In the life of Barrington we read the complex character of the Church of England. He was descended on both sides from Puritan families, who had stood by the Commonwealth and the Westminster Confession. His father, Lord Barrington, was a Presbyterian, and like his friends, Locke, Collins, and Lord Somers, a zealous advocate of toleration. Shute Barrington was Bishop of Llandaff at the time of the Feathers' Tavern Petition for the relaxation of subscription to the Articles of Religion. The petition found in the Bishop a strenuous opponent. He maintained that Articles of Faith were indispensable in an Established Church. His opposition incurred severe reproach. He was reminded of his Puritan ancestors, the Shutes and the Barringtons. His conduct was contrasted with the tolerant and liberal principles of his father, from which he had departed, at a time when his influence might have helped to bring the Church into harmony with the spirit and progress of the nation. The Bishop, however, was no enemy to liberal principles. In his first Charge as Bishop of Salisbury he spoke in high terms of commendation of his predecessors in the see, mentioning especially Burnet, Hoadly and Sherlock. It was with a feeling of awe that he took the seat once occupied by such men.

Beilby Porteus,' Bishop of London when the century began, might be called an Evangelical, that is, so far as he had any party character. In him we may mark the transition from the learned and leisurely prelates of former days to the active bishops of the present time. Porteus first became known beyond the University by a sermon in answer to a tract called 'The man after God's own heart,' which was intended to ridicule the religion of the Jews. His argument was that David was not so called for his private virtues, but for his public conduct, not for the purity of his life, but for his abhorrence of idolatry.

In 1722, Porteus had been the promoter of a private petition to the bishops for a revision of the Liturgy, 'particularly those parts which all reasonable persons agreed stood in need of amendment,' and in the hope that 'moderate and welldisposed persons of other persuasions' might be brought over to the Established Church. The bishops decided that it was

more prudent to let the Liturgy remain without revision, and Porteus acquiesced in the decision, being satisfied that he had expressed his judgment. The Bishop favoured a Bill to relieve Protestant Dissenters from Subscription to the Articles of Religion. It was enough that persons licensed to preach should make a declaration that they were Christians and Protestants, and that they held the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The position of some other bishops, though less eminent than those we have mentioned, may be briefly noticed. John Randolph was consecrated Bishop of Oxford in 1799. He was translated to Bangor in 1807, and succeeded Porteus in the See of London in 1809. In 1870 he preached a sermon at the consecration of Bagot, Bishop of Bristol, from which we learn his views of ecclesiastical polity. The Christian Church being a society, in the nature of things it must have government. The New Testament gives no definite polity. It must therefore often be inferred from passages difficult of interpretation. As in a civil state, the government may be a monarchy or a republic, and obedience is proper in either case. So too in the Church, we read of deacons, presbyters, and a higher class endowed with authority. In the Church of England we retain these three orders, but pass no judgment on those who have a different polity. Our Reformers were careful not to unchurch the foreign Protestants.

Like all the bishops of his time, Randolph was greatly alarmed by the increase of Dissenters. Under this term he embraced the Evangelical clergy. He could understand the old Nonconformists who had a reason for their dissent, but not those who were separate and had no plea for separation. The Bishop was, however, still more displeased with those who, holding the same doctrines as the Methodists, remained in the Church. They are described as seeking the Church's orders, sheltering themselves under her wing and making great efforts to purchase livings, that they might be filled with clergy of their own type. In London they were getting into their hands all the Lectureships in the city churches. Their motives were vanity and ambition, and their idea of conversion was subversive of the Church's order as well as of her

verted and unconverted. The latter term was only applicable to infidels and heathens. The Welsh clergy were congratulated on their being free from the prevailing fanaticism.' Some of their flocks might be infected, but the shepherds were uncorrupt. They were beyond the reach of enthusiasm.1

In 1787, William Cleaver2 succeeded Porteus as Bishop of Chester. In 1800 he was translated to Bangor, and in 1806 to St Asaph. The writer of a brief account of his life says, that he had a refreshing shower of mitres.'s Cleaver, like Bishop Watson, was the son of a clerical schoolmaster, who had no fortune to give his sons except Greek and Latin. He was well read in Homer and the Greek tragedians; his theology was merely that in fashion at the University in his time. He hated the Evangelicals, and attributed to the efficacy of sacraments 'every virtue under heaven,' not only regeneration but justification and sanctification. He defended the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed against the animadversions of Bishop Tomline. He denied that the clauses were damnatory, or that they condemned any one. They simply declared the right faith, and set forth the danger of those who departed from it. He did not regard the language of the Articles of Religion as ambiguous, nor as expressing fully the views of the compilers, nor even of Convocation, but intended to give that moderated statement of every point in discussion which might meet the consent of all.'

