(5) The very name "Evangelical" told greatly in their favour. Unlike that of "Methodist," it was not given as a term of reproach; it sprung up, we scarcely know when or how. One of the bitterest and most frequent complaints against the party was that "they arrogated to themselves the title of Evangelical," and thus cast a tacit slur upon their Christian brethren, who, if not Evangelical, were hardly worthy of being termed Christians at all. The accusation was so far unjust, that the Evangelicals never formally, in so many words, gave themselves the exclusive title; on the contrary, they invariably disclaimed any such presumption. But they did hold that the gospel consisted of a certain rigorous system, which they, and they alone, presented in its fulness; and therefore they certainly left it to be implied that they, and they alone, were truly Evangelical. And the fact that a name, to which every Christian ought to lay claim, was exclusively applied to them, had not a little to do with the prosperity of their cause.

To bring this long chapter to a conclusion. If it be thought that too much space has been devoted to the Evangelicals, the apology is, that they constituted by far the most prominent and spiritually active party during the greater part of the

1 The following passage illustrates the feeling of earnest-minded laymen, who were not trained to appreciate the niceties of ecclesiastical distinctions, on this point: "To men thus orthodox in their principles, affectionate to the national Establishment, of unblemished morals, and exceptionally assiduous in the discharge of their pastoral duties, do a certain number of their clerical brethren apply the epithet of Evangelical ministers (in whatever way this application may have originated) as a term of reproach. Do these clergymen who thus endeavour to excite a prejudice against their brethren, to weaken their influence, and obstruct their success, wish the world to understand that they themselves are not Evangelical ministers; or, in other words, that they do not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they received an express commission to teach at their ordination? Such an imputation would doubtless be repelled as calumnious; it would be resented as unjust and highly offensive; and with good reason, since no charge could be more serious against the Church of England than this, that her ministers in general are not Evangelical ministers. A great misunderstanding must exist somewhere" (Life of William Hay, by John Pearson, ii. 50). Yes! there must; but I am bound to say that the misunderstanding exists on the part of the good surgeon, Mr. Pearson, himself. The prejudice against the Evangelical clergy was not because they were Evangelical, but because they were supposed to have assumed the exclusive title.

"The body of men called Evangelical clergymen (I do not say who gave them that name-I did not)," writes Thomas Scott.-Life, by his son, John Scott.

period before us. They were the salt of the earth in their} day, and the Church owes a debt of gratitude to those holy men whose names have come before us in this chapter, which it will never forget so long as personal piety and the spiritual side of religion are valued at their proper worth.

CHAPTER IV.

THE LIBERALS.

IT is extremely difficult to find any positive bond of union which would connect together all those whom it is desired to bring before the reader in the present chapter, and which would at the same time differentiate them from the "Orthodox" on the one hand and the "Evangelicals" on the other. But, negatively, the term "Liberals" will answer the purpose; for they would all have considered both the Orthodox and the Evangelical platforms too narrow for them. They would not have agreed with the former in holding that there is but one visible, Catholic Church, the sole representative of which in this country is the Church of England; and they would not have agreed with the latter, as to the narrow limits within which they confined "the gospel." In short, they would have claimed to be more "liberal" than either party; but, when we have said this, we have said all that can be predicated of them in common. It has been suggested to me that "the distinctive, or a distinctive, feature of the Liberal theologians of 1800-33 was their Erastianism;" and I have been reminded that "it was this that excited Newman's alarm." This is quite true so far as the Liberals proper are concerned; but I doubt whether all those whom it is desired to include held the theory that the Church is a mere department of the State; for under the title of "Liberals," in default of a better, it is purposed to treat, first, of men who, without committing themselves to the distinguishing tenets of either High or Low Churchmen, were yet prominent thinkers or workers in the Church in their way; and, secondly, of a party which arose in the later part of our period, and which

promised for a time, though only a very short time, to be the dominant party in the Church of England.

