The most distinguished divines who sat upon the Episcopal Bench in the
reign of William III., were more or less imbued with what were called
Latitudinarian sentiments.
Tillotson and Tenison who did so much, especially the latter of them,
by force of character, as well as prominence of position, towards
keeping the Church in subordination to the State, have already
occupied a considerable space in this History. Next to them, Burnet
was most distinguished, and he also has received repeated notice as an
ecclesiastical statesman; it should be added, that he was no less a
diligent diocesan and a laborious divine. His treatise on _Pastoral
Care_ expresses the spiritual anxieties of a good minister of Jesus
Christ: his Histories are pervaded by a spirit of Erastianism, as
described by some; by a tone of liberality, as denoted by others; and
his _Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_, in like manner, is both
condemned as latitudinarian, and commended as comprehensive.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
No work gives me so favourable an opinion of Burnet as his _Four
Discourses_, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum.[366]
For learning, earnestness, and ability, they deserve a higher place in
theological literature than they have ever won. In them he exhibits
the evidences of the Christian religion with considerable vigour of
thought, and for the age in which he wrote, with much originality. His
dissertation on the Divinity and death of Christ exhibit the orthodox
Creed, as to the Godhead and Atonement of the Lord, together with a
view of Justification by Faith, very similar to that inculcated in
the writings of Bull. The authority of the Church he discusses as an
enlightened Protestant, and demolishes the arguments of the Papists;
giving, as he proceeds, some valuable hints on the history of religious
opinions, and dealing with the dogma of infallibility in a way which
is singularly curious, looked at in the light of the recent Ecumenical
Council. The obligation to continue in the communion of the Church of
England is exhibited, from his own point of view, in a temperate spirit.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Stillingfleet accepted, in reward of his theological services, the See
of Worcester in 1689. His reputation, connected with a friendly bearing
towards Dissenters in the latter, as in the earlier period of his
life, caused him to be engaged as referee in a doctrinal dispute, to
be hereafter related; his polemical skill and unimpeachable orthodoxy
were manifested afresh in his _Vindication of the Trinity_;
he also entered into a metaphysical controversy with Locke, but to
diocesan duties Stillingfleet devoted the remainder of his life. In his
younger days he had been an eloquent preacher, generally dwelling upon
the ethical more than the doctrinal side of religion; he nevertheless
insisted upon theological points, following, in his views of salvation,
Bull’s line of thought, as did Burnet, and others of the same school.
There is an hortatory tone in his sermons, approaching in fervour
to that of the Puritans, which, if not in harmony with the taste
of the upper classes in the palmy days of Tillotson’s popularity,
must have commended Stillingfleet’s ministry to the hearts of common
people. In his first Visitation Charge, in 1690, he says there is
“an affected fineness of expression which by no means becomes the
pulpit, but seems to be like stroking the consciences of people by
feathers dipped in oil;” then, after speedily dismissing the subject
of preaching, and condemning extempore sermons, he proceeds, at great
length, to vindicate episcopal order, and to enforce the discharge
of pastoral duties. These topics, with discussions relative to
Ecclesiastical Courts, appear prominently in his episcopal charges.
