The Henson Journals

[163]

Friday, October 28th, 1927.

The term 'heresy hunt', which Ralph applies to the commotion in the religious world which Barnes's utterances have aroused, appears to me altogether misapplied, and the parallel with the attempt to prevent my Consecration as Bishop of Hereford altogether misleading. ǁ The episode of 1918 might fairly be described as a 'heresy–hunt', for my assailants searched my published writings in order to discover in them the materials for a prosecution. When the search failed, they made a series of extracts which, torn from their context and set in a framework of invidious comment, had a heretical sound, and circulated these in order to rise prejudice against me: and, indeed, they left no method of popular agitation unused in order to hinder my admission to the Episcopate. The whole attack was unprovoked, and quite unexpected. For some weeks after my appointment had been gazetted in the last weeks of 1917, there was a chorus of approving comment: then, on the turn of the year, a concerted attack

[164] [symbol]

was launched. I maintained an unbroken silence until the very evening before my Consecration, when, in deference to the Archbishop's appeal, I re–assured the faithful, who, he said, were disturbed by the industrious agitation, by re–affirming my ex animo acceptance of the Creeds, and my published writings. The agitation died away as quickly as it had arisen, but 15 bishops publicly refused to take part in my Consecration.

Compare all this with what has happened in the case of Barnes. No serious person objects to his acceptance of Evolution, which has been accepted by educated Anglicans for half–a–century. The absurd indictment of Canon Bullock–Webster provoked contemptuous comment. The core of the grievance lay in his reiterated, ill–informed, & offensively expressed attacks on the Sacramental Beliefs of the majority of English Churchmen, and the entire body of Roman Catholics.

[165] [symbol]

It was not a 'heresy–hunt', but an explosion of resentment against gross & continued insults to devotional sentiment. The Archbishop's letter makes this quite evident. Then, so far from seeking to minimize the inevitable scandal, and to relieve the distress of the 'pauperes Christi', Barnes has adopted a fighting attitude, uttered no syllable of regret, and returned to the Archbishop's censure nothing but an impudent repetition of his offence. Where is there any heresy–hunting in all this?

Storr expressed the utmost regret at Barnes's conduct, and shares my anxiety as to developments in Birmingham itself. He said that many of the Bishop's supporters were greatly distressed by his obsession with his campaign against Sacramental "error".

[166]

At breakfast the conversation turned on the approaching Consecration in Canterbury Cathedral at which a Swedish bishop will join in the laying on of hands. I was led to describe the consecration at Upsala when the Bishop of Winchester and I assisted. I described the Consecration Feast that followed the service in the Cathedral, and which was continued far in the afternoon. Everything wound up with a celebration of Holy Communion at which we both communicated. I noticed that this narration visibly perturbed the Bishop of Dover, who is to be one of the assisting bishops at Canterbury. The Archbishop observed that on the most rigid theory the validity of the consecration could not be affected by the Lutheran's presence: but I reminded him that he had been excommunicated by the Bishop of Zanzibar because he had held communion with me. On the rigid view, the heretick's presence would spoil everything, because, as the Apostle says, "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Poor Bilbrough was visibly troubled!!

I spent the morning in the United Services Club, and, after lunching there, went to Adeney & tried on the dress suit. Then I walked to Dean's Yard, and fell in with Lord Daryngton on the way. He turned back & walked as far as Dean's Yard with me. My covering letter with enclosures about the Revised Prayer Book had come to him today.

[167]

We discussed the prospects of the book in Parliament. Its passage through the House of Commons was, he thought. fairly secured: but the House of Lords was more doubtful. He thought it was essential that I should speak in the debate.

Charles and his wife are enthusiastic in their support of Barnes, but they are evidently unacquainted with some, and the most important, aspects of his conduct. The Dean & Mrs Norris with the Swedish Bishop who is to function in Canterbury, and Sir George Craik came to dine. The Swede had but a smattering of English, & none of us knew anything of Swedish, so conversation was difficult, but he looked amiable and satisfied! Charles is about to publish a small book on the Roman doctrine of Nullity and Divorce, and he is full of the odious subject. He has satisfied himself that S. Mark's version of our Lord's Words on Divorce is untrustworthy, & that S. Matthew's account is to be preferred. He says that he has converted Archbishop D'Arcy to this opinion. But his enthusiasm blinds him to the impossibility of making the Church's view of Christ's Teaching depend on whatever opinions commend themselves to individual critics. It is not reasonable so totally to exclude the possibility that there may have been some merciful activity of the Holy Spirit behind the canonical tradition. After all, the belief in the Holy Ghost precedes in the Creed the belief in the 'holy Catholic Church'.