there has been a kind of jealousy and hostility between
those who hold different opinions about theological
and ecclesiastical questions which injures the work
of all. Anyone, for example, who was in the habit
of meeting educated Indians at the time of the Kikuyu
controversy could not have helped noticing the harm
done to the cause of the Christian religion by that
controversy. There were Indians, whose attitude
to Christianity before might almost have been called
wistful admiration, seeing the brighter hope and fuller
life it opened to all classes, and the universal brotherhood
of men which it proclaimed, who then spoke in an altered
tone, and their feeling seemed to be tinged with a
half-concealed and almost contemptuous pity.
How much beneficial action might be taken by religious
bodies acting in co-operation! There is a deep
truth in a remark once made by the late Bishop of
Manchester, Dr. Moorhouse, when speaking of possible
co-operation on a certain matter between people belonging
to different religious communities: “It
would be so easy did we only recognise how large is
the area covered by things on which we agree, how
important they are, compared with those on which we
differ.” Some have felt so keenly the injury
done by religious differences that schemes have been
put forward for corporate union of a number of different
Churches. Such union may or may not be possible,
but, even if it is, is it best to bring about such
a union by any compromise under which one side gives
up part of what it regards as useful and important
in exchange for a similar concession on the other?
May not a kind of confederation between different
bodies for certain purposes, each maintaining its
separate existence, be better than formal incorporation?
May there not be a unity of spirit and bond of peace
between those whose views differ, without either party
giving up the iota to which he may attach importance?
Forms devoutly prized and helpful to one man may be
repellent and a hindrance to others.
There is much to be learnt from a saying quoted by
Sir Edwin Pears in writing of certain Mahommedan sects:
“The paths leading to God are as numerous as
the breaths of His creatures; hence they consider religious
toleration as a duty.” Toleration does not
mean simply abstinence from the thumbscrew and the
rack or even the repeal of the Conventicle or the
Five Mile Act, but appreciation of the religious opinions
and practices of others, and due respect for them.
Without formal union there may not only be peace and
goodwill between bodies which keep up their separate
organisations, they might also act together heartily
and effectively both in philanthropic work and in
combating certain evils for which the influence of
religion is the most effective cure. It is a good
sign of the times that a joint volume has already
been published on Religion and Reconstruction, containing
essays by a number of those whose views no doubt differ
widely, but who find no difficulty in uniting in a
common undertaking. The book contains essays
by Bishop Welldon, Dr. Orchard, Monsignor Poock, and
others representing different communions, and they
appear to have had no difficulty at all in a joint
enterprise of this kind.