_The Original Draught of the Primitive Church_, 8vo. Lond. 1717, written
in reply to _An Inquiry into the Constitution and Discipline of the
Primitive Church_, by Mr. Peter King, afterwards Lord Chancellor [from
1725 to 1733], and Baron King of Ockham, is usually attributed to Mr.
William Sclater. Respecting this writer, whose work attained and has
preserved considerable celebrity, and respecting others of his name, I
forward some Notes which I have met with, and beg anxiously to solicit
others from your correspondents.
In Lathbury's _History of the Nonjurors_, cap. vii. p. 303., he is thus
mentioned:
"Sclater at length stepped forth [to reply to King's _Inquiry_],
and it is said that King was not only convinced by his arguments,
but that he made him an offer of a living in the Church of
England. Sclater was a nonjuring clergyman; consequently he could
not accept preferment in the Anglican Church, which involved the
taking the oath of allegiance. All the arguments in King's book
were considered with the greatest candour and ability. The author
was a man of singular modesty, of unaffected piety, and of
uncommon learning, of which this work affords abundant evidence."
Dr. Hinds, the present Bishop of Norwich, in his _History of the Rise
and early Progress of Christianity_, Preface, page xv., 1st edit., thus
speaks:
"Lord King wrote his once celebrated _Inquiry_ in an honest and
candid spirit, as the result testifies; but his research was
partial, and led him to adopt the congregational principle of the
Independents. In Mr. Sclater's reply, principles scarcely less
erroneous may be pointed out; yet, as far as the controversy went,
he was right, and his opponent, by an act of candour perhaps
unexampled, acknowledged himself convinced, and gave Sclater
preferment for his victory."
Lord Campbell, however, in his _Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. iv. p.
369., discredits the idea of this conversion. He says:
"This work [the _Inquiry_] made a great sensation, passed through
several editions, and called forth many learned and able answers,
particularly one by a nonjuring clergyman of the name of Sclater,
which is said (_I believe without authority_) even to have made a
convert of King himself."
These are the only notices of Sclater which have fallen in my way.[1] I
should remark, that his _Original Draught_ is anonymous. He merely
styles himself "a Presbyter of the Church of England."
[Footnote 1: [We have met with two other accounts of the
Chancellor's conversion, both varying in a few particulars with
the extracts given by our correspondent. Archdeacon Daubeny, in
his work on _Schism_, p. 235., says, "Lord Chancellor King was at
one time of his life so determined an advocate for
Presbyterianism, and considered himself so perfectly acquainted
with the merits of that subject, that he published a book upon it.
To this book an answer was written by one Sclater, a clergyman,
under the title of _A Draught of the Primitive Church_, which
brought the point at issue within a short compass, and decided it
in the most satisfactory manner. This book the author did not live
to publish. It happened, however, that the author's manuscript
after his death, came into the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who
was so perfectly satisfied with its contents, that he published
Sclater's manuscript at his own expense, as the strongest proof
that could be given to the world of the alteration of his own
views on the subject in question." The other version occurs in the
_Gentleman's Mag._ for Oct. 1792, p. 910.:--"There is a
circumstance relating to Lord King's book, and Mr. Sclater's
answer to it, very little known, but which to me comes vouched
with unquestionable authenticity. Before Mr. Sclater's book was
published, it was read in manuscript by Lord King himself, it
having been seized, among other papers, in the house of Mr.
Nathanael Spinkes, a Nonjuring bishop, and carried to Lord King,
then Chancellor, who very politely returned it, confessing that it
was a very sufficient confutation of those parts of his book which
it undertook to answer; that it was written with equal Christian
temper and moderation, and unanswerable strength of argument; and
desiring or consenting that it might be published."--ED.]]
Of another William Sclater I find two notices in _Miscellanies of
Divinitie divided into three Books, by Edvvard Kellet, Doctour of
Divinitie, and one of the Canons of the Cathedrall Church of Exon_, fol.
Cambridge, 1635:
"Melchisedec was a figure of Christ, and tithes by an everlasting
law were due to the priesthood of Melchisedec, as is unanswerably
proved by my reverend friend (now a blessed saint, Doctor
Sclater), against all sacrilegious church-robbers."
