THE GRAMMAR OF• THE BISHOPS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—On p. 359 of the Spectator you quote, from the Bishop of Carlisle's letter to the Times of September 11th, a paragraph Bich begins:—
" Bishop Gore saps that preachers of the Gospel are bound
not to strive and please Men. True! But are they not equally bound to strive to please God?"
The italics are mine. Is not Bishop Gore's grammar at fault? Would he have said, for instance : " Preachers are bound not to endeavour and please men" ? The Bishop of Carlisle would obviously have said: " Preachers are hound to endeavour to please God."
On the question of exchange of pulpits between Churchmen and Nonconformists is it quite Christlike of the Spectator to call Bishop Gore a " real priestly fanatic," imbued with sacer- dotal narrowness and intolerance, because he does not agree with some of his brother-Bishops as to lending his pulpit to Tom, Dick, or Harry ? Would the editor of the Spectator, who preaches each week to a far larger and more influential congre- gation than any minister, or Bishop, or Archbishop—Would he care to exchange his editorial pulpit with Tom, Dick, or Harry? For that is what it means, carried to its logical conclusion if you apply, say, the Sermon on the Mount as a test for drawing the line. What is wanted, I think, to meet this demand for interchange of thought between Churchmen and Noncon- formists is common ground on which they can meet, in the shape of an undenominational Review, the direction and the funds for which are jointly provided. This would get over a grave difficulty overlooked by the Bishops and Nonconformists who want to exchange pulpits—viz., the views of their congre- gations. Intolerant fanatics are not all Bishops.—I am, Sir; [But the Spectator does provide a number of pulpits every week for the statement of ideas it does not necessarily agree with.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
