Sancroft, Dr. William
, an eminent English prelate, was born at Fresingfield, in Suffolk, Jan. 30, 1616,
and educated in grammar-learning at St. Edmund’s Bury,
where he was equally remarkable for diligent application
to his studies, and a pious disposition .*
* Among bishop Tanner’s Mss. in
the Bodleian library is the followingletter from him to his father, dated
Sept. 10, 1641. “I have lately offered up to God the first fruits of that
calling which I intend, having common-placed twice in the chapel $ and
if through your prayers and God’s
blessing upon my endeavours, I may
become an instrument in any measure
tilted to bear his name before his peopie, it shall be my joy, and the crown
of my rejoicing in the Lord. I am
persuaded, that for this end I was sent
into the world, and therefore, if God
lends me life and abilities, I shall be
willing to spend myself and to be spent
upon the work.”
In
July 1634, he
was sent to Emanuel college in
Cambridge, where he became very accomplished in all branches of literature, took
his degree of B. A. in 1637, and that of M. A. in 1641, and
was in 1642 chosen fellow of his college. His favourite
studies were theology, criticism, history, and poetry ,
†† Among his papers at Oxford is a
very considerable collection of poetry,
but Chiefly religious, exactly and elegantly transcribed with his own hand,
while a fellow of Emanuel. Some of
these are from the first edition of Milton’s lesser poems, which Mr. Warton
observes is perhaps the only instance
on record of their having received for
almost seventy years, any slight mark
of attention or notice. Bancroft, adds
Mr. Warton, even to his maturer years,
retained his strong early predilection
to polite literature, which he still continued to cultivate; and from these
and other remains of his studies in that
ursuit, now preserved in the Bodleiau
library, it appears that he was a diligent reader of the poetry of his times,
both in English and Latin. Warton’s
edition of Milton’s Poems, 1785, preface, p. v.
but
in all his acquirements he was humble and unostentatious.
In 1648 he took the degree of B. D. It is supposed he never
subscribed the covenant^ and that this was connived at, because he continued unmolested in his fellowship till 1649;
at which time, refusing the engagement, he was ejected.
Upon this he went abroad, and became acquainted with the
most considerable of the loyal English exiles; and, it is
|
said, he was at
Rome when
Charles II. was restored. He
immediately returned to
England, and was made chaplain
to Cosin, bishop of
Durham, who collated him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, and to the ninth prebend
of
Durham in
March 1661. In the same year he assisted
in reviewing the
Liturgy, particularly in rectifying the
Kalendar and Rubric. In 1662 he was created, by mandamus, D. D. at
Cambridge, and elected master of Emanuel college, which he governed with great prudence. In
1664 he was promoted to the deanery of
York, which although he held but a few months, he expended on the
buildings about 200
l. more than he had received. Upon
the death of Dr.
John Barwick he was removed to the
deanery of St.
Paul’s; soon after which, he resigned the
mastership of Emanuel college, and the rectory of Houghton. On his coming to St.
Paul’s he set himself most diligently to repair that cathedral, which had suffered greatly
from the savage zeal of the republican fanatics in the civil
wars, till the dreadful fire in 1666 suggested the more noble
undertaking of rebuilding it. Towards this he gave 1400
l.
besides what he procured by his interest and solicitations
among his private friends, arid in parliament, where he
obtained the act for laying a duty on coals for the rebuilding of the cathedral. He also rebuilt the deanery, and
improved the revenues of it. In Oct. 1668, he was admitted archdeacon of
Canterbury, on the king’s presentation, which he resigned in 1670. He was also prolocutor
of the lower house of convocation; and was in that station
when
Charles II. in 1677, advanced him, contrary to his
knowledge or inclination, to the archiepiscopal see of
Canterbury. In 1678 he published some useful directions concerning letters testimonial to candidates for holy orders.
He was himself very conscientious in the admission to orders or the disposal of livings, always preferring men of
approved abilities, great learning, and exemplary life. He
attended king
Charles upon his death-bed, and made a very
weighty exhortation to him, in which he is said to have
used a good deal of freedom. In 1686 he was named the
first in
James I I.'s commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but
be refused to act in it. About the same time he suspended
Wood, bishop of
Lichfield and
Coventry, for residing out
of and neglecting his diocese. As one of the governors of
the Charter-house, he refused to admit as pensioner in
that hospital
Andrew Popham, a papist, although he came
| with a nomination from the court. In
June 1688, he joined
with six of his brethren the bishops in the famous petition
to king
James, in which they gave their reasons why they
could not cause his declaration for liberty of conscience to
be read in churches. For this petition, which the court
called a libel, they were committed to the Tower; and,
being tried for a misdemeanor on the 29th, were acquitted,
to the great joy of the nation. This year the archbishop
projected the vain expedient of a comprehension with the
protestant dissenters. We have the following account of
this in the speech of Dr. W. Wake, bishop of
Lincoln, in
the house of lords,
March 17, 1710, at the opening of the
second article of the impeachment against Dr. Sacheverell.
