THE ALLEGED DECLINE OF NONCONFORMIST POWER.
IT appears, from a correspondence in the Daily News, that a certain number of Nonconformists are sorrow- fully conscious of a substantial falling off in the collective effectiveness of English Nonconformity. Such a feeling, as it seems to us, was almost bound to be increasingly evolved as the result of the very large measure of success -which during the last half-century has attended the -organised action of Nonconformists. When, about a year ago, the Liberation Society celebrated the jubilee of Mr. Carvell Williams's official connection with it, we pointed out that the catalogue of victories which was then recited meant a progressive diminution in the aggressive force of the Society and its sympathisers. For the weak- mess of the Church of England as an establishment lay in the irritating privileges on the one hand, and disabilities on the other, which had been maintained with a false view to its support. The strength of the Liberation Society lay in its determination to expose the injustice of those disabilities and privileges, and to secure their removal, not in its theoretical arguments against all connection between State and Church. The latter were never even under- stood, much less accepted, by any considerable section of the people. But the unfairness of church rates levied upon Dissenters who had their own chapels to support was a grievance of the most intelligible type. So was the exclusion of Nonconformists from the full benefits of the old Universities and their Colleges. So, again, was the hardship of the bereaved peasant, obliged to have his dead wife or child buried with unfamiliar and unwelcome rites, or with none at all As, one after another, Parliament, under the influence of organised Nonconformity, was induced to do right in these matters, a just sense of triumph was enjoyed by those who had • been mainly instrumental in bringing about the needed legislation. But only a few of them recognised that, in securing the removal of Noncon- formist grievances, they were really strengthening the Church of England, and diminishing both the occasions and the influences by which Nonconformists, as such, could be drawn together for effective action. The fact, however, was certainly so ; and if Nonconformists are only now beginning to realise it, the explanation probably is, partly that during Mr. Gladstone's later years the remarkable personal allegiance which they paid to him diverted their attention from sectional aims, and partly also that their special aspirations were met for a time by the Liberal campaign against the Church in Wales.
The abortive character of that campaign, and the remarkable failure of its promoters to obtain any gym thetic response from the people at large, have, it lief likely, brought home to militant Nonconformists tha real check has occurred in their forward march. far as grievances are concerned, Parliament is, inch still ready to do all that can be reasonably expected it. The present House of Commons, with its la majority of Conservatives and overwhelming majority Churchmen, has frankly met the demand for legislat providing that the presence of official registrars shall not required at marriages celebrated in Nonconformist chap But beyond that kind of remedial action, for which, in i ecclesiastical sphere there is now very little scope left does not seem as if Nonconformists had much to exp in the way of concessions to their special points of vi Even the numerous defeats which the party now in of have sustained at by-elections do not prevent None formists, and particularly one whom the Daily NI honours by large type, and who signs himself "F Churchman," from writing in a very gloomy strain to the position and prospects of British Nonconformi To him it seems to be "under chloroform." Nothing e will explain, to his mind, its "attitude towards reel social, religious, and political movements." By this etre language he seems to have mainly in view such mean as the Benefices Bill, and such projects as the endowm of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland and the gra ing of subsidies to Irish Roman Catholic schools. At I same time, he appears to be possessed by a strong sei of the failure of Nonconformist opinion to exercise i influence which it used to exercise, and ought still exercise, on the moral and social life of the count "Time was," he says, "when the introduction of doubt practices into society, or questionable methods il business, was well-nigh impossible owing to the heali sentiment that permeated society generally and wielde( wholesome influence over the entire community. . . . That was the time when British Nonconformity had fi grown to its full manhood, when its members were inspii and invigorated by a clear perception of the fundamen 1 truths underlying their profession."
This earnest laudator temporis acti, and those v more or less agree with him, appear to us to be far fr undeserving of sympathy, but at the same time to be I sessed by a certain confusion of thought. They right in wishing that their co-religionists should wiel more effective check than they do on, let us say, gambling habits of our time and the immoralities of pany promotion. It is conceivable that if these had been introduced on anything like their present fifty years ago, what has been called, often with a unworthy sneer, the Nonconformist conscience would made an effective struggle against them. But evidently hopeless to attempt to revive the moral auth of Nonconformity by giving it a more militant aggressive attitude in politics. That attitude justified when there were substantial grievances removed. It necessarily ceased to be justifiable those grievances had disappeared. By all mea Nonconformists struggle after a "clear perception o fundamental truths underlying their profession." B not let them think that such perception, or approach to it, is to be obtained by churnin that sectarian spirit of which there are too indications in the letters of which we are speaking they find, as "A Free Churchman" complains, that of their most respected members are taking, on po ecclesiastical or educational questions, a line seems at variance with recent Nonconformist tradi as when an eminent Congregationalist like Mr. Spicer shows sympathy towards a State-subs Roman Catholic University in Ireland—let them eider very carefully whether the tradition is not a out one, and whether there are not earlier N formist traditions which are more applicable case in point. Ireland is a very poor Roman C country, and without a State-subsidised Roman C University its youth will in practice have no oppo of obtaining a liberal education. Their clergy, t fear of injury to their faith, frown on their attend the best existing academic institutions. There among the Irish Roman Catholic laity, who, unfortM have to bear the whole burden of supporting their tlany such wealth as would make it possible for establish for themselves a system of University teaching worthy of the name. Is it fair that those who claim kinship with the founders of a profoundly religious system of education in New England should refuse to concede to Ireland the advantages which the Pilgrim Fathers secured for their children ? Again, in re- gard to primary education in this country, are the Nonconformists who are discontented with the present state of things, and who threaten a fierce campaign for the recovery of a lost position at the next General Election, really prepared to deny that the religious teaching given in voluntary schools, even if it be mixed with error, is of high value in giving a right direction to the characters of the bulk of those who receive it? One of the correspondents of the Daily News is horrified at the readiness of certain Nonconformists, beaded by Mr. Hugh Price Hughes, to favour the teach- ing of the Apostles' Creed in all elementary schools, and urges the importance of a revival of the Noncon- formist principle cf the "absolute neutrality of the State in religious matters." We should like to know when that neutrality became an article of Nonconformist belief. In our opinion, it was developed in the second quarter of the present century, and is entirely at variance with the principles and the practice of the great days of Puritanism, both in this country and in America. And if, as we are glad to believe, there are many Nonconformists of to-day who would be glad that at least the bases of the Christian faith should be taught—subject, of course, to a conscience clause—to all children, their brethren who think otherwise would do well, before denouncing them, to obtain a clearer "perception of the fundamental truths underlying their profession." The Puritans longed, above all, that England should be a God-fearing nation. Would not their suc- cessors to-day be following more closely in their true spirit if, on questions of education and ecclesiastical politics, they put religion first and theoretical equality second ?
Previous page
