CHAPTER V
Dr.
Prideaux used also much to complain of another abuse which he frequently met
with at ordinations that is false testimonials for how defective soever any of
the candidates may be in the learning and how faulty and scandalous soever in
their manners they never want ample testimonials which the full number of
neighbouring ministers hands thereto vouching the contrary, whereby Bishops are
often so deceived as to admit into orders such as were utterly unworthy of
them. Of their learning the Bishops may make trial by examination. But of their
manners and their virtuous behaviour and dispositions they can scarce otherwise
be known to him than by the testimony of others who have for some time well
known their conversation. And those ministers who by false testimonials
misguide Bishops in this matter, make themselves responsible for all the evil
consequences which shall after follow from it and many such must follow both in
respect of the honour of God, and the salvation of the souls of men, when both
are committed to the care of such, who have neither virtue nor learning to
qualify them for it. All that is said hereto is, that is a testimony of
charity, and this notion is spread too far among the whole body of the clergy.
But what information cane the Bishop have from such testimonials which is the
only reason for which they are required or given, or what charity can there be
in such an act of falsehood. Charity in the first place is the love of God, and
next to that is the love of men for Gods sake, but what love can there be for
either in an act where so great an injury to both as is really done by all
those who make themselves partys for the admitting into orders such as are
unworthy of them. For hereby to qualify such on one for the benefice they put
them into the office of promoting the honour of God and the salvation of men,
who is utterly unfit for the doing of either and thereby sacrifice both to the
secular interest of one worthless person in every place where he shall be
called to minister against this corrupt practice. Dr.Prideaux used to express
himself with great indignation, declaring frequently that it was his opinion
that whatever minister should endeavour by such unjustifiable means, to procure
orders for any undeserving person, he ought to be suspended from his own till
made sensible of his error, and ever after stand unqualified for giving any
more testimony in the like case.
After the
Act of Tolleration had in the first of King William and Queen Mary passed the
Royall assent many people did foolishly imagine that they had full liberty
given them thereby either to go to Church or stay away, and solely dispose of
themselves elsewhere according as they should think fit, and hereon the public assemblys
for divine worship on the Lords Day became much deserted and Ale Houses on that
day became better filled than churches. Dr. Prideaux for the remedy of this
evil, drew up a Circular letter directed to the ministers of his Archdeaconry
wherein having informed them that the said Act gave no tolleration to absent
from Church but only to such who dissenting from the established religion
worshipped God elsewhere withone of the dissenting sees mentioned in the said
Act, but that all such who did not thus worship God elsewhere were under the
same penalties of Law on their absenting from Church as before and ought to be
punished accordingly. He desired them to send for the Church Wardens and having
fully instructed them in this matter exhort them to do their duty herein and
present at all visitations for the future all such profane and irreligious
absentors from Church in the same manner as formerly used to be done, before
this Act was made. This circular letter he sent to London and, having there
gotten as many copies of it to be printed as there were parishes in his
Archdeaconry, on his next visitation which was Michaelmass A.D. 1692 dispersed
them amongst the ministers of the said Parishes, giving each of them one. This
circular letter he afterwards published at the end of his direction to the
Wardens and it underwent with it several editions, this letter he found had, in
some measure, its intended effect, though it could not wholly cure this evil.
After Dr.
Prideaux had resided at Saham about four years he left that place on Michaelmas
1694 and returned again with his family to Norwich. The Country thereabouts
being very liable to agues, his family was scarce free of the distemper all the
while he lived there. He was himself sick of it a considerable time, and two of
his children had been there so long seised with it, that they thereby
contracted such an ill state of health as afterwards cost them both their
lives. Besides being forced to leave most of his books at Norwich by reason he
had not sufficient room for to lay them in at his house in Saham he was much
obstructed hereby in the carrying on of his studys, in which he was also
further hindered while he tarryed there, by the avocations he frequently met with
from country businesse, which made him weary of the place, and on all these
considerations he resolved to leave it and he accordingly did so at the time
above mentioned and quitted it altogether without reserving to himself any of
the profits as he might have done would he have put a curate on the parish. But
resolving that as far as in him lay the benefice and the office should go
together he resigned both into the hands of the Bishops and wrote to the
Wardens and Fellows of New College in Oxford the patrons of the living to
present another thereto, and not long after came thither with their grant one
Mr. Seuster, a fellow of the College, who was nephew to Oliver Cromwell, but he
soon after having exchanged it with one Mr. Christmas for a fine cure, the said
Mr. Christmas was the next, who was instituted to the said Living after Dr.
