The most unworthy Bishop in this reign was Thomas Wood, who, on the death of Hacket, in 1671, received the see of Lichfield and Coventry. His elevation is attributed to the interest of the infamous Duchess of Cleveland, whose favour he secured by contriving a match between his niece and ward, a rich heiress, and the Duke of Southampton, the Duchess' son. There appears to have been some hesitation respecting this exercise of patronage even in the mind of Charles himself;[724] and the result of it confirmed the worst apprehensions of Wood's unfitness for the Episcopal office, for he entirely neglected his duties, and constantly lived out of his diocese. The money which he received from the heirs of his predecessor to help him in building a palace, he appropriated to his own purposes; and, under the pretence of preparing for the erection, cut down a quantity of timber, which he sold, putting the proceeds of the sale into his own pocket. His scandalous conduct incurred suspension—a rare circumstance indeed in the history of the Episcopal bench: and the form of his suspension is preserved in Sancroft's Register, amongst the Lambeth Archives. From this suspension the delinquent was relieved in 1686, although no improvement took place in his conduct.[725]
BISHOPS.
The prelates whom I have noticed were consecrated a few of them before the Civil Wars, some of them shortly after the Restoration, all of them a considerable time before Sheldon's death in 1677. The study of their characters, therefore, throws light upon the administration of Church affairs up to the year just mentioned. There are, moreover, two other Bishops, consecrated within three years before Sheldon's death, who claim a passing notice. The Episcopal influence of the first was brief, that of the second lengthened and somewhat peculiar. The first is Dr. Ralph Brideoake, who had been chaplain in the Earl of Derby's family, and had witnessed the heroism of the Countess during the siege of Latham House; but made of different material from her Ladyship, he submitted to the times, held the Vicarage of Witney in Oxfordshire, and of St. Bartholomew by the Royal Exchange, under the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding his having so far complied with the existing powers as to accept the office of a Commissioner for trial and approbation of ministers, he obtained at the Restoration, by another form of subserviency, first, the Living of Standish in Lancashire; next, the Deanery of Salisbury; and at last, in 1674, the Bishopric of Chichester, holding with it in commendam a Canonry at Windsor. There, in 1678, he died and was buried.[726] The second of these two Bishops was Dr. William Lloyd, who matriculated at Cambridge, and was successively Vicar of Battersea in Surrey, Chaplain to the English Merchants' Factory at Portugal, and Prebendary of St. Paul's. He attained to the Episcopal Bench in 1675, first presiding over the see of Llandaff; then being translated in 1679 to the see of Peterborough, and in 1685 being translated to Norwich. All which I can say of his character is that he is praised by Salmon, the admiring biographer of the Bishops after the Restoration.[727]
1662–1677.
BISHOPS.
Such is the substance of what I have been able to gather respecting the lives and characters of the Caroline prelates. They were far from being all alike. Charges are brought against them as a class, which individuals amongst them do not deserve. They were not all of the same disposition, although they all identified themselves with the same system. The reader will have noticed that facts prove Sheldon, Ward, Morley, and Cosin to have been more or less what Anglicans would esteem strict disciplinarians—what Nonconformists, and others beside them, will more justly pronounce religious persecutors; and what we know of Hacket, Wren, and Gunning, will show that they held principles adapted to make them like those of their brethren who have just been named. It should be remembered, however, that prelates had no longer the power they once possessed. They could not do what their predecessors had done before the Restoration; for the High Commission Court was abolished, the ex officio oath could no longer be administered, and certain penalties once inflicted could be repeated no more. All the Bishops now mentioned suffered in the Civil Wars: yet Hacket retained the living of Cheam throughout the troubles; Ward took his degree at Oxford, and became president of Trinity College before the Restoration; and Gunning's ministry as an Episcopalian was winked at by Oliver Cromwell. Wilkins, Reynolds, Pearson, Croft, Laney, and Earl were more or less indulgent to Puritan clergymen within the Church, and not so unfriendly to those outside, as some others were;—and it may be mentioned, that the first three held academic or ecclesiastical preferment under the Commonwealth; and the last three were compelled to sacrifice emolument and endure hardship. Passing over the worst or the least known of the Bench, what shall be said of the best and most renowned? They were men of ability, of learning, of unimpeachable morals, hospitable and kind, orthodox and devout; but is there one amongst them to whom posterity can point as possessing, in an eminent degree, the true Episcopal faculty,—the gift of spiritual overseership, of a deep insight into Christ's truth, into God's providence, and into men's souls? Is there one who excelled in folding the sheep which were lost?—one who struck the world's conscience, making it feel how awful goodness is? Richard Baxter was far from perfect, nor did he possess qualifications adapted to the administration of a diocese; but had he accepted the mitre which he refused, would he have found sitting by his side an equal in spiritual power?
1662–1677.
We have now reached a point where it is wise to inquire into the state of the clergy after the Restoration. It is seen what sort of men the diocesans were; we ought to inquire what sort of men ministered in their dioceses. Publications of the day bear witness to the fact, often overlooked, that there were clergy in the Establishment whose sympathies leaned towards Puritanism.[728] The Bishop of Bristol had much trouble with a person of this description, a Prebendary of the cathedral, who describes the conduct of his diocesan in the following manner:—"He citeth me afresh on pains of suspension; and tells me, at my appearance, that I was a saucy, proud fellow; of a Presbyterian hypocritical heart; upbraiding my preaching, praying, speech, face, and whole ministry, very opprobriously, before all the people."[729] Complaints occur of conforming Nonconformists, as wearing neither girdle nor cassock, being à la mode and in querpo divinus—as setting up miserable readers to make the Liturgy contemptible, and as engaging for an hour in extempore prayer. They preached over, it is alleged, "the old one's notes," full of cant about "indwelling, soul-saving, and heart-supporting;" they "affected a mortified countenance," and "set the Sabbath above holidays," and "a pure heart above the surplice," and were men "overflowing with the milk and honey of doctrine, instead of the inculcation of honesty and obedience and good works."[730]
CLERGY.
From these and other circumstances it appears that the Act of Uniformity did by no means accomplish all its purposes. Some were Conformists only in name. The fact is, that whilst the Act drove out all the best and most eminent of the Puritan class, there still were many, of a pliable nature, who having opposed Episcopacy, and sworn to the Covenant, and adopted the Directory, were content to nestle under the wings of the Anglican Church, as soon as she arose, like a Phœnix out of its ashes.