Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 52.djvu/105

  [Besides the authorities referred to in the text, see the Funeral Sermon, by Dr. Nicholls, master of the Temple, and Memoir by J. S. Hughes, B.D., in Divines of the Church of England Series, vol. i.; Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England (manuscript notes in the Bodleian copy); Watt's Biblioteca Britannica, Suppl. p. 234.]  SHERLOCK, WILLIAM, D.D. (1641?–1707), dean of St. Paul's, was born in Southwark about 1641. From Eton he proceeded to Peterhouse, Cambridge, entering on 19 May 1657, and graduating B.A. 1660, M.A. 1663. After taking orders, he was some years without preferment; South twits him with having been a conventicle preacher. But on 3 Aug. 1669 he was collated to the rectory of St. George's, Botolph Lane, Lower Thames Street, London, and soon made his mark as a preacher. His first publication, on ‘The Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and Union with Him’ (1674), attracted much attention, opening the first of the many paper wars which Sherlock was not slow either to provoke or to maintain. He had no sympathy with the mystical side of puritan theology, treated its phraseology with ridicule, and attacked John Owen, D.D. [q. v.], who had affirmed that divine mercy was known only through Christ. Owen replied; and Sherlock's ridicule was resisted by other nonconformists, especially Thomas Danson [q. v.] (‘Debate between Satan and Sherlock’), and Vincent Alsop [q. v.], whose ‘Anti-sozzo’ brought against Sherlock the groundless charge of Socinianism, and established Alsop's reputation as a master of broad and effective sarcasm. In 1680 Sherlock commenced D.D.; he was collated on 3 Nov. 1681 to the prebend of St. Pancras in St. Paul's Cathedral, was lecturer at St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, and was made master of the Temple in 1685.

Previous to this last appointment he had written on ‘the protestant resolution of faith’ (1683), maintaining that since the age of the apostles the church has had no infallible guide but the scriptures; and had coupled with this his ‘Case of Resistance’ (1684), in which, on scriptural grounds, he contends for the divine right of kings and the duty of passive obedience. His pamphlet was auxiliary to the ‘Jovian’ (1683) of George Hickes [q. v.], written in answer to the ‘Julian the Apostate’ (1682) of Samuel Johnson (1649–1703) [q. v.] Throughout the reign of James II Sherlock, though writing strongly against popery, upheld the doctrine of passive obedience. Yet he declined to read James's declaration (11 April 1687) for liberty of conscience [see, D.D.], and was in fear of being displaced from the mastership of the temple. He asked John Howe (1630–1705) [q. v.] what he would do if offered the preferment, and was comforted by Howe's assurance that he would take the place, but hand the emolument to Sherlock. At the revolution he opposed alterations in the prayer-book to gain dissenters, went with the nonjurors, and figures in the list appended to Kettlewell's ‘Life.’ Macaulay reckons him their ‘foremost man.’ He was zealous in inducing others to refuse the oath to William and Mary; his pamphlet issued on the eve of the convention was regarded as a clerical manifesto; but he entirely miscalculated the strength of his party. Lathbury seems in error in saying that he was actually deprived.

On the day fixed for the suspension of nonjurors (1 Aug. 1689) he desisted from preaching, but resumed at St. Dunstan's on 2 Feb. 1690 (the day following that fixed for deprivation), acting on legal advice, having the permission of his superiors, and praying for William and Mary as de facto in authority. At length, in August 1690, he took the oath. Calamy, founding perhaps on a contemporary ballad, gives it as a common report that ‘the convincing argument’ was the battle of the Boyne (1 July). Popular satire ascribed his compliance to the influence of his wife. A bookseller, ‘seeing him handing her along St. Paul's churchyard,’ remarked, ‘There goes Dr. Sherlock, with his reasons for taking the oaths at his fingers' end.’ The same sentiment was expressed in satirical pamphlets and verse lampoons [see ]. Sherlock's own account, as given in the preface to his ‘Case of Allegiance’ (1691; licensed 17 Oct. 1690), is that his eyes were opened by the doctrine laid down in canon xxviii. of ‘Bishop Overall's Convocation Book,’ published by Sancroft in the nonjuring interest in January 1690 [see, D.D.] His point was that this canon showed that the Anglican church recognised a government de facto. Lathbury is probably right in saying that Sherlock was ‘looking about for a reason’ which would give colour to his change of attitude, and, as John Wagstaffe [q. v.] puts it, ‘caught hold of a twig.’

As a nonjuror, Sherlock had published his ‘Practical Discourse concerning Death’ (1689), the most popular of his writings (translated into French and Welsh). Before transferring his allegiance he had thrown himself into the Socinian controversy, with an ardour kindled perhaps by the recollection of the old charge against