Lee Gatiss: The Great Ejection of the Puritans

http://leegatiss.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/the-great-ejection-of-the-puritans/

The Great Ejection of the Puritans

Today is the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of the Puritans from the Church of England.

 

1662 may have been a significant year for the Book of Common Prayer. It was not, however, a good year for those to whom the gospel and a good conscience were more precious than the institutional church.

We can rejoice, as we think about the triumph of the Prayer Book and its glorious exposition of the Reformed faith in polished liturgical form. But we also need to remember that 1662 was the year that ‘evangelical’ Puritans were excluded from, and then persecuted by, the established Church of England because they could not accept certain aspects of the new religious settlement.

The main problem in 1662 was not with the Prayer Book as such, but with the terms of subscription to it. That is, the issue was what to do with those who in conscience could not agree to everything contained in that book.

Consensus

For a century or more, the Puritans, as they were called, had been calling for further godly reformation of the Church of England.

They were delighted with the Reformation, but they thought the English church ‘but halfly reformed’ compared to many Reformed churches on the Continent. The Elizabethan Settlement had not gone far enough for them in eliminating superstition and Catholicism from the church.

They wanted to push on with further reform, in response to God’s Word in the Bible. Such people were usually able to remain within the Church of England. How? Because there was a theological consensus between the official stance of the national church and these Puritans.

In general terms, they were all agreed on what the Coronation Oath calls ‘the true profession of the gospel … the Protestant Reformed religion’. Historians speak of a ‘Calvinist consensus’ in England, until at least the 1630s. With that general agreement on primary issues of faith and salvation in place, other issues were usually kept in perspective.

Those who did not conform in every detail of clerical vesture or ceremonial and had issues with phrases here and there in the Prayer Book, continued to play an active and prominent role within the Church of England, some of them at the highest levels.

Yet these people had been in charge of the national church during the Commonwealth and Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell. They hadn’t all been in favour of chopping Charles I’s head off — many had vigorously protested against it — but they had helped to banish the high church royalist bishops and their prayer book.

Revenge

So when Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, he brought with him an Anglican episcopal hierarchy thirsting for revenge. They quickly established themselves in the royal court and grabbed hold of the levers of power.

The king wanted peace and toleration, but the bishops were in no mood for compromise. For much of 1661 they pretended to make concessions to the Puritans, but only until they were comfortable enough in their palaces and in Parliament to deal the Puritans a fatal blow.

The tide turned quite quickly. The bishops and their allies now had such strength that there was no longer any question of Puritans attaining a favourable compromise. The issue for the latter had become whether anything could be salvaged from the wreck of their hopes.

Some of our greatest and most internationally famous theologians were from the more evangelical, puritan sections of the church, but the consensus on primary issues was breaking down. And there was less appetite for tolerance on the part of those holding the reins of power.

Without uniformity and theological consensus on what the gospel is, the bishops looked to enforce outward conformity as their way to bring order to chaos. With a more liberal turn in theology at the Restoration, came a more ceremonial, Catholicising style of church.

It was the imposition of this which had helped cause the Civil War in the first place. Most famously, Archbishop Laud, the most prominent and disliked advocate of this anti-Calvinist movement, had been executed on Tower Hill in 1645 to popular applause.

The Puritans could never accept Laudianism. And hitherto had never been forced to, always finding that the Anglican formularies acted as a sufficient guard against the worst excesses of ceremonialism, superstition and persecution.

But now, things were different; the state decided to enforce uniformity across the board.

Act of Uniformity

The Act of Uniformity in 1662 required all ministers not merely to use the set forms of prayer — which may have allowed them some leeway in practice — but to swear an oath they could not in good conscience swear. They had to give ‘unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed’ in the new Book of Common Prayer.

This, lamented Richard Baxter, was ‘a weight more grievous than a thousand ceremonies, added to the old conformity, with grievous penalty’.

Furthermore, all ministers, lecturers, and even schoolteachers, had to declare themselves entirely in favour of this new political correctness; they had to swear an oath never to attempt to change anything in church or state!

They had to declare ‘that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king … that I will conform to the liturgy of the church of England as it is now by law established’ and renounce the oaths of the Solemn League and Covenant, swearing not ‘to endeavour any change or alteration of government either in church or state’.