And his attempts to enforce discipline, his zeal for the Reformation
and authority of Church tribunals, his enforcement of residence on
the Canons of his Cathedral, his protection of the poor, and his care
about the application of charitable funds, are the chief grounds on
which Stillingfleet’s episcopal career is eulogized by his admiring
biographer. It strikes me as unsafe to judge of him simply by what
that writer has advanced. Another and more spiritual aspect of his
character, suggested by his sermons and other productions, is left
untouched in those unsatisfactory memoirs.[367]
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Patrick, made Bishop of Chichester in 1689, and of Ely in 1691, was
a man of inferior ability to Stillingfleet, but of greater learning,
perhaps of higher spiritual mark. Ranked amongst Latitudinarians
through his early connection with John Smith and Henry More, he caught
and infused into some of his writings a Platonic tincture; but as
to the philosophical spirit of inquiry, cultivated in the Cambridge
school, he was a perfect alien. He agreed, with the least moderate
of the class, in a dislike to Puritanism, and went beyond them all
in dogmatic emphasis and Anglican leanings. He distinguished between
traditions to be rejected and traditions to be received--including
amongst the latter, not only primitive testimony as to the transmission
of Scripture, and the settlement of the Canon, but as to the doctrines
of the Faith, and the polity of the Church. He insisted upon the
efficacy of baptism as producing regeneration, and held that ordinance
to be necessary for the salvation of infants.[368] As to the Lord’s
Supper, he dwelt little upon its nature, but much upon its benefits,
and the duty of frequent communion. His published sermons are not
specimens of his general preaching, for they were mostly delivered on
political and other public occasions. Some posthumous discourses on
contentment, and resignation to the will of God, have been preserved,
through accidental circumstances, not on account of any superior
excellence.[369]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
He wrote, besides his Paraphrases and works against Popery, a number
of practical and devout books; amongst them the _Parable of the
Pilgrim_, which might be read with more satisfaction, did it not
provoke humiliating comparisons with Bunyan’s Allegory. The reputation
Patrick enjoyed in his own day for devout composition, suffers greatly
when, in the light of modern taste and criticism, we examine the
forms which he prepared for the revised Prayer Book, contemplated in
1680; but I know of nothing to invalidate the manner in which his
conduct as a Bishop is eulogized. He early appeared as a champion
of the Church of England against Dissent, by publishing what he
called a _Friendly Debate_,--in point of fact, a most unfriendly
production, full of virulent attacks upon those who separated from the
established communion, and even advocating coercion in the service of
Uniformity.[370] The book appeared anonymously in 1668; fifteen years
afterwards, notwithstanding the damaging circumstance that it had been
condemned by Matthew Hale, and praised by Gilbert Sheldon and Samuel
Parker, the author stated his continued opinion that the discourse was
“useful and reasonable.”[371] It may be hoped Patrick repented of what
he had done, for he expressed in the House of Lords “regret for the
warmth with which he had written against the Dissenters in his younger
years;” and Wharton said of him, “After he was made a Bishop, he lost
his reputation through imprudent management, openly favouring the
Dissenters, and employing none but such, whereupon he lost the love of
the gentry.”[372] However, there is evidence, that towards the Baptist
denomination, at least, he continued to manifest a most unfriendly
spirit.
After the Revolution, he expressed concern at finding so little of
unity and concord, when it was natural to expect they would have been
the result of that deliverance. He seems to have become weary of the
world before he left it, and cried out with the Psalmist, “O that I
had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away and be at rest.”
Stillingfleet wrote his _Irenicum_ in 1660, and twenty years after
the _Mischief of Separation_. Patrick advocated intolerance in
1683; and twenty years afterwards, though still retaining some of the
old leaven, uttered words of charity and healing.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
To the class of Cambridge theologians probably belongs John Moore,
consecrated Bishop of Norwich in 1691, who is described as enjoying
Burnet’s confidence, and as being consulted by him in the composition
of his works. But Moore was one of a considerable number who gain a
reputation among friends for ability to do what they never accomplish;
since, according to one of his eulogists, “the world had reason to
expect from him many excellent and useful works,” had not episcopal
duties prevented their being composed. He was also one of a still
greater number in whom the love of books weakens regard for the rights
of property; for according to a critic less friendly to his reputation,
Moore indulged an “avarice in that respect,” which “carried him a step
beyond the sin of coveting.” His library numbered 30,000 volumes,
and was bought, after his death, by George I., as a present to the
University of Cambridge.[373]
Cumberland, made Bishop of Peterborough in 1691, wrote in reply to
Hobbes, a Latin treatise, _On the Laws of Nature_, mentioned
in a former volume, and of him his great grandson Richard says, “He
had no pretension to quick and brilliant talents; but his mind was
fitted for elaborate and profound researches, as his works more fully
testify.”[374] He is known to posterity, and that with faded light,
