The Henson Journals

[94]

Friday, December 23rd, 1921.

[symbol]

December 23rd, 1921.

My dear Bell,

Thank you for your note. I am really concerned about the Archbishop's health, for (though I am very angry with him over "Enabling Bills" "National Missions" & "Life & Liberty" movements, which have "torpedoed" the National Church from within, & left us the woeful sect we are) I have an immense respect for his character, & affection for his person. And I think he is probably the only man who can clear up the mess into which we have come.

The review of "Anglicanism" in the "Guardian" was – if there be any validity in the "higher criticism" – written by Lacey, a clever man with much ability & experience in the kind of controversy which is picturesquely described as, "hitting below the belt". At first I was angry, & wrote to the Editor, pointing out the gross manner in which a book had been handled, the few quotations being garbled or perverted, and the most offensive language, quite undeservedly, used. But then, I recalled the rule on which I have acted since my Ordination, as long ago as 1887, of never taking notice of merely personal attacks, & tore up my letter.

Hutton, the Dean of Winchester, wrote to beg me not to think that he – as some people appear to have thought – was the author. But I never suspected that he, or any other honourable man, could be.

With all good wishes to Mrs Bell & yourself for the New Year.

I am,

Affectionately yrs.

Herbert Dunelm:

Wynne Willson writes: The "Guardian" Reviewer was not in a happy vein when he dealt with "Anglicanism". It was clever to write 2 columns of depreciation without tackling the main problems of the book".

Macmillans send me a cutting from the "Sunday Times", which is signed "E.S.", and discloses a rather interesting fact viz: the fondness of some Non–conformists for Anglo–Catholics. I think there is an [95] [symbol] intelligible basis for this drawing together of Christian types which, though mutually destructive, are yet agreed in depreciating the intellectual element in religion. I am too remote from both to be welcome in either even as an ally against the rival! This is, however, worth noting: –

"There is in Dr Henson's criticism of the Church – and he is much happier as a critic than as a constructive statesman – much that the Free Churches will welcome: if they are wise they will consider his criticism of their past with open minds. But it is likely that they will close the book with the thought that with all his frank and generous friendship the Bishop does not really understand them. He can reach the outside; but many a Catholic, such as the late Neville Figgis, or Dr Gore, will be nearer to them in the things which are most real to them – things which they are always striving to say and always failing to say perfectly. But these are the things by which they live."

The writer is probably far advanced in the movement out of Non–conformity into "Catholicism". Gore makes the way easy by advocating Disestablishment and Socialism: I am repulsive as an unyielding "State Churchman" and an "orthodox economist"!

The "Guardian" announces that a "Heresy hunt" is imminent. No doubt the "prominent members of the recent Conference of Modern Churchmen at Cambridge" is Major, and "the ecclesiastical authorities primarily concerned" is a periphrasis for Burge, Bishop of Oxford.

"The doctrinal point upon which the complaint is based is, we believe, one capable of a liberal interpretation without a necessary lapse from orthodoxy". Could anything be more cautious? The " Guardian" itself is "satisfied that the interests of religion cannot be forwarded by prosecutions for heresy", and would "learn with relief that, even now, better counsels have prevailed".

Burge has not gained much by his complaisance to the "Anglo–Catholicks". They cringe and flatter so long as they have something to gain, but there is no element of sincerity in the ostentation deference they pay to the Bishop, when they mean to disobey.

---