The Henson Journals

[60]

Saturday, January 4th, 1930.

[symbol]

I received an invitation to write an article "advocating the disestablishment of the C. of E. for 'a big London paper', and offering to pay 20 guineas for 1500 words, minus the commission of 15%." I replied briefly thus:–

Dear Sir,

I am obliged to you for your letter, but do not feel able to accept the invitation which you are good enough to convey to me in it.

Believe me, Yours faithfully,

Herbert Dunelm

John Quill Ltd.

He appends a list of the 'many distinguished writers' who are his 'clients'. Among them is, as I should expect, Bishop Welldon.

The Palatine Bishop of Durham has not yet, at least in his own eyes, fallen to that level. As if any paper of character and repute would not address itself to me directly, if it really desired to publish my opinions. I am not so unknown or so unimportant as to be 'brought out' by this kind of journalistic midwife!

[61]

I addressed the following letter to the Editor of the 'Modern Churchman'.

Sir,

I do not complain of Mr Bezzant's denial of my 'consistency', for it is sufficiently apparent that no man who has the misfortunate to find himself compelled to abandon in later life a cause which he had championed throughout his career can reasonably hope to disprove a charge of 'inconsistency;. The most that he can do is to explain as best he can the reasons which have led him to change his mind. This I have done in the Introduction to my published 'Charge', and of, after reading what I have said, my critics are still dissatisfied. I must acquiesce in the fact.

When, however, M. Bezzant proceeds to accuse me, not merely of inconsistency, but also of 'misrepresenting' Dr. Major because, in a review of his booklet, 'Modern Problems of the Church' I directed attention to the paradox that while Dr. Major insisted that 'the religion of Jesus Himself was the Christian religion', [62] he yet insisted also that not even a belief in the historical existence of Jesus was essential to Christianity. I gave the reference to an article by Dr Major in the Modern Churchman (Oct. 1928). After reading again the whole section of significantly headed, 'If Jesus is unhistorical, can we still be Christians?', I am quite unable to arrive at any other conclusion than that, in Dr Major's view, the question ought to be answered in the affirmative.

Mr Bezzant appears to imagine that I credited Dr Major with himself disbelieving in the historical existence of Jesus, but that was far from my mind, and certainly not conveyed by my words. The whole point of my argument was that, while making all turn on history in one connexion, he yet treated history as non–essential in another. Let any one be at the pains of reading, first what Dr Major actually wrote, and, then, what I said in commenting on his words. I have no fear of the result. He may agree, or disagree, with my opinions, but he will not accuse me of misrepresenting Dr Major's.

Herbert Dunelm:

---