simply as a philosopher of the Cambridge stamp, and has left no proofs
of pre-eminence in episcopal efficiency; but we may conclude that he
was devoted to his office from the anecdote, that, when in his old age
his friends recommended retirement and rest, he said, “I will do my
duty as long as I can; I had better _wear_ out than _rust_
out.”[375]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Something similar may be said of Fowler, an active opponent of
James’ Declaration, promoted to the See of Gloucester in 1690, whose
exposition of Latitudinarian theology has been described in the
_Church of the Restoration_. His broad views of Christianity, and
his opposition to Popery, recommended him to a Bishopric. He is spoken
of as a very respectable, but not very eminent, Prelate; and what is
curious in connection with his rationalism, he was credited with a
faith in the existence of witches and fairies, “whom he dreaded as much
as the lady upon the seven hills, and all the scarlet train.”[376]
Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had, before he wore a mitre,
passed through circumstances which must have left a deep impress
upon his character, and were calculated to impart moderation to his
episcopal proceedings. He, in 1662, was deprived of his living for not
subscribing to the Prayer-Book, before he could examine it. Approving
of it after examination, he pursued a chequered career, struggling
with poverty, but exhibiting generous dispositions; suffering during
the plague year, but persevering in his spiritual duties; vexed by
Nonconformists in his parish, yet administering the Lord’s Supper
to those who refused to kneel. His autobiography, besides sketching
these circumstances, relates what he did in the way of Visitations,
Confirmations, and Ordinations, and how he was troubled by the conduct
of some of his Clergy, by the behaviour of a physician who courted his
daughter, and by a faction in his diocese who opposed his ordination of
one who had been a Nonconformist.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Kidder paid half his income from the See of Bath and Wells into the
hands of ex-Bishop Ken; and another circumstance is related respecting
him, which places his integrity in a conspicuous light. A message was
sent him by a minister of King William, telling him he MUST
give his vote in Parliament in a certain way. “_Must_ vote!”
“Yes, _must_ vote: consider whose bread you eat.” “I eat no man’s
bread but poor Dr. Ken’s; and if he will take the oaths, he shall
have it again. I did not think of going to the Parliament, but now I
shall undoubtedly go, and vote contrary to your commands.”[377] The
autobiography suggests the idea that Kidder was a well-meaning man,
sometimes wanting in firmness and wisdom. His publications, which are
numerous, include--besides his Boyle Lecture--Tracts against Popery,
and Plain Treatises enforcing the practice of a religious life. The
only sermon of his which I have read, one preached at Court on the duty
of fasting, suggests no high opinion of his pulpit power.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Amongst the Episcopal Divines of William’s reign, only one can be
considered as a decided Puritan. This was John Hall, Master of
Pembroke, Oxford, who retained that position after he became Bishop of
Bristol in 1691,--a poor piece of preferment. He is far less noticeable
as a Bishop than as a Theological Professor, in which capacity,
however, he earned no enviable fame, even in the estimation of those
who sympathized with him in his theological opinions; for Calamy says,
that he brought all the theology of the Westminster Assembly out of
the Church Catechism. He was a good man, laughed at by the wits, but
esteemed for his godliness by pious people.
Nicholas Stratford--possessed of learning, a firm supporter of the
Church of England, and, judging of him by his primary visitation
charge, an earnest preacher and a faithful pastor, bent on the
salvation of souls--succeeded Cartwright in the Bishopric of Chester,
in 1689; and in the same year, John Hough, the Champion of Magdalen,
rose to the episcopal chair of Oxford.[378]
An Archiepiscopal mitre rewarded, at the suggestion of Tillotson in
1691, the staunch Protestantism of Dr. Sharpe, the Dean of Norwich;
and, if we are to believe all the encomiums on his virtues, inscribed
upon his monument in York Cathedral, scarcely ever before did such
a paragon of excellence exist.[379] Notices of him by Thoresby--to
whose conversion from Dissent to Episcopacy, Sharpe had largely
contributed--so far confirm the praise in his epitaph, as to show that
he was diligent, courteous, devout, and kind, and most zealous in
endeavouring to win Nonconformists over to the Church. He is described
as the best of the Bishops who had honoured Leeds with their presence,
“a most excellent preacher, universally beloved.”[380] Samuel Wesley,
who was under great obligations to him, ranked him as a preacher above
Stillingfleet, and even above Tillotson, calling him “a more popular
pulpit orator than either;”[381] but a set-off against these partial
commendations will appear, when we reach the history of Religious
Societies and of Dissenting Academies, and observe the course which his
Grace pursued in relation to them.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry until 1699, when, on the death
of Stillingfleet, the King translated him to Worcester, is described
by Whiston, who received ordination at his hands, as engaging in “a
most uncommon, but vastly improving examination and instruction, in the
Cathedral, beforehand.”[382] Lloyd’s prophetical studies, vindicated by
Whiston, exposed him to a good deal of raillery and satire; Shippen, in
his _Faction Displayed_, saying of him--
“Then old Mysterio shook his silver hairs,
Loaded with learning, prophecy, and years.”
