The Henson Journals

[62]

Sunday after Christmas, December 31st, 1922.

[symbol]

I celebrated the Holy Communion in the Chapel at 8 a.m. Then I settled down in my study to write letters. I began with a formidable epistle to Willie temple, in which I passed some criticisms on his Presidential Address to the Manchester Diocesan Conference, a copy of which had been sent to me. I want to learn what kind of an answer he would return to that kind of objection. His position is essentially identical with that of Bishop Gore, who, I learn from Pearce, is being pressed by Lambeth for the chair which Headlam is vacating. It is practically the Roman position, and suits them better than it suits us. Indeed, I do not see where an effective stand can be made against any part of an ecclesiastical tradition, however corrupt & superstition, if you start with the assumption that the truth depends not on honest investigation but on orthodox parti pris. The Roman Catholic Church stands on this foundation. It pictures Christianity as one continuing miracle projected through history, and at no point to be tied down to laws of evidence, & normal judgements. The very certificate of origin which the Church offers is precisely this baffling miraculouness. But the 'half–way house' of 'Anglo–Catholicism' cannot provide a permanent house for any active & reasoning spirit. In point of fact, the 'Anglo–Catholics' are rapidly assimilating all the distinctive features of the Roman System.

[63] [symbol]

December 31st, 1922.

My dear Temple,

I have read twice over your 'Presidential Address', and my enjoyment of it has been great. Its ability & felicity of language are remarkable, & make me better pleased with the Episcopal Bench than I commonly find it possible to be. Now for a few criticisms, or rather comments.

On p. 176 you say that 'the historical problems' 'only arise because people approach the historical evidence with presuppositions which belong to the sphere of philosophy already in their minds', and you proceed to argue that if as Christians we postulate that 'the ruling power in the Universe is a Person', and that 'there is a unique revelation complete & final, given at a moment in history, then, of course, we shall expect to find what one usually called miraculous occurrences surrounding that unique event'. I must needs think that this reasoning is precarious, & even unsound. So far from 'miracle' commending itself to my mind as the natural accompaniment of a Divine Revelation, I think it strikes me as incongruous with what I think I know of the Divine Character. If there were an evident oeconomic reason for miracle (as indeed, was generally assumed by the older apologists who argued that miracles were indispensable in order to secure a hearing in the first instance for the Gospel) I perceive force in the argument, but if not – & it is now generally admitted that the miracles attending [64] Christ's Nativity were no part of the Apostolic preaching – then I do not see anything in that reasoning. The historian's problem is solely one of evidence. Hume's argument has only weight with him in so far as it emphasizes an aspect of historical testimony which cannot be ignored, viz. its inherent unsatisfactoriness, since the most honest witness may be deceived, and the best informed dishonest. The historian who is also a Christian will investigate the origins of Christianity in precisely the spirit in which the problem of Christ's Deity must be studied viz. a candid, thorough, & reverent search for the facts. To borrow Bishop Knox's phrase, which you quote with approval, "All that we can do is to turn to the records, & ascertain the facts. And in so doing the historian has no other instrument than those of historical science.

Moreover, if there be validity in your argument, the Christian historian would set about his task of research "with limited liability" accepting the results of research only so far as they accorded with the authoritative version of Sacred History. But that implies the existence of such a version. Whereas I should hold that the only genuinely authoritative version of the sacred history is the version which is shown to be true, and & in questions of History such demonstration of truth can but be made by sound research. Historical science in short, within its own sphere is a final authority.

Again, how far is this expectation of miraculous [65] occurrences to carry us? The incarnation is continued through History in the Church. Does the argument hold good for ecclesiastical history? The Roman Church has maintained that it does, & has purchased its logical consistency at the heavy cost of limitless credulity, superstition, and pious fraud. So far as mere evidence goes, the absurdest miracles of the Middle Ages are better attested than most of the miracles of the Gospel: & if for the latter you bring in the aid of you expectation", I cannot see how you are precluded from doing as much for of the former. Which, I apprehend is precisely the Papist position. If historical science should ever decisively disallow the necessary assumptions of the Christian Revelation e.g. by disproving the existence of Jesus, or by proving His moral inadequacy, then I think the position of educated Christians would indeed be desperate: but the course of historical research during the last half century seems to me on the whole re–assuring. The destructive critics are neither the most eminent, nor the most prevailing. Be this as it may, Christianity is an historical religion, & it cannot escape the formidable responsibilities attaching to that character.

