The Henson Journals

[7]

Thursday, October 20th, 1921.

Ella and I complete 19 years of married life today. We have been through some big troubles together, and traversed many paths. There is much for which we should "thank God, and take courage". In order to mark the anniversary, we made an expedition to Richmond taking lunch with us. The party number 6 – Rashdall & his wife, Ella and I, George and William. We left the car at the "King's Head" and picniced [sic] on the Castle hill. Then we went over the ruins of the Castle, which are imposing, extensive, & most interesting. We went on to the parish church, a commodious structure with five carved stalls from Easby Abbey, & a monument to the son of Abp. Hutton, who was one of my predecessors. We had

[8] [symbol]

October 20th, 1921.

My dear Canon,

Thank you for your letter. There is much justice in your observations: & it is no doubt the case that the circumstances of the 20th century differs so widely from those of the 16th that it is precarious to draw inferences from 16th century arrangements. My obiter dictum about the Prayer Book limiting collections to the Offertory at the Holy Communion connected itself in my mind with the fact, which present practice tends to obscure or ignore altogether, that the Coetus fidelium alone can rightly be appealed to "for Christ's sake" to support His Church and its work. When we go outside, and make our appeal – to the mixed multitude, we cannot fitly go cap in hand. "Freely ye received, freely give." Everything should emphasize the message: the mere suggestion of a desire to raise funds transfers everything on to the wrong plane. We are strategically ill–placed for " reasoning of righteousness, and temperance, & the judgement to come" where we are leading up to the earnest supplication for a good collection. "Thy money perish with thee!" would sometimes be the Christian manner of address.

It is very difficult. In the years before the War we built up on hand–to–mouth finance a vast machinery, religious & philanthropic, which was altogether out of proportion to the volume of genuine Christian faith & sacrifice behind it: & now we are at our wits' end to maintain the machinery when the reasons for the importance have largely ceased, & only Christian faith and sacrifice can inspire giving.

Have I written absurdly? If so, put it down to the haste in which I perforce am writing.

Yours ever

Herbert Dunelm:

The Rev. Canon Hopkinson.

[9]

tea very comfortably in the Hotel, and then motored back to Auckland Castle, where we arrived shortly after 5 p.m.

Old Canon Hopkinson wrote at some length, taking exception to my remarks on collections.

Rashdall talked with energy and insistence for more than an hour before dinner, but he cannot succeed in making his position acceptable to me. This may be my own fault, &, indeed, it is the case that I cannot frame a satisfying statement of my personal belief. It is nearly the case with me as with Tertullian that my faith rests on paradox – Credo quia impossible. He insists that the Divinity of Jesus differs only in degree from that of other men: but that the difference in degree is so great as to justify His being accepted as God, and made the Object of worship. I reply that this is unsound reasoning because nothing can bridge the distinction between God and man, the Object of worship – and the worshipper. We got on to the Gospels, and I insisted that the language of Jesus was properly inconsistent with any view of Him which frankly classed Him with other men. But here the critical difficulty arose, and every passage I quoted was challenged or explained away on critical grounds. Even the supreme and, (save on one hypothesis) intolerable Egotism of Jesus, might, in Rashdall's view, be understood as not really abnormal. Thus discussion becomes almost impossible for there are no common terms. It is curious to observe how inconsistent he is, for one while he is an inexorable critic, insisting that no passage of Scripture shall be admitted which the critics, that is, the most destructive critics, refuse to pass as "genuine": then, he essays to justify his position by adducing patristic authority. S. Augustine will bear him out, or Origen. His mind is strangely like Dr Pusey's in some respects, for he plainly attaches enormous to these patristic opinions, which, since they are all based on a totally uncritical handling of the scriptures, are really of no importance at all when the issue of truth is in debate.

I don't think he is quite at ease in his own mind as to the position which he has taken up. He really is, and desire to be seen to be, a devout worshipper of Christ.

---