The Henson Journals

[218]

Monday, July 17th, 1922.

Cruickshank had some speech with me about the Anglo–Catholic movement, my attitude towards which he seems to think unnecessarily & therefore unwisely, severe. He argues from its surprising success among the Anglican clergy what there must be in it some attracting influence superior to its apparent paradoxes: and he suggests that it may be safely left to the testing of experience. Gamaliel's attitude, in short, appears to him the right one for an English bishop. But, I pointed out, the objectives of the movement are as objectionable as its methods. It aims at creating a type of Christianity which is essentially Roman, and it pursues its aim by making "the Mass" and "the Confessional" the Alpha and Omega of ministerial work. How is an English Bishop to acquiesce in such an interpretation of Anglicanism? Even if it be the case that there are many, possibly most, Anglo–Catholics, who honestly desire to avoid Romanism, how can their mental confusion be accepted as a sufficient reason for tolerating their actual procedures, since these must necessarily lead to Roman conclusions? Is not a Bishop bound to think for his people: to unfold to them the inevitable outcome of the religious policies pressed on their acceptance, and plainly to warn them against what he must needs regard as error. And has not experience during the last 90 years disclosed sufficiently the true character and tendency of the "Catholicism" which the Tractarians laboured to represent as the genuine system of the Church of England?

[219]

Our guests departed. I muddled away the morning after their departure. Wilkinson, the Vicar of Witton–le–Wear, came to lunch. He brought the plans of his new Vicarage. I approved and signed them. After lunch I played bowls with William, and was woefully beaten in 2 games out of 3. I wrote a belated letter of condolence to Lady Prothero. Her husband's death makes a void in the circle of my acquaintance which it distresses me to contemplate, for, though he was not an intimate friend, he was a friendly and sympathizing acquaintance. Knight came to examine two deacons who hope to be ordained in September. Both the "Yorkshire Post" and the "Times" contain brief notices of my address to the Lay workers last Saturday: and both, especially the latter, convey the impression that on the whole I approve of the opening of the London Parks for games on Sunday, whereas in point of fact I regret & condemn it. But so indiscriminating is our modern democracy (of which the Press is but too faithfully representative) that it cannot understand a moderate position moderately stated. There can be no via media, only an uncompromising Aye or No, on every question!

After dinner I examined an Ordination candidate in Butler's Analogy, which he had evidently read with care & intelligence. I had much talk with Knight before going to bed. He is plainly getting a position of great influence not only in his own parish, but also over the clergy of his Rural Deanery. If only men of his spirit and ability were placed in all the greater parishes of my diocese!

[220]

July 17th, 1922.

My dear Lady Prothero,

I have hesitated to write to you lest I should but be adding to the burden of sorrow & anxiety which at this sad time has come upon you, and yet I cannot refuse myself the satisfaction of telling you how greatly I honoured and liked your husband, and how deeply I regret his loss. It was his generous practice on many occasions in the course of my life, when words or actions of mine had brought me into unpopularity to write to me messages of support & encouragement, which I valued greatly. The knowledge that he approved what I said and did was a real strength and comfort.

And you yourself have ever been so kind to me that I cannot think you will resent my assuring you of my deep sympathy in your present grief.

May God console and sustain you through this trial!

Believe me,

My dear Lady Prothero,

Yours most sincerely,

Herbert Dunelm:

---