What’s more, those who had taken the ‘Solemn League and Covenant’ oath — that they would work hard to reform the church according to the Bible — had to renounce that oath and declare now that it was an illegal thing to promise in the first place.

All this, they felt they could not do. Why? Because it was saying in effect that the Prayer Book and Church of England were inerrant, whereas they only ever said such things about the unerring Word of God itself.

They did not want to perjure themselves, having made oaths to reform the church in Cromwell’s day; and they could not swear on oath that they agreed with every single word of the liturgy.

Great Ejection

Those with the levers of power in their hands sought to impose a new conformity to the Church of England, to which there could be no legally recognised exceptions whatsoever.

All this was to be enacted on St Bartholomew’s Day, 24 August 1662. A significant day, because it was the day that tithes and rents were due, in arrears, to the clergy. So if any clergy did not conform, they did not get paid and were unceremoniously thrown out of their vicarages, often into poverty.
Attempts were made in Parliament and Convocation to water things down — to provide for ejected ministers, perhaps give them more time and soften the terms of conformity. But these votes were all lost by small margins.

The King and the Lord Chancellor claimed to want a more lenient solution. But they were ignored by those voting.

In total, over 1800 ministers — about 20 per cent of the whole clergy — were forced to leave the Church of England in 1662. They were silenced from preaching or teaching by law. They were barred from positions in church or state and forbidden from meeting, even in small groups in their homes.
The penal code against these dissenters was often enforced with unnecessary brutality and malice. They were spied on, taken to court, fined, and sent to plantations in Virginia for hard labour.

Anglican persecutors could now appeal to a formidable legal arsenal which, potentially, made possible a puritan holocaust. Although the worst possibilities were never realised, 1662 began a persecution of Protestants by Protestants without parallel in seventeenth-century Europe. That was the tragedy of 1662.

Remembering 1662 today

There was a ‘Service of Reconciliation’ at Westminster Abbey in February to mark this anniversary, with CofE and URC ministers joining together in an attempt to ‘heal the memories’. But the established church still needs to face some big questions about whether this sort of thing could be repeated.

Will the Church of England again force its own members’ consciences to accept things they see as clearly unbiblical (such as women bishops or homosexuality)? Will it make no exceptions and tolerate no diversity from the current political correctness?

Will the Church of England again become an agent of persecution against Reformed and evangelical Christians? Those who dissent from the prevailing scepticism of the powerful few at the heart of church and government may yet find themselves in an unenviable position, similar to that of Restoration-era Puritans.

The ghosts of 1662 may yet return to haunt the Church of England. Please pray for those attempting to push the denomination back into the great central currents of Christian faith, and away from the dangerous rocks of current fads and baptised worldliness.

This is an article I wrote for the Evangelical Times, Britain’s leading non-denominational evangelical Christian newspaper (published earlier this month). It is reprinted here with their permission, to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection today.

See also my little book The Tragedy of 1662: The Ejection and Persecution of the Puritans.

Anglicans Ablaze: The Place of the Caroline Divines in Classical Anglicanism

Anglicans Ablaze: The Place of the Caroline Divines in Classical Anglicanism

Another excellent article from Robin Jordan. Always a meritorious read.

We quote below.

By Robin G. Jordan

The reign of the seventeenth century English King Charles I is sometimes called the Catholic Reaction. A reaction is a return of a previous condition emphasized by an interval of the opposite. In the case of the Catholic Reaction the opposite was the English Reformation, the Elizabethan Settlement, and the reign of James I.

Charles I was decidedly High Church in his leanings. He and the English Parliament clashed over his military adventurism and extravagant spending. He disliked the Puritans and Presbyterians who had come to dominate Parliament and to control its purse strings. For a time he tried to rule the kingdom without Parliament, reviving a number of obsolete taxes. Eventually he was forced to summon Parliament and request money. This led to another clash between him and Parliament and resulted in the English Civil War

Early in his reign Charles adopted a deliberate policy of appointing bishops who were Arminian and upheld the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Arminian is the name given to the adherents of the doctrine of Jacob Arminius, a Dutch Protestant theologian opposed to the views of John Calvin especially on predestination.

