Sancroft, William (DNB00)
|←Sancho, Ignatius||Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 50
|Sandale, John de→|
|1904 Errata appended.|
SANCROFT, WILLIAM (1617–1693), archbishop of Canterbury, second son of Francis Sandcroft of Fressingfield, Suffolk, and Margaret, daughter and coheiress of Thomas Butcher or Boucher, was born at Fressingfield on 30 Jan. 1616–17 (the archbishop always spelt his surname without the ‘d’ at the end of the first syllable). He came of an old yeoman stock which had long owned lands in Suffolk, but which did not obtain the right to bear arms till the grant to his brother and himself (26 Jan. 1663). His uncle, William Sandcroft, was master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 1628–37, and planned and carried out the first large extension of the college, the ‘Brick Building’ (see Emmanuel College Mag. vol. i. No. 2).
William was sent to the grammar school of Bury St. Edmunds, and early showed an aptitude for learning. A commonplace-book begun when he was quite young is full of extracts from Greek and Latin, as well as English poetry (Tanner MS. 465). He was admitted to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, on 10 Sept. 1633, with his elder brother Thomas, and was matriculated on 3 July 1634. He graduated B.A. in 1637, M.A. in 1641, and B.D. in 1648. In 1642 being elected fellow he became tutor of the college, and he held during residence the offices of Greek and of Hebrew reader (cf. Tanner MSS. 60, 63, 66, &c.; Remarks of his Life, prefixed to Sermons, 1703, p. xii). In 1644 he was bursar of the college. He was patronised by Dr. Ralph Brownrigg, bishop of Exeter. His high character and the influence of Brownrigg enabled him to retain his fellowship until 1651 (Tanner MS. 54, No. 148).
For the next nine years Sancroft resided chiefly with his brother at Fressingfield, and sometimes at Triplow, engaged in literary work, and with ‘no company except that of mine own thoughts.’ In 1651 he published ‘Fur Prædestinatus, sive Dialogismus inter quendam Ordinis Prædicantium Calvinistam et Furem ad laqueum damnatum habitus,’ London, 8vo. An English translation appeared in 1658. It was a vigorous attack on Calvinism as subversive of morality, with reference to the works of all the leading Calvinist doctors. Birch (Life of Tillotson, p. 160) says, without giving his authority, that this was a joint composition with ‘Mr. George Davenport and another of his friends.’ Shortly afterwards Sancroft published ‘Modern Policies taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other choise Authors by an Eye-witness,’ of which a seventh edition appeared in 1657. It was dedicated to ‘my lord R. B. E.’ (Ralph Brownrigg, bishop of Exeter), and is an indictment of the religion and politics of the Commonwealth. ‘All newes in religion, whether in Doctrine or Discipline, is the common skreen,’ he says, ‘of private design.’ In 1655 he saw through the press, and wrote a preface (not obscurely censuring the innovations of ‘a new and fifth monarchy, a new and fifth gospel’) to the collation of the Vulgate undertaken by John Boys, at the wish of Bishop Andrewes [London, 1655]. Meanwhile he was in correspondence with the most notable of the exiled churchmen abroad, and assisted the poorer royalist clergy out of his own purse (cf. Harleian MS. 3783, ff. 103, 105).
