The Henson Journals

[53]

Thursday, May 31st, 1928.

[symbol]

That pragmatical goose, Hudson Barker, has repelled from Communion a young woman, who had married an "innocent divorcé". Her husband a sea–faring man, writes to me in justifiable indignation. The whole discipline of the Church on the subject of Marriage & Divorce is chaotic, & the way of reason and equity is hard to trace. In any case, the parson was wrong in not reporting his action to me. The Rubrick orders this, and does Canon 29 (A.D. 1604).

"Provided that every Minister so repelling any.... shall upon complaint, or being required by the Ordinary, signify the cause thereof unto him, & therein obey his Order & direction".

S Canon 27, the Rubrick goes further: –

'Provided that every Minister so repelling any.... shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within 14 days after at the farthest. And the Ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the Canon.'

But a person who has married as permitted by the Law, who is of good life, & whose reception of the Sacrament gives no offence to the congregation cannot truly be described as an "offending person".

[54] [symbol]

Creighton's Life ii. 275 (A.D.1897) has the following which my, perhaps, give pause to the parson's precipitate orthodoxy:

'Refusal of Holy Communion is a judicial decision pronounced on the character of the person to whom it is refused. In each case the clergyman is bound to inform the Ordinary, who is the real judge.

The powers of the individual clergyman is merely suspensory, pending a proper decision.

Any form of excommunication is a charge that the person excommunicated is a "notorious evil–liver". Such a charge can be brought before the cognisance of a civil court: if it cannot be proved, it is a libel."

There is much valuable suggestion also in Life. ii.322f.

The Lambeth Conference 1908 agreed on the following resolution:–

"That, recognising the fact that there always has been a difference of opinion in the church on the question whether our Lord meant to forbid marriage to the innocent party in a divorce for adultery, the Conference recommends that the clergy shd. not be instructed to refuse the Sacraments or other privileges of the Church to those who, under civil sanction, are thus married."

There has been some hardening of opinion since 1908.

[55]

Ella and Fearne went off after breakfast to visit the Deanery of St Paul's, & then to go to Switzerland. Mrs Smith and Miss Rail went with them as far as Darlington.

I motored to Durham, & lunched at the County Club with James, the Architect, & Dr Faber.

Then we attended the meeting of the Durham Castle Preservation Committee, at which Dr Faber demonstrated the impossibility of employing the method of 'cementation' in the work of saving the Castle. The soil is unsuitable: the position is prohibitive: under pinning could not be dispensed with in any case: & the cost would be incalculable. Dr Faber undertook to send us a report on the matter, which would serve for the persuasion of the British Public. Then I returned to Auckland.

The Ordination candidates arrived, 10 in number of whom only one was a layman, in time for Evensong in the chapel at 7 p.m. Mr Mann gave the address, a rather slip–shod conventional utterance on old fashioned Tractarian lines. Then we dined, & I observed that we numbered 13, a perilous happening for one never knows when the unconfessed fears of superstition may work havock in some one's imagination. However, no one observed on it, and I myself said nothing: but why the Examining Chaplains should have unanimously absented themselves I cannot imagine.

---