The Henson Journals

[14]

Wednesday, October 26th, 1921.

There was a fairly thick fog wrapping everything in a dingy grey when I left the house, & walked to the Athenaeum. There I wrote to Ella & read the paper. Then I went on to Lambeth for the meeting of bishops. The whole day until I left about 3.30 p.m. was given up to a discussion of the proposed new Rebrick on Reservation. In some ways the discussion was curiously illuminating. There was evidently a strong feeling against the Bishop of London, as having "given the show away" by the laxity which he tolerated in his great diocese. The Archbishop of York led off with a well–arranged & carefully, prepared speech, in which he reviewed the whole situation, pointed out that the policy embodied in the Resolutions of July 6th 1917 had wholly broken down, & wound up by suggesting that the attempt to distinguish between "reservation for the sick only" and "perpetual reservation" should be abandoned. We must "draw the line higher up" than in 1917, and allow perpetual reservation provided that it is guarded against devotion. He enlarged on "the importance of securing the loyalty of the great mass of our Anglo–Catholicks [sic] to the principle of perpetual reservation solely for communicating the sick & dying". He quoted Pusey and Father Benson against the cultus of the Reserved Sacrament, & argued that "if we could remove the pressure of the pastoral plea, we might rally the Anglo–Catholicks [sic] to the Tractarian position". The Archbishop of York was followed by the Bishop of Southwark, who gave a dolorous account of his diocese. In 30 parish churches there was perpetual reservation. This had been permitted under conditions which had been loyally observed, & on which it wd be impossible to go back. "But you can't stop worshippers. Are we to stop the intercessions?" Exposition & Benediction had been absolutely forbidden, but they were proceeding, & their suppression was the more difficult since both proceeded in London with episcopal sanction or acquiescence. Then came the Bishop of Gloucester, who, as Chairman of the P. B. Revision committee, would have to propose the new Rubrick [sic] to the National Assembly.

[15]

He asked plaintively, 'How can I with any self–respect propose the draft–Rubrick [sic], when I know it will be disobeyed by the clergy, and disregarded by many bishops?" Perpetual reservation, he said, was rapidly spreading, and leading to results wholly contrary to the mind of the Church of England. Even reservation in one kind was not uncommon. 'How can we expect the Evangelical Party to accept a new Rubrick [sic] which they know will be disregarded?' He read a letter from the Bishop of Ely standing by the resolutions of 1917. He concluded by indicating his opinion that the proposed rubrick [sic] should be amended by including a sanction of perpetual reservation. The Bishop of Chelmsford followed. When he came to his diocese reservation in the Tabernacle over the High Altar was general, but now the Reserved Sacrament had been everywhere removed in an aumbry. But a move forward on the part of the League of Catholic priests was imminent. Communion in one kind was being introduced, "I have for years kept the Evangelical clergy in a leash, but now I am being blamed". He referred to his recent experiences in Birmingham. This brought up the Bishop of that diocese who made a shambling defence of his methods, speaking with some asperity of the ungentlemanlike behaviour of the advanced clergy. The Bishop of Exeter rambled on for a long time, & was followed by the Bishop of Ripon whose speech evidently gave great satisfaction to the High Churchmen. He held that the 1917 resolutions took up an indefensible position in trying to differentiate between reservation ^ for the sick ^ & perpetual reservation. "We should take our stand firmly on the theological distinction which allows perpetual reservation, & disallows adoration. Then came the apologia of the Bishop of London. He began by stating what were the facts about his diocese. 57 churches had permission for perpetual reservation. But immediately 2 questions arose. (1) Might Intercession services be held where the Reserved Sacrament was kept? (2) What prayers might be used at such services? He wouldn't sanction anything, but asked one of his priests to prepare a forum to which he would not object. These [16] devotions took place after Evensong on Sunday evenings, & were "very touching". He had allowed the taking of the Reserved Sacrament from the receptacle to the High Altar for these devotions. "The Evangelicals have come to see that there is no harm in all this." Of the 12 proctors of the diocese 6 were advanced "Anglo–Catholics". We must remember that "the Catholic party" was unrepresented on the Bench, yet its members were "as straight & honest as the day". Why could we not follow the example of the (Episcopal) Church of Scotland. After a short adjournment for lunch, the Bishop of Truro resumed the discussion. There was the usual wash of sentiment, then the usual confession of administrative failure. On the whole he supported the view that perpetual reservation must be conceded. I myself had spoken after London, and pointed out that by the resolutions of 1917 the bishops had placed themselves in a false position, and had been easily driven from one concession to another. There was a real conflict of principles, and, as the history of the Church of England made clear enough, we had reached a point at which another secession was requisite. I should myself oppose any rubrick [sic] which conceded perpetual reservation, for experience demonstrated that it was wholly impossible to stop the cultus of the reserved sacrament. The Bishop of Norwich expressed his regret for having agreed to the Resolutions of 1917, and advised no change in the Rubrick [sic]. The Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that "in lieu of the draft rubrick [sic] there be an addition to the Visitation of the Sick leaving everything to the Bishop. The Bishop of Winchester agreed to this. Then came the Bishop of Liverpool who would make no terms with reservation. "We cannot loyally encourage a misuse of the Sacrament."

I went to the House of Lords & witnessed the admission of 3 peers – the Bishop of Truro, Lord Ullswater, and the Lord Chief Justice. Later, I dined with the Charnwoods at 108 Eaton Square.

---