CHAPTER XXV.
Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, died on the 9th of November, 1677. Illustrations have been afforded of his influence and activity at the time of the Restoration, of his conduct during the plague year, of the course which he adopted in relation to the great ecclesiastical questions of his day, and of the general spirit of his clerical policy;—but some further notice is requisite of the character of a man, who took so conspicuous a part in the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church of England.
BISHOPS.
1662–1677.
Sheldon, according to Burnet, was esteemed a learned man before the Wars, but he was now engaged so deep in politics, that scarce any prints of what he had been remained. He was a very dexterous man in business, had a great quickness of apprehension, and a very true judgment. He was a generous and charitable man. He had a great pleasantness of conversation, perhaps too great. He had an art, which was peculiar to him, of treating all who came to him in a most obliging manner, but few depended much on his professions of friendship. He seemed not to have a deep sense of religion, if any at all; and spoke of it most commonly, as of an engine of Government and a matter of policy. By this means, the King came to look on him as a wise and honest clergyman.[671] An admission to the same effect is made unconsciously by Samuel Parker, the Archbishop's chaplain and friend. For, after affirming that Sheldon was a man of undoubted piety, he observes, "that though he was very assiduous at prayers, yet he did not set so high a value upon them as others did, nor regarded so much worship, as the use of worship, placing the chief point of religion in the practice of a good life." The ideas of a man's character conveyed by language of this sort must be interpreted by our knowledge of the writer; and, knowing what we do of Parker, we are justified in regarding what he says as a confirmation of Burnet's opinion. To use an expression which occurs in a letter from Henry VII. on the transition of Wareham from London to Canterbury—Sheldon showed himself to be largely endued with "cunning and worldly wisdom."[672] Genial and social in his habits he maintained a splendid hospitality,[673] and in all his intercourse it was apparent that he had seen much of mankind, thoroughly understood human nature, and knew exactly how to make himself agreeable to those whom he wished to please. Addicted to a free-and-easy manner of living, inconsistent with the character of a clergyman, he is reported as having on particular occasions sanctioned some very vulgar buffoonery at the expense of the Puritans.[674] Keen, clever, polite, and politic, knowing well how to compass his ends, he manifested at the same time his utter destitution of those moral impulses, noble motives, and spiritual aims, which, above all, ought to guide men who profess to be the ministers of Jesus Christ. Sheldon seems to have been fitted to grace a drawing-room, to sustain the position of a country gentleman, and to take a part in State affairs, but he was plainly unfit to preside over the Church of England. His half-recumbent figure, as represented on his monument in the parish church of Croydon—before the fire—his round face resting on his left hand, his countenance not of severe expression, but rather genial, easy, and good-humoured, and his gracefully-flowing robes, are all in harmony with the idea of a man of luxurious habits, and of pleasant manners: but the mitre on his head is out of place, and he has no business with the crozier at his side.[675] His course of life as a steady, persistent, heartless persecutor of Nonconformists eclipses his courtesies and charities. He was not a persecutor of the same school with Laud of Canterbury, or Cyril of Alexandria. No strong convictions of doctrine, no zeal for discipline, influenced him in his proceedings against Dissenters, and he must be reckoned as having belonged to that most odious class of persecutors "who persecute without the excuse of religious bigotry."[676] He hated Nonconformists mainly on three grounds. As a man of the world, he was averse to their profession of spiritual religion, being totally unable to understand it, looking at it, as he did, through the medium of prejudices which caricatured its noblest qualities; and he was also exasperated at what he deemed a pharisaical assumption on the part of Christians who advocate what are called "evangelical" views, and who insist upon what they style purity of communion. As a Royalist, Sheldon identified his opponents with the cause of Republicanism, and believed, or professed to believe, that they were all bent upon doing to Charles II. what some of them, or their predecessors, had done to Charles I. And, lastly, as an Episcopalian, who had himself suffered from Presbyterians and Independents, he determined to pay back in full what he owed—both capital and interest.
BISHOPS.
It is essential to our forming a correct estimate of the state of the Church after the Restoration, that we should examine what we can find respecting the character of others who occupied the Episcopal Bench, inasmuch as they must have been largely responsible for the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, and it is convenient for us here to pause for that purpose. To whatever party an author may belong, he finds it easy to idealize these dignitaries, and to give general impressions of them, favourable or unfavourable, according as his prejudices, working upon slight materials, may influence his imagination. But I decidedly prefer in what I shall say of the Caroline prelates, to confine myself to such reliable information as I can discover, rather than to indulge in generalities; and I lament, that after the best endeavours to acquaint myself with the subject, the knowledge I possess with regard to some of these persons is so scanty, that my accounts of them will afford the historical student but little satisfaction.
The selection of a principle of arrangement in this portion of our history is not without difficulties. Perhaps, on the whole, instead of adopting an alphabetical list of names, or a chronological series of characters, or a geographical distribution of sees, it will be better to take the occupants of the Bench according to their importance, and to select first the most prominent.[677]
1662–1677.