10 OCTOBER 1885, Page 13

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

[To THE EDITOR OF THE " EPECTATOR."f SIR,—Mr. Lee Warner, mentioning that the strength of Mr. Chamberlain's case against a Church Establishment rests on the principle that religion should be free, says that this principle is itself" to some men a religion." That religion should be in bondage certainly sounds as if it must be wrong. But what kind of freedom is it that is made by some so sacred an ideal P Formerly, freedom of religion would have meant "freedom to worship God." But that freedom has been won, and cannot be any longer an object of aspiration.

1. In Mr. Lee Warner's letter free religion is assumed to mean unendowed religion. He will be ready to support Dises- tablishment without hesitation, "when once he is convinced that a majority of the nation regard religious endowments as immoral." He points out that the possession of exclusive endowments (and social advantages) by a religions body, whilst it may attract the unscrupulous, may repel the sensitively honour- able. But who is there who is maintaining that religious endow- ments, however exclusive, are immoralP I can understand the

expediency of religions endowments being disputed; but I never heard of any one proposing that endowments, as such, should be confiscated, and that it should be made illegal for the future to endow religion. Only some part of the Church endowments, and none of those belonging to Nonconformists, would be alienated by the most extreme Liberationists. And the aliena- tion of 8,11 pecuniary endowments would go but a very little way— perhaps no way at all—towards putting our many religions bodies on an equality as regards temporal and worldly advan- tages. The influence of riches would remain in its most direct and unmitigated form, the counterpoise of well-applied endow- ments being removed. I can hardly believe that the abolition of endowments is a religion to any thinking man.

2. But it is more common to speak of the freedom of religion in a quite different sense. The "control" of the State is supposed to keep the Church in bondage, whilst all non. established religious bodies are free. There are "free Churches," and an enslaved Church. But what is it that makes the dis- tinction being free and being in bondage ? Religious bodies have various modes of government. Roman Catholics are governed by Bishops and the Pope. Wesleyan Methodists are governed by the Legal Hundred, who are bound by John Wesley's settlement. Amongst the Independents each congregation governs itself. The Church of England is governed by the nation. Why is one of these forms of government a slavery more than another ? The only reason given for assuming that the Church of England is enslaved by State control is that Parliament includes non-Churchmen. But if those who go to Church prefer State control to any other con- trol, how is it a bondage ? The religions bodies outside the Church are called "free," as I understand, not in the sense that the Papacy and the Wesley Settlement, and their other autho- rities, are peculiarly favourable to spiritual freedom, but because the members of those bodies have the government which they prefer, or in which, preferring it or not, they acquiesce. So have we Churchmen the government which we prefer. It is when the State control comes to be the form of government which we do not prefer that to be under it will be an oppression. And that might very easily come to pass: But at present it is not so. The Church chooses State control for its government, and the Liberationists (in their Liberty Hall) want to impose upon ns some other government. That does not look like an emancipating process.

The truth is, that it is not the idea of freedom, but that of equality, which inspires the Liberationist movement. Why should the Church be in a different position from that of other religions bodies? That is a question which Liberals may reason- ably ask. There is a prinui facie Liberalism in all protests against inequalities. But a rash attempt to create an artificial equality may be injurious even to those in whose favour it is attempted, as well as to great public interests. And the con- tention of Liberal Churchmen is that the Liberationist policy is a hasty and a blind one, and that the people would lose rather than gain, and the cause of true Liberalism suffer a damaging blow, if the existing form of Church government were changed for a separatist and exclusive one.—I am, Sir, do., 5 Blandford Square, October 6th. J. LLEWELYN DAVIES.