B. i. c. v. p. 83.
Again:
"When that man of happy memory, the late right Reverend, now most
blessed Saint, Arthur Lake, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells [from
1616 to 1626], appointed Doctour Sclater (now also a saint in
Heaven, then my most loving friend, and sometime fellow-collegian
in the two royall colledges at Eaton and Cambridge) with myself to
confer with an Anabaptisticall woman, we heard her determine great
Depths of Divinitie as confidently as ever St. Paul did, though he
was taught by Christ himself, and as nimbly as ever an ape crackt
nuts," &c.
_Ibid._ c. viii. p. 151.
This Dr. William Sclater, then, was of Eton, and Fellow of King's
College; was the author of a work on Tithes; and probably beneficed in
the diocese of Bath and Wells during the episcopate of Lake, who
preceded Laud in that see. To him also we may probably ascribe _The
Exposition on the first three Chapters of Romans_, published by a person
of this name in 1611. As in 1635 he is spoken of as dead, he could, if
connected at all with the author of _The Original Draught_, hardly have
been his father. He may have been his grandfather.
There is another Sclater, who may have been father of Lord King's
opponent,--Dr. Edward Sclater, who in 1686 published _Consensus Veterum;
or the Reasons for his Conversion to the Catholic Faith_. He was
incumbent of Esher and of Putney, and, as such, obtained a curious
dispensation from all pains, penalties, and forfeitures of non-residence
on his benefices, accompanied by a license to keep a school, and to take
"boarders, tablers, or sojourners," direct from the king, James II. This
document may be found in Gutch's _Collectanea Curiosa_, No. 36., vol. i.
p. 290.; and the concurrence of its date (May 3, 1686) with that of the
_Reasons for his Conversion_ is of ominous significancy. In 1687 he
published another work, entitled _The Primitive Fathers no Protestants_;
to which Edward Gee replied in his _Primitive Fathers no Papists_, in
1688. Several other tracts, addressed by Gee to this convert to the
religion of the sovereign, show that there must have been a smart and
long-continued controversy between them.[2]
[Footnote 2: [On the 5th of May, 1689, being Rogation Sunday, Dr.
Edward Sclater made a public recantation of the Romish religion,
and was readmitted into the bosom of the English Church, in the
chapel at the Savoy. The sermon was preached by Burnet, the
newly-consecrated Bishop of Salisbury. (Wood's _Athenæ_, vol. iv.
p. 700. (Bliss.))--ED.]]
Having contributed all that I can collect respecting the Sclaters, I
should be obliged to any of your correspondents who may be able to add
any further notices, or to show whether they were connected or not as
members of the same family.
Dr. Edward Kellet is mentioned by Wood, in _Fasti Oxonienses_, anno
1616, as rector of Ragborough and Croscombe, in Somersetshire. There is
no place in Somersetshire of the former name, but there is one which
bears the latter. I conceive, therefore, this to be a misprint for
_Bagborough_ and _Crowcombe_, parishes nearly contiguous in the western
part of the county.
The _Gentleman's Magazine_ for February 1841 contains a notice of a work
by Edward Kellet, entitled _Tricoenium Christi in nocte proditionis suæ:
The Threefold Supper of Christ_, &c.: folio, Lond. 1641. His antipathy
to tobacco must have been worthy of that of good King James himself;
for, starting from the Feast of the Passover, he delivers the following
violent counter-blast against the weed, and those who use it:
"The earth, ayre, and water afford not enough for their gluttony,
and though sawcy Art second Nature, nor eye nor desire is
satisfyed: the creatures groane under this grosse abuse: these are
swinish Epicures, prodigal consumers of God's blessings. Tobacco,
the never unseasonable Tobacco, the all-usefull Tobacco, good for
meate, drinke, and cloathing; good for cold, heate, and all
diseases, this must sharpen their appetites before meate, must
heate it at their meate, being the only curious antepast, sauce,
and post-past; wine and beere must wash downe the stenche of that
weede, and it again must dry up their moyst fumes."
To revert to the Sclaters, or to a name _idem sonans_. In the Hutton
Correspondence, as published by the Surtees Society, at p. 65., is a
letter of remonstrance, dated "10 Maye, 1582," addressed to Francis
Walsingham, by the Chapter of York, respecting a dispensation that had
been granted to "Mr. Doctor Gibson;" and among the signatures appears
that of George Slater, who, "as one of their companie," had been
despatched to deal personally "for the quietinge of the matter" with the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Huntingdon, then President of
the North Mountstone.