them that elegance might confift with piety.

They would have both done honour to a better fociety, for they had that charity, which might well make their failings be forgotten, and with which the whole Chriftian world wifh for communion. They were pure from all the herefies of an age, to which every opinion is become a favourite, that the univerfal Church has hitherto detefted! This praife the general interest of mankind requires to be given to writers, who please and do not corrupt, who inftruct and do not weary. But to them all human eulogies are vain, whom I believe applauded by angels, and numbered with the juft."*

Such were fome of the friends, various in character and station, yet congenial in fpirit, with whom Bishop Ken found folace in his enforced, but dignified and enviable, retirement.

