The Henson Journals

[8]

2nd Sunday After Easter, April 14th, 1929.

PAU.

After some rain last night, the morning was bright though many clouds still inhabited the sky which showed itself between them in patches of blue. The view of the Pyrenees, on which the snow gleamed under the sunlight, was most beautiful. And I actually heard the singing of birds, the absence of which I lamented but yesterday. Our companions in the excursion to Eaux Chaudes had demurred to my observation that there was a notable absence of bird life on the continent, alleging that a great improvement in this respect had taken place in recent yers, & that Mussolini had taken strong action to preserve birds in Italy. Nevertheless, I must needs think that, by comparison with England, birds are few and songless in France. Owls and magpies, which haunt Auckland Castle, are interesting in themselves, but I suspect they are responsible for the scarcity of birds in the Park at home, which has often distressed and surprised me.

[9]

[symbol]

The collect for this Sunday, gathering up the teaching of the Epistle, agrees ill with the Modernist teaching about Jesus Christ, for it affirms clearly His character as the Redeemer of the World.

"Almighty God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of Godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life: through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

Here are clearly affirmed (1) the unique Sonship of Jesus. (2) His redemptive character. (3) His Exemplary life. And in these affirmations are implied the fact and gravity of human sin, the inferior, though genuine, sonship of men to God, and their duty to model themselves on the historic example of Jesus. How can all this be anyway harmonized with a version of Jesus which denies the uniqueness of his Sonship, denies the reality of the Atonement, & even allows the moral perfection of the Son of Man, nay his very existence, to be an open question which Christians may, if they will, answer in the negative?

[10]

That the Collect expresses faithfully the doctrine of the Epistles cannot be questioned. The Modernists do not pretend to teach agreeably thereto: but they claim to overrule the Epistles by the critically–ascertained testimony of the Gospels, which have become in their hands such a mingle–mangle of doubtful elements as to provide no sure foundation for anything but negations. No two of the Critics agree together save in their repudiation of the Apostolic teaching contained in the Epistles. Their "Gospel" is a series of hypotheses, more or less probable, commended by arguments more or less arbitary. For the ancient 'Harmonies' which were constructed on the assumption that everything recorded by the Evangelists may be must be true, they provide a novel kind of Harmony determined by the assumption that everything so recorded is certainly doubtful & probably false. Instead of an act of faith in the Apostles (who, when all is said, compiled, or inspired the compliation of, the Gospels), we are required to make an act of faith in the Reigning Critic, whoever he may be. Really I prefer the old mumpsinus!

[11]

How far can the conclusions of criticism really merit the description 'scientific'? I can recognize a scientific character in the methods by which texts are determined. Here there is a definite subject matter to be handled viz:– so many MSS, versions etc. . A clear issue is raised by conflicting texts, and principles of judgement have been agreed upon. Results obtained by the honest application of admittedly sound principles may fairly be called scientific, and, as such, to compel the acceptance of reasonable & reasoning men. The religious difficulty lies wholly with the so–called 'higher' criticism, which does not ascertain texts, but undertakes to interpret them. How far may the 'sceptic' historian be given a free hand with the Gospels? Without being given a free hand, can he work on them at all? How far must the results which, qua scientific critic historian, he has established, over–ride the testimony of the Gospels contained in the Epistles & summed up in the Creeds? If the verdict of scientific history be negative, is it properly final? If it be "non proven", is the Church competent to maintain its affirmative? How far in any historical verdict be properly described as the verdict of Science?

[12]

We attended the Morning Service, & received the Holy Communion at Holy Trinity Church, which is the "Low" church institution: within a stone's throw is the "Anglo–Catholick" alternative, S. Andrew's: and almost next door is the Scottish Presbyterian Church. Thus the good people of Pau have visible evidence of the unity of British Christianity! The service was well–read, & the sermon was quite good. The parson, Canon Houghton, had a few words with me after the service. He said that he was an intimate friend of Canon Watson of Oxford. He ended his discourse with a flatterous reference to General Booth, the centenary of whose birth was recently celebrated in London by a meeting in the Albert Hall at which the Prime Minister was the principal speaker. Neither my reason nor my conscience accorded wholly with this eulogy. I am not yet prepared to accept the "success" of a movement as a sufficient evidence of its worth, or of the spritual eminence of its author. Moreover, the "success" of theSalvation Army has been largely gained at the cost of older, & less violent 'corybantic' movements.

[13]

Letters arrived by the middday post, mostly for Ella and Fearne. The announcement of my absence on the continent, which was published in the Times before my departure, appears to have been effective in stopping correspondence. I had a long letter from Gerald Rainbow, a brief and rather careless letter from Kenneth, and two letters from Lionel. Also, a letter from Langton Heaver asking for an interview. He wants my advice on an urgent matter, a request which I must needs connect with the announcement of his engagement to be married. After lunch I wrote to Lionel, Kenneth, and Heaver. We walked down the esplanade & back in order to see and admire the spectacle of the Pyrenees as they were transfigured by the evening sun.

Then I went to see (at his own request) Mr Eaton Smith, who is detained in his room by "a little abscess". His companion, young Steele, had had to return to England. We talked together for an hour, & then I dressed for dinner. The weather became suddenly stormy, & there were frequent fllashes of lightning.

[14]

[symbol]

The 'Times' of Saturday announces that the Bishop of Norwich is to be presented with a motor car, which is to carry an inscription recording that it is a gift "on the occasion of his happy marriage, by friends and adherents in memory of his defence and preaching of the sacred Faith as it is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. 1927–1928". The suggestion that the supporters of the Revised Book were attacking the said "sacred Faith" is as obvious as it is impudent.

After dinner I wrote to William and to Lord Scarbrough.

Then we tried to get information about Lourdes, which we desire to visit tomorrow. But the concierge is not very helpful, and his colleagues and deputies are curiously helpless. Considering the number of English tourists who visit Pau, of whom many stay at this Hotel, it is really surprising that hardly any of the staff seems to possess even a smattering of English.

---