspapers not at all. Yesterday, however, I bought the Daily Graphic in Exeter, and found there the report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of Aug. 13th, with some corrections by Rashdall himself inserted. It is, of course, quite flagrantly incompatible with the traditional theology, & lends itself to formidable criticism. I do not doubt that it will do yeoman's service to the enemy. But, as you say, Dr Rashdall is a really learned man, and every candid person must admit, not only that he has earned the right to express an opinion on theological questions, but also that the opinions he expresses have a distinct value. Neither of these assumptions holds in the case of the lesser fry of the churchman's union. They are shallow, dogmatic, provocative, and incredibly foolish.

I understand that the papers read at the Conference will be published: & I shall reserve my judgement until I have been able to read them carefully.

You ask what wd be the best line for the Spectator to take in the event of its finding it necessary to take any line at all. It is hard to say, but I think it wd be worth while to remind these very 'cock–sure' modernists that they are in danger 1) of belittling the actual hold of the traditional theology on the Christian public: 2) of belittling the scale & perplexity of the "reconstruction" to which they address themselves so highly: 3) of forgetting that a Church [121] cannot proceed on the principles which may fully control the procedure of a University. 4) that it is an obligation of charity to make sure that the faith of the simple is not gratuitously disturbed.

Finally,& this sums up all the other points, tell them to remember that Christianity is Christ's Religion, & cannot survive any handling of the Founder which removes him from the kind of supremacy which he has ever held. However true it may be that the developed Theology of the Church cannot be found in the New Testament, it is not less true that the N. T. is itself the disproof of the intellectualist moralizing in which 'modern Churchmen" indulge. No version of Christian Theology wh. doesn't preserve the proportions & essential contents of Apostolic Christianity, as disclosed in the N.T. can serve the turn of the modern Church. Kirsopp Lake and Foakes Jackson have drifted into a position towards Christ which no convert in any age could adopt. It is external, critical, patronizing PROFANE. People feel this: & only feel it the more since they can't see always how to justify the feeling.

Macmillans are publishing the lectures on 'Anglicanism' which I gave in Sweden last autumn: & I have been employing some of the leisure of my holiday in writing a Preface. I have criticized the Anglo–Catholic position, & led up to a reference to the doctrinal & moral anarchy, which has come upon us. I have said that the Bishops cannot much longer postpone facing the issues which really matter, & that when they do face them, [122] everything will turn on the conception of Christ's Religion which they have accepted. On the so–called "Catholic" principle, there is no possible solution: on the principles of the Reformers, justly appraised, a solution is conceivable. In writing it, I had the consciousness of composing a swan–song!

We shall move away from this address next Monday, the 29th probably to the Isle of Wight: & after a few days there, we shall turn our faces northwards. I hope to be in Auckland Castle by the 9th Sept.

Yours [ ]

Herbert Dunelm

After lunch we motored to Stonehenge, and viewed with melancholy interest the mysterious stones. They have been overhauled, stabilized, & largely re–erected by the Government which appear to be seeking to make amends thus for the outrage of erecting the most hideous building in its immediate neighbourhood. The stones are now the property of the nation, & can only be viewed on payment of a fee. William was, I think, really impressed & interested. He took some photographs. Then we visited the parish church of Amesbury, a rather severe building mostly in the early English style. Finally, we went to a lawn–tennis tournament in which Betty Oldfield was contending. Just before the company dispersed a gentleman arrived with a hawk on his wrist. He had been hawking: the prey being Larks! He said that hawking had never died out on Salisbury Plain.

[123]

German Chivalry:–

General Oldfield told us at luncheon an instance of chivalry exhibited by a German officer in the course of the tremendous fighting in March 1918. The British had been driven back, and had lost many guns. Gen. O. directed his guns on the lost British guns then in German hands, & arrested the enemy's advance. One British Officer was missing, & supposed to be either killed or captured. Some months later his mother received from a German officer an account of his death. He had been wounded, & would certainly have been destroyed by the British fire, when the German, thinking it cruel that he should perish by his own guns, carried him out of the fight. He had died in his rescuer's arms, & the latter had written to his mother, & sent home sundry personal objects.

I asked General O. whether, in his experience, the Germans were "dirtier fighters" than soldiers of other nationalities, & he replied that they certainly were not.

After dinner General O. was in the mood of reminiscence, & told many stories of his experience of the war. He spoke much of the Comte de Croy, a great Belgian noble, in whose chateau he had been quartered when the British army entered Belgium at the end of the War. The old fellow broached a bottle of imperial Tokey presented to his ancestor by Marie Antoinette in order worthily to celebrate the defeat of the Germans. Warmed with the wine he carried his guest into another apartment where he dressed him out in the magnificent costume of the Knight of the Golden Fleece, a dignity which he himself possessed.

---