Prideaux had resigned the same, and he continued residence there till a few
years after he died on the place.
On Dr.
Prideaux's return again to Norwich, the whole business of the Cathedrall fell
again into his hands. And he was forced to undertake the burthen of it, to
prevent all from running to ruin and confusion. The Dean resided mostly at
London, spending it there between Taverns and Coffee Houses without regarding
either the decency of life or Conduct of Conversation that became one of his
functions, hardly ever came to Norwich til the latter end of his time. When he
came to Norwich which was only when the necessary times of his residence called
him thither, he made it the more difficult to Dr. Prideaux to manage matters
under him, for he was of a stiff and inflexible temper and oftener in the wrong
than in the right, and therefore when he had gotten a wronq notion into his
head nothing was more difficult than to get it out of him again. However he was
content to let the Chief management of all the Church affairs under him to fall
into Dr. Prideaux's hands, because he could not manage them to any purpose
without him. And the Dr. was content for the sake of the Church to take this
burden upon him and to humour such a man (for without humouring him in many
things nothing was to be done) which was burden enough for any one to bear.
However
he stuck not openly to oppose him whenever there was a necessity for it. Two
particular instances hereof where as followeth. A certain Apostate to Popery
dying in his Apostary ordered by his Will that he should be buried in the
Cathedral, and the Dean gave leave for the digging of the grave, on application
made to him about it. But Dr. Prideaux being then treasurer of the Church and
looking on the care of the Cathedral to be the chief part of his office, forbad
the breaking of the ground. But the Dean persisting in his claim of right to
have leave as aforesaid, ordered the grave to be dug, whereon Dr. Prideaux
appealed to the Bishop as visitor of the Church, who having appointed a day for
the hearing of the cause which was at a fortnights distance. The Apostate in
the interim struck himself into a grave elsewhere and so ended this matter.
The other
instance would have been of worse consequence to this Church and would have
involved it great difficultys had it taken place, for at one of the audits of
the Church which is always held once a year on St. Andrews Day 600£ of the
rents being in arrear, the Dean formed a contrivance to take up that sum upon
interest and immediately divide it and force the tenants in arrear to pay both
principall and Interest to the Creditors who should advance the money. Dr.
Prideaux immediately remonstrated against this project with his utmost might,
showing the iniquity of it, the difficulties it would involve the Church in and
the prejudices which the reputation and interest must necessarily suffer by the
putting of it in execution. To this the Dean answered that it had been done at
Magdelen College in Oxford of which he was Fellow and knew not why it might not
as well be done here. And therefore he having gotten three of the Prebendarys
of his side who were greedy of fingering the money, resolved with them to
proceed in the design. Dr. Prideaux having therefore no other way to hinder the
execution of it, but by persuading the receiver of the Church not to take the
borrowed sum into his account. He took that course and therefore Mr. Trimnell
(who was then lately made Prebendary of this Church and was afterwards Bishop
of the Diocese) being Receiver, Dr. Prideaux wrote to him then at London about
it, and having convinced him of the iniquity as well as the mischief of this
project, prevailed with him so far, that he came from London on purpose to put
a stop thereto and having on his arrival let the Dean know that he would
neither receive any such borrowed sum, nor make any division of it, this
qualified the whole contrivance, since neither could regularly be done without
him. Hereon the Dean was very much displeased with Dr. Prideaux as well as with
Mr. Trimnell, and plentifully vented his choler in angry language against both.
However Dr. Prideaux made it his endeavour to keep sweet with him as the
business and interest of the Church made it requisite that he should and for
the most part he obtained thereby the end proposed.
On the
12th February A.D. 1696, he was instituted into the Vicarage of Trowse on the
presentation of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich it being then void by the death
of the former incumbent. Trowse is a small village within a mile of Norwich and
the Benefice no more than 40£ per annum, however having no cure since his
resignation of Sahara,he took this small vicarage, rather for the sake of
exercising the duties of his function in that parish, than out of any regard to
the small profits arising therefrom for although his prebendship of Norwich and
his Archdeaconry of Suffolk (which were all the preferments he then had) fell
very much short of a sufficiency to support him in a manner suitable to the
dignity of those stations, yet having an estate of his own and several hundreds
of pounds per annum, he needed not so small an acession for his maintenance.
Having taken upon him this cure he diligently attended it, by constantly
preaching there every Sunday for several years together till disabled by the
calamitous distemper of the stone from any more going into the Pulpit, and then
he resigned it as will be hereafter related, it being his resolution not to
keep any cure which he could not attend.
