beyond his control, and complains bitterly of the self-conceit, the emulation, the lawlessness they engendered, though he winds up by saying that, after all, he considered them absolutely essential.1 Thomas Scott condemns them pointblank, without any qualification whatever, and instances the evil effects which they had produced at Olney.2 Legh Richmond, on the other hand, "formed a society at Brading which proved an occasion of much benefit." 3 Claudius Buchanan seems to have had a similar experience at Ouseham; and Edward Bickersteth writes gratefully of the advantage he derived from belonging to a society when he was a young layman in London.1 Outside the Evangelical circle they found no favour whatever. Reginald Heber writes very warmly against such societies as were formed only for the purpose of holding prayer-meetings. Charles James Blomfield lifted up his voice against them in a visitation sermon at Saffron Walden in 1818.6 Richard Mant steadily set his face against them at Great Coggeshall.7 It is characteristic of the two periods, that while in the old religious societies, originated by Dr. Horneck, Mr. Smythies, and Bishop Beveridge towards the close of the seventeenth century, the Church element was predominant, and the absolute control of the parish clergyman was enforced, the societies of the early nineteenth century were guarded by no such rigorous precautions. The result was that, while the earlier societies were a source of great strength to the Church, the later too often tended to weaken her hold and embarrass her work. To sum up. The period before us seems to have been in danger of being a little over-stocked with societies. "I am not over-friendly," writes Bishop Jebb in 1824, "to the strong excitations of this age of societies." 8 It was not so 1 Carus' Memoirs, pp. 238-240, 247, etc. 2 Grimshaw's Life, etc., p. 43. Pearson's Memoirs, etc., ii. 218. Birks' Memoir, etc., i. 254. See the British Critic for January, 1830, Art. iii. Memoirs of Bishop Mant. • Forster's Life and Letters of Bishop Jebb, ii. 414. much the "excitations" that were at fault. After the long torpor of the eighteenth century, the age required "excitations." The danger was lest this great multiplication of societies might result in their interfering with one another. However, it is better to have too much than too little of a good thing; and, on the whole, it must be hailed as a hopeful sign of reviving energy that the age could justly be termed "the age of societies." 295 CHAPTER IX. CHURCH AND STATE. THE relations between Church and State were far more intimate in the early part of the nineteenth century than they are at the present day. On the one hand, the Church looked to the State to support her in every way; there was a foolish sort of feeling that it was beneath the dignity of an "Establishment" to work through voluntary effort-that was what the "Methodists" did; and therefore she applied to the State in matters in which she would never dream now of making such application. On the other hand, the State still felt it its duty to stand by the Church as its natural ally. The argument that any measure would be injurious to the Church was one which was frequently used and always told. The State was proud of the Church, and in a vague kind of way felt the great advantage of having her in its midst. It regarded "Westminster Abbey as part of the British Constitution," as Mr. Croker said to Mr. Southey. At least, the party to which Mr. Croker belonged so regarded it; and his eloquent explanation of what he meant by his bon-mot1 expresses what was generally felt at the beginning of the century, though far less generally in 1825, when he wrote it, and less generally still at the close of our period. 1 "I do not mean the mere political connection of Church and State, but that mixture of veneration and love, of enthusiasm and good taste, of public liberty and self-control, of pride of our ancestors and hopes for our posterity, which affects every patriot and Christian mind at the contemplation of that glorious system which unites in such beautiful association and such profitable combination our civil and ecclesiastical constitutions, our ambition and our faith; the one thing needful and the all things ornamental; our well-being in this world and our salvation in the next,"-with much more to the same effect. See let er from J. W. Croker to R. Southey, January 3, 1825, in The Croker Pafers, i. 277. For the history of Church and State during the first thirtythree years of the nineteenth century is the history of a growing alienation between the two, till at last the relations became so strained that it was almost universally believed that the Church, as a national establishment, must soon cease to exist. How the Church, deprived of her natural ally and thrown upon her own resources, more than recovered her hold upon the nation, does not fall within our province to record; but it may be said generally that the reverse of the Psalmist's utterance in this instance proved true, and that those things turned to her wealth which seemed to her an occasion of falling. The intimate connection between Church and State occasioned a very confused and often erroneous notion of what was the proper province of each. And that, far more so in the early part of the nineteenth than in the eighteenth century, for this very good reason. It was equally believed in the eighteenth century that what the Church did she must do through the State; but in that sleepy period she did very little at all. When she began to awake from her slumbers, and to be up and doing, events were of course perpetually occurring which affected the relationship between the two powers. Archdeacon Daubeny, who in this, as in many respects, was in advance of his age, made a wise and much-needed remark, when he wrote, just before the century began, "The jurisdictions of Church and State are like two parallel lines, which, so long as they are continued in their appointed directions, may be extended in infinitum, without the possibility of interfering with each other."1 One of the great defects of the time we are considering was that the lines did not run parallel, and in consequence were constantly running into one another. At the same time, the State did make many laudable attempts to help the Church and render her work more effective, for which Churchmen ought to be grateful. The first Act of Parliament which directly concerned the Church in the nineteenth century was one passed in 1801, enacting that in future no one in priest's orders should be a member of the House of Commons. The subject was 1 Guide to the Church, ii. 93. 2 It would be wearisome and unnecessary to give references to Hansard's brought forward in consequence of the persistent efforts of Horne Tooke, the famous clerical agitator, who, having twice contested Westminster in vain, obtained in this year a seat as member for Old Sarum through the influence of Lord Camelford. William Wilberforce has an entry in his diary on the subject: "Sad foolish work about the motion concerning clergy sitting in Parliament. More stir at Cambridge about clergy's ineligibility than ever before."1 But the subject seems after all to have caused only a very slight and temporary excitement. The only publication on the subject with which I am acquainted is a foolish "Letter to Lord Porchester on the Degraded State of the Clergy," their degradation being chiefly their exclusion from Parliament. Far more interest was taken by the clergy and by the Church generally in two Acts which, after much discussion, were passed in 1802, and which at least showed a laudable desire to elevate and purify the Church. One was an Act for restraining clerical farming;" the other an "Act for enforcing the residence of incumbents on their cures, and encouraging the building of churches." As both Bills were introduced by Sir William Scott, M.P. for the University of Oxford, which was then an exclusively Church constituency, it may be presumed that they were not unacceptable to the Church at large. There was, however, considerable opposition to both. It was contended that "in this country the parish priest is, by the very constitution of his office, in some degree an agriculturist. He has to take care, undoubtedly, that the ecclesiastic shall not merge in the farmer; but the moderated and subordinate practice of farming supplied many means of cheap subsistence for the clergyman and his family;" and so forth. One is carried back in thought to the times of Dr. Primrose and his son Moses, who worked in the fields from sunrise to sunset without causing any offence to the good doctor's little flock; and to times when even a Parson Trulliber could be tolerated. But what did well enough in the easy-going days before the Parliamentary Debates for the discussions in Parliament on the various Bills noticed in this chapter. They will all be found there under the dates of the different years. 1 See Life, p. 220. 2 See, inter alia, a tract entitled Observations on the Speech of Sir William Scott. |