I find it difficult to harmonize what you say on p. 174, 175 about the 'intercourse of religion with Greek philosophy', with your energetic denial on p. 177 that the Faith has been formulated 'in the terms of an antiquated philosophy'. I agree that the Creeds are 'not documents based on any kind of philosophy', [66] but they seem to me to be documents clearly shaped by the Neo–platonist philosophy of the age in which they were formulated. I agree with what you mean, but I think your language needs some modification.

Firstly, I doubt whether the considerations of the modern world admit of such unification of knowledge in a single scheme as was possible in the 13th century. Gee's recent books seem to mid mind inadequate for this professed purposed, because he has put his hand to a project which is really beyond his power. He would be the Acquinas of the XXth century, but he cannot recover the temper and circumstances which made a "Summa" possible, & xxxxx the absence of which now precludes its possibility. The result is that he is only effective where the real problems have not emerged. In formulating convictions he is admirable; in handling opponents he seems to me ineffectual and perhaps a trifle exasperating.

The Bishop of Winchester sent me a paper "The Trend of Thought" by D. A. W. Robinson. I read it with interest but with a measure of misgiving. One sentence struck me:

"It will indeed be strange if it should prove that, as the 19th century was the century of law,

the 20th is to be that of miracles! But we must not do n too fast".

He assumes that 'miracles' are nobler than 'law'. I disagree with him: & I find it hard to avoid the suspicion that the phenomena [67] which he would interpreting terms of spiritual victory, are most properly read as indications of intellectual & moral decline.

Now what have you done to deserve such a letter as this? And really it is an absurd production for it the originating & dominant intentions of my writing viz. to thank you for xxxx a very admirable address, & to wish you & your wife all happiness in the New Year.

Yours affectly

Herbert Dunelm:

I remember being greatly impressed by your Father's Bampton Lectures, in which he argued that Christ's Resurrection was the only 'miracle' that really mattered, & that we might find ultimately that it was not properly a "miracle" at all, only the emergence of a Law, destined to disclose its universal character in due course. H.D.

[68] [symbol]

On the whole this year has probably exemplified the proverb which says that in his second year a bishop can do nothing right. I have lost ground and lost consequence both within & without the diocese. Begbie's offensive description of me in "Painted Windows" perhaps damaged me with the general public. My refusal to associate myself with the "Anglo–Catholic Movement" exasperated the whole soi–disant Catholic faction: and latterly my attitude on the subject of Divorce has given much offence. Against this accumulating unpopularity what is there to be placed? I have worked hard in the diocese, preaching and confirming, but that counts for nothing. My sermon in the Cathedral on Jany 27th, when I outlined my scheme for re–casting the Foundation, attracted some notice. As much may be said for the sermon preached in Westminster Abbey on June 18th, when I directed public attention to the impudence of the Address to the Eastern Church signed by Gove & other "Catholics", and the speech in the National Assembly on June 28th.

Death has played havoc with my friends. Lord Bryce, Bishop McArthur, Lady Anne Lambton, Mrs Lillingston, Sir George Prothero, Dicey, and Miss Mundella – every one leaves a void which cannot be filled. The death of Watkins stands in another category. It must rank with the few favouring events of a bad year.

[69] [symbol]

As far as my intellectual life is concerned this year has been very sterile. The ressure of normal business has been steadily growing , and it leaves me little margin of energy, or time, or interest for literary work. I accepted an invitation to write an Article for the Edinburgh Review, and then recalled my acceptance. I accepted the Vice–Chancellor's invitation to deliver the Rede Lecture at Cambridge next May, and again recalled my acceptance. These failures are without precedent in my life, and are full of sinister suggestiveness. I wasted an excessive amount of time in preparing the Address which I delivered in Edinburgh as President of the Scott Club, and the Address itself was very inadequate. My reading has been more than ever disjointed and intermittent. Altogether, as far as my personal life – goes, the year has been deeply unsatisfactory. In the diocese I can solace myself with no achievements worth recalling. The visitation of the Rural Deaneries, which I have begun, may perhaps do good. My carefully prepared Address to the Diocesan Conference on 'The Age for Confirmation', annoyed the Anglo–Catholics, & bored the rest! The re–arrangements consequent on the death of Watkins have been important. In the absence of Ordination Candidates, I must needs recognise the gravest feature of the diocesan situation. There does not yet appear any trustworthy indication of any improvement in this cardinal matter. Yet everything must turn finally on the quantity and quality of Ordination Candidates.

---