The Henson Journals

[137]

Friday, February 23rd, 1929.

I wrote to Kenneth, from whom I have heard nothing for 3 weeks. Mary Radford writes to say that he has not called on her this term.

I spent the morning in writing letters. After seeing Peers off after lunch, I walked round the Park, and, on my return, read until dinner-time.

I read through a little book on "The trial of the Templars" by Edward J. Martin. It concludes that the Order was not altogether guiltless, nor Philip wholly without justification, but it discloses much animus against medievalism, & an inadequate capacity of moral indignation. On finishing it, I read again the admirable essay on the Trial in Sir John Macdonell's 'Historical Trials'. That eminent jurist agrees with Bishop Stubbs that the suppression of the Templars was "the blackest crime of the Middle Ages". It was the chef d'oeuvre of the Inquisition. I gather from the circumstances that Mr Martin is a contributor to the 'Modern Churchman', that he is a modernist.

Then I started on a much recommended book on "Spiritual Direction" by Canon Pym. This writer took a 3rd Class in the Cambridge Classical Tripos, which is not prepossessing. But during the War he gained the D.S.O., and, no doubt in consequence, was made one of the King's Chaplains. He has been 20 years in Orders, & will no doubt soon be advanced to the Bench.

His parade of moderation is so emphatic that it has the effect of arousing a certain suspicion: & in any case, he is not distinguished.

[138]

[symbol]

["] A liturgy may be called a pageant of devotion in which minister and people go through their appointed parts, but the responsibility for the language used lies, not with them, but with the Church which has framed it. Only if it is in its general purport essentially alien from their convictions should they feel either scruple or reluctance to use it.["]

Lord Hugh Cecil, in the Times.

February 22nd, 1929.

Lord Hugh Cecil expresses "the greatest alarm" at the prospect of "what is called Home Reunion". He "earnestly desires that, if we are to unite with any religious body not now in communion with the See of Canterbury, it should be a body whose members do not speak the English language."

But surely the sinfulness of schism lies precisely in refusal to communicate with fellow believers, with whom communion should be as normal as it is evidently easy.

---