Among those who deserve special mention under the first head is William Paley (1743-1805). He retired, indeed, from active service with the beginning of the new century; but he lived on for five years, and during that time wrote perhaps the most valuable of all his works. His writings will be discussed in a future chapter.1 Suffice it here to say that he was distinctly a Liberal, "adopting," his biographer tells us, "for his model Sherlock, Clarke, and Hoadley; the latter of whom he calls 'the excellent Hoadley." Sherlock would scarcely have felt it a compliment to be bracketed with the other two; but this by the way.2

With the name of William Paley one naturally associates that of Samuel Parr (1746-1824), because the two used frequently to be coupled together as glaring instances of the way in which merit was overlooked in the distribution of Church patronage. Whether either Dr. Paley or Dr. Parr would have made quite an ideal bishop-at least, according to our modern ideas may be open to question; but the Church of England certainly owes a debt to both for having contributed to keep up that high standard of learning which has ever been traditional in her. As Paley was the greatest theological writer, so Parr was the greatest scholar of his day. Dr. Parr was not, like Dr. Paley, a Liberal in the strict sense of the term. On the contrary, so far as his theological views

2

See infra, chapter on "Church Literature."

Life of William Paley, D.D., prefixed to his Works. It does not appear whether William Sherlock the father, or Thomas Sherlock the son, is meant ; but the remark in the text would apply to both, though more strongly to the son.

"How painful," writes Sydney Smith of Dr. Parr, "to reflect that a truly devout and attentive minister, a strenuous defender of the Church Establishment, and by far the most learned man of his day, should be permitted to languish on a little paltry curacy in Warwickshire!" To which the following note is appended: "The courtly phrase was, that Dr. Parr was not a producible man. The same phrase was used for the neglect of Paley."-S. Smith's Works, i. 9. "Some dared to say," writes Dr. Parr's biographer, "that there were insuperable obstacles to his being promoted to the episcopal Bench, and Lord Grenville is said to have apologized for not raising to the Bench the greatest scholar of his age, who was also a man of the most unblemished character, on the plea that this divine was not popular among his brethren.”—Life, prefixed to Works, p. 589. Paley was more than satisfied with the preferment he received. See his dedication of his Natural Theology to the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Shute Barrington).

appear at all, they were decidedly of a High Church cast; 1 but it has been thought best to refer to him in the present chapter, because his merits lay not in the domain of theology, to which he contributed little or nothing, but in his classical and metaphysical works, and in his conversational powers, which rivalled those of Dr. Johnson himself. By them he shed a lustre upon the Church of which he was a learned and consistent member; and he was appropriately indebted to one of the most learned and scholarly of our bishops, Dr. Lowth, for the only piece of ecclesiastical preferment of any value that he ever enjoyed, a prebend of St. Paul's.

There is no doubt about the Liberalism of another member of the cathedral body of St. Paul's, the Rev. Sydney Smith (1771-1845). Unlike Dr. Parr, he was a writer whose works will continue to be read so long as Englishmen retain any sense of humour; and they are all, more or less, connected with ecclesiastical, if not exactly theological, subjects. Sydney Smith had, after his own fashion, a very real sense of religion, and he did good service to the cause of toleration, which certainly required in those days a champion. The Church never has been, and never will be, in a really more prosperous or influential position by being hemmed round with privileges, which put others under an unfair disadvantage; she is quite strong enough to fight her own battles, and requires nothing more than a fair field and no favour. She need, therefore, owe no grudge to Sydney Smith because he took up the then anomalous position of a Liberal clergyman; he is never tired of advocating, in his own bright and piquant way, the repeal of all laws which bore hardly upon Roman Catholics on the one hand and Protestant Dissenters on the other; he laughed out of their prejudices men who could not be argued out of them; and the Church has been the stronger, not the weaker, for the removal of those so-called safeguards which no man had a greater share in abolishing than Sydney Smith. But, in another way, his liberality, like that of many other liberal divines, did not at all extend to those who disagreed with himself. The highest of High Churchmen was not more bitter than he was, in his youth and middle age, against "Methodism" in all its forms; and the lowest of Low Churchmen was not 1 See Life, p. 827.