Iturn，however，totheprofessionwhichwasmoredirectlyconnectedwiththeintellectualdevelopmentofthecountry。Thenatureofthechurchestablishmentgivesthemostobviousillustrationoftheconnectionbetweentheintellectualpositionontheonehandandthesocialandpoliticalorderontheother，thoughIdonotpresumetodecidehowfareithershouldberegardedaseffectandtheotherascause。
WhatisthechurchofEngland?Somepeopleapparentlybelievethatitisabodypossessingandtransmittingcertainsupernaturalpowers。Thisviewwasinabeyanceforthetimeforexcellentreasons，and，trueorfalse，isnoanswertotheconstitutionalquestion。Itdoesnotenableustodefinewhatwastheactualbodywithwhichlawyersandpoliticianshavetodeal。
Thebestanswertosuchquestionsinordinarycasewouldbegivenbydescribingtheorganisationofthebodyconcerned。Wecouldthensaywhatistheauthoritywhichspeaksinitsname；andwhatisthelegislaturewhichmakesitslaws，altersitsarrangements，anddefinesthetermsofmembership。ThesupremelegislatureofthechurchofEnglandmightappeartobeparliament。ItistheActofUniformitywhichdefinestheprofessionofbeliefexactedfromtheclergy；andnoalterationcouldbemadeinregardtotherightsanddutiesoftheclergyexceptbyparliamentaryauthority。Thechurchmightthereforeberegardedassimplythereligiousdepartmentofthestate。Since1688，however，thetheoryandthepracticeoftolerationhadintroduceddifficulties。
Nonconformitywasnotbyitselfpunishablethoughitexposedamantocertaindisqualifications。Thestate，therefore，recognisedthatmanyofitsmembersmightlegallybelongtootherchurches，althoughithad，asWarburtonargued，formedan’alliance’withthedominantchurch。Thespiritoftolerationwasspreadingthroughoutthecentury。Theoldpenallaws，duetothestrugglesoftheseventeenthcentury，werebecomingobsoleteinpracticeandweregraduallybeingrepealed。TheGordonriotsof1780showedthatafanaticalspiritmightstillbearousedinamobwhichwantedanexcuseforplunder；butthelawswerenotexplicitlydefendedbyreasonablepersonsandwerebeinggraduallyremovedbylegislationtowardstheendofthecentury。Although，therefore，parliamentwaskeptfreefrompapists，itcouldhardlyregardchurchandstateasidentical，orconsideritselfasentitledtoactastherepresentativebodyofthechurch。Nootherbody，indeed，couldchangethelawsofthechurch；
butparliamentrecogniseditsownincompetencetodealwiththem。Towardstheendofthecentury，variousattemptsweremadetorelaxthetermsofsubscription。Itwasproposed，forexample，tosubstituteaprofessionofbeliefintheBibleforasubscriptiontotheThirty-NineArticles。ButtheHouseofCommonssensiblyrefusedtoexposeitselfbyventuringuponanytheologicalinnovations。Abodymoreludicrouslyincompetentcouldhardlyhavebeeninvented。