Till he
left Norwich to go to Saham he constantly preached at St.Johns of Timber Hill
one of the parishes in Norwich. But the contributions of that parish scarce
ever amounting to above 12£ per annum, the next successor who had that parish
after Dr. Prideaux had left it would not of so small a salary serve the parish
any otherwise than once every other Sunday, so that every other Sunday this
Church was left vacant and Dr. Prideaux finding it so on his return to Norwich he
took upon him to supply this vacancy and without any reward for it constantly
preached there every other Sunday, till having accepted the vicarage of Trowse,
the cure of that parish allowed him no further leisure for it.
In later
term A.D. 1697 he published his Life of Mahomet which was bought up with that
greediness that three editions of it were sold off the first year. He had long
designed a History of the Saracen Empire from its first beginning, till it fell
into pieces by the setting up of the Governors of province, each of themselves
A.D. 936 which was 314 years from its first rise under Mahomet, by which
partition all the power and grandure of it had an end, though its name with
some small territories round Bagdat continued under the succeeding Caliphs for
some ages after. As this History would have given an account of the rise and
progress of this Empire, with the rise and progress of Mahometisme with it, so
also was it to have given an account of the decay and fall of the Grecian
Empire in the East, with the decay and fall of the Christian religion with it
in those parts. For the rise and progress of the former was built on the decay
and fall of the other in both the particulars and therefore an account of both
must in this history have gone together. The Dr. began it from the death of
Mauricius, the Greek Emperor which happened A.D. 602, and had gone some way in
it before he went to Saham, but not being able to go on with it there at a
distance from his books (which he could not carry with him to Saham - there not
being in the parsonage house spare room enough to receive them) this was one of
the reasons that made him again leave that place and, therefore, when he had
again settled himself at Norwich where he had his books about him he again set
himself to the carrying on of this work. But he had not waded far into it ere
he saw reasons to desist from proceeding any further in this intended history,
and therefore came to a resolution to publish only that part of it which
concerned the life of Mahomet and drop all the rest, the reasons which induced
him thereto being fully shown in his preface to that life of Mahomet, there is
no need of here repeating them.
About
this time ended a long controversy which Dr. Prideaux had with Mr. Nathaniel
Hodges one of the prebendarys of the Cathedral Church of Norwich about the
stall belonging to his Archdeaconry of Suffolk in the said Church which the
said Mr. Hodges would have deprived him of. The order of that Church is that
the Dean sits in the first stall on the right hand side of the going into the
quire and the Vice Dean in the first stall on the left hand, after the Vice
Deans the four next stalls belong to the four Archdeacons, that is to say the
first stall next to the Deans to the Archdeacon of Norwich and the first next
the Vice Deans to the Archdeacon of Norfolk, the second stall next the Deans to
the Archdeacon of Sudbury, and the second next the Vice Deans to the Archdeacon
of Suffolk. In the six next stalls sits the six prebendarys according to the
seniority of the admission of whatsoever degree they are of and therefore Mr.
Hodges being senior prebendary his notion was that Dr. Prideaux ought not to
have place above him though Archdeacon of Suffolk, the whole was a piece of
foolish pride, he had been formerly one of the senior masters of Christ Church
in Oxford when Dr. Prideaux was an undergraduate in the College and therefore
disdained now to give place to him, when both in degree and station he was
gotten above him, he was in vain told that when any person if of two
capacities, he always takes the place that belongs to the highest of them,
especially when both are in the same community as it is in the present case,
for here the Dean prebendarys and Archdeacons are all members of the same
Church, as also that the Archdeacon of Suffolks Hall in the Cathedrall Church
is part of his freehold, whereby his installation as by livery and seisin he
takes possession of the Archdeaconry, and therefore as long as he continues
Archdeacon cannot be deprived of it. But neither these nor any other arguments
pressed him of his folly, but he obstinately persisted in it. And Dr. Prideaux
for several years bore with him herein, till at length finding that his
adversary's pride and peevishness grew with his forebearance, and yet at length
this claim remained undetermined, he took occasion from hence of doing many
unfair as well as many insolent and unkind things towards him, he resolved to
bring this matter a decision without any further delay and in order hereto, to
take those methods which the Law prescribeth and therefrom since he could enjoy
no peace without it, he commenced just before the Bishop of Norwich who was the
proper Judge in the case and aftr many and long delays. The justice of his
cause at length extorted sentence on his side, whereon Mr. Hodges appealed to
the Arches so where being likewise cast, he was forced to pay the costs on both
sides and sit down with the shame of having so long and so obstinately stood
out in a cause which had so little on its side whereby to be maintained. After
this he carried himself toward Dr. Prideaux much otherwise than before being
convinced he had causelessly troubled him, but about a year and a half after he
died in the 70th year of his age, and was buried in the Cathedral Church of
Norwich on August 30th 1700 and therefore had not this controversy been decided
it must have died with him, none of the other prebendarys being of his mind in
this matter.
