The Henson Journals

[35]

Christmas day, Wednesday, December 25th, 1929.

I celebrated the Holy Communion in the Chapel at 8 a.m. After an exile of months, it was pleasant to assemble again in the holy & familiar place, but the walls were damp & the atmosphere chilling. Nothing ever returns to its old state. The Chapel seemed even strange. We numbered 21 communicants. Two of the Bryden boys, William and Edward, were absent.

Ella accompanied me to Sedgefield, were I preached, and celebrated the Holy Communion. There was a very small congregation, and about 25 commts. We went into the Rectory to enquire after Sykes, and to give Christmas greetings; we went back to Auckland for lunch.

We motored into Durham, and attended Evensong in the Cathedral. I sate in my throne, & pronounced the Benediction. The Hallelujah Chorus was excellently rendered & 3 delightful carols were sung at the end of the service. I gave "Christmas–boxes" to the Vergers: & then we all had tea with the Bishop of Jarrow and Mrs Knight. They we returned to Auckland through wind and rain.

The single post brought a further consignment of Christmas cards!

[36]

The 'Modern Churchman' has an article by J. S. Bezzant headed "The Consistency of Dr Henson", which is an elaborate attack based upon a review of my writings, and, for its own purpose, not ineffective. It is irrelevant because no one, least of all Dr Henson himself, would claim "consistency" for that gentleman: all that he wd claim is that the apparent inconsistency involved in his change of attitude on the question of Disestablishment is explicable on grounds which disallow any suggestion of dishonour. And so much he thinks he has established in the Preface to the charge. Mr Bezzant proceeds to accuse Dr Henson of 'misrepresentation", and addresses his statement in the Bishoprick (May 1929) that "Dr Major insists that even the historical existence of Jesus is not essential to Christianity' as a justification. This moved me to write to him privately, pointing out that Dr Major's language on the point in the "Modern Churchman" (Oct 1928) was quite explicit, and that my note in the Bishoprick was no misrepresentation at all. That Dr Major himself holds that Jesus was an historical person has no bearing whatever on his view that the opposite view is not destructive of Christianity.

---