of Marlborough, who resided at Blenheim. He frequently visited her there, and was made one of her executors. In 1748 Mrs. Secker died, leaving no issue. In 1750 he was installed dean of St. Paul's, in succession to his friend Butler, who was made bishop of Durham. This again was a sort of exchange, made at the instance of the lord chancellor, Hardwicke. Secker resigned St. James's and his prebend at Durham in favour of a friend of the chancellor's. In 1758, in spite of his breach with the court, he became archbishop of Canterbury, being confirmed at Bow Church on 21 April. He was reconciled to George II before that king's death, and with his successor, whom he had baptised, confirmed, crowned, and married, he was a favourite. George III gave him in 1761 a miniature of himself, which descended through the bishop's niece to the Rev. Secker Gawthern, of Car Colston. For ten years Secker filled the post of primate creditably, if not brilliantly. In his later years he suffered severely from the gout. He died of a caries of the thigh-bone on 3 Aug. 1768, and was buried in a covered passage leading from Lambeth Palace to the north door of Lambeth church. At his own request neither monument nor epitaph was placed over his remains.
Secker was a favourable specimen of the orthodox eighteenth-century prelate. He had a typical horror of ‘enthusiasm,’ and deprecated the progress of methodism, though he was alive to its earnestness and piety, and did not persecute its adherents. His early training probably enabled him to distinguish between the attitude of the Wesleys and that of the dissenters. John Wesley declares that Secker was acquainted with every step they took, and never regarded their movement as a secession. Secker's remarks on methodism in his charges show great discernment, and for that very reason were not likely to please any party. On the other hand, he had no sympathy with the whig theology of the time, and spoke of the ‘Hoadleian divinity’ as ‘Christianity secundum usum Winton.’ He was not beyond his age in the matter of pluralities, thinking it no shame to hold a valuable living and a prebend, or an important deanery, in conjunction with a bishopric. But on almost all public questions he was on the side of enlightenment and large-hearted charity. Anti-Jacobite though he was, he protested against the persecution of the Scottish episcopal clergy after the rebellion of 1745. He was strongly in favour of granting the episcopate to the American church [see Sharp, Granville], following in this, as in many points, the example of his friend Butler; and he incurred great disfavour both in England and in America by advocating the scheme. Not long before his last illness he defended indignantly the memory of his old friend Butler from the absurd charge that he had died a papist (cf. Secker's three letters signed ‘Misopseudes’ in St. James's Chron. 1767). He was foremost in opposing the Spirituous Liquors Bill of 1743, which unquestionably wrought much mischief. He supported the repeal of the Jews' Naturalisation Bill of 1753, but so reasonably that fanatics thought he was arguing against the repeal. Though unbending as a churchman, he had the happy knack of disentangling the personal from the theological side of the question, and maintained friendly relations with many leading dissenters, such as Doddridge, Watts, Leland, Lardner, and Chandler. He was liberal with his money, and very happy in his family relations. He showed the potency of his friendships, among other ways, by cheerfully undertaking the rather thankless task of revising and correcting his friends' writings. Butler's ‘Fifteen Sermons’ and ‘Analogy’ are said to have had the benefit of his revision; certainly Dr. Church's ‘Answer to Middleton,’ and ‘Analysis of Lord Bolingbroke's Works,’ and Dr. Sharpe's ‘Answer to the Hutchinsonians’ were corrected by him. On the other hand, he is said to have been somewhat stiff and reserved to those with whom he could not sympathise. He certainly made several enemies. Horace Walpole is particularly bitter against Secker, bringing outrageous charges against him; and a less reckless writer, Bishop Hurd, in the well-known ‘Life of Warburton’ prefixed to his edition of Warburton's ‘Works,’ depreciates Secker's learning and abilities. Bishop Porteus defended his old friend and benefactor against both writers. Other champions were Bishop Thomas Newton, who describes him as ‘that excellent prelate,’ and Mr. Johnson of Connecticut, who thought ‘there were few bishops like him;’ while William Whiston, who disagreed with his views, called him ‘an indefatigable pastor.’ Even Horace Walpole owns that he was ‘incredibly popular in his parish.’
As a writer Secker is distinguished by his plain good sense. The range of his knowledge was wide and deep. He was a good hebraist, and he wrote excellent Latin. The works which he has left to the Lambeth library are valuable quite as much from his manuscript annotations as for their own worth. Judging by his printed sermons, one would hardly rank him among the great pulpit orators of the English church. But he
