for they gratified spiritual pride, which is too often the besetting sin of those who have no other.

The object of Wesley was, as he avowed it, not to secede from the Church of England, not to innovate upon its doctrines, but to infuse new life and vigour into its members. It becomes, therefore, an important question, how far, at this period, the clergy may be justly charged with neglect, or the people with indifference. And if we consult writers the most various in their views and feelings and opinions on most other points, we shall find them agree in lamenting the state of religion in that age. Bishop Burnet, in the conclusion of his History, in 1713, entirely acquits the Clergy of any scandalous faults; but complains that their lives, though decorous, were not exemplary. “I must own," he says, "that the main body "of our Clergy has always appeared dead and lifeless to "me, and instead of animating one another, they seem "rather to lay one another to sleep. I say it with

66

66

great regret, I have observed the Clergy in all the "places through which I have travelled - Papists, Lu"therans, Calvinists, and Dissenters; but of them all, our

66

Clergy is much the most remiss in their labours in pri"vate, and the least severe in their lives." These are the words of a Whig; the testimony of a Tory Prelate is equally strong. In 1711, Atterbury drew up a representation of the State of Religion, which was presented by the Convocation to the Queen. This Memorial complains of" the manifest growth of immorality and pro"faneness," "the relaxation and decay of the discipline "of the Church;" and observes, that " a due regard to "religious persons, places, and things, has scarce in any ""* age been more wanting." My third witness shall be the eminent dissenting minister, Dr. Calamy, who, while endeavouring to prove that his sect had not decreased in numbers in 1730, admits, “But at the same time, a real "decay of serious religion, both in the Church and out of "it, was very visible." The Church, beyond all doubt, still comprised very many ministers of powerful talents and eminent piety; but these stars in the firmament,

66

*See Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 327–349. ed. 1788. Calamy's Life and Times, vol. ii. p. 531.

though bright themselves, were not sufficient to dispel the surrounding darkness.

This decline in an establishment which has shown so much efficiency and excellence, both before and since, may, in a great measure, be traced to the political divisions of that period. At the Revolution it appeared that many, who had most bravely withstood despotic power, were no less steady asserters of hereditary right. They would not allow the King to take more than his prerogative; they would not allow themselves to give less. They admitted that the tyranny of James had forfeited the throne; but they maintained that, in such a case, as in the event of his natural demise, the next heir should be immediately acknowledged. The courtiers, indeed, had no such scruples, and those who had heaped incense before the tyrant were quite ready to bow the knee before the Deliverer. The sturdiest partisans of James appeared amongst his former victims. Of the seven Bishops whom he had persecuted and imprisoned, five refused to take the oath of allegiance to William; their example was followed by not a few of the inferior clergy; and though the greater number were willing to approve of, or to acquiesce in, the ruling government, yet their concurrence was cold and formal; and it was evident that they considered the accession of William not so much positive good, as the least of two evils. The abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, however needful, did not tend to allay their apprehensions; and the untimely death of the young Duke of Gloucester dashed their hopes that the seed of the " Royal Martyr" would still inherit the land. They disliked the prospect of a German successor: they were not pleased with that successor when he came, and they complained that the Tory party was so wholly shut out from his counsels; an exclusion of which they saw the disadvantages, but could not so well appreciate the necessity. Thus, then, in the whole period since 1688, except the four last years of Queen Anne, a large proportion of the clergy were in a state of dissatisfaction, and opposition to the Ministers, if not to the Sovereign.

From this unnatural alienation between the Church and State, there soon followed another between the higher

and lower clergy. The new government, as might be supposed, selected its Bishops from its small minority of partisans, rather than from the unfriendly majority; and thus it happened that most of the clergy came to be on one side, and most of the Bishops on the other. Many of the new prelates were, like Tillotson, an honour to their country and to their calling; but the evil I have mentioned was inherent in the system, and did not depend upon the men. The body ecclesiastical became unnerved and disjointed; the head ceased to direct the limbs, and the limbs to obey the head. While the Convocation sat, there were most violent wranglings between the two Houses; after its cessation there was more silence, but not greater satisfaction. The result was a total decay of discipline; for where there is no confidence and cordiality, discipline can only be enforced by harsh measures, and these were repugnant to the gentle spirit of the Bishops. They therefore allowed their authority to sleep, except in the rare cases of any gross irregularity; they had seldom any labour of love, and their fatherly guidance was no more.