The doctrine of the divine right of kings teaches that kings become the rulers of a nation by the sovereign grace of God and therefore their subjects should obey them as the Lord’s anointed (see 1 Samuel 9:16). Those who rise in arms against the king, resist the king’s authority, or refuse allegiance to the king are rebelling against the order that God himself has established, and therefore their rebellion is rebellion against God.

Charles sought to rule as an absolute monarch who was above the law. He demanded unquestioning obedience from his subjects. He justified his absolute rule on the basis of this doctrine. A number of the better livings were bestowed upon the king’s sycophants who showed more passion for preferment than for the Bible and the gospel.

Charles’s new Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud shared his High Church principles and with Charles’ support embarked on a program of unpopular reforms known as “Thorough.” These reforms and the harsh measures that Archbishop Laud adopted to enforce them so angered and alienated the English people that they eventually cost Laud his head.

Churches were decorated with crosses, elaborately carved furnishings, gilded wooden angels, and stained-glass windows. An elaborate ceremonial with frequent adoring, bowing, genuflecting, and kneeling was introduced into the Communion Service and other Prayer Book services. The use of incense at different points in the liturgy was revived. Communion tables were raised on a footboard and set altar-like against the east wall, covered elaborate frontals, and railed off from the rest of the chancel. Two candlesticks with tapers, a basin for the oblation, and a cushion for the service book were placed upon the table. Priests stood in front of the table as if before an altar and said the prayers with their backs to the people. Communicants were required to kneel at the railings. The practice of singing metrical versions of the Psalms, the Prayer Book canticles, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and other liturgical texts instead of the prose ones was suppressed.

Charles had married a French princess who was a Roman Catholic. She had been permitted to bring her chaplains with her to England and they regularly celebrated Mass in her chapel. A number of the members of the English court, foreign dignitaries, and those seeking favor with the king through the queen attended these services. Consequently the English people were well-acquainted with the ornaments and the ceremonies that were used in the queen’s chapel and did not fail to note the similarities between these ornaments and ceremonies and the ones that Laud was imposing upon the English Church. Laud was accused of trying to reintroduce Popery. Even the Roman Catholic Church thought so. Laud was offered a cardinal’s hat if he persuaded Charles to bring the Church of England back into the Roman fold.

By the time of Charles’ reign the Edwardian Reformation, the Marian Persecution, and the Elizabethan Reformation were a distant memory.

In England’s two universities we find a fascination with antiquity and the Patristic writers. Calvinism and the plain style of church ornamentation and worship associated with the English Reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement were increasingly regarded as too severe for an enlightened and genteel seventeenth century especially for the upper classes. The result was growing predisposition toward Arminianism and ritualism in these quarters.

A number of the younger clergy had come to regard Bishop Lancelot Andrews as an authority on worship and his celebrating of the liturgy as a standard. Andrews was strongly influenced by the teaching of the Patristic writers and the ancient liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches. In his episcopal chapel he had introduced at an early date a number of the changes that Archbishop Laud would seek to impose upon the entire church. In his chapel the altar in its sancta sanctorum was hidden from profane eyes by a screen. Andrews deliberately departed from the Reformer’s use of a common cup and its place used a medieval chalice and paten. He patterned the worship in his chapel more upon that of the 1549 Prayer Book than the 1552 Prayer Book, which formed the basis of the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book and its 1604 Jacobean revision. He revived a number of medieval practices such as the offering of the bread and wine at the offertory followed by the offering of the alms. He devised his own offertory sentences. He used unleavened bread and a mixed chalice for the communion. He reintroduced the manual acts during the Prayer of Consecration. Among the other practices that he revived was the minister bowing to the altar before reading the epistle and gospel, and the congregation saying or the choir singing the response, “Glory be to Thee, O Lord” before the gospel. At every mention of Jesus’ name in the Gospel reading the clergy, the choir, and the congregation were required to acknowledge his sacred name by “bowing the knee.”

In the Canon Andrews diverged the most from the 1552 Prayer Book. The Sanctus was immediately followed by the Prayer of Consecration and then the Prayer of Oblation. The latter was followed by the Lord’s Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, and the Agnes Dei.