In 1657 he went abroad, stayed at Amsterdam and Utrecht, was noticed by the Princess of Orange (mother of William III), and then started with his friend Robert Gayer for a southern tour by Spa, Maestricht, Geneva, Venice, Padua, to Rome. At Padua he was entered a student of the university (Gutch, Collect. Curiosa, vol. i. p. xxix). At Rome he heard of the Restoration, and his friends were urgent for his return, the bishop of Derry offering him the chaplaincy to Lord Ormonde, with valuable preferments. On 8 May 1660 he was chosen a university preacher at Cambridge, and on his return to England he became chaplain to Cosin, at whose consecration, with six other bishops, in Westminster Abbey, on 2 Dec. 1660, he preached a sermon on the office of a bishop and the divine origin of the apostolic ministry (London, 1660). He was employed in the Savoy conference, and is said to have been especially concerned in the alteration of the calendar and rubrics (Kennett, Register, pp. 574, 632; also Cal. of State Papers, Dom. Charles II, Addenda, 1660–70, p. 523). Cosin gave him the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, to which he was instituted on 7 Dec. 1661, and on 11 March 1662 he was collated to a prebend in Durham Cathedral. He became also in 1661 one of the king's chaplains. While resident in Durham he made large collections concerning the antiquities of the county, which proved of great assistance to subsequent historians (Hutchinson, Durham, ii. 206). He proceeded D.D. at Cambridge per literas regias in 1662.
The fellows of Emmanuel, despite their puritanic sympathies, remembered Sancroft's learning and high character, and when Dr. Dillingham vacated the mastership on 24 Aug. 1662, by refusing to take the oath ordered by the Act of Uniformity, Sancroft was elected to the post on 30 Aug. ‘Beyond all expectation,’ he wrote, ‘I am come back to the college where I knew nobody at all, my acquaintance being wholly worn out.’ He found the college in sad plight, and the university much decayed in learning. With the benefaction of a deceased master, Dr. Houldsworth, he set about the conversion of the old chapel into a library, and he procured plans for a new chapel, to which he subscribed liberally (nearly 600l.); it was finally completed under his successors. On 8 Jan. 1664 he was nominated by the king to the deanery of York. He was installed by proxy on 26 Feb. (Cal. of State Papers, Dom. Charles II, 1663–4, p. 461). ‘This dignity he held but ten months, and in that time he expended in building and other charges 200l. more than he received. He made a rental of the church of York, and brought the accounts of it (before wholly neglected) into order’ (Le Neve, Bishops, i. 199; see Harleian MS. 3783, ff. 137, 141).
On the death of Dr. John Barwick (1612–1664) [q. v.], Sancroft was nominated to the deanery of St. Paul's (Harleian MS. 378, f. 109), and was installed on 10 Dec. 1664. He thereupon resigned the rectory of Houghton, and shortly afterwards the mastership of Emmanuel. He continued to take great interest in the college, giving to it a large proportion of his books when he left Lambeth in 1691, and the presentation of the benefice of Fressingfield, with endowments for a chaplaincy at Harleston (cf. Emmanuel College Magazine, vol. vii. No. 1, pp. 49–52; Emmanuel College MSS.).
In his new office he applied himself at once to the restoration of St. Paul's Cathedral. During the plague he was at Tunbridge, whither he had been advised to go by his physician ‘long before any plague was heard of’ (Letter of Dr. Barwick, 5 Aug. 1665, Harleian MS. 3783, f. 19). On 27 July 1666 he viewed the cathedral with Christopher Wren, the bishop of London, and others, and decided upon the erection of a ‘noble cupola, a forme of church building not as yet known in England, but of wonderfull grace’ (Evelyn, Diary, i. 371). The great fire necessitated the rebuilding of the whole cathedral, and to this Sancroft devoted his energies for many years. He contributed 1,400l. himself and raised large contributions from others, and entered minutely into the architectural as well as the financial aspects of the work. He was excused his residence as prebendary of Durham in consequence of the ‘perpetual and close attendance required’ on the commission for the rebuilding, nothing being done ‘without his presence, no materials bought, nor accounts passed without him’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom., Charles II, Addenda, 1660– 1670, 10 and 11 Nov., 1670, pp. 522–3; see also Lex Ignea, or the School of Righteousness, a sermon preached before the king, 10 Oct. 1666, by W. Sancroft, London, 1666; Register of Dean of St. Paul's; Wren, Parentalia; Dugdale, History of St. Paul's). He also rebuilt the deanery, which had been burnt down (Familiar Letters of W. Sancroft, 1757, p. 21), at a cost of 2,500l., and he added to the diaconal revenues. It is said to have been largely by his exertions that the Coal Act was passed, which rendered the restoration of the cathedral possible within so short a time. In September 1668 he refused the bishopric of Chester, desiring to carry out the rebuilding of St. Paul's (Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on Manuscripts of S. H. Le Fleming, esq. p. 59). On 7 Oct. 1668 he was admitted archdeacon of Canterbury. He resigned in 1670, and he was in that year prolocutor of the lower house of the convocation of Canterbury. It was about this time that Sheldon entrusted to Sancroft the publication and translation of Laud's ‘Diary’ and history of his trial; but Sancroft's appointment to the primacy caused him to lay this task aside. In 1693 he resumed it, and was actually engaged on it when he was seized with his last illness. By his directions the work was undertaken by his chaplain, Henry Wharton, who completed it in 1694 (Wharton, Introduction to the History of the Troubles and Tryal, &c., London, 1695).
