The Henson Journals

[183]

Monday, September 26th, 1921.

Last night I was haunted by that woeful man, Dowson. On the one hand, how can I encourage him to go forward in the ministry? On the other hand, how can I allow him, for lack of liberty to ministers, to perish in the gutter? Apart from the question of discipline which must determine my treatment of the man himself, what place has charity in the business? He has a wife & 3 children, are their miseries relevant to a determination of my duty? How must the Bishop's duty as laid on him at his consecration be interpreted? How ran the words?

"Be so merciful, that you be not too remiss: so minister discipline, that you forget not mercy".

How is this observation to be interpreted in the case of Dowson? He has had too many chances of passing his examn for the priesthood: & twice he has failed. If that had been all, I would have suffered him to try twice again: but not only did the Rural Dean make very adverse reports on his behaviour, & throw grave doubt on his pre–Anglican record, but old W.B., one of the most tolerant & long–suffering of men, as I judge, wrote to ask permission to get rid of him for quite intolerable incapacity. In these circumstances, I could not have ordained him to the priesthood, even if he had passed the Chaplains' examination. What can be done with him? To give him doles, even if the money could be found, would solve no problem, but only postpone the inevitable crisis with its aftermath of scandal. I see no way out of the business.

[184] [symbol]

Moved by such reflections I wrote to Gouldsmith suggesting that he should, as a disciplinary method, employ the poor wretch for a month, &, if he did well, extend the period. I offered assistance to meet immediate needs. Chelmsford & Craik walked with Clayton to Escomb, & were shown the old church by the Vicar. I stayed in my study, and wrote letters. Craik went off by the 1.27 p.m train, & the Chelmsfords by the 3.55. Before going, Chelmsford had an hours talk with me. He is a very straight simple fellow, and seems to be genuinely a Christian. Would there were more such among our great folks!

"An English bishop … will have to represent before the world all parties in the church, & to hold himself more or less responsible for them".

This sentence forms Sanday's paper on "The positions of Liberal Theology" gives one cause to think. He adds, "An English bishop assumes that all the three regular parties have a right to exist". The difficulty is that while "High Church" and "Low Church" are terms with a fairly constant meaning, the term "Broad Church" is always changing its sense. Are there no limits to the "liberal" revision of the formularies? Must the Bishop be entirely acquiescent in whatever claims are advanced by "Rationalists" and "criticks" ? In short, is there any essential core of Christianity, which must at all hazards be maintained? The latest claims of "Liberal Anglicanism" seem to extend to the cardinal belief as to Christ's "Lordship", confession of which has, since the time of S. Paul, been the constituting fact of Christian discipleship?[sic] Can these claims be allowed even by the most tolerant bishops?

[185]

Clergy to be considered for appointment as Honorary Canons

Barker, J. W. Hudson ordained 1893

Boddy, A. A. ordained 1880.

Davison, S. ordained 1889.

[symbol] Knight, P. Y. ordained 1885.

[symbol] Knowlden, W. J. ordained 1887.

[symbol] Stephenson, H. S. ordained 1895. Appointed 1922.

Short, J. ordained 1887.

Thurlow, Lord. ordained 1898. Left the diocese [symbol] 1922.

Watson, R. ordained 1892.

Wykes, W. M. ordained 1880 (appointed Sept 26th 1921).

"Bishop Butler is the one philosopher who has been with me all through my career, from my school days – and I count it a special place of good fortune that my attention was directed to him in my school days – until now. I would say that Hooker and Butler are the most genuinely British theologians we have had: & they remain so still".

Sanday, "The Position of Liberal Theology".

Sanday could not have meant by 'British' anything other than "English". Certainly neither Hooker nor Butler can truly be called British in mental type and temper: but both are pre–eminently and apparently English – in their caution, their honesty, their dislike of mere theorizing, their moral gravity.

---