[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—Your admirable article, entitled " The Godless Good," condemns the words of Article 13 (" works done before the grace of Christ . . . have the nature of sin") as a "direct attack upon the magnanimity of God." I do not wish to defend the words, but to acquit those who honestly subscribe to them. Your article is itself their apology. " From one point of view these (the godless good ') are the recipients of the direct grace of God." Most true, and therefore from one point of view the title "Godless Good " is a misnomer. Yet " good " works can certainly be done without grace of any kind. It is a "good" work to give £10,000 to a hospital, and it may be given for the sake of God's poor or for the sake of one's own reputation. In the one case it is given "by the special grace of God preventing," whatever may be the religious beliefs of the giver ; in the other, I " doubt not but that it has the nature of sin." The words, as we use them now, are not "an attack upon the magnanimity of God." None the less, they are regrettable, because they are a "terminological inexactitude." In repeating them we honestly mean what we say, but we do not say what we mean. The words are not the natural and straightforward expression of our belief, although our belief may be contained in the words. We who desire the revision of the Prayer-book are most concerned that everyone should be able to express in the forms of that book, clearly and without reservation, the faith that is in him. We wish to discontinue the public recitation of certain Psalms because, in their plain and literal meaning, they are not consistent with Christian charity. We wish to omit the damnatory clauses of the " Quicunque van," because they must be explained away before they are tolerable. We wish to change the form in which a deacon is compelled to express his faith in Holy Scripture because that form implies a belief which we have outgrown. We wish to omit the Patriarchal examples in the marriage service, because no one seriously believes that the Christian ideal of marriage is enforced by illustrations drawn from polygamous times.'
These are all instances of verbal insincerity. We can explain them, but so long as we retain them in our public offices we are putting new wine into old bottles. For there can be no doubt that, however we may explain them, the men who wrote them understood them in their plain and literal meaning. The author of the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm was convinced that the man was blessed who dashed out the brains of little children in Babylon. The man who wrote the " Quicunque vult " really believed that those who did not accept the dogmas of his creed would without doubt perish everlastingly. Those who framed the question in the ordering of deacons honestly believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Tempora mutantur nos et mutantur in illis. Unconsciously, perhaps, we have changed some of our beliefs, and we must not be afraid to change the language in which we give them public expression. Unreality is to-day the worst enemy of Christianity ; and it is none the less dangerous because it is due to timidity rather than to insincerity.—I am, [We have received a very large number of letters on this subject, but regret to have been unable to find space for more than those above.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
