Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

extent he was employed. The forms of prayer prepared for the 30th of January, and the 29th of May, have been sometimes attributed to his pen, but Dr. D'Oyly is of opinion that this supposition rests on no competent authority.

Bishop Burnet accuses him of having drawn up these forms in so high a strain, that they were rejected; and of having, when afterwards Archbishop, procured the substitution of his own forms, in place of those originally adopted. But Dr. D'Oyly has, we think, very satisfactorily refuted this charge. The form for the 30th January, stands now, with very immaterial exceptions, precisely in the same state as it did at first: and the office for the 29th May, which was at first composed with a view to the birth as well as the restoration of Charles II. both which events happened on the 29th May, was necessarily altered after his death, in order to make it commemorative solely of the restoration of the royal family.

"It is true," adds the biographer, "that some further alterations and substitutions took place at this time; and perhaps it may be allowed that mention is made in the new office of the rebellion, and those concerned in it, in stronger terms than had been done in the former office, and this is probably the foundation of Burnet's assertion, that an office was adopted of a higher strain.' These alterations were of course made under Archbishop Sancroft's authority, although the fact of their having been introduced by himself, rests only on the statement of Bishop Burnet *." Vol. I. p. 116.

Preferment now flowed in rapidly upon Sancroft. He was successively appointed chaplain to the restored monarch, Rector of Houghton le Spring and Canon of Durham,

[ocr errors]

"In one of the prayers, in the present office for the Restoration of the Royal Family, is the following expression, which has been objected to from the studied alliteration: Such workers of iniquity as turn religion into rebellion, and faith iato faction.' This expression, however, was not new, when first inserted in the Laturgy in Archbishop Sancroft's time, but was adopted from a work, called the Rebels' Catechism, published in 1643. The passage from which it is taken is as follows:"17 Quest. Is it not lawful to bear arms against sovereign princes for the preservation of religion? Ans. Yes, for those men who place religion in rebellion, and whose faith is faction.”—See the Rebels' Catechism, composed in an easy and familiar way, to let them see the heinousness of their offence. &c. 4to. p. 12. This Catechism is understood to have been composed by some of Charles's more eminent divines, among others by Drs. Hammond and Gauden. Notwithstanding the opinion of Bishop Burnet, others have judged that the offices for January 30 and May 29, were improved under Archbishop Sancroft. The forms for the 30th of January and 29th of May were altered much for the better by Archbishop Sancroft, and some others, in James the Second's reign."-See case of a Rector refusing to preach a Visitation Sermon, &c. by John Jobuson, Vicar of Cranbrook." London. 1721..

VOL. XVI. JULy, 1821.

Master of Emanuel College, and Dean of York. The Mastership of his College was bestowed upon him in a manner peculiarly grateful to his feelings: for, as he states himself, it was quite unexpected, and he knew nobody in the College, his acquaintance being quite worn out. He seems to have owed the appointment entirely to the high estimation in which his character was held; and his conduct in the office justified the choice. For he appears to have applied. himself dilgently, and with characteristic prudence, to the restoration of the discipline of the house; anxiously considering the best means of filling it with respectable and learned inmates; and devising plans for the improvement of its buildings; to which, though he did not hold the Mastership long enough to carry his objects into effect under his own superintendance, he was afterwards a munificent contributor, having presented the College with nearly £600 towards the expence of erecting a new chapel.

He retained the deanery of York only ten months, when he was removed to the more lucrative and important station of Dean of St. Paul's: and, in this situation, he was employed in preparing for the substantial reparation of that ancient, and now miserably dilapidated Cathedral, when the great Fire of London completed the destruction of the venerable fabrick.

"From repairing an old and decayed church, Dr. Sancroft's attention and exertions were now to be directed to the more important design of erecting a new one; and it seems to have been owing at least as much to him as to any single individual, that the plan was ultimately adopted of erecting a proud and noble structure worthy of that great metropolis, of which it has ever since been the most distinguished ornament, under an architect who did honour to the age and country in which he lived." Vol. I. p. 139.

Dr. D'Oyly has extracted several letters from Wren's Parentalia, which shew the interest taken in the work by the Dean, and his anxiety that it should be undertaken upon a scale suited to the reputation of the city, and the wealth and power of the nation. The funds for the purpose were provided, partly by private subscription, and partly by an act of parliament, which appropriated to the building the proceeds of a tax to be levied upon every chaldron of coals brought to the port of London. Dr. Sancroft contributed no less a sum than £1400 to the private subscription. He also provided for the restoration of the Deanery, which had suffered from the fire in common with the Cathedral; and, ander the authority of an act of parliament, which enabled

him to raise money by leasing out a portion of the ground connected with the site for a term of 60 years, he rebuilt the house and premises at a cost of £2500.

Dr. Sancroft continued at St. Paul's for thirteen years, attending with meritious industry to the immediate duties of his station, and embracing every opportunity afforded him of promoting the interests of the church, and of religion in general; when, on the decease of Archbishop Sheldon, towards the close of the year 1677, he was raised very unexpectedly to himself and the public, to the archiepiscopal throne.

"It is the most probable supposition that he did not owe his exaltation in any great degree, if at all, to private favour or recommendations, but principally or entirely to his character, which pointed him out as the person best qualified to adorn the station, and to support its dignity. It is stated, and probably with truth, in a narrative of his life *, that his zeal, candour and learning, his exemplary behaviour in a lower state, his public spirit in so many scenes of life, his constancy in suffering, his unbiassed deportment, all concurred to recommend him as a fit governor of the church in that turbulent age." Vol. I. p. 151.

