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]
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]
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.
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]
1688–1702.