The way the Eucharist was celebrated in Andrews’ chapel differed very little from the way the old Mass was celebrated. There wore two notable differences. Andrews wore a cope instead of a chasuble and there was no elevation of the Host and adoration during the Prayer of Consecration. In the latter case Andrews adhered to the rubrics of the 1549 Prayer Book. As to Andrews’ understanding of the Eucharist he is reported to have told Cardinal Perron that the Eucharist was a celebration of the passion and death of Christ which was offered for both the living and the dead and even for the unborn.

Andrew’s celebrating of the liturgy would influence the compiling of the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book. Andrew’s influence is also seen in the rubrics of the 1662 Prayer Book.

The group of churchmen that we know as the Caroline Divines largely gained prominence because they enjoyed royal favor. While most of them were Arminian in doctrine and ritualistic in practice, there are some notable exceptions. Charles’ first Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbott was a Calvinist. The scholarly Archbishop of Amargh James Ussher was a Puritan and drafted the Calvinist Irish Articles. He was widely respected by both sides in the English Civil War. The Protector Oliver Cromwell would give Archbishop Ussher a state funeral.

The Caroline High Churchmen did not comprise a popular movement within the Church of England; their doctrinal and liturgical views did not have a large body of adherents. Their thinking influenced only a small part of the population. Its largest following was found among the Stuart elites--Charles’ courtiers, the greater nobility—the peers of the realm, the lesser nobility—the landed gentry, and their retainers and clients, and those seeking to win the king’s favor. The larger part of the English people was staunchly Puritan and Presbyterian in their sympathies. They had strong anti-Roman and anti-papalist sentiments.

Admirers of the Caroline Divines often commend them for their Biblical and Patristic learning. However, their interpretation of the Bible is often more eisegesis than exegesis. Their reading of the Patristic writers is uncritical. They give more authority to the writings of the early Church Fathers’ than do the early Church Fathers themselves (and the English Reformers).

The Caroline Divines, however, were not Romanists nor did they reject the continental Protestant Churches, as would the Tractarians. William Laud refused the cardinal’s hat he was offered. An English court failed to convict Laud of teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of other charges made against him. Part of the evidence that was used against Laud was his own diary that had fallen into the hands of his enemies before the trial. They showed no scruples at making false entries into the diary. Thwarted at first in their efforts to send Laud to the block, Laud’s enemies finally persuaded Parliament to pass a bill of attainder condemning him to death as a traitor.

John Bramhall and John Cosin ably defended the English Church again its Roman Catholic detractors when they fled to the continent with the queen and the royal heirs. They were less successful in protecting the young princes from their mother’s influence. Charles II converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed; the Roman Catholicism of his younger brother James II caused the Glorious Revolution. James was forced to flee to France and a Protestant monarch was place on the English throne. The English Parliament would adopt a law prohibiting a Roman Catholic from ascending the English throne and requiring all English monarchs upon their ascension to the throne to swear to defend and uphold the Protestant and Reformed Religion of the Church of England.

In the nineteenth century the Tractarians falsely claimed to be the successors of the Caroline High Churchmen. In his seminal work, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Church 1760-1857, Peter B. Nockles refutes this absurd claim. A later generation of Anglo-Catholics would reject them as too Protestant. The Caroline High Churchmen did not accept the universal authority of the Pope or uphold the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which in their opinion are the marks of a true Catholic. Yet the myth of the Caroline High Churchman as the forerunners of the Oxford movement and Anglo-Catholicism has proven tenacious.

The defeat of the Royalists, the execution of Charles I, the abolition of the Book of Common Prayer, and episcopacy did not bring an end to the influence of the Caroline High Churchmen. The death of Oliver Cromwell in 1660, the restoration of the English monarchy, and the ascension of another Stuart, Charles II, to the English throne also restored the Caroline High Churchmen to favor. The Restoration Bishops who produced what is now regarded as the classical Anglican Prayer Book were mostly Caroline High Churchmen. While they had John Cosin’s Durham Book and Bishop Matthew Wren who had helped to prepare the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, the so-called Laudian Liturgy, the book that they produced was fairly moderate in tone. It was substantially the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book in its 1604 Jacobean revision with a number of changes. The Restoration Bishops incorporated a few minor concessions to the Presbyterians. They largely ignored the latter’s concerns. Some of the changes that they made were clearly intended to put the Presbyterians in their place. However, they showed no inclination to make any radical changes in the English Prayer Book.