As with other students in the same school, his studies proved labour
lost, for Dr. Johnson relates, that “his writings supplied the kitchen
of his successor with fuel for many years;” but his character defied
detraction, and whilst revered for his virtues, that reverence was
increased by his “learning and longevity.”[383]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Politics, rather than Divinity, recommended men as Bishops under
William III. They were constitutional Whigs sympathizing in the objects
and promoting the interests of the Revolution. The anti-Papal zeal, and
the readiness of most of them to conciliate Nonconformists, gave them
favour in the eyes of both King and Queen; nor should we overlook the
influence of Tillotson and Burnet, the great ecclesiastical apostles of
the period, in the advancement of these brethren. Sharpe’s promotion
was owing to the former, probably Moore’s was owing to the latter.
In point of personal character the new Prelates will bear comparison
with their predecessors. Kidder indeed never enjoyed the reputation
for sanctity possessed by Ken. Tillotson, Tenison, Burnet,
Stillingfleet, Patrick, Cumberland, and Fowler, were in mental power
superior to Sancroft, Thomas, Lake, White, and Frampton; and as to
personal religion, which admits not of precise judgment, there is no
evidence that they were inferior. Stratford might easily surpass the
disreputable Cartwright; the name of Hough is as illustrious as the
name of Samuel Parker is disgraceful, and the name of Timothy Hall
obscure. In political bias, ecclesiastical feeling, and theological
opinion, the new Prelates differed from their predecessors, and must
therefore have imported into their dioceses some new methods of
procedure.[384]
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Another class of Bishops consisted of men who appear in history as
political celebrities.
Compton, Bishop of London, is familiar to the reader as an active
revolutionist, a man of disappointed ambition, and a friend to the
High Church party in Convocation. Having nothing to do with the
Court after Queen Mary’s death, he steps out of historical notice
for a while, spending his time in the quiet discharge of episcopal
functions, and relieving himself in hours of leisure, amidst the
flowers and shrubs of his beautiful garden at Fulham, with botanical
studies, which brought him into scientific correspondence with Ray,
Petiver, and Plunkenet. Other letters of his indicate the active and
zealous part he took in electioneering affairs, seeking to promote
the return of Church candidates;[385] and a charge he delivered
soon after the Revolution, deals largely in warnings against heresy
and schism, Popery and Dissent--with a few milder words at the end
relative to a kind treatment of loving brethren, if “found humble and
of a quiet spirit.”[386] Burnet speaks of Compton as “a generous
and good-natured man, but easy and weak, and much in the power of
others,”[387]--an estimate of his character, copied by Birch and
repeated since; but as to Compton’s imputed weakness, it is right to
remember that Burnet, after his right reverend brother’s alliance with
the High Church party, cannot be regarded as an impartial witness. The
fragment of a Greek inscription upon Compton’s tombstone at Fulham, if
placed there by his request, would indicate a devout appreciation of
the redemptive nature of the Gospel, for the letters which remain are
part of the Apostle’s memorable words, “God forbid that I should glory,
save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
The tergiversations of Trelawny, successively Bishop of Bristol and
Exeter, modify the traditionary laudation of his courage and alacrity,
magnanimity and address, in defence of the just rights and privileges
of the Church; yet I am not aware of anything which contradicts the
statement, that “he was friendly and open, generous and charitable, a
good companion, and a good man.”[388] Atterbury seems to have greatly
admired him, and in the dedication of his own sermons to the Prelate,
he delicately praises him for manifold virtues. The virtue of loyalty
to the existing Government he certainly did not possess.[389]
Of the politics of Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, I have spoken before. It
will suffice to notice him now as a preacher. His style of composition
secured the applause of contemporaries, and Dunton, in one of his
extravagant flights, eulogized the Bishop by saying--
“Nature rejoic’d beneath his charming power,
His lucky hand makes everything a flower,”
“On earth the King of wits (they are but few)
And, though a Bishop, he’s a preacher too.”[390]
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
Respecting his oratory, an amusing anecdote is related by Dr. Johnson.