Sheldon died on 9 Nov. 1677, and a month later Sancroft was chosen to succeed him. Gossip said that he was ‘set up by the Duke of York against London [Henry Compton, bishop of London], and York put on by the papists’ (Wood, Life and Times, ed. Clark, ii. 397). Burnet says that the court thought that he might be entirely won to their ends. But no one charged him with personal ambition. Dryden notices him in ‘Absalom and Achitophel’ as
Zadock the priest, whom, shunning power and place,
His lowly mind advanced to David's grace.
He was consecrated on 27 Jan. 1678 in Westminster Abbey; Le Neve (Bishops, &c. i. 200) says in Lambeth Palace chapel. One of his first acts was an endeavour to win back the Duke of York to the English church; the king suggesting that Bishop Morley of Winchester should assist him. On 21 Feb. 1679 they waited on the duke in St. James's, and the archbishop addressed him in a long speech (printed in D'Oyly's ‘Life of Sancroft,’ i. 165 sqq.). His efforts were quite ineffectual.
In the ecclesiastical duties of his office Sancroft was assiduous and energetic. In August 1678 he issued letters to his suffragans requiring more strict testimonies to candidates for ordination. He had the courage to suspend Thomas Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, a protégé of the Duchess of Cleveland, for neglect of duty (document printed from the ‘Archbishop's Register’ in D'Oyly, i. 194–6). When Charles was on his deathbed Sancroft visited him and spoke with great ‘freedom, which he said was necessary, since he was going to be judged by One Who was no respecter of persons’ (Burnet, ii. 457).
The day after James II's accession to the throne (7 Feb. 1685), Sancroft, with other prelates, visited him to thank him for his declaration of respect for the privileges of the established church. A few days later the king repeated his promise, with a significant warning. ‘My lords,’ he said to Sancroft and Compton, ‘I will keep my word and will undertake nothing against the religion established by law, assuming that you do your duty towards me; if you fail therein, you must not expect that I shall protect you. I shall readily find the means of attaining my ends without your help’ (cf. Ranke, Hist. Engl. iv. 219). Sancroft on 23 April 1685 crowned the new king according to the ancient English service; but the communion was not administered (Tanner MS. 31, f. 91: Sancroft's own memoranda for the coronation). The first step of the new king was to prohibit ‘preaching upon controversial points’ (Evelyn, Diary, 2 Oct. 1685; Life of James II, ii. 9). James next established a high commission court, to which he appointed as clerical members the archbishop, Lord Crewe, bishop of Durham, and Sprat, bishop of Rochester. Sancroft declined to serve, on the grounds of his great age and infirmities (Tanner MS. 30, f. 59). Burnet severely condemns his conduct, saying that ‘he lay silent at Lambeth … seemed zealous against popery in private discourse, but he was of such a timorous temper, and so set on enriching his nephew, that he showed no sort of courage’ (History of his own Time, iii. 82). But as a matter of fact the archbishop showed courage in declaring that he would not take part in a spiritual commission of which a layman (Jeffreys) was the head; he minutely investigated the legality of the new court, and decided against it (see a mass of autograph papers, Tanner MS. 460). It appears that there was some thought of summoning him before the commission (D'Oyly, i. 233), and that he was henceforth forbidden to appear at court. On 29 July 1686 he recommended to the king candidates for election to the bishoprics of Chester and Oxford and to the deanery of Christ Church (Tanner MSS. 30, f. 69), but in no case was his advice accepted. The see of Oxford, for which he recommended South, was given to Samuel Parker (1640–1688) [q. v.]