Do the Caroline Divines have a place in classical Anglicanism? A number of writers argue that they do for a variety of reasons, chiefly related to the reading of English Church history to which they are wed and the particular theory of Anglican identity tied to that reading. One of the dangers of giving a place to the Caroline High Churchmen in classical Anglicanism is that some authors skip over the English Reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement that lie at the heart of classical Anglicanism and treat the doctrine and practice of the Caroline Divines as if they are the doctrine and practice of classical Anglicanism (See Death Bradon’s, “Anglicanism Proper”). Lancelot Andrew, John Bramhall, John Cosins, John Overall, Anthony Sparrow, and Jeremy Taylor receive more attention than do Thomas Becon, John Bradford, Thomas Cranmer, John Foxe, Richard Hooker, John Hooper, John Jewel, Alexander Nowel, Nicholas Ridley, Thomas Rogers, William Tyndale, John Whitgift, and other important figures of the English Reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement.

The Caroline High Churchmen did make a significant contribution to two Church of England formularies—The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons According to the Order of the Church of England of 1661. We need to have more than a passing acquaintance with their writings. We need to understand their thinking, to know what changes they made in the Prayer Book and Ordinal, and their rationale for doing so. We can also benefit from reading writings of the Caroline High Churchmen on a number of subjects, as we can from reading the Edwardian and Elizabethan Reformers and the Puritan Divines. At the same time we need to take a critical approach to their sermons, letters, and other works, being cognizant of both their weaknesses and their strengths.

As with everything we read, we should submit the ideas of the Caroline Divines to Scripture. The Bible should always be the test against which we try doctrine and practice. The Caroline Divines would themselves have agreed with this test. Being human and fallible like ourselves, they had a tendency to find in Scripture support for their thinking where support did not exist. We are all guilty of errors in judgment; we can learn from their mistakes as well as our own.

As I see the Caroline High Churchmen and the Puritans, they both represent developments in the reformed Church of England that began during the period that is associated with classical Anglicanism. They are connected to classical Anglicanism and represent similar but also disparate tendencies in the reformed English Church. Both would move the English Church away from classical Anglicanism but at the same time are firmly attached to a number of its presuppositions. From the Restoration to the nineteenth century the tendency that the Caroline High Churchmen embodied took the form of the Protestant High Churchmen within the Church of England and the Non-Jurors outside the Church. The tendency that the Puritans embodied took the form of the Evangelicals within the Church of England and the Non-Conformists outside the Church. The Methodist movement of the eighteenth century would for a time unite both tendencies.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth century emerged two new tendencies in the Church of England—one represented by Latitudinarianism and the other by Tractarianism. Both of these tendencies are disconnected from classical Anglicanism, the latter more so than the former. These two tendencies would dominate the North American Church in the twentieth century in the form of liberalism and Anglo-Catholicism. In the twentieth century a third movement has emerged in the North American Church and elsewhere—Pentecostalism. Like the two preceding movements it is also not connected to Classical Anglicanism. All three movements claim to be genuine expressions of Anglicanism although they are missing this critical connection. All these developments have moved the North American Church further and further away from its Classical Anglican heritage. During the same time period we have also seen the emergence of sixteenth century Anabaptist views in the North American Church—antinomianism, denial of the resurrection of the body, acceptance of personal revelation as more authoritative than Scripture, rejection of the Trinity, and universalism.

Without the vital connection to classical Anglicanism the claim of these three movements to be genuine expressions of Anglicanism must be questioned. They cannot be recognized as Anglican solely on the basis that they are occurring in a nominal Anglican Church on the premise that “Anglican is what Anglican does” at a particular time and place in history. In this understanding anything can be Anglican as long as it occurs in a nominally Anglican setting— burning juniper branches and wafting the smoke to the four points of the compass, sacrificing chickens or goats to the tribal ancestors, walking the twists and turns of a labyrinth, or screeing by gazing into a silver bowl filled with water. Such an understanding is clearly deficient.

