"A particular instance of this happened to him while he was minister of
St. George's (near Bristol); which, because it showeth how valuable the
Liturgy is in itself, and what unreasonable prejudices are sometimes
taken up against it, the reader will not, I believe, think it unworthy
to be related.
"He was sent for to baptize the child of a Dissenter in his parish;
upon which occasion, he made use of the office of Baptism as prescribed
by the Church of England, which he had got entirely by heart. And he
went through it with so much readiness and freedom and yet with so much
gravity and devotion, and gave that life and spirit to all that he
delivered, that the whole audience was extremely affected with his
performance; and, notwithstanding that he used the sign of the cross,
yet they were so ignorant of the offices of the Church, that they did
not thereby discover that it was the Common Prayer. But after that he
had concluded that holy action, the father of the child returned him a
great many thanks; intimating at the same time with how much greater
edification they prayed who entirely depended upon the Spirit of God
for his assistance in their _extempore_ effusions, than those did who
tied themselves up to premeditated forms; and that, if he had not made
the sign of the cross, that badge of Popery, as he called it, nobody
could have formed the least objection against his excellent Prayers.
Upon which, Mr. Bull, hoping to recover him from his ill-grounded
prejudices, showed him the office of Baptism in the Liturgy, wherein
was contained every prayer that was offered up to God on that occasion;
which, with farther arguments that he then urged, so effectually {95}
wrought upon the good man and his whole family, that they always after
that time frequented the parish-church; and never more absented
themselves from Mr. Bull's communion."--Pp. 39--41., Lond. 1714, 8vo.
Some few dates will prove that Bull could not have been the person alluded
to. Bp. Sprat's _Discourse to the Clergy of his Diocese_ was delivered in
the Year 1695. And he speaks of the minister of the London parish as one
who "was afterwards an eminent Bishop of our Church." We must therefore
suppose him to have been _dead_ at the time of Bp. Sprat's visitation. Now,
in the first place (as J. K. remarks), "Bull never held a London cure."
And, in the second place, he was not consecrated Bishop until the 29th of
April, 1705 (ten years after Bp. Sprat's visitation), and did not die until
Feb. 1709-10. (_Life_, pp. 410--474.)
Southey's conjecture is therefore fatally wrong. And now as regards Bp.
Hacket. The omission of the anecdote from the _Life_ prefixed to his
_Sermons_ must, I think, do away with his claims also, though he was
restored to his parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and was not consecrated
Bishop of Lichfield until December, 1661. Unfortunately, I have not always
followed Captain Cuttle's advice, or I should now be able to contribute
some more decisive information. I have my own suspicions on the matter, but
am afraid to guess in print.