th-century society. If any active role were possible for the lay Christian it was simply that of promoting true religion in the station in life in which God had placed them. Behind the social derision lay the fear of more sinister influences. Legislation had progressively outlawed suspect political activity, but how could those with a vested interest in maintaining constitutional stability be sure that the emerging networks of village preaching and Sunday schools were not being used as cover for the dissemination of republican and atheis-tic ideas? Across a broad swathe of clergy from English high churchmen such as Tatham and Horsley to the General Assembly, and even to those like Porteous within the Popular party, deep suspicions were entertained. A number of writers suggested that among the preachers disaffected elements were working to dissolve the traditional bonds of social cohesion. They despised the king, sought to destroy patriotic feeling and hoped ultimately to overturn the government. In 1799 both the Pastoral Admonition and the rector of Chislehurst in Kent voiced the fear that Samuel Horsley was to develop the following year in his pastoral charge to the clergy of the Rochester diocese: the belief that the associational structure to which many of the preachers belonged was a device to foster subversion and connect apparently innocuous religious gatherings with the world of clandestine pol-itics. In one or two Anglican clerical outpourings there was even a further

doi:10.4324/9780203166505-69

Chapter

th-century society. If any active role were possible for the lay Christian it was simply that of promoting true religion in the station in life in which God had placed them. Behind the social derision lay the fear of more sinister influences. Legislation had progressively outlawed suspect political activity, but how could those with a vested interest in maintaining constitutional stability be sure that the emerging networks of village preaching and Sunday schools were not being used as cover for the dissemination of republican and atheis-tic ideas? Across a broad swathe of clergy from English high churchmen such as Tatham and Horsley to the General Assembly, and even to those like Porteous within the Popular party, deep suspicions were entertained. A number of writers suggested that among the preachers disaffected elements were working to dissolve the traditional bonds of social cohesion. They despised the king, sought to destroy patriotic feeling and hoped ultimately to overturn the government. In 1799 both the Pastoral Admonition and the rector of Chislehurst in Kent voiced the fear that Samuel Horsley was to develop the following year in his pastoral charge to the clergy of the Rochester diocese: the belief that the associational structure to which many of the preachers belonged was a device to foster subversion and connect apparently innocuous religious gatherings with the world of clandestine pol-itics. In one or two Anglican clerical outpourings there was even a further

Chapter

th-century society. If any active role were possible for the lay Christian it was simply that of promoting true religion in the station in life in which God had placed them. Behind the social derision lay the fear of more sinister influences. Legislation had progressively outlawed suspect political activity, but how could those with a vested interest in maintaining constitutional stability be sure that the emerging networks of village preaching and Sunday schools were not being used as cover for the dissemination of republican and atheis-tic ideas? Across a broad swathe of clergy from English high churchmen such as Tatham and Horsley to the General Assembly, and even to those like Porteous within the Popular party, deep suspicions were entertained. A number of writers suggested that among the preachers disaffected elements were working to dissolve the traditional bonds of social cohesion. They despised the king, sought to destroy patriotic feeling and hoped ultimately to overturn the government. In 1799 both the Pastoral Admonition and the rector of Chislehurst in Kent voiced the fear that Samuel Horsley was to develop the following year in his pastoral charge to the clergy of the Rochester diocese: the belief that the associational structure to which many of the preachers belonged was a device to foster subversion and connect apparently innocuous religious gatherings with the world of clandestine pol-itics. In one or two Anglican clerical outpourings there was even a further

ABSTRACT

At the opposite end of the country a similar criticism of the many sermons that were purchased commercially was voiced by the Salisbury clothier, Henry Wansey. Such meagre fare, he suggested, would not satisfy those who were hungry for the bread of life. The clergy were presented as a body of men who increasingly preferred their leisure pursuits to their duties and sought to turn the work of God into a sinecure.37 In typically outspoken manner Rowland Hill replied to Samuel Horsley’s slur on the political loyalty of the new undenominational Sunday schools by suggesting a radical solution to the church’s exodus of worshippers. He argued that the bishop would do better to replace the ‘dapper bucks and blades’, who were ‘whipt through [the] universities [and] against their wills . . . thrust into the church’, with some of the ‘pious, rational, prudent young men’ who staffed the Sunday schools. All they required was a little further education to fit them for office.38