The Henson Journals

[215]

Saturday, November 4th, 1922.

My conversation with Dr Selbie was intended to be, and may possibly become, important. It means a definite step on my part in the direction of a disruption of the Church of England, a disruption designed to secure the principles of the Reformation, not the "settlements" either of doctrine or of polity, for these, I conceive, must partake of the secular character which cannot reasonably be affirmed for all time, but the principles, which I apprehend to be those of spiritual as distinguished from legalist religion. Of these principles the considering Nonconformist must needs be a champion, and as such the natural ally of all Anglicans who value them. We want a new and more intelligible division of English Christianity – a division shall follow a cleavage of religious principles. Such a division will of course run across the Church of England.

I wrote letters in the coffee room, lunched with the Headlams, and afterwards walked along the river with the Professor. The weather was brilliant, the river & its banks most beautiful, the towing–path alive with the youth. But I felt a desolating sense of remoteness from them all, as an exile among foreigners! I called on young Ellershaw in Queen's, & had tea with him. Then I went to the Common Room, & read the Reviews until dinner. I dined pleasantly in College. One of the new fellows, Radciffe, was present, & we drank his health.

[216]

November 4th, 1922.

My dear Bishop,

Thank you for your letter. I agree that the Bishop of Monmouth has created for you a very perplexing situation. His defence does not seem to me very impressive, for, if the facts of his procedure be as stated, & he appears to admit them, he introduced into the Ordination a new ceremony, which had been deliberately removed by the compliers of the English Ordinal, viz. the clothing of deacons with the dalmatic & priests with the chasuble. It is interesting that "the restoration of this custom" is one of the points which the E.C.U. say must be included in "an ideal revision of the Ordinal". I cannot see how it can possibly be rendered legal under the Ordinal as it stands now. The Privy Council has never, so far as I know, had any such matter before it: the question is really one of revising the Ordinal, not of interpreting the Rubrick.

The action of the Welsh Church Authorities will be anxiously watched in England, for the claims of the "Anglo–Catholic Movement", which is now making such rapid headway in the Church of England are quite incapable of being reconciled with the Law and discipline of the Church 'as by law established'. We are really curious to see whether your "free" Church will be able to restrain them, or will have to yield.

[217]

I am myself convinced that "Anglo–Catholic" principles cannot possibly find satisfying expression in any church, whether established or "free", which is also 'Reformed'.

Believe me, my dear Bishop,

Sincerely yours,

Herbert Dunelm:

P.S. The Bishop of Durham takes rank as the fourth, not the fifth member of the Hierarchy, having precedence of Winchester.

The Rt Rev: the Lord Bishop of Bangor,

November 4th, 1922.

My dear Riley,

I am sorry that I cannot give you the cutting which contained the French Bishop's gasconade about the Pope and the Incarnation of the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity. It was sometime during the Dreyfus controversies, if I mistake not, but I have forgotten everything except the astonishing statement.

I am afraid that the Church of England, and, indeed, the Anglican Communion, is nearing a disruption, & I incline to thing that a disruption may be morally requisite.

It seems to me quite obvious that the principles and procedures of the "Anglo–Catholics" cannot possibly find [218] adequate expression & recognition in any Church, which claims to be "Reformed". That the legal standards of the Church of England conflict with "Anglo–Catholic" beliefs & aspirations may perhaps, be sufficiently proved by the fact that they are invariably treated by Anglo–Catholics with utter contempt.

Yours ever

Herbert Dunelm:

Lord Birkenhead's Judgement in the Divorce Suit reported yesterday ^Rutherford Case^ is plainly designed to be a powerful plea for Marriage Law Reform. The fact that his Lordship has included his speech delivered in the House of Lords in advocacy of Ld Buckmaster's Bill in the new volume of Essays, which he has just published, seems to indicate a determination on his part to press the subject on the public. Having carried through his great measure of Land Law Reform, he would appear to be designing a reform of the Marriage Laws. The prospect is not attractive, for on no subject are the clergy more unreasonable, and farther removed from the standpoint of ordinary straight–thinking laymen. I think that there is a widely–spread resentment against the licentiousness disclosed just now in fashionable literature, in a section of "Society", and in many recent suits in the Divorce Court. The clergy can, and will, exploit this sentiment to the uttermost, but the serious reason & conscience of considering men demand reform.

---