CHAPTER XX.

Ken, and other Bishops, refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance to William and Mary-Act of Parliament for their fufpenfion and deprival-Question of Paffive Obedience-Ken's confiftent Conduct-The Non-juring Bishops publish a Vindication of themselves.

HE life of Ken, if not unchequered, had hitherto been one of continued and advancing usefulness in the several offices of the Church; the world fmiled upon him, honoured his piety, admired his eloquence, and loved him for his charities. Henceforward his character is to be viewed under a new afpect. He was misunderstood, mifreprefented, forced into retirement and poverty: "fuffering deprivation" (to use his own words) "not only of honour, but of income; fufficiently ridiculed, and expofed to the world as a man of no confcience, particulars out of which may be framed an idea very deplorable."* Still, the inner man was unchanged;-in every act we find the fame fimple unobtruding fpirit, and aversenefs to contention, combined with an undaunted firmnefs that could not bate one jot of integrity, or con

viction.

His future path was to be more difficult, because

* Hawkins's Life of Ken, p. 35.

every step was beset with perplexing questions of perfonal confiftency, which to a fenfitive mind are deeply anxious;—more refponfible, because it tended to separate him from the great body of the English Church, which he fo much loved, as the ordained inftrument, and channel of the true worship of God. Having joined in the last struggle in the House of Lords to maintain the rights of the King, he was foon called to decide a point, on which would depend the whole tenor of his after life. On the acceffion of James to the throne all the Bishops had fworn, as in the prefence of God, that he was the rightful King, and that they would bear true faith to him, and his heirs :a pledge imposed by Parliament. The fame power now required them to forego this oath, and by a given day to fwear, with equal folemnity, that they would hold allegiance to William and Mary, who had thruft James from his throne. This, if oaths have any meaning, was fufficient to raise serious fcruples of

confcience.

Thus Ken found himself in a ftrait between oppofing difficulties. No doubt the late King had violated his coronation oath, that he would maintain unimpaired the Church of England,―to Ken the most facred of all things upon earth. On the faith of that oath he, and all the Clergy, had fworn allegiance to him. Had not James broken this mutual compact? Ken himself had joined in thanks to the Prince, as the inftrument of their deliverance from Popery :—he had affifted in drawing up an Office of thanksgiving to God, who had fent William, as "a mighty Deliverer, by whom this great falvation was wrought:"

the estates of the realm had declared the Crown to be forfeited by the King, and their decree had already placed the Prince in poffeffion. Could he fet up his own opinion of their respective rights, against the voice of the nation, making himself judge on the difficult points of casuistry, involved in the claims of a King de facto, and a King de jure, with the other political questions that followed in their train? Again, the refufal of the new oath would involve him in an unequal contest with the temporal power, separate him from his flock, and deprive him of all influence in preserving true doctrine throughout his extenfive diocefe. It would, perhaps, expose him to perfecution and imprisonment, certainly reduce him to povertyabove all, lead to a fchifm in the Church. Here were his love of peace, the law of obedience, long cherished friendships,* his own perfonal fafety and interests, and especially the cause of unity,-prompting him to submit. These, in their several degree, had induced the majority of the Bishops, and the great mass of the Clergy to yield acquiefcence.

One fimple fact, however, to his mind, outweighed them all. If he should violate his oath of fidelity to James, by transferring an allegiance, which he conscientiously believed to be irrevocable, he would peril his own foul. His plighted faith was not his own to barter away at any price; the awful words "So help

Bishop Patrick fays, "We had abundance of trouble this year in endeavouring to fatisfy men's fcruples about our present settlement, both by difcourfe and writing letters. And, after all, many old acquaintance and friends continued fo unsatisfied about taking the oaths, that they broke off all familiarity with me." Bishop Patrick's Autobiography, p. 144.

me God," fealed on the holy Evangelifts, were regiftered in Heaven, beyond the difpenfing power of man.* All, therefore, was as duft in the balance against the folemn sense of his duty, and of his account hereafter to be rendered. No expediency could fway him—no terrors shake him-no perfuafions feduce him to do evil that good might come. There was a moral compulfion that bound him indiffolubly to James.

Sancroft, and feven other Bishops + adopted the

This feeling is forcibly expreffed in a letter from Henry Dodwell to Dr. William Sherlock, Master of the Temple, endeavouring to diffuade him from forfeiting his oath to James. The oppofite parts which those eminent men took on the non-juring question will be afterwards noticed; and if the following quotation from Dodwell's letter were not fo peculiarly illustrative of Ken's full sentiments, at this point of our ftory, it might have been better reserved. "You should withall confider the dreadful importance of these words, 'So help me God, and the contents &c.' That is,-fo God deprive me of all the great rewards, fo God inflict upon me all the future punishments, threatened in this Book, as I perform the contents of this Oath.' The Reasons, therefore, that can alone excufe you from performance, must be more certain and evident than those by which it appears that God is, in Providence, concerned, for fecuring the faith of Mankind, to perform those Imprecations. Lefs probable reasons will still leave you in probable danger of them, which no wife man can think recompenfable by any worldly confiderations." Tanner MSS. vol. xxvii. fol. 220.

With the omission of Dr. Thomas, of Worcester, they have been characterized by the Author of the "History of Faction" as,

"the meek, pious, and learned Dr. Sancroft, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury;

the feraphic Dr. Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells;

the evangelical Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely;

the vigilant Dr. Lake, Bishop of Chichester;

the refolute and undaunted Dr. White, Bishop of Peterborough ;

the unchangeable Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich;

and the irreproachable Dr. Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester."

South's Pofthumous Works, p.115.

Strictly speaking, there were nine Non-juring Bishops; but Dr. Thomas Cartwright, of Chester, was unworthy to be claffed among such Confeffors. His name, therefore, is never joined with theirs. He had

fame views, and about four hundred of the Clergy out of ten thousand. When the holders of offices ecclefiaftical, civil and military, were turned out, because they could not conscientiously swear fealty to William, it was natural they should call in question the motives of all who were willing to take the Oath, and their places. On the other hand, those who could adopt a new allegiance, and so stepped in, justified themselves by loudly charging the nonjurors with a factious spirit, and a leaning to Popery., The motives of each, however honeft they might be, were distorted by their opponents ;-mutual accufations embittered the feelings of both parties. This question,―to fwear or not to fwear allegiance-was one of no limited intereft; its import was practically fignificant and general: it touched all ranks, from the king to his lowest penfioner,- from the Archbishop, and Secretary of State, to the petty officer of every veftry, and the beef-eater in the Tower. Every county, each town and parish, was to furnish forth its refpective number of men who had fworn allegiance to James, many of whom were indebted to him for their places, but all must now forget their recent oaths, and fwear to William, or refign.

As every man's confcience is a monitor peculiar to himself, we might expect to find fome curious fpeci

fo committed himself in flavish obfequiousness to the ruling powers in the Rebellion,-after the Restoration, and during the reign of James, that his only refuge from the general obloquy of his countrymen was the King's household at St. Germain's;—and even there he was held in low esteem. See Grainger's Biog. Hift. of England, edit. 1804, vol. iv. p. 294.