Burnet and Sprat were rivals. “On some public occasion they both
preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days
an indecent custom; when the preacher touched any favourite topic in
a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed
by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure.
When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and
so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his
handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the
like animating hum; but he stretched out his hand to the congregation
and cried, ‘Peace, peace, I pray you peace.’”[391]
Let the story pass for what it is worth. Both Burnet and Sprat were
men of power; both had at command a flowing and, when they pleased,
a rhetorical style; and both delivered sermons marked by superior
instruction and fervent appeal. Each attended to the method of
delivery, as well as to the substance of thought, a matter to which
Sprat devotes considerable space in an episcopal charge. After urging
the Clergy to set forth the public prayers to “due advantage, by
pronouncing them leisurely, fitly, warmly, decently,” he tells them to
utter their discourses “in a natural, comely, modest, yet undaunted
force of pronunciation;” but he reprobates extempore preaching, no less
than extempore prayer.[392]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Nathaniel Crew, Bishop of Durham, fifth son of the first Lord who bore
that name, succeeded upon the death of his last surviving brother to
the family estate and the title, and therefore was entitled to a seat
in Parliament both as Prelate and Baron. Committed to the worst policy
of James, and for a time excepted from pardon by William, he narrowly
secured his See by taking the oath of allegiance at the last moment,
and was scarcely admitted to Court during the reign of the last-named
Monarch. Handsome features, imposing presence, winning manners, and
princely munificence--although commending him to the affection of
friends and the gratitude of dependants--could not redeem his character
from the consequences incurred by his political conduct, or render him
either a strong or an ornamental pillar of the English Church.
[Sidenote: BISHOPS.]
I pass over Bishops altogether obscure,[393] to notice one who
attained an unenviable notoriety. This was Thomas Watson, Bishop of
St. David’s, who experienced the singular fate of being proceeded
against in the Court of Arches, when he received a sentence of
deprivation. He was convicted of applying to his own use offerings
given at ordinations; receiving what had been bestowed on servants
as gratuities; not administering oaths required by law; ordaining at
other times than the Sundays next Ember weeks; conferring orders
on a candidate below the canonical age; exacting illegal fees; and
demanding excessive procurations. There must have been at the bottom
of these proceedings much more than appears on the surface. He is
reported to have been coarse and violent in his language and conduct,
and to have thereby exposed himself to popular odium; but these were
not the things for which he was tried, nor was he formally accused of
Popish opinions, though, in public estimation, he stood suspected of
Romanist sympathies. He had been made a Bishop by James II., whose
policy he approved, and this circumstance seems to have had much to do
with the issue of his trial. He appealed to the House of Lords against
the sentence of the spiritual court, but the sentence was confirmed.
The case made much noise at the time, and excited a good deal of
controversy. In a _Review_[394] of it published by a friendly
hand, the charges brought against him are pronounced to be false,
the veracity of the witnesses is impugned, and the whole process is
described as a conspiracy carried on by “subordination,” and inspired
by “political motives and inducements of pique and revenge.” The writer
intends to suggest the animus of Watson’s prosecutors, by stating that
he was asked what Papists and Nonjurors came to his house, and whether
he had not drunk the health of King James; and I also find one deponent
declaring that, in the oath of allegiance administered by the Bishop
at an ordination, neither William nor Mary were mentioned by name. I
cannot but think that political feeling prompted the prosecution;
yet, if we look at the characters of such men as Tenison, Patrick, and
others, who united in his condemnation, we must suppose that he had
been guilty of great irregularities in his episcopal office.[395]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
There were to be found distinguished clergymen occupying parochial
cures--clergymen eminent for learning, godliness, and zeal, amidst
the bustle of a London life. Some were Anglican. William Beveridge,
Rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, united with a profound reverence
for antiquity, an attachment to doctrinal truths dear to Puritans.
