« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
This Worthy prelate was born at Chichester, of a good family, in 1,582, and educated at Merchant Taylor's School, in London, from whence he removed to St. John's college, Oxford, of which he became fellow in 1598. In 1603 he took, the degree of bachelor of civil law, being about that time a student of Gray's Inn; but soon after he took orders, and in 1609 was presented to the vicarage of St. Giles* in Oxford, where he was highly esteemed for his edifying way of preaching. He was also some time rector of Somerton, in Oxfordshire. In 1621 he was elected president of his college, and in the fame year he took his doctor's degree. He served the office of vice chancellor in 1626, and the year following was made dean of Worcester. In 1632, he was, through the interest of bishop Laud, sworn clerk of the closet to the king, and next year was made bishop of Hereford, but before his consecration he was removed to the bifhopiick of London, on the translation of his patron to the metropolitan chair of Canterbury.
The friendship of the archbishop was manifested in a still more extraordinary manner, in procuring for the bishop of London the high office of lord treasurer, on the death of the earl of Portland, in 1635. On this appointment, the archbishop made the following reflection in his diary, "I "pray God bless him to carry it so, that the church may "have honour, and the king and the state service and "contentment by it. And how if the church will not "hold up themselves under God, I can do no more."
But this advancement of the bishop to that high station instead of proving beneficial to the church, had a contrary effect. As no ecclesiastic had filled that office since the reign of Henry the seventh, it naturally excited the jealousy and resentment of the nobility, and as lord Clarendon fays, it "most unjustly indisposed many towards the church itself; which they looked upon as the gulph ready to swallow all the great offices, there being others in view, of that robe, who were ambitious enough to expect the rest."
It is, however, admitted on all hands that the bishop conducted himself with the greatest prudence and integrity, not only giving satisfaction to the king, but to the people, which in such a period as that, was a matter of the greatest difficulty.
On the breaking out of the great rebellion he fared with his brethren, in being deprived of his bishoprick, with the lands belonging to it, but it is a strong proof of the excellence lence of his character, that he was permitted to keep his estate of Little Compton in Gloucestershire. There he resided for the most part during that violent storm which overwhelmed the church and state, but he occasionally attended the king, and was present at all the treaties between him and the parliament. Of the confidence which that unfortunate monarch had in his advice, we are told by sir Philip Warwick the following anecdote. "I remember" fays he, "that the kingbeing busy in dispatching some letters with his own pen, commanded me to wait on the bishop, and to bring him back his opinion in a certain affair: I humbly prayed his majesty, that I might rather bring him with me, lest I should not express his majesty's fense fully, nor bring back his so significantly, as he meantit; and because there might be need for him farther to explain himself, and lest he should not speak freely to me." To which the king replied, " Go, as I bid you, if he will speak freely to any body, he will speak freely to you: This (the king said) I will say of him, I never got his opinion freely in my life, but when I had it, I was ever the better for it."
On one occasion it would have been better if the king had followed the counsel of this good prelate, and that was in the cafe of the earl of Strafford. When the most abominable casuistry was made use of to prevail on the king to pass the bill of attainder against that great man, the bishop of London remained inviolable and inflexible in his integrity, and freely told his majesty that he ought to do nothing unless his conscience was perfectly satisfied, upon any consideration in the world.':
Bishop Juxon attended his royal master in his most disconsolate condition, and after administering the sacrament to him, accompanied him to the scaffold. The last word of the king to the bishop was Remember, and as something mysterious was suspected, the council of regicides questioned his lordship upon it, to whom he replied " that the kins' his master bade him carry this supreme command of his dying father, to the prince his son and heir, That if ever he was restored to his crown, he should forgive the authors of his death."
At the restoration, bishop Juxon had the honour of placing the crown upon the king's head' and soon after was nominated archbishop of Canterbury, hut being very aged and infirm, he was incapable of taking any active part in the affairs of the church,
B 2 He
He died at Lambeth, June 4, 1663, and on the 9th of Jut Jy his body was interred with great solemnity in the chapel of St. John's College, Oxford, on which occasion Dr. South, the University orator, delivered a speech which is inserted in his posthumous volume of Latin works.
This archbishop disposed of no less a sum than 48,000/. in charitable uses. Bishop Burnet slightingly represents him as being rather a good than a great man; but though he left no works of learning behind him, it must be admitted that his conduct, in the high station which he filled, was such as stamped him a man 01 no ordinary mind.
