[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Is it not inconsistent with the Christian tone of the article under the above heading in the Spectator of August 5th to declare,—" The truth is that terror is a bad foundation for religions feeling," and "That piety can flourish where there is profound security " ? Surely the words of the inspired Psalmist, "Timor Domini initium sapientim," as also "Let him that thinketh he standeth," &c., entirely contradict such statements. Of course we know of the " security " of Luther and his followers, so logically reduced to his well-known dictum" Sin boldly," but I feel sure the writer of the article was not thinking of such teaching. The piety of Dean Church must needs have its foundation on humility and distrust of self like to the piety of St. Francis or Thomas a Kemple; this does not allow of "profound security," the more especially with the examples of David and St. Paul before us. Terror of death may be removed by lively faith in a Redeemer, "I know that my Redeemer liveth," but fear must ever remain as long as we believe in our free will and God's perfection, which implies perfect justice as well as perfect love. To turn to another point in the same article,—Why does the writer say "the monasteries became corrupted by wealth"? This is not the finding of any modern historian of weight, the contrary being the truth, with only a few of quite the smaller houses found needing We did not use "security" in our correspondent's sense, but in that of exemption from actual terror. Security in his sense we should call spiritual arrogance.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
