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