He insisted upon Episcopacy, Sacraments, the observance of Lent, and
fellowship with the Church of England, and he did this often in a
narrow, hard, exclusive spirit; yet he sometimes preached sermons such
as would be admired by modern Evangelicals.[396] Those published in
six octavo volumes, were regarded at the time as forming a valuable
theological library. They exhibit no closeness of reasoning or sagacity
of remark, no command of illustration, or felicity of style, yet they
are sensible, unaffected, and somewhat forcible, from the manifest
sincerity and earnestness of the author. Beveridge’s _Thoughts on
Religion_ are perhaps the most edifying, certainly the best known of
his works, though they were written when he was a young man; but as to
terseness of expression--not as to breadth of thought--he appears, in
my judgment, to more advantage in his _Ecclesia Anglicana, Ecclesia
Catholica_, a posthumous work on the Articles. In the exposition of
the XI. Article, on Justification, he decidedly follows the Puritan
lead, saying, “It is not by the inhesion of grace in us, but by the
imputation of righteousness to us, that we are justified; as it is
not by the imputation of righteousness to us, but by the inhesion of
grace in us, that we are sanctified.” As to the XVII. Article, on
Predestination, he is cautious, and his quotations would not satisfy,
but they do not condemn, Calvinistic Divines.
[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.]
Down in the pleasant county of Gloucester, at the Rectory of Avening,
George Bull--besides his literary labours, which before the end of
the century won for him such high renown, that he was complimented by
Bossuet--showed himself to be indefatigable in discharging pastoral
duties, putting down country revels, and otherwise aiming at the
improvement of his parishioners.
In Wiltshire, John Norris, an English disciple of Malbranche, held the
living of Bemerton; and, while he practised the quiet virtues of the
parish priest, he selected for the pulpit, subjects of a moral and
spiritual nature, rather than the more distinctive truths connected
with our redemption by Christ; not but that there is a tone in Norris’s
teaching in unison with habits of thought cultivated by modern
Evangelicals.[397] His published discourses, for the most part, are
plain and practical; yet sometimes his handling of topics is such as
to make his readers think that he shot over the heads of the Wiltshire
farmers and peasantry. In Suffolk, William Burkett, Rector of Milden,
added to his ministerial excellence, large-hearted efforts for the
French refugees, and for preaching the Gospel in America. He secured
a long reputation by his _Expository Notes on the New Testament_,
which strongly reflect the opinions of others, and whilst decidedly
Arminian, are more practical than critical. Of a well-known Kentish
clergyman, Stanhope, Vicar of Lewisham, in no sense a party man, Evelyn
remarks: “He is one of the most accomplished preachers I ever heard,
for matter, eloquence, action, and voice.”[398]
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
In closing this list of distinguished clergymen, I would refer to two
men known as ecclesiastical archæologists, rather than as preachers
and pastors. John Strype, Incumbent of Low Leyton, in Essex, then
between fifty and sixty years of age, was just beginning that career
as a biographer and historian, which he prolonged for so many years
afterwards, and for which he had so laboriously amassed materials
during the previous portion of his life. His memoirs of Cranmer,
Smith, and Aylmer, which issued from the press under William III.,
and the large correspondence of the author at the time, preserved in
the University Library at Cambridge, indicate, in connection with his
diligence of research, his busy care respecting ecclesiastical affairs.
Working hard upon black-letter books and hardly decipherable MSS., he
was ready as a rural Dean, at the call of his Diocesan, to arrange
for clerical meetings, or to preach visitation sermons.[399] Henry
Wharton at the same time, though a young man, was closing his course
as a laborious editor and critic, in fact, a martyr to excessive
study; and, in turning over the _Strype Correspondence_, I was
much touched by the following passage, in a letter written to Strype
by one of Wharton’s friends, in reference to a visit paid him at
Canterbury:--“One day he opened his trunk and drawers, and showed me
his great collections concerning the state of our Church, and with a
deep sigh told me that all his labours were at an end, and that his
strength would not permit him to finish any more of the subject.”[400]
[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.]
