It has been already observed that the Church interest formed a most important element in the reckoning of statesmen of this century; and the extent to which the clergy were mixed up with the politics of the day must, under the circumstances, be reckoned among the Church abuses of the period.  Not, of course, that this is in itself an evil.  On the contrary, it would be distinctly a misfortune, both to the State and to the Church, if the clergy of a Church constituted like our own were to abstain altogether from taking any part in politics.  It could hardly fail to be a loss to the State if a large and presumably intelligent class stood entirely aloof from its affairs.  And the clergy themselves by so doing would be both forfeiting a right and neglecting a duty.  As citizens who have an equal stake with the laity in the interests of the country, they clearly enjoy the right to have a voice in the conduct of its affairs.  And as Christians they have a positive duty incumbent upon them to use the influence they possess in this, as in every other relation of life, for the cause of Christianity.  But with this right and this duty there is also a danger lest those, whose chief concern ought to be with higher objects, should become overmuch entangled with the affairs of this life; and a danger also lest men whose training is, as a rule, not adapted to make them good men of business, should throw their influence into the wrong scale.  In so far, but only in so far as the clergy fell into one or the other of these snares, can the political Churchmanship of the eighteenth century be classed among the Church abuses of the period.  The circumstances of the times increased these dangers.  During the reigns of the first two Georges political morality was at so low an ebb that it was difficult for the clergy to take a leading part in politics without injury to their spiritual character.  They could hardly touch the pitch without being defiled.  It is to be feared that politics at this period did more to debase the clergy than the clergy did to elevate politics.  Not but that they often incurred an unpopularity for the part they took in political questions which was wholly undeserved.  Nothing, for example, brought more odium upon the bishops than the share they had in throwing out the Quakers’ Tithes Bill in 1736.  Yet apparently without just cause; for a high legal authority of our own day, who certainly shows no prejudice in favour of the Church and her ministers, characterises this measure as a well-meant but impracticable Bill.  Again, in 1753, many of the bishops were exposed to unmerited abuse for supporting, as they were clearly right in doing, the Jews’ Naturalisation Bill.  Again, in 1780, the bishops had the good sense not to be led astray by the senseless ‘No Popery’ cry which led to the Gordon riots; and by their moral courage on this occasion they drew down upon themselves much undeserved censure.  The good sense, however, which characterised the political conduct of the clergy on these and other occasions was, unfortunately, exceptional.  As a rule, the political influence of the clergy was not very wisely exercised.