Another historian has drawn the archbishop's character with more justice.
"This prelate was of an excellent temper, of a meek spirit, and solid judgment: and having addicted his first studies to the civil law, in which he commenced doctor, this fitted him the more for secular and state affairs. Though he found the revenue low, and much anticipated, yet meeting good, times, and the king inclined to frugality, he happily supported the dignity of his majesty's household, the splendour of the court, and all public expences, with justice in all contracts, so as to have as few complaints in his time, as perhaps in any; and yet he cleared off all anticipations on the revenue, and set his master before-hand. His proceedings were always with calmness, and circumspection, and the king highly valued his advice in all emergencies. His mild behaviour and prudence wrought so effectually upon all men, that though he bore two most invidious characters, one of a bishop, the other of a lord treasurer, yet neither drew envy upon his person; the humour of the times tended to brand all great men in employment: so that the lord Falkland afterward, in a severe speech against bishops in parliament, could not but give him this testimony "that in an unexpected place and power, he expressed an equal moderation, being neither ambitious before, nor proud alter, either of the crosier, or white-staff."
It was by means of this admirable temper and conduct, that he weathered the most dreadful storm that ever the nation felt, and at last rode triumphantly in the harbour: and all without any shipwreck of his honour, or his principles.*'*
• Echard's History of England, vol. ii. p. 11$.
ACT FOR RESIDENCE OF THE CLERGY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN**
Quid leges sine moribus
AS you have had the candour to insert in your valuable Miscellany my remarks on the Act for the support of Curates, I am induced to offer you such as have occurred to my mind on an attentive perusal of that for enforcing the Residence of the clergy; dated 7th July 1803. Some observations will be common to both; as the hardship of submission to arbitrary power, the evils arising from abuse of patronage, the influence of bishops in popular elections, the idea that the law will not be rigorously enforced; &c. —And I may add, that I am not conscious of any prejudice arising from my own particular circumstances, with regard; to Residence, any more than with regard to curates. I aili of a very advanced age: I reside upon my benefice more than nine months in the year, and I have no plan at present for doing otherwise.
In the first place, I do not. see what is meant by Residence. Is a part of a day to be reckoned as a whole day? A part of a week as a whole week? Or is a person's keeping a regular house, with servants &c. to be accounted residing? There may be, in common or statute law, some idea or definition of Residence; but what is deemed sufficient in, one kind of life, may not be sufficient for the purposes of another kind; and it would be a pity to leave common country clergy to find out a fundamental and never-ceasing part of their duty, in the multifarious and much disputed maxims of the law of the realm.
This remark suggests an observation applicable to several parts of the Act before us; that it would have been extremely convenient if all occasion had been taken away for studying such antiquated statutes as those of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and even of Edward the second. (See Section 40.)
If any one should say, that Residence was purposely left undefined, in order to give the greater Liberty, I should be ready to join in acknowledging any thing as a favour which was intended as such; but at the same time I must own, that I had rather know my duty, and practise it with a quiet mind, than be involved in uncertainties, which are often inducements to vexatious litigations.
Whilst thinking on this part of the subject it naturally occurs to me to ask; how is a clergyman's exceeding the allowed time of absence to be proved? If the excess be small, some definition of Residence will be necessary.—And are a man's servants to be called as witnesses against him? Or is an informer to watch his outgoings from the beginning of the year? In some cases a man enters his name in a book, when he departs and when he returns; but happily no such thing is provided for the clergy. Suppose a rector was accused at random? would he be obliged to prove that he had been duly resident? I suppose not; that would be compelling him to record his actions and to publish them occasionally. His journal ought to be sacred, else he would lie under strong temptations to neglect or destroy records, which frequently prove very useful, to his parish as well as to himself and his family.
But I will again look over the Act, and offer any remarks, which a calm perusal of it may suggest.
The negligence, which made the supplementary Act ne. cessary, dated July 27, 1803. strikes me as something extraordinary. In my little experience in law matters I never knew collations of titles &c. so omitted. It is the more remarkable, as so great a proportion of law-deeds are founded on recitals. I do not mean that the particular mistakes were of any importance; the want of accuracy which occasioned them, is the only thing worthy of observation. The Act must have required a great deal of thought and examination; but it is still to be remarked, that in lesser matters there was a relaxation of exactness in drawing it. In sect. 2 it seems as if "shall be obtained" should have heen written, * shall have been obtained,' as the expression is in the next line, In sect, 29, fourth line from the end,