The Henson Journals

[169]

Thursday, March 2nd, 1922.

I must make an attempt at drafting a reply to the petition and gravamen on the Cambridge Conference, presented to the Bishops at the last meeting of Convocation: but what can be said wisely, or truthfully, or re–assuringly? How can a middle way be found between discouraging Christian thought on the subject of Christ, and stimulating the presumptuous essays of the semi–educated, the intrinsically profane, or the feather–headed fautors of novelty? How can the Bishops dissociate themselves from the Modernists without associating themselves with the Fanaticks of the E.C.U.? How can they say anything without making themselves ridiculous?

Points that might be emphasized are, perhaps, these:

1. The Christian belief presupposes the ethical monotheism of the Prophets, and can be built on any other foundation.

2. The Christian belief is essentially a summary of the Apostolic Witness, authoritatively uttered in the New Testament.

3. The proportions of the Faith can never be other than they were at the first.

4. Christianity stands or falls with the unique Divineness of Jesus Christ, attested and proved by the Resurrection and continuing activity in His Church.

5. The ancient Creeds asserted this central truth, and have a special value in the modern Church as symbolizing its unalterable character.

6. The experience of the Church as a whole, and of every individual believer, is the continuing & sufficient proof of the unique divineness of Jesus Christ.

But we must also make frank admission of the legitimate claims of 1. History. 2. Philosophy. 3. Criticism. And to do this would require a composition longer than a published letter from the Bishops could fully constitute. The "Tome" of S. Leo would hardly suffice! In the end I postponed my effort, and wrote to Ralph seeking suggestions from him. It looks probable that I shall reach the conclusion that the Bishops had best make no answer whatever to the protests addressed to them.

[170] [symbol]

March 2nd, 1922.

My dearest Ralph,

Why should I have the privilege of Origen's friendship, and not carry to that Oracle my perplexities? I want you to give me your counsel, and, perhaps, something more – your direct assistance. The case stands thus.

At the last meeting of our Convocation, there were presented a petition from the E.C.U., and a gravamen from some members of the Lower House on the doctrinal issues raised at the Cambridge Conference. The Bishop of Liverpool was specially insistent on "something being done by the Bishops": it appears that the Papists have been particularly busy in his diocese "rubbing in" the doctrinal chaos of the Church of England. All the other Bishops are very conscious of the risks, and almost certain fatuity of any doctrinal "pronouncement"; and my own feeling, which I expressed clearly, is adverse to saying anything at all. But the general feeling is that some answer must be made to the appeals addressed to us, & the question is, What. I had much private discussion with Lang on the subject, and we agreed on the course which was adopted by the Upper House viz: – the appointment of a Committee to consider what, if any, answer shd be made: &, if any answer shd be decided upon, to suggest one. That Committee consisted of 5 bishops – Wakefield, Carlisle, Manchester, Ripon, and Durham.

In talking with Lang I insisted (and he agreed) that any formal statement of Christological doctrine was out of the question: the most that could be attempted would be a "reassuring declaration" designed to assist the parish clergy in dealing with their parishioners. At the same time, I think it most important that we should dissociate ourselves from the attitude of mere denunciation adopted by the E.C.U., & should make it clear that we recognize the need for thinking out afresh the old issues, & seeking to reformulate belief in terms more intelligible to moderately educated people. I am not sure whether this can be done, but I think the attempt must be anxiously considered before it is ruled out as impracticable. [171] [symbol] Now, my dear Ralph, suppose that you were in my shoes, what would you advise? Assuming that some declaration were to be issued, what form would you give it?

I send you the documents which were presented to the Upper House, and which you had best return: but do, please, give me the help of your mind and pen.

Yours always affley

Herbert Dunelm:

The Revd H. G. H. Shaddick came to lunch, & afterwards discussed with me the offer which has been made to him of the Vicarage of St Giles. As the result of our conversation he decided to decline the offer. I told him that it was my intention to appoint him on the first opportunity to a piece of really hard work.

The Governors of the London Hospital have decided to take no more women students. Lord Knutsford explained that they had come to this decision not because they objected to the medical education of women, but because of the difficulties which arose in a mixed school of men & women students. There were unpleasant subjects which had to be taught to all who wished to take up medicine. To teach those unpleasant but necessary things to either sex alone was possible, but the staff had found difficulties in teaching those things to a mixed audience & did not wish to continue to do so. Minor difficulties had also to be met, & for these reasons the Committee considered that the hospital should revert to its old custom of training men only. The Medical Correspondent of the Times thinks that "considerable protest against this decision" is probable. I wonder how far this decision expresses an honest inference from actual experience of uniting the sexes in medical training, or whether it is rather a belated explosion of professional resentment against the intrusion of a new type of students. Certainly, the notion of common teaching over the whole area of medical training does strike one as highly repulsive.

---