Meanwhile the archbishop was assiduous in the duties of his see. In 1682 he had undertaken a metropolitical visitation, in which he had made a minute examination of each diocese (see Tanner MS. 124). He continued to collect information on all points of historical and antiquarian interest affecting his see and the church (see Tanner MS. 126, entirely concerned with ancient hospitals). He put out orders to check the celebration of clandestine marriages, on a report from the high commission. He was intimately concerned in protecting the privileges of All Souls' College, Oxford (Burrows, Worthies of All Souls'), and in establishing the position of the university printers (Gutch, Collectanea Curiosa, i. 269–85). He entertained men of learning (cf. wood, Life and Times, iii. 159), and did his utmost to promote distinguished scholars in the church.
At length he was compelled to enter upon an open contest with the king. He had already refused to order the clergy to give up the afternoon catechising, which James declared to be directed against his religion (Ranke, iv. 293–4, from Bonnet's manuscript), and had joined in the refusal of the governors of the Charterhouse to admit a papist on the king's orders, contrary to law. On 4 May 1688 the council ordered all clergy to read in church the king's declaration of liberty of conscience. Sancroft immediately summoned a meeting of the most prominent clergy, with the Earl of Clarendon and others, to consider the situation. Several meetings took place, of which Sancroft left copious memoranda (see Tanner MSS., especially 28). The decision was that the order should not be obeyed—not, in Sancroft's words (Tanner MSS. 28, f. 50), from ‘any want of tenderness towards dissenters, but because the declaration, being founded on such a dispensing power as may at pleasure set aside all laws ecclesiastical and civil, appears to me illegal,’ and was in fact so declared in 1672.
A petition was then drawn up and signed by Sancroft and six other bishops (Draft petition, Tanner MSS. 28, f. 34; actual petition with signatures, 18 May, f. 35; another copy with additional signatures, f. 36; a full account of the petition, and the proceedings thereon, f. 38; all in Sancroft's own hand). The six bishops presented the petition to James, Sancroft being still forbidden to appear at court.
On 27 May Sancroft and the six bishops were summoned before the council on 8 June, and after repeated examination, and on declining to enter into a recognisance to appear in Westminster Hall to answer a charge which was not specified, were committed to the Tower. Here crowds flocked to them with expressions of sympathy and offers of assistance. The Prince and Princess of Orange had already congratulated Sancroft on his firmness. On 15 June the bishops appeared before the king's bench, and were released on bail till 29 June, when they were put on their trial on a charge of seditious libel. The defence followed the lines which had been already sketched by Sancroft, and the verdict of ‘not guilty,’ which was delivered at 10 o'clock in the morning of 30 June, was received with universal enthusiasm (the proceedings of the trial were published in folio in 1689, and in octavo in 1716; Tanner MS. 28 contains full account of the expense. Sancroft's share was 260l. 16s. 8d.). Sancroft made a design for a medal to commemorate the trial (Tanner MS. 28, f. 142) The archbishop immediately after his acquittal drew up instructions for the bishops ‘of things to be more fully insisted upon in their addresses to the clergy and people of their respective dioceses,’ in which he enjoined great care against ‘all seducers, and especially popish emissaries,’ and ‘a very tender regard to our brethren the protestant dissenters’ (Tanner MS. 28, f. 121, afterwards printed). He engaged also in a scheme of comprehension with the dissenters (Wake, in Sacheverell's Trial), which was unsuccessful, and put out a ‘warning to the people’ (Tanner MS. 28, f. 153) against ‘deceivers,’ that is, papal vicars and bishops in partibus.
