Thomas Sherlock, D.D.: bishop and author; son of Dean William Sherlock; b. in London, England, in 1678; educated at Eton; graduated at Cambridge 1697; was master of the Temple forty-nine years (1704–53); was made a prebendary of London 1713, vice-chancellor of Cambridge 1714, dean of Chichester Nov., 1715, prebendary of Norwich, 1719, Bishop of Bangor Feb. 4, 1728, of Salisbury 1734, and of London 1748, having declined in 1747 the Archbishopric of Canterbury. He took an active part in the Bangorian controversy in opposition to Dr. Hoadly (1716), wrote several controversial works on Christian evidences, of which the most celebrated were “The Use and Intent of Prophecy” (1725) and “Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus” (1729), and published four volumes of his “Discourses at the Temple Church” (1754–58), which gained him a high reputation as a pulpit orator. D. in London, July 18, 1761. His Works were edited by T. S. Hughes, D.D. (London, 5 vols., 1830).
Personal
Though his voice was not melodious, but accompanied rather with a thickness of speech, yet were his words uttered with so much propriety, and with such strength and vehemence, that he never failed to take possession of his whole audience and secure their attention. This powerful delivery of words so weighty and important as his always were, made a strong impression on the minds of his hearers, and was not soon forgot.
In the Bangorian controversy Sherlock took a leading part against Hoadly, and was often considered his most formidable antagonist. He was not only a principal contributor to its voluminous literature, but was prominent in the committee of Convocation which drew up the charge against the bishop. The part he had taken gave offence at court, and he was removed from the list of king’s chaplains. Nichols says that in later life he disapproved of what he had written, and would not have it reprinted. Bishop Newton, however, says he had been assured by those who lived with Sherlock most, and knew him best, that this assertion was wholly groundless. Sherlock was often matched against Hoadly in less serious encounters. They often met in that curious palæstra of theological controversy, Queen Caroline’s drawing-room.
An ambitious and popular man, Sherlock was an industrious and efficient bishop. He cultivated kindly relations with the dissenters and was in favour of comprehension…. He pleaded after the ’45 for justice to the Scots episcopalian clergy. His works were “not less esteemed among catholics than among protestants,” and several were translated into French.
General
Sherlock’s style is very elegant, though he has not made it his principal study.
The genius of our language gives us an advantage in the use of this figure…. I shall give a remarkably fine example, from a sermon of Bishop Sherlock’s, where we shall see natural religion beautifully personified, and be able to judge from it, of the spirit and grace which this figure, when well conducted, bestows on a discourse. I must take notice, at the same time, that it is an instance of this figure, carried as far as prose, even in its highest elevation, will admit, and therefore suited only to compositions where the great efforts of eloquence are allowed…. This is more than elegant; it is truly sublime. The whole passage is animated; and the figure rises at the conclusion, when natural religion, who, before, was only a spectator, is introduced as speaking by the centurion’s voice. It has the better effect too, that it occurs at the conclusion of a discourse, where we naturally look for most warmth and dignity. Did Bishop Sherlock’s sermons, or, indeed, any English sermons whatever, afford us many passages equal to this, we should oftener have recourse to them for instances of the beauty of composition.
The Sermons of Sherlock, though censured by Mr. Church, are master-pieces of argument and eloquence. His “Discourses on Prophecy” and the “Trial of the Witnesses” are perhaps the best defences of Christianity in our language.
The elegance of Sherlock is rather to be found in his ideas; and it is chiefly from a confusion of mind in his readers, that it has been transferred from its proper seat, and ascribed to his composition. His manner is for the most part close to his subject, and he disdains everything impertinent and merely ornamental; but he is usually hard, scholastic and even somewhat repellent in his language. His famous parallel between Christ and Mahomet, which is perhaps the only truly eloquent passage in his works, is indeed happily expressed.
Without departing for a moment from the sobriety of an accomplished prose writer, he often produces the effect of the sublimest poetry.
Having already laid up vast stores of knowledge, having his judgment ripe, and an ambition equal to his abilities, he soon surpassed the most eminent preachers of the day in true pulpit oratory. For his variety of matter and judicious arrangement of it, for the strength and solidity of his reasoning, for his force of language, for his flow of natural and manly eloquence, we may safely appeal to those admirable Discourses which have long ministered delight and consolation to the Christian: they hold no secondary rank among the writings of our Divines.
Thomas Sherlock was superior to his father, both in general intellectual ability and in special literary faculty; and he had the advantages of an almost finished style put ready into his hands. But he paid for this by being the contemporary of more distinguished writers in his own fields, and by the fact that the pulpit, though still powerful, was less powerful than it had been, and that the gradual “taming” process, of which Tillotson had set the example, had brought its exercises close to the uninteresting. As a mere writer he could not vie with Addison or Swift; as a writer in controversial divinity he could not vie with Law on one side or Berkeley on another. Nevertheless, he exhibited the earlier form of eighteenth-century prose in a very good measure, and showed its capacities in the various uses to which he applied it.