One clergyman claims separate notice as a foreigner, a poor pluralist,
and an exceedingly popular preacher. Dr. Horneck, a native of
Bacharach--so familiar to all Rhine tourists--held, in conjunction with
a stall at Exeter worth only twenty pounds a year, the preachership
of the Savoy, which afforded but a miserable income. His poverty
ended three years before his death, when, through the united kindness
of Queen Mary and Archbishop Tillotson, he was made Prebendary of
Westminster. But from first to last his ministry was exceedingly
popular; it was no easy matter for him to get through the crowd to
his pulpit. So great was the number of communicants at his church,
that he had to seek the help of clergymen in the delivery of the
bread and wine, “and with such assistance it was very late before the
congregation could be dismissed.”[401] His virtues are extolled in the
epitaph inscribed on his monument in the Abbey.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Leaving men of honourable renown, in order to throw in truthful shadows
amidst grateful lights, I will mention a case of their fanaticism.
It appears in the life of John Mason, Rector of Walter Stratford,
in Buckinghamshire.[402] Holding Predestinarian opinions to such
an extent as to acknowledge no other difference between Judas and
St. Peter than what proceeded from absolute decrees and irresistible
grace; and further believing that it was all one whether a man kept the
commandments or broke them, inasmuch as Christ observed the whole law
on behalf of His people; this strange mortal, who had drunk the dregs
of Antinomianism, added to his absurd caricatures of Calvinism, other
ideas equally extravagant respecting the personal reign of Christ--a
reign which he expected would instantly be set up. So far as extreme
Predestinarianism and Millenarianism are concerned, he may be taken
as typical of a small section of religious teachers living then, not
entirely extinct even now; but he proceeded to the excess of regarding
himself as a favoured recipient of celestial visions. Not long before
his death, he fancied he saw Christ clothed in a crimson garment, His
countenance exceedingly beautiful, with an abundance of sweetness and
great majesty. Relatives indignantly denied a charitable report that
he was mad, and did not doubt he would prove the prophet of the age--a
Noah to warn the world, a John the Baptist to herald in the Messiah, an
Elijah sent before the just and terrible day. Beyond his own circle,
belief in his predictions spread, until nigh a hundred followers from
the country ten miles round came to the rectory, and took up their
abode within and around it, waiting for a revelation, which it was
said came on the 16th of April, 1694, in the manner described. “When
I entered the house,” relates one who wrote an account of his visit,
“a more melancholy scene of a spiritual Bedlam presented itself. Men,
women, and children running up and down, onewhile stretching their
arms upwards to catch their Saviour coming down, others extending them
forward to meet His embraces; a third, with a sudden turn, pretends to
grasp Him; and a fourth clapping their hands for joy they had Him; with
several other antic postures, which made me think that Bedlam itself
was but a faint image of their spiritual frenzies. All this while they
were singing as loud as their throats would give them leave, till they
were quite spent and looked black in the face.”[403] Fanaticism, more
insane than ever possessed any of the Roundhead preachers in Oliver
Cromwell’s camp, thus raged in the person of an episcopal clergyman
under William III. Country folks crowded about his house, his barn,
and his garden; hundreds more are said to have venerated his character
and believed in his prophecies. The story affords an instance of the
wild enthusiasm which it is in the power of extravagant visionaries
to excite, even in an age commonly considered as rationalistic and
cold.[404]
[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.]
It is very remarkable, in casting one’s eye over these sketches, to
notice the absence of the old Puritan party. Hall, of Oxford, as
already noticed, was the only Divine of that class on the Bishops’
Bench; and amongst names of repute belonging to the rest of the
Clergy, not one of the same kind can be produced. I do not deny that
there may be clerical publications of the period marked by Puritan
divinity; I only say that the celebrated authors were of another
description.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
Vigorous and commanding Puritanic thought, such as moved the religious
intellect of England a generation or two earlier, for a time quite
died out in the Establishment. Low Churchmanship had been of the
Puritan type. Montague, Laud, and the like, found their opponents in
Calvinistic clergymen. Now Low Churchmanship took what some would call
a rationalistic form; at any rate its advocates were inspired by a
philosophical theology, rather than by the institutes of Calvin, or the
genius of Geneva. Sancroft and Hicks found their opposites in Tillotson
and Burnet. The Act of Uniformity had clearly done its work, and shut
or kept out teachers akin to Calamy and Marshall. Their theological
spirit, their distinctive evangelical teaching, disappears, so far as
the Established Church is concerned, like the stream of Arethusa, and
flows underground for a considerable space, to burst out once more in a
strong current, a century afterwards.