When the king perceived his danger, it was Sancroft who, on 3 Oct. 1688, headed the deputation which advised him to revoke all his illegal acts, abolish the high commission, and restore the city charters (the original manuscript of his speech, much corrected, in Tanner MS. 28, f. 189). He was ordered to prepare prayers for the restoration of public tranquillity (Tanner MS. 28, f. 192), which, Burnet says, ‘were so well drawn up that even those who wished for the prince might have joined in them.’ On 22 Oct. he was present at the examination of witnesses at Whitehall to ‘clear the birth of’ the Prince of Wales (William Penn to Lord Dartmouth, Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on Earl of Dartmouth's MSS., p. 170). When the news of the project of William of Orange became known, he had several interviews with James, and drew up a declaration that he had never invited or encouraged the invasion (original draft in Tanner MS. 28, f. 224, 3 Nov. 1688), but persistently refused, after a long wrangle, to join in any declaration of abhorrence or repudiation of the declaration that had been put out in the name of William (Tanner MS. 28, f. 159). On 17 Nov. he went to the king, with the archbishop-elect of York and the bishops of Ely and Rochester, to urge the summoning of a ‘free parliament’ (draft petition in Tanner MS. 28, f. 250; printed in ‘A Compleat Collection of Papers relating to the great Revolutions in England and Scotland,’ &c., London, 1689; Gutch, Collectanea Curiosa, vol. i.).
After the king's flight Sancroft signed, with other peers, the order to Lord Dartmouth to abstain from any acts of hostility to the Prince of Orange's fleet (Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on Dartmouth MSS., p. 229). He signed also the declaration of 11 Dec. 1688, by which a meeting of peers at the Guildhall called upon William to assist in procuring peace and a ‘free parliament.’ This was the last public action undertaken by Sancroft. When he saw that William was resolved to procure the crown for himself, he withdrew from all association with proceedings by which he might appear to break his oath of allegiance. On 16 Dec. he saw James for the last time at Whitehall, and from that moment he took no step which might even indirectly forward the revolution, withdrawing altogether from public business. On 18 Dec. 1688 the university of Cambridge elected him their chancellor, but he declined to accept the honour. When the Prince of Orange entered London, Sancroft alone among the prelates did not wait upon him. His friends vainly urged him to attend the House of Lords. James wrote to him from France expressing his confidence in him. He engaged in constant discussion at Lambeth on public affairs, and wrote long statements and arguments concerning the political questions at issue (Tanner MS. 459). His papers show him to have been in favour of declaring James incapable of government, and appointing William custos regni. He declared that it was impossible lawfully to appoint a new king; ‘and if it be done at all, it must be by force of conquest.’ On 15 Jan. 1689 a large meeting of bishops, lay peers, and others was held at Lambeth. On the 22nd the Convention met and voted the throne vacant. Sancroft was not present. On the day when the new sovereigns were proclaimed, Henry Wharton, his chaplain, misunderstanding his instructions, prayed for William and Mary in the chapel. Sancroft, ‘with great heat, told him that he must thenceforward desist from offering prayers for the new king and queen, or else from performing the duties of his chapel, for as long as King James was alive no other persons could be sovereigns of the country’ (D'Oyly, i. 435, from Wharton's ‘Diary’).