Bishop Burnet injuriously insinuates that Sancroft owed, his elevation to the opinion entertained by the Court, "that he was a man who might be entirely gained to serve all their ends, or at least that he would be an unactive speculative man, and give them little opposition in any thing that they. might attempt, when they had more promising opportunities +." But such remarks which call forth the just indignation of Dr. D'Oyly, reflect more disgrace upon the historian, than on the calumniated primate. We have hitherto found no action of his life recorded which induces us to believe, that any thing could have gained him over to serve an illegal purpose; or that he would so far forget the duties of his station, as to become an inactive spectator of designs tending to the injury of that Church, of whose interests he was now become the spiritual guardian. It is indeed probable that the Duke of York may bave preferred him to others, whose situation in the Church had given them opportunities which Sancroft never enjoyed, of opposing the intrigues of the Roman Catholic faction at court. And as Bishop Compton who was personally obnoxious to the Duke on this account, had been named as likely to succeed to the vacant Archbishoprick, he might have been instrumental in

"See Lives of English Bishops, by Nathanael Salinon.-p. 60."
+"Burnet's Own Times, vol. i. p. 392."

promoting Sancroft's elevation, rather with a view to the exclusion of an active opponent, than to the appointment of one whom he could hope to make the tool of his purposes. Certain it is, as Dr. D'Oyly observes, that, if the Duke of York, or any other person recommended him to the primacy under such a view of his character as Bishop Burnet represents, they were completely deceived: for it was afterwards sufficiently proved, that he was deficient neither in zeal nor in exertion; and that the government of the Church was intrusted to a watchful guardian of its welfare, and an intrepid defender of its rights and privileges.

Widely are they mistaken who imagine that the primacy of the Church of England is, at any time, a station of dignified ease or a mere splendid sinecure. Even in the most tranquil times, it entails upon its possessor duties of the most arduous kind; and a responsibility from which the firmest mind might be excused from shrinking. But Sancroft was raised to this perilous dignity at an hour of peculiar difficulty; when the reigning Monarch was deeply, and as it has since appeared, justly suspected of attachment to the superstitions of the Romish communion; and the presump tive heir to the crown was known to be a bigoted member of that corrupt Church..

It has been incontrovertibly proved, that Charles II. was at this time, not only himself in secret a member of the Romish Church, but that he was actually engaged in a plan to establish that religion in his kingdom. It is true, that the whole of the immediate and pressing danger was not then fully known; and that the fears of the nation were more excited by the open apostacy of James, than by the more concealed, and perhaps less sincere predilections of his royal brother. Charles had probably little serious intention of carrying the nefarious design into effect, for which he consented to become the pensioned hireling of a foreign despot. His primary, perhaps his only object was the acquisition of those sums which were necessary for the support of his guilty pleasures, and to maintain the herd of flatterers and profligates by whom he was surrounded.

But the Duke of York was in earnest in the cause he had undertaken; and he was sure of the connivance and secret countenance, if not of the open and active assistance of the King. Few situations could be less enviable than that of the primate; who had to maintain his ground, and support the cause of the Church, against the example of a licentious court on the one hand, which threatened to sweep away the very semblance of religion; and the indefatigable hostility of

popish emissaries on the other, who were striving to build up their own bloody and intolerant superstition on its ruins.

One of the first undertakings in which Archbishop Sancroft engaged after his elevation, shewed, that discouraging as were the prospects around him, he was not inclined to be an inactive observer of the measures of the Court; though, perhaps, it exhibited his Christian zeal in a more conspicu-ous light than his knowledge of human nature. His anxious desire to avert the evils, both civil and religious, likely to be entailed on the nation by the Duke's devoted attachment to the Romish Faith, induced him to make an attempt at his conversion. And having gained the King's permission, who suggested, that the aged Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Morley, would be a proper person to be associated with him on the occasion, he solicited and obtained from the Duke the favour of an audience for the purpose.

"We cannot suppose," says Dr. D'Qyly, "that, with the knowledge which he must have had of the Duke's character, he formed any sanguine expectations of succeeding in his purpose; but he probably felt it matter of conscientious duty, to try what he could effect in a matter, in which success would be attended with the most valuable and important consequences." Vol. I. p. 161.

Some hopes, however, the good Archbishop must have bad, or he would not have engaged in so thankless and bazardous an office: and it seems more consistent with the simplicity and sincerity of his character to imagine, that he really conceived that the attempt might be made with reasonable prospects of success, and that the Divine blessing might. render his hearty endeavours effectual to this very desirable end; than to suppose, that he undertook it merely to satisfy his own censcience by having made the experiment, and with little expectation of any other beneficial result from the conference. Dr. D'Oyly give us his address to the Duke at full length, from Clarendon's Appendix. It is earnest, zealous, and spirited; but more dogmatical than is consistent with persuasion. And, when at this distance of time we coolly peruse it; although we readily admit, that the most forcible of the Archbishop's expressions did not exaggerate the errors and enormities of that communion, which he was urging his Royal auditor to renounce; we can scarcely repress a smile, at the simplicity which endeavoured to convert a most bigoted Papist, by characterizing his adopted Church as the "proudest, the cruellest, and the most uncharitable Church in the world;" and stigmatizing his spiri

« AnteriorContinuar »