THE HEREFORD CONTROVERSY.
(To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR.") Sus,—I think there is a strange darkening of counsel in the tone of many lettere respecting the Hereford controversy, and I am sorry that you endorse it. " Bigotry " is a convenient stone to throw, and it is a charge which is often well deserved. But are those to be termed bigots who take their stand on the plain historical meaning of the ancient Creeds of the Church ? Here is no question of legitimate developments of doctrine, or of various permissible interpretations of dogmas which have never been authoritatively defined; but of statements laid down in Creeds that have formed the historical basis of the Church since sub- Apostolic days. In any other connexion you, Sir, would surely hold that what'a man professes with his lips, he should believe in his heart, and be prepared to teach. Is the Church of the future to be based on a quicksand of " open questions " instead of on the rock of fact P If the Church is only to accept the two great Creeds in a non-natural sense, let her scrap the Creeds—such a 3ourse would be more honest than to put them in the mouths of her children. But without her Creeds your National Church, Sir. would certainly not be the Church founded by Christ. Let me conclude by expressing my thankfulness that Dean Henson has clearly expressed his own faith in the doctrines in question.-1
Previous page