To be genuine something must really come from its reputed source. It must be properly so called, and not sham. To express is to represent, to make known in a variety of ways. To be Anglican is to be of the reformed Church of England. For a movement to be a genuine expression of Anglicanism it must stand in continuity with the doctrine and practice of the reformed English Church. It must be representative of that doctrine and practice. In this regard these three movements are seriously defective. This is not to say that they are not genuine expressions of something but it is not Anglicanism. They may be growing in what once was an Anglican garden but this does not mean that they sprung from Anglican rootstocks or seeds nor does it mean that they will bear Anglican fruit.

This does not answer the question of whether the Caroline Divines have a place in classical Anglicanism. It does suggest a way of placing the Caroline High Churchmen. Where they individually and collectively clearly stand in continuity with the mainstream of classical Anglican thought (and not with figures on its periphery), they can be regarded as classically Anglican. At the same time they do represent—both individually and collectively—a significant departure from classical Anglicanism and a reaction to its Protestant and Reformed doctrine and practice.

Matthew 17: The Transfiguration of our LORD (Bishop Jeremy Taylor)

A wonderful selection and mediation from Nicholas Armitage. See:
http://comfortablewords.blogspot.com/2010/08/jeremy-taylor-1613-1667-on.html

Friday, August 6, 2010
Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) on the Transfiguration

THE Feast of The Transfiguration Of Our Lord (see Mk 9:2-10) is given on this day in the prayer Book, although no Collect has been set for it.

The following Prayer comes from The Great Exemplar of Sanctity And Holy Life, a series of meditations and prayers on the Life of Christ by Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667), Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore in Ireland.

Taylor saw the Transfiguration as a twin with the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The purpose of both together, he believed, was that his disciples:

might see of how great glory for our sakes he disrobed himselfe, and that they also might by the confronting those contradictory accidents observe, that GOD uses to dispense his comforts, the irradiations and emissions of his glory, to be preparatives to those sorrows, with which our life must be allayed and seasoned, that none should refuse to partake of the sufferings of CHRIST, if either they have already felt his comforts, or hope hereafter to wear his crown.

Part III, Discourse XIX, Ad Sect. 15 §2
http://books.google.com/books?id=D9UTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA731#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bishop Taylor's prayer therefore focuses not on the glory which Jesus revealed in this moment, but on the contrast between his glory and the lowliness beneath which he concealed it for so long, and which he took upon himself for our benefit.

O HOLY and eternal Jesus, who wert pleased to lay aside the glorious and incomprehensible Majesty which clothed thy infinity from before the beginning of creatures, and didst put on a cloud upon thy brightness, and wert invested with the impure and imperfect broken robe of human nature, and didst abate those splendours which broke through the veil, commanding devils not to publish thee, and men not to proclaim thy excellencies, and the Apostles not to reveal those glories of thine which they discovered encircling thee upon mount Tabor in thy transfiguration, and didst by perpetual homilies and symbolical mysterious actions, as with deep characters, engrave humility into the spirits of thy disciples, and the discipline of Christianity:

teach us to approach near to these thy glories which thou hast so covered with a cloud, that we might without amazement behold thy excellencies; make us to imitate thy gracious condescensions, take from us all vanity and fantastic complacencies in our own persons or actions;

and when there arises a reputation consequent to the performance of any part of our duty, make us to reflect the glory upon thee, suffering nothing to adhere to our own spirits but shame at our own imperfection, and thankfulness to thee for all thy assistances;

let us never seek the praise of men from unhandsome actions, from flatteries and unworthy discourses, nor entertain the praise with delight though it proceed from better principles;

but fear and tremble lest we deserve punishment or lose a reward which thou hast deposited for all them that seek thy glory and despise their own, that they may imitate the example of their Lord.

Part III. Discourse XVIII. Ad Sect. 15 Numb. 6
http://books.google.com/books?id=D9UTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA707#v=onepage&q&f=false
See also Sermons on the Transfiguration.