“
The person,” says he, “
who 6rst concerted this design
was the late most reverend Dr. Sancroft, then archbishop
of Canterbury. The time was towards the end of that unhappy reign of king James II. Then, when we were in
the height of our labours, defending the Church of England against the assaults of popery, and thought of nothing
else, that wise prelate foreseeing some such revolution as
soon after was happily brought about, began to consider
how utterly unprepared they had been at the restoration of
king Charles II. to settle many things to the advantage of
the Church, and what happy opportunity had been lost for
want of such a previous care, as he was therefore desirous
should now be taken, for the better and more perfect establishment of it. It was visible to all the nation, that the
more moderate dissenters were generally so well satisfied
with that stand which our divines had made agaiust popery,
and the many unanswerable treatises they had published in
confutation of it, as to express an unusual readiness to
come in to us. And it was therefore thought worth the
while, when they were deliberating about those other matters, to consider at the same time what might be done to
gain them without doing any prejudice to ourselves. The
scheme was laid out, and the several parts of it were committed, not only with the approbation, but by the direction of that great prelate, to such of our divines, as were
thought the most proper to he intrusted with it. His grace
took one part to himself; another was committed to a then
pious and reverend dean (Dr. Patrick), afterwards a bishop
of our church. The reviewing of the daily service of our
Liturgy, and the Communion Book, was referred to a select
number of excellent persons, two of which (archbishop | Sharp, and Dr. Moore) are at this time upon our bench
and I am sure will bear witness to the truth of my relation.
The design was in short this: to improve, and, if possible,
to inforce our discipline to review and enlarge our Liturgy, by correcting of some things, by adding of others
and if it should be thought adviseable by authority, when
this matter should come to be legally considered, first in
convocation, then in parliament, by leaving some few ceremonies, confessed to be indifferent in their natures as indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed
by those who made a scruple of them, till they should be
able to overcome either their weaknesses or prejudices,
and be willing to comply with them.” In
October, accompanied with eight of his- brethren the bishops, Sancroft
waited upon the king, who had desired the assistance of
their counsels; and advised him, among other things, to
annul the ecclesiastical commission, to desist from the exercise of a dispensing power, and to call a free and regular
parliament. A few days after, though earnestly pressed
by his majesty, he refused to sign a declaration of abhorrence of the prince of Orange’s invasion. In
December,
on king
James’s withdrawing himself, he is said to have
signed, and concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal,
in a declaration to the prince of Orange, for a free parliament, security of our laws, liberties, properties, and of
the church of
England in particular, with a due indulgence
to protestant dissenters. But in a declaration signed by
him Nov. 3, 1688, he says that “
he never gave the prince
any invitation by word, writing, or otherwise;” it must
therefore have been in consequence of the abdication that
he joined with the lords in the above declaration. Yet
when the prince came to St.
James’s, the archbishop neither
went to wait on him, though he had once agreed to it, nor
did he even send any message.
** Bishop Nicolson, in one of his
letters lately published, seems to hint
that Sancroft was more active in promoting the revolution than has been
supposed. After censuring him for not
paying his respects to the new king,
Ricolson says, tf I should rather choose
to follow him in the more frank and
open passages of his life, than in this
unaccountably dark and mysterious
instance; especially, since I had tacitly consented to his seizing the Tower
of London, and his address to the prince
of Orange to accept the government."
Nicolson’s Epistolary Correspondence, by Mr. Nichols, 2 vols. 8vo, 180?.
vol. I. p. 11.
He absented himself
likewise from the convention, for which he is severely censured by Burnet, who calls him “
a poor-spirited and fearful man, that acted a very mean part in all this great
|
transaction. He resolved,” says he, “
neither to act for, nor
against, the king’s interest; which, considering his higli
post, was thought very unbecoming. For, if he thought,
as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the
nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it
was a strange thing to see one who was at the head of the
church to sit silent all the while that this was in debate,
and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking,
voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly be.came his character.”