In like manner, and from the same causes, the Universities clashed with the heads of the Church and of the Government. In Oxford, especially, the High Church principles were dominant, and most of the resident members were Jacobites almost without disguise. Considering how severely that University had smarted under the tyranny of the last Stuart, its Jacobitism surely deserves high respect, as a most disinterested and sincere, though most mistaken, principle of loyalty. Cambridge, partly perhaps from rivalry to Oxford, was more friendly to the House of Hanover; but even there the High Churchmen formed, to say the least of it, a very powerful minority. On the whole, these seats of learning were considered decidedly hostile by the Government; and we find that in 1716 Archbishop Wake was preparing a Bill to assert supremacy of the Crown, and regulate the two Universities.* In such unprofitable dissensions were those energies consumed which might else have wrought out such great deeds for the service of religion.

the

* Lord Townshend to Secretary Stanhope, November 2. 1716.

Another cause of neglect in the Clergy, was want of rivalry and emulation. No other sect was then in active competition with them. The Roman Catholics had been struck down by the victorious arms of William, and bound fast by the penal laws of Anne. The Protestant Nonconformists had greatly fallen off, both in numbers and energy.* Under such circumstances a general coldness and deadness ensued even from apparent triumph; and the Church Militant, with no visible enemy before it, broke its ranks and laid aside its arms.

In many places, again, the population had outgrown the size of the Establishment. Where provision had been made for the religious care of only some small hamlet, a numerous race of manufacturers or miners had frequently sprung up. Many villages were swelling into towns, many towns into cities. It is a matter deeply affecting the former character of the Church, as well as its present interests, that provision was not made at an earlier period for these increasing wants. If we except Queen Anne's bounty, little care seems to have been taken for the enlargement of small livings, the diminution of pluralities, and the building of new churches.† The fields were ripe for the harvest, but it was left for the Methodists to gather.

A Church Establishment cannot have a worse enemy than its own want of vigour, and is never really secure but when it is really useful. Twenty years before that great awakening of the human mind which we term the Reformation, when the Church of Rome sat supremely enthroned over the whole Christian world, and every heresy had been quenched in flame even then its abuses and intolerance were preparing their own correc

* Several tracts were published, especially in 1730, accounting for this decrease in various ways, but all admitting the fact. See Calamy's Life and Times, vol. ii. p. 529. One of the tracts was entitled, "Free "Thoughts on the most probable Means of reviving the Dissenting "Interest."

†The sum paid during the whole reign of George the Second (thirty-three years) for building churches, including the repairs of Westminster Abbey and of St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster, amounted only to 152,2401. (Sinclair's History of the Revenue, part iii. p. 61.)

tion, and the keen eye of Comines could discern the coming and desired dawn.* Thus, also, in the reign of George the First, the reflecting few could perceive that the Church of England, though pure as ever in doctrine, was impaired in energy, and must have either help or opposition to stir it. That impulse was in a great measure given by the Methodists. The clergy caught their spirit, but refined it from their alloy of enthusiasm. The discipline of the Church was gradually revived, and its deficiencies supplied. Every year the Establishment rose higher and higher in efficiency and usefulness; and it has checked and arrested the progress of the Methodists, not so much by their faults as by its merits. At no period had it lost its hold upon the great body of the people; but it now struck still deeper roots into their hearts, roots of which the unconquerable strength will be found, if ever an attempt be made to pluck it out. Looking to all its branches, to the noble army of missionaries toiling on a foreign shore for its extensionto the controversialists arrayed at home for its defence -to what is, perhaps, of all things the most difficult, great accomplishments contentedly confined to an humble sphere, and satisfied with obscure parochial duties,— how much at the present time shall we find scope to praise and to admire! We may question now whether in virtue, in piety, in usefulness, any Church of modern times could equal ours. Nor let any false shame hinder us from owning that, though other causes also were at work, it is to the Methodists that great part of the merit is due. Whilst, therefore, we trace their early enthusiasm and perverted views, and the mischief which these have undoubtedly caused, as well as the evils of the present separation, let us never forget or deny the great countervailing advantage.

Nowhere had the Church been so fatally inactive as in Ireland. When Wesley first visited that country, in 1747, he observes, "at least 99 in 100 of the "native Irish remain in the religion of their fore"fathers. The Protestants, whether in Dublin or else"where, are almost all transplanted lately from Eng.

*Comines, Mem. lib. vii. ch. 15.