66 The Bishop of Hereford is a well-known Radical. When he was appointed bishop he publicly made the boast: "Now," he said, we shall see, that a man can be both a bishop and a Radical." He is also a Broad Churchman, and his views on the subject of establishment are simply the outcome of his general democratic sympathies. The Bishop of Oxford, on the other hand, is a High Churchman. He is probably the most distinguished and influential personality in the English Church at the present day. He holds, as a High Churchman, a pronounced view as to the authority of the Church as the guide of souls, and, with High Churchmen in general, he is unwilling that the authority of the Church as a guide of souls should be complicated with and compromised by the authority of the State. Both these ways of viewing the Church are quite common among Churchmen. Some advocate disestablishment from the High Church point of view and some from the Broad Church. But while there are many Churchmen, both Broad and High, who desire disestablishment, and many Nonconformists, on the other side, who have no such desire at all, it still remains true undoubtedly that the majority of Churchmen support the establishment and the majority of Nonconformists oppose it, though with very varying degrees of ardor and on very different grounds. As you will see, the situation again is a very complicated one, highly confusing; and a further and more bewildering confusion is introduced by the question of disendowment. Disendowment and disestablishment do not necessarily imply one another. Extremists among dissenters demand both disestablishment and disendowment. Extremists on the other hand oppose either disestablishment or disendowment. In fact, to classify the various currents of opinion that are running on this subject, and to estimate their relative force, would be a very long and difficult, and, I am afraid, to you, an extremely wearisome undertaking. It is just one of those frequent cases where the various cross currents at work neutralize one another and produce a state of inaction, the diversity of opinion as to what ought to be done preventing those concerned from doing anything at all. I dare say you have occasionally met with the same condition in your own affairs. Now, this leads to a very large amount of difference on both sides. Certainly the question of disestablishment at the present moment is not a burning question in England. It may become so at any moment, and it would become so instantly if the Church were to attempt any serious aggression on the liberties of Nonconformists, especially in the matter of religious education. But I do not think it is in the least likely that the Church of England will do anything of the sort. As things now are it looks as though the establishment were quite safe for many years to come. I am aware that there are stalwarts on the Liberationist side who would contest that statement; I merely offer you my own opinion for what it is worth. Now, I fear you will think that I am paying you a very poor compliment when I say that it is extremely difficult to describe the facts of the situation, or the English feeling in regard to the facts, in a way which is altogether intelligible to Americans. It will be intelligible to you, or, rather, I should say, it will be intelligible only to those of you who have grasped the fact, which is essential to the understanding of Englishmen, that the English mind loves an anomaly. The English mind takes its chiefest pride in the practical working of institutions which are theoretically unworkable. An institution may work imperfectly, its working may be attended with many incidental evils, but the fact that it works at all outweighs, for the average Englishman, all the defects that you can find in its working. You may sketch out on paper an arrangement which would work infinitely better, but the Englishman always prefers the little bird he has in his hand to the two big ones that are waiting for him in the bush. No better example of this attitude of mind could be found than is afforded by the question before us. It is certainly an anomaly in a democratic age that a particular form of religion should be backed by the prestige and authority of the State. There is no denying that that is an anomaly. It is an anomaly that all the historical monuments of our national faith should be in the possession of one body; that the religion of two-thirds of the people should have no ceremonial standing and no official recognition. That looks pretty bad, does it not, when you set it down on paper? It looks like a theoretical absurdity and a practical grievance of the first magnitude. But in the actual life of the English Nonconformist I doubt if either the theoretical absurdity or the practical grievance amounts to very much. To some of us, at all events, it does not seem an unmitigated evil that one form of religion should have behind it the prestige of the State, provided only that those who enjoy that privilege abstain from insolence towards those who enjoy it not, and behave themselves like Christians and gentlemen. On the whole, though not without some deplorable exceptions, this attitude of the Church towards its privilege is fulfilled by the Church. It carries its privileges, on the whole, without insolence and with a deep sense of responsibility for using them for the public benefit. It is true that the Church is tied down to a single type of church government which in theory is quite an intolerant one; but an intolerant system tolerantly administered is often more acceptable to the English than a tolerant system which has no particular characteristic save that of toleration. The last point I wish to bring before you is this: The Church of England is rich in positive qualities. It can be admired and loved even by those of us who cannot share her doctrines or subscribe to her formulæ. In particular, she has established herself as the guardian of the best manners of the nation. Now, we as a nation are not rich in good manners, and that perhaps explains the extreme importance we attach to the little good manners that we have. And some of us Nonconformists recognize that in conserving the best traditions of good breeding and fine manners, the Church of England has rendered a service to our national life which, far from being of no significance, is precisely of the greatest significance in an age like this, when such things are tending to disappear. No doubt the Church has suffered some loss of spirituality on that account. Her position has tended to accentuate the theoretical division between class and class, and it has caused a retardation, though by no means a total arrest, in the advance of theological thought. Many of us think, however, that the influence she exerts in the direction of which I have spoken is intimately bound up with her character as a national Church, and we would rather bear the incidental evils which such a state of things. involves than risk the loss of that atmosphere of serenity, of that high tradition of order and repose, which the Church undoubtedly represents in our national life. Nonconformity, we think, has more to gain from a spirit of generous and dignified forbearance towards the privileges of the Church, than from a jealous animosity which would deprive her either of her wealth or prestige. In this way we think that Nonconformity, too, may become the representative of good manners of another sort, and that which is most essential in a Christian land, namely, the spirit of charity and good feeling. It seems to us that the habit of constantly asserting our rights in this matter generates a temper both among ourselves and our Anglican brethren which is highly unfavorable to the cause of religion; and, in an age when religion is menaced by many things far more formidable than the unequal distribution of privilege between the Church and ourselves, we have little desire to give fresh weapons to the enemy by bringing the issue to a conflict. Indeed, we shrink from any action which would let loose the floods of bitterness at the present moment. Although we are all Liberationists in the sense that we would never advocate establishment in countries where it does not exist already, we recognize another set of conditions in a country like our own where the principle of establishment has grown up with the religious life of the nation. These conditions impose upon us an attitude of caution, of forbear ance, and self-restraint, on the ground that what we might gain as Nonconformists would be more than outweighed by the general loss. We doubt if we should gain very much; for our grievances, as I have said before, though large on paper, are by no means overwhelming in fact. On that account we claim no merit for our attitude of friendliness and forbearance toward the Church. Nonconformity in England is so inherently strong that it can well afford to look upon the special privileges of the Church without the least jealousy or fear. THE PRESIDENT. No country has suffered more from the evils of Clericalism than India. The gentleman who is to speak to you on the religious conditions of his native country is a member of a small but wealthy and influential community in western India, the Parsees, who represent in our day the traditions and the worship of the most spiritual of all the great forms of world faith, the religion of Zoroaster. Our friend will now speak to you on the fruits of Clericalism in India. I beg to introduce Mr. Rustom Rustomjee, of Bombay. CLERICALISM IN INDIA RUSTOM RUSTOMJEE, OF BOMBAY Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is said that an open confession is good for the soul, and I feel that I must confess that I am in the position of an imposter on this platform. For the last ten years I have never spoken on religious subjects, though I have watched the progress of modern religious thought in India. We have devoted ourselves entirely to the political improvement of the |