On 15 March 1689 he issued a commission which virtually empowered his suffragans to perform the coronation. On 23 March he wrote to Lord Halifax, speaker of the House of Lords, to excuse his attendance which had been ordered on the 22nd (Lords' Journals, xiv. 158), saying that since his refusal to sit on the high commission, and James's command to him not to attend at all, he had never been out of doors save when he was forced, and for the last five months he had not been so much as into his garden, and that he could not cross the river without great detriment to his health (State Papers, William and Mary, 1689–90, p. 38; Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on MSS. of House of Lords, 1689–90, p. 39; original manuscript in Tanner MS. 28, f. 381). He still continued to exercise the ecclesiastical functions of his office (cf. Cal. State Papers, William and Mary, 1689–90, p. 58), but he prepared for what must follow. ‘Well,’ he said to a friend, ‘I can live on 50l. a year.’
On 1 Aug. 1689 he was suspended, on 1 Feb. 1690 deprived, with five bishops and about four hundred clergy. Shortly after this he joined with the other nonjuring bishops in putting out a flysheet (‘A Vindication of the Archbishop and several other Bishops from the imputations and calumnies cast upon them by them Author of the “Modest Enquiry,”’ London, 1690, one leaf), denying all sedition or intrigue with France, and appealing to their past resistance to ‘popery and arbitrary power.’ Burnet states that some efforts were made by the court to make a settlement with him, and it appears that he received the revenues of his see till Michaelmas 1690.
Tillotson was publicly nominated his successor on 23 April 1691. Sancroft did not leave Lambeth. He packed up his books, told his chaplains that they had better leave him—which they declined to do, though they ‘differed from him concerning public matters in the state’—dismissed most of his servants, and gave up the public hospitality which it was the practice of the archbishops, down to the time of Howley, to offer to all comers. On 20 May he received a peremptory order from the queen to leave Lambeth within ten days. Highly indignant, he determined not to stir till he was forced by law. He had intended to leave his books to the library of the archbishops; he now changed his mind. He was cited to appear before the barons of the exchequer on 12 June to answer a writ of intrusion. His attorney endeavoured to delay the case, but avoided any plea which would recognise the new sovereigns, and accordingly judgment was passed against him on 23 June. That evening he left Lambeth and went to a private house in the Temple. There he remained in retirement, still attended by his chaplains, and waited on by many friends, till 3 Aug. He made no complaint; and when Lord Aylesbury wept to see his state so changed, he said, ‘O my good lord, rather rejoice with me; for now I live again.’ On 5 Aug. he arrived at Fressingfield, his birthplace, where he had been building a small house for himself. His letters to Sir Henry North show him to have lived there quietly, busied with his books and papers and with the completion of his house, watching public affairs with a keen eye, but taking no part in any plots against the government. On 23 Dec., when accusations were very freely bandied about against him, he wrote: ‘I was never so much as out of this poor house, and the yards and avenues, since I came first directly from London into it; and I never suffered our vicar or any other, not even my chaplains when they were here, so much as to say grace when I eat; but I constantly officiate myself, “secundum usum Lambethanum,” which you know, and never give the Holy Sacrament but to those of my own persuasion and practice’ (Familiar Letters, 1757, p. 25). In May 1692 a forgery, perpetrated by Blackhead and Young, seemed likely to involve him, with Bishop Sprat of Rochester, in a charge of high treason; but it was soon disproved.
By this time he had determined to preserve the succession in the nonjuring body. On 9 Feb. 1691 he executed a deed delegating the exercise of his archiepiscopal authority to William Lloyd (1637–1710) [q. v.], the deprived bishop of Norwich (manuscript at Emmanuel College). He appears, too, to have joined in the preparation for the consecration of new nonjuring bishops, though the first consecration took place after his death. He continued to receive visits from his friends, to add to his collection of antiquarian records, and on occasion to confirm privately in his own chapel (Emmanuel College Mag. vol. i. No. 2, p. 44), and to minister to nonjurors. He devoted his last days to the preparation for the press of the ‘Memorials of Laud.’ On 25 Aug. 1693 he was attacked by fever; in November he died. He had lived, says Wharton, like a hermit, was much wasted, and wore a long beard. To the last he would communicate only with nonjurors, and in his last moments he prayed for King James, the queen, and prince. He was buried in Fressingfield churchyard on 27 Nov., where a tomb was erected, with an inscription by himself.