After William and Mary were settled on the throne, he
and seven other bishops refused to own the established government, from a conscientious regard to the allegiance
they had sworn to king James. Refusing likewise to take
the oaths appointed by act of parliament, he and they
were suspended Aug. 1, 1689, and deprived the 1st of
Feb. following. On the nomination of Dr. Tillotson to
this see, April 23, 1691, our archbishop received an order,
from the then queen Mary, May 20, to leave Lambethhouse within ten days. But he, resolving not to stir till
ejected by law, was cited to appear before the barons of
the exchequer on the first day of Trinity-term, June 12,
1691, to answer a writ of intrusion; when he appeared by
his attorney; but, avoiding to put in any plea, as the case
stood, judgment passed against him, in ihe form of law,
June 23, and the same evening he took boat in Lambethbridge, and went to a private house in Palsgrave-headcourt, near the Temple. Thence, on Aug. 5, 1691, he
retired to Fresingfield (the place of his birth, and the estate [50l. a year] and residence of his ancestors above three hundred years), where he lived in a very private manner,
till, being seized with an intermitting fever, Aug. 26, 1693,
he died on Friday morning, Nov. 24, and was buried very
privately, as he himself had ordered, in Fresingfield churchyard. Soon after, a tomb was erected over his grave, with
an inscription composed by himself; on the right side of
which there is an account of his age and dying-day in Latin; on the left, the following English: “William Sancroft, born in this parish, afterwards by the providence of
God archbishop of Canterbury, at last deprived of all,
which he could not keep with a good conscience, returned
hither to end his life, and professeth here at the foot of his
tomb, that, as naked he came forth, so naked he must return: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away (as the | Lord pleases, so things come to pass), blessed be the name
of the Lord.” The character Burnet has given of him is
not an amiable one, nor in some respects a true one ,*
* Burnet was out of humour with
the archbishop for not procuring him
access to the Cotton collection when he
was preparing his History of the Reformation; but on this subject see a
curious note on Dean Swift’s “Preface
to the bishop of Sarum’s Introduction.”
Works, edit. 1801, p. 384.
yet
he allows, what none could deny, that archbishop Sancroft
was a good man. He bestowed great sums of money in
charity and endowments, and was particularly bountiful to
Emanuel college in
Cambridge: and he certainly gave the
strongest instance possible of sincerity, in sacrificing the
highest dignity to what he thought truth and honesty; and
although his opposition both to
James II. and William
III.
may appear rather irreconcileable, we have the testimony
of those who knew him best, that he did every thing in the
integrity of his heart .
†† Some particulars of his sickness
are related in a pamphlet printed at
London, 1694, in 4to, with this title:
“A Letter out of Suffolk to a friend in
London; giving some account of the
last sickness and death of Dr. William
Sancroft, late lord archbishop of Canterbury.” We are informed by bishop
Kennet, that as he lay upon his death
bed, and one of his former chaplains,
Mr. Needham, came to him, he gave
him his blessing very affectionately,
and. after some other talk, said thus
to him, “You and I have gone different ways in these late affairs; but
I trust heaven-gates are wide enough
to receive us both. What I have done,
I have done in the integrity of my
heart.” Upon the gentleman’s modest
attempt to give an account of his own
conduct, he replied, “I always took
you for an honest man. What I said
concerning myself was only to let you
know, that what I have done, I have
done in the integrity of my heart, indeed in the great integrity of my hart.”
Though of considerable abilities and uncommon learning, he published but very little. The first thing was a
Latin dialogue, composed jointly by himself and some of
his friends, between a preacher and a thief condemned to
the gallows; and is entitled, 1. “Fur Prsedestinatus sive,
dialogismus inter quendam Ordinis proedicantium Calvinistam etFurem ad laqueum damnatum habitus,” &c. 1651,
12mo. It was levelled at the then-prevailing doctrine of
predestination. An edition was published in 18 13; and
a translation in the following year, by the rev. Robert
Boucher Nickolls, dean of Middleham, with an application
to the case of R. Kendall executed at Northampton Aug.
13, 1813. 2. “Modern Politics, taken from Machiavel*
Borgia, and other modern authors, by an eye-witness,”
3652, 12mo. 3. “Three Sermons,” afterwards re-printed
together in 1694, 8vo. 4. He published bishop Andrews’s
“Defence of the vulgar Translation of the Bible,” with a
preface of his own. 5. He drew up some offices for Jan.
| 3O, and May 29. 6. “Nineteen familiar Letters of his to
Mr. (afterwards sir Henry) North, of Mildenhall, bart. both
before, but principally after, his deprivation, for refusing
to take the oaths to king William III. and his retirement to
the place of his nativity in Suffolk, found among the papers
of the said sir Henry North, never before published,” were
printed in 1757, 8vo. In this small collection of the archbishop’s “Familiar Letters,” none of which were probably
ever designed to be made public, his talents for epistolary
writing appear to great advantage. He left behind him a
multitude of' papers and coUections in ms. which upon his
decease came into his nephew’s hands; after whose death
they were purchased by bishop Tanner for eighty guineas,
who gave them, with the rest of his manuscripts, to the
Bodleian library. From these the Rev. John Gutch, of
Oxford, published in 1781, 2 vols. 8vo, various “Miscellaneous Tracts relating to the History and Antiquities of
England and Ireland,” &c. 1
1 Biog. Brit. Hen. Dict. Burnet’s Own Times. Birch’s TiMotson. Cole’s
ms Athens in Brit. Mus. Wilford’s Memorials, p. 342. Wartou’s Miltou.
familiar Letters, 1757, Bvg. Outch'a “Collectanea Curiosa.”
![[the book]](../../g/21M49GDKV9L._SL160_.jpg)
