The Henson Journals

[34]

4th Sunday after Easter, May 10th, 1925.

[symbol]

I have heard one of the most sceptical and one of the very ablest and most distinguished physiologists of the present day say that he regards the evidence for some of the Lourdes miracles, which he himself had looked into – not indeed, as convincing, for it was not a case in which he was willing to admit anything like ordinary evidence as convincing, but as exceedingly remarkable; so remarkable that he thought the evidence for the most universally accepted of the Christian miracles light in the comparison.

R. H. Hutton, "Theological Essays", p. xLi

Hutton quotes at length the account of the famous Jansenist miracle at Port Royal by which the little girl, Marguerite Perier, the niece of Blaise Pascal who was suffering from an "aegilops, or lachrymal fistula, in the left eye, about the size of a hazel–nut" was suddenly cured by the touch of "the thorn from our Saviour's crown of undoubted authenticity" which had been lent to the sisterhood of Port Royal by its devout possessor. "Pascal himself was so deeply convinced that his niece had been cured by all super—natural interposition of Providence, that he caused to be engraved upon his seal an Eye, surrounded by a crown of [35] thorns, with the motto, 'Scio cui credidi', and henceforth used this new device in place of his old armorial bearings".Hutton maintains 'that all who really believe in the answer to the prayer should be quite ready to accept, or refuse to accept, an alleged miracle, according as the evidence for it is strong or weak'. But the evidence, however strong, can only certify the occurrence: it cannot in such wise also interpret it as being a miracle. We may admit that little Marguerite Perier's eye was cured without holding that any miraculous virtue resided in the Thorn, which could not reasonably be believed to be what she, no doubt, whole–heartedly believed it to be, a Thorn from the Thorn–crown of the Crucified. We cannot shut out of the argument the inevitable bearing it has on the Character & Providence of God.What would such a miracle really prove about Him and His manner of treating mankind?Such arbitrary & capricious benevolence to the individual together with such harsh indifference towards the sorrows of the many is nowise consistent with Christ's picture of the Heavenly Father, nor with the Scientific Conception of "the Reign of Law". Evidence for miracles cannot possibly be limited to affidavits by eye–witnesses and physicians. The facts are always capable of more than one interpretation; and blank agnosticism were more tolerable than to credit the Almighty with such trivialities.

[36]

I celebrated the Holy Communion in the Chapel at 8a.m. Clayton and I motored to New Shildon, where "Civic Sunday" was being observed. The Chairman & Members of the Urban District Council attended "in state" i.e. o the accompaniment of a brass band. I preached from Hebrews xi.10 "He looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder & maker in God". After service we returned to the Castle for lunch. Immediately after lunch we set out for Hartlepool, where a service of Freemasons had been arranged in the old parish church. I preached again, delivering substantially the same sermon as in the morning. The offertory was for the restoration of the Galilee, and produced £35. After tea with the Rector, we returned to the Castle. Clayton got out at the Leeholme Mission to officiate there. A fine rainbow illumined the latter part of our journey & made amends for a downfall of rain. Hardly had I reached the Castle before there was a smart thunderstorm.

I wrote letters to William Badham, Frank Berry & George N. Why do I inflict on myself the gratuitous labour of keeping up correspondence with young men, at the end of the earth, whose concern for me must be of the slightest, & whose lives must in the nature of things, lie outside the range of mine? I am not sure that I can see my way to finding a rational answer to that question.

---