The Henson Journals

[144]

Whit Monday, June 5th, 1922.

[symbol]

On June 5th 1887, which was Trinity Sunday I was ordained to the diaconate in Cuddesdon Parish Church, and read the Gospel. Thirty five years of clerical life have brought many disillusionments, and raised many problems of which there was little suspicion at the start. The change in the status, method, and outlook of the Church of England is very great. It was then a powerful & respected Institution, numbering among its Bishops a fair proportion of great scholars & eminent public men. Disestablishment was almost universally condemned, and there was a resolutely defiant attitude maintained towards Rome. In society the clergy were familiar and respected figures. Many of them were well–born, well–educated, and well endowed with private means. They were closely related to all the leading families in the country, and a large proportion of them had been educated at a public school before proceeding to Oxford or Cambridge. In the House of Lords the Bishops counted for something, and their contributions to the debates were neither infrequent nor insignificant. Episcopal pronouncements were not common events: & some episcopal charges commanded and deserved wide attention. Politically the clergy were generally conservative, but they took little part in political contests, & commonly regarded with magnanimous indifference the acrid & ignorant attitude of the sectaries. Their authority in the rural parishes was still regarded, and it was rarely abused.

[145] [symbol]

Now the Church of England is despised and powerless. The poverty, illiteracy, and undiscipline of the clergy are common themes. Bishops chatter incessantly, and on every topic, and nobody pays the smallest heed to them. We are before all things anxious to be "democratic", and we appeal to the populace by echoing their most extravagant opinions, and pretending to consecrate their least respectable ambitions. There is not a single Bishop on the Bench whose opinion carries any weight at all with the Nation. The Archbishops, who have drifted into a kind of primacy & now habitually act apart from the Bench, are constantly addressing appeals to the public, generally allying themselves in the process with some leading sectaries, and these appeals are invariably ignored. The only ecclesiastic who is regarded by the people is the Dean of S. Paul's, who is openly and insistently opposed to the current official policies of the Hierarchy. Bishops are multiplying, & their importance steadily wanes. There is not a single scholar of the first rank on the Bench, and hardly any man of outstanding eminence in any category. This undistinguished and loquacious Bench presides over a squalid and disobedient clergy. The "Enabling Act" has set up a pretentious and unworkable scheme of "autonomy", which within three years has brought the administration almost to a deadlock. The "laity" in most of the parishes consist of the humble folk who hang about the parsons!

[146]

June 5th, 1922.

Dear Mr Maxwell.

I think the inscription on the memorial should be as short as possible, and should be cut in bold letters so that the passer–by can read it easily. I suggest the following:–

To the Men of Bishop Auckland

who fought and fell in the

Great War (1914–1918)

their fellow citizens have erected (or dedicated)

this Monument.

It might be expanded thus:–

To the deathless memory of

the men of Bishop Auckland

who fought and fell in the

Great War (1914 – 1918)

their proud and grateful

Fellow–citizens have erected (or dedicated)

this Monument

But I prefer the shorter form.

If inscriptions are to be placed on the other three facets of the Memorial, I suggest that the following might be appropriate:–

[147]

1. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (S. John xv.13)

2. God made trial of them, and found them worthy of himself. (Wisdom iii.5)

3. To famous men all the world is a sepulchre. (Pericles) or The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God. (Wisdom iii.1)

I think these inscriptions could not be objected against by any man of good taste and right feeling: and at the same time, they seem to emphasize the great truths, which the sacrifice of so many lives illustrated, & which are of perpetual value.

Believe me,

Yours sincerely,

Herbert Dunelm:

John Maxwell Esq.

[148]

June 5th, 1922.

My dear Mr Watts,

I think you made a mistake. The danger to Religion in this age is not what is called (rather absurdly) Erastianism, but Secularism. Our duty and our wisdom require that we should encourage & make the most of every indication which the Civil Powers may offer of a desire to recognise the spiritual Fact for which we stand.

Moreover, any action on our part which gives the impression of self–assertion or professional claim is likely to do great mischief.

So I am sorry that you thought it necessary to write what I suppose is a protest to the Urban Council.

Yours sincerely

Herbert Dunelm:

Wilson & old Mr Richardson from Barnard Castle came to lunch. The latter desires to make a benefaction to the parish where he lives, and his cautious & tortuous mind imagines endless complications in the process. However we reached provisional agreement on all the points still in dispute.

The Park was crowded on account of a Temperance Fēte. Orange–peel in disconcerting profusion was scattered over the grass, & the Palatine Majesty of Auckland quickly degenerated to the level of a Ramsgate tea–garden.

[149] [symbol]

Clayton got together a party of 18 Knutsford students, who went on a walking tour all day, and wound up with a service in the Chapel, at which I gave an address. Inspired by the memory of my own Ordination on this day 35 years ago, I took as my subject the duty of candour in the matter of pledges & subscriptions. I spoke of the demoralizing sophistry now common among the clergy, & dwelt on its ruinous effects both on the clergy, whose consciences were defiled, and on the laity whose consciences were offended. I illustrated my argument by instances of the Thirty–nine Articles, & the Confirmation Rubrick. I quoted the recently published "Declaration of Faith" addressed by the E.C.U. to the Eastern Church, in which the 39 articles are referred to with sinister & cynical contempt:–

"We account the 39 Articles of Religion as a document of secondary importance concerned with local controversies of the XVIth century, & to be interpreted in accordance with the faith of that Universal Church of which the English Church is but a part."

I pointed out that the gravity of this position was disclosed by the previous articles of the "Declaration of Faith" which deny categorically the teaching of the Articles on many subjects. Sykes, one of the Middlesborough [sic] Vicars, stayed the night. We had much conversation.

---