The Henson Journals

[329]

Thursday, September 19th, 1929.

[symbol]

The post brought me a civilly expressed letter from Professor Ernest Barker, criticizing "Disestablishment". He divides his criticism into three parts:–

1. "I feel that one has to consider the Nation as well as the State: it exists behind and above it, as a great society with a great tradition. The spiritual independence of a Church is one side of a great problem: the other side is national recognition of religion. The two sides were expressed in the terms of reference to the Archbishops' Committee in 1913: they have still to be considered in any solution to the problem. When one has said 'Los vom Staat', one has still to ask, 'But how can we still remain an integral part of the Nation?' I am apt to criticize the Articles in the schedule of the Church of Scotland Act of 1921: but I observe that national recognition is there connected with spiritual independence.

[330]

2. I feel that the Book of Common Prayer is to the Church of England what a written Constitution is to a State. But a written constitution can only be amended with special care, by special methods, with a special majority. The Church of Scotland has followed this policy in the Articles I have already mentioned, in which provision is made that alteration of the Articles should only be possible with special safeguards. At present the consent of Parliament is the special safe–guard required for alteration of the Book which is, to many of us, the written constitution of our church. Personally I do not quarrel with that special safe–guard which has its analogy in Sweden (Article 87 (2) of the Constitution of 1809). But if that safeguard is abolished, I desire another. I do not feel that the National Assembly (which, by the way, is not 'national') is competent per se to alter fundamentals.

[331]

3. My general feeling is that the National Assembly, a new body some 9 years old, has the zeal of its new life too strongly upon it. A new body has to feel its way to its place among old bodies. The ecclesiastical authority of parliament may be an encroachment, but it is very old: and the English habit would be to set back gradually what has spread gradually. This wd be true even if the National Assembly were representative of all of us in the Church. As it is, many of us feel that it is not so representative. And I, for one, doubt the wisdom, and even the possibility, of the extension to the Church of the machinery of the democratic State – its electorates, its votings, and the like. The way of the Church is not the same as the way of the State, & its life works in more subtle ways.

Forgive these words. They are meant as a tribute of honour rather than a criticism.

[He corrects an error on p. 60.]

[332]

[symbol]

Bertram Wilson, the assistant curate of Holmside, came to see me, & stayed to lunch. He has not yet completed two years from his diaconate, but he desires permission to change his parish. His Vicar supports this request on the ground that he has engaged himself to a girl in the parish!! I sanctioned his going to Monkwearmouth.

I motored to Durham, and saw the Bishop of Jarrow.

Patrick Wild arrived. He is a good–looking youth of 22, who has just taken his degree at Oxford, & now goes to Westcott House for a two years course in theology. He has a slight impediment in his speech, which is not quite a stutter. He speaks of Barry with enthusiasm, & says that he is attracting the undergraduates to St. Mary's. I gave him a copy of my Charge. It would please me if he came to this diocese for his Ordination, but I hardly expect that he will, for two more attractive bishops – Newcastle and Carlisle – have designs on him, & he is not likely to prefer Durham.

---