In the
year 1700 he lost his wife which was one of the greatest calamitys that ever
happened to him, for she was a very worthy and excellent woman and on that
account very dear to him, she fell sick of the small pox on the beginning of
October and they proving of the worst sort, she died of them the 14th day
after. When the year of mourning was out, he had very advantagious matches
offered to him out of the best familys of the country, but being then past 50
he thought it not proper for him to marry any more, and therefore continued a
widdower to the day of his death.
It being
the usage of the Church Wardens o£ the Archdeaconry of Suffolk as in all other
Archdeaconrys instead of presenting what is amiss at Archideaconnal
visitations, as they are bound by their oaths, for the most part give in their
presentments with an 'Omnia.bene’ and even for those parishes where
'Omnia.male’ is nearer the truth. It much grieved Dr. Prideaux that he should
go into Suffolk on these Archideaconal visitations twice every year to make
three or four hundred men perjured and it cannot be denied but that it must be
a matter of malancholly consideration to any honest mind. It truly was so to
Dr. Prideaux, and therefore to remedy the evil as far as was in his power, he
wrote his directions to church Wardens to instruct them in the duties of their
office which they had sworn to and thereby guide and excite them faithfully to
discharge them. This tract being written for the use of his Archdeaconry he
immediately dispersed it through all the parishes of it as soon as it came from
the press. The first edition bore date December 20th 1701, and since that
several other editions have been published, the third is the compleatest which
bears date in September 1712. For the Dr. having reviewed the two former
editions and added many enlargements and augmentations to them, then published
it as perfect as he thought he could make it, resolving after this to meddle no
more with it. And therefore this edition and those which have been since
published from it, comng from the authors last hand are chiefly recommended to
those who need the Book.
In the
same month of December 1701 a convocation being called to meet at London for
the Transacting of business Dr. Prideaux repaired thither being a member of it
as Archdeacon of Suffolk, on his arrival found that assembly divided into that
of High Church and Low Church. The first thing they did was to choose a
Prolecutor. The High Church party were for Dr. Woodard Dean of Salisbury and
the other party proposed Dr. Beveridge Archdeacon of Colchester. The former
carried it by a great majority, and Dr. Woodard took the Chair, and it must be
acknowledged he managed himself in it both with a fairness and sufficiency much
beyond what was expected from him. The first thing that fell under debate was
about the privileges of the Lower house, a majority there claimed to be on the
same foot with the upper house, that the Commons are in Parliament with the
House of Lords, that is to adjourn by their own authority apart from the Upper
house to what time they should think fit, this the Upper house (that is the
Bishops) would not admit, But contended that the President adjourn both houses
together and to the same time, and signifie it by a schedule to the Lower House
and that they would abide by this practice and allow of none other and so far
Dr. Prideaux thought them in the right. But in that they required that the
Lower house should break up as soon as the schedule should come down to them
and appoint no committees to set and act on intermediate days, he was
thoroughly of opinion that they were wholly in the wrong in those these
particulars. For the Bishops usually breaking up very early to attend the
service of the House of Lords in Parliament then sending down the schedule of
adjournment to the Lower House, upon the receipt of the schedule of adjournment
the lower house should immediately break up also, what time could they then
have for the business before them. It seems natural from the reason of the
thing that the day of sessions be accorded for the business of it and if so
what leisure can there be, unless on intermediate days for any committee at all
to sit and do the business referred to them. In arguing these points pros and
cons were taken up two months of the meeting, and they were contested with a
great deal of heat, as well without doors in abundance of printed pamphlets
published about them, as within doors in the debates of the house. At length
the Lower house appointed a committee to consider of some method of
accommodation for the ending this difference, that so they were called of this
committee Dr. Prideaux was one, but before any report could be made, the
Prolocutor sickened and died, whereon there arose a new debate about appointing
his successor but this did not last long, for within a few days after this on
the 8th of March in this year died King William did put an end to the whole
convocation and Queen Anne succeeded him in the Throne.