A number of portraits of Sancroft exist, among the most interesting being that by Bernard Lens [q. v.] at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Two drawings—one by David Loggan and the other in crayons by E. Lutterel—are in the National Portrait Gallery. There are engravings by Vandergucht the elder, R. White, and Sturt. Of his manuscript remains, a few letters, his deed of resignation, and a number of documents connected with his gifts, are at Emmanuel College. Further collections are at Lambeth and at the British Museum (Harl. MSS. 3783–5, 3786–98, &c.). But the largest proportion of manuscripts belonging to and written by him are in the Tanner MSS. at the Bodleian Library.
No character, at the stormy period during which he lived, was judged more differently by partisans. Burnet, who much disliked him, says that he was ‘a man of solemn deportment, had a sullen gravity in his looks, and was considerably learned … He was a dry, cold man, reserved and peevish, so that none loved him, and few esteemed him’ (History of his own Time, edit. 1753, ii. 145). Of his action at the time of the revolution Burnet adds that ‘he was a poor-spirited and fearful man, and acted a very mean part in all this great transaction’ (ib. iii. 283). Antony Wood at first calls him ‘a clownish, odd fellow’ (Life and Times, ed. Clark, ii. 400), but soon became intimate with him as an antiquary, and grew to love and respect him. As a man of learning his industry was prodigious; the mass of his correspondence in the Tanner MSS. is enormous. The opinions of Hearne (pref. to Otterbourne, p. 45) and Nelson (Life of Bull, 1713 edit. pp. 354–6) are very different from that of Burnet, and the charge of moroseness is fully refuted by the style of his familiar letters, which are pleasant, chatty, and jocose. He was munificent in charity, living himself always in the strictest simplicity. Needham, who lived with him from 1685 to 1691, says: ‘He was the most pious, humble, good Christian I ever knew in all my life. His hours for chapel were at six in the morning, twelve before dinner, three in the afternoon, and nine at night, at which time he was constantly present, and always dressed. He was abstemious in his diet, but enjoyed a pipe of tobacco for breakfast, and a glass of mum at night’ (Cole MSS., quoted by D'Oyly, ii. 69; cf. ‘Some Remarks’ of his ‘Life,’ prefixed to his Sermons, 1703, p. 29). On his deathbed he repeated more than once, ‘What I have done, I have done in the integrity of my heart.’ His nature was ‘pure, deep, poetical, and religious’ (Ranke, iv. 345; cf. Le Neve, Bishops, &c. i. 205–8). In an age of the greatest political profligacy no charge could be brought against his honour. As theologian and politician he was a disciple of Andrewes and Laud. He was the last of the old school of ecclesiastical statesmen, as Tillotson was the first of the new.[Tanner MSS.; manuscripts of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, with information kindly supplied by the bursar of the college; D'Oyly's Life, 2 vols. 8vo, 1821; Biographia Britannica, 1760, vol. v.; Le Neve's Lives of the Bishops of the Church of England since the Reformation, i. 197–220; Burnet's History of his own Time; Wood's Life and Times; Lathbury's History of the Nonjurors; Gutch's Collectanea Curiosa; Hearne's Diaries, Works; Cal. State Papers, Dom.; Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports; Emmanuel College Mag.; Ranke's History of England, vol. iv.; Macaulay's History of England; Tryal of the Seven Bishops, 8vo, London, 1716; many news-sheets and pamphlets of the time; Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy; Somers Tracts.]
|244||ii||29||Sancroft, William: for fellow and tutor read fellow; he became tutor|
|245||i||29||for select preacher read university preacher|
|249||ii||17||for Vandergucht, Elder read Vandergucht the elder|