The Henson Journals

[91]

Wednesday, December 21st, 1921.

[symbol]

The Collect for S. Thomas's Day raises some large questions, which it is easier to ask than to answer. The opening address attributes the Apostle's failure of faith to a Providential purpose: – " Almighty & everliving God who for the more confirmation of the faith didst suffer thy holy Apostle Thomas to be doubtful in thy Son's resurrection." This suggests a procedure on the part of the All–holy which is hard to reconcile with our best conceptions of His Character. Why should Thomas be immersed in the sinfulness of his doubt in order that others may be assisted to believe? Is this not to do with that good may come? And can such be the method of the Divine Providence? Does the Almighty Father treat His children as pawns on the chess–board? The Collect proceeds to pray that we at least may be exempted from the treatment to which the Apostle has been subjected: "Grant us so perfectly, and without all doubt, to believe in thy Son Jesus Christ, that our faith in thy sight may never be reproved." But would we not gladly endure the pains of Providentially–permitted doubt, if the result should be 'the more confirmation of the faith' in others? And with what equity was the halting faith of S. Thomas "reproved" in the sight of God, when God Himself "suffered him to be doubtful"? The words of Christ to S. Peter in the Upper Room suggest themselves: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not: & do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren." S. Peter's failure is foreseen and limited by a Providential purpose. The Prayer of Christ averts from him what had otherwise been an irreparable spiritual disaster. We drive on to the rocks of the great Antinomy. The collect for S. Thomas's day was composed for the 1549 Prayer Book, but its antithesis between the doubt and its effect in creating faith is thoroughly patristic & medieval. How far are we responsible for our doubts? What measure of moral turpitude is implicit in all doubt? Are we able to believe without a special gift of Divine assistance? Can we assume that this will not be lacking if we honestly desire to believe? "Lord, I believe: help Thou mine unbelief?" = "Lord, I desire to believe: but without Thy help I cannot: come to the rescue of my natural weakness, and give me the power to achieve my desire."

[92] [symbol]

I spent the morning in revising & typing a sermon for Christmas Day. After lunch I walked in the Park with Ernest, & was nearly blown away by the tempest! Lucie Soderblom arrived from Durham. Lady Russell Simpson, Raleigh's sister, sent me a copy of her posthumously published "Annals of the Church of Scotland". It is prefaced by "Autobiographical Notes" of much interest, and by "Reminiscences" contributed by Reichel. Altogether it makes an attractive volume.

I received a letter from Hutton, the Dean of Winchester, disclaiming unnecessarily authorship of the Review of "Anglicanism" in the "Guardian". It is not insignificant that he should desire to be clear of such an imputation. He says that the article has been attributed to him. I should have thought that Lacy's authorship was sufficiently obvious. The "Guardian" has but a small circulation, but that circulation is almost entirely among the senior & more important clergy & laity. Like the "Times" it lives on its former reputation, and is taken to have almost an "official" character outside of England. It follows that a review so hostile and belittling is likely to be more damaging to me, and to the fortunes of my book, in the "Guardian" than in other papers, more largely read. I would not mind the damage, nor resent the hostility if the review had been fair: but it is grossly unfair, and that disturbs me. The extreme disadvantage of having no party becomes very evident when one is treated thus. There are no ardent disciples eager to break a lance in the Master's cause: no ready mercenaries prepared to strike in at the nod of their chief. And the world is so precipitate and superficial that one's reputation is destroyed by the rumour of the review of an unread book! The "Church Times" will, of course, be hostile, and its hostility will be expressed with as much venom as possible but then its character is known, and no one expects to find in its pages either courtesy, or fair–play, or candour, or good feeling. The "Guardian" has been credited with a better spirit.

---