These were the orthodox Churchmen, whom their rivals, and not their rivals only,[10] denounced as dry, unspiritual, formal, unevangelical, self-righteous; teachers of mere morality at their best, allies and servants of the world at their worst.  In the party which at this time had come to be looked upon popularly as best entitled to be the religious party, whether they were admired as Evangelicals, or abused as Calvinists, or laughed at as the Saints, were inheritors not of Anglican traditions, but of those which had grown up among the zealous clergymen and laymen who had sympathised with the great Methodist revival, and whose theology and life had been profoundly affected by it.  It was the second or third generation of those whose religious ideas had been formed and governed by the influence of teachers like Hervey, Romaine, Cecil, Venn, Fletcher, Newton, and Thomas Scott.  The fathers of the Evangelical school were men of naturally strong and vigorous understandings, robust and rugged, and sometimes eccentric, but quite able to cope with the controversialists, like Bishop Tomline, who attacked them.  These High Church controversialists were too half-hearted and too shallow, and understood their own principles too imperfectly, to be a match for antagonists who were in deadly earnest, and put them to shame by their zeal and courage.  But Newton and Romaine and the Milners were too limited and narrow in their compass of ideas to found a powerful theology.  They undoubtedly often quickened conscience.  But their system was a one-sided and unnatural one, indeed in the hands of some of its expounders threatening morality and soundness of character.[11] It had none of the sweep which carried the justification doctrines of Luther, or the systematic predestinarianism of Calvin, or the “platform of discipline” of John Knox and the Puritans.  It had to deal with a society which laid stress on what was “reasonable,” or “polite,” or “ingenious,” or “genteel,” and unconsciously it had come to have respect to these requirements.  The one thing by which its preachers carried disciples with them was their undoubted and serious piety, and their brave, though often fantastic and inconsistent, protest against the world.  They won consideration and belief by the mild persecution which this protest brought on them—­by being proscribed as enthusiasts by comfortable dignitaries, and mocked as “Methodists” and “Saints” by wits and worldlings.  But the austere spirit of Newton and Thomas Scott had, between 1820 and 1830, given way a good deal to the influence of increasing popularity.  The profession of Evangelical religion had been made more than respectable by the adhesion of men of position and weight.  Preached in the pulpits of fashionable chapels, this religion proved to be no more exacting than its “High and Dry” rival.  It gave a gentle stimulus to tempers which required to be excited by novelty.  It recommended itself by gifts of flowing words or high-pitched rhetoric to those who expected some