There are yet a few more names to be noticed who represented the inheritance of the present century from the past. The first of these is Samuel Parr, who lived a long life in daily expectation of a bishopric which never came. His voluminous works are pervaded by a liberal spirit, otherwise they have no special theological interest. He was charged with heresy on the Trinity, but there are some churchmen who can see heresy in its invisible germs. Parr was satisfied with answering that his views of the Trinity were the same as Bishop Butler's. He defended all liberal churchmen, and was tolerant of the most reprobate heretics. Of Priestley, who 1 Charges of 1808 and 1810. 2 B. 1742, d. 1815. See Annual Biography and Obituary for 1817.

had been the victim of Bishop Horsley's intemperate invective, he wrote, 'I must look to him as something more than a mere lucky experimentalist, when I know that his virtues in private life were acknowledged by his neighbours, admired by his congregation, and recognised almost by the unanimous suffrage of his most powerful and most distinguished antagonists.'1 Of Bishop Hoadly, the terror of High Churchmen, he wrote. 'The mild and heavenly temper which breathes through his works had spread its conspicuous influence over the minds of those who do and of those who do not accept his speculative opinions."2

Of another well abused dignitary of the Church he wrote, Archdeacon Blackburn suspected that opportunities might arise when the transition from the Church of England to the Church of Rome would not be difficult to a certain class of ecclesiastics whose stiffness in theology, and whose predilection for a hierarchy, he was not accustomed to treat with much tenderness.'

For the Evangelical Clergy Parr had as little affection as for the stiff theologians. He spoke of them contemptuously as believing they were 'taught of God. The Holy Spirit, according to some divines, had long ceased to work, and God was not now the Teacher of men.

The next name is that of Thomas Gisborne, Prebendary of Durham. He was famous as a poet, preacher and moralist. His theology might be called Evangelical, but with a liberal tendency which prevented his identification with any party. He defended those who preach doctrine from the charge that they did not also preach morality. He found no form of Ecclesiastical polity in the New Testament, and he advocated a free subscription to the Articles, or better still a revision.

Gisborne wrote a treatise called 'The Testimony of Natural Theology to Christianity.' It was intended as a supplement to Paley. The arguments were drawn from the new science of geology. The earth was full of disorders and ruin. As it could not have come in this state from the hand of the Creator, there was evidence of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity that man is fallen. Such desolation could only proceed from

1 Works, vol. iii, p. 284.

2 Ib. iii, 686. 3 Works, vol. iv, 544-5

verted and unconverted. The latter term was only applicable to infidels and heathens. The Welsh clergy were congratulated on their being free from the 'prevailing fanaticism.' Some of their flocks might be infected, but the shepherds were uncorrupt. They were beyond the reach of enthusiasm.1

In 1787, William Cleaver 2 succeeded Porteus as Bishop of Chester. In 1800 he was translated to Bangor, and in 1806 to St Asaph. The writer of a brief account of his life says, that he had a refreshing shower of mitres.'s Cleaver, like Bishop Watson, was the son of a clerical schoolmaster, who had no fortune to give his sons except Greek and Latin. He was well read in Homer and the Greek tragedians; his theology was merely that in fashion at the University in his time. He hated the Evangelicals, and attributed to the efficacy of sacraments 'every virtue under heaven,' not only regeneration but justification and sanctification. He defended the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed against the animadversions of Bishop Tomline. He denied that the clauses were damnatory, or that they condemned any one. They simply declared the right faith, and set forth the danger of those who departed from it. He did not regard the language of the Articles of Religion as ambiguous, nor as expressing fully the views of the compilers, nor even of Convocation, but intended to give that moderated statement of every point in discussion which might meet the consent of all.'

There are yet a few more names to be noticed who represented the inheritance of the present century from the past. The first of these is Samuel Parr, who lived a long life in daily expectation of a bishopric which never came. His voluminous works are pervaded by a liberal spirit, otherwise they have no special theological interest. He was charged with heresy on the Trinity, but there are some churchmen who can see heresy in its invisible germs. Parr was satisfied with answering that his views of the Trinity were the same as Bishop Butler's. He defended all liberal churchmen, and was tolerant of the most reprobate heretics. Of Priestley, who 2 B. 1742, d. 1815. See Annual Biography and Obituary for 1817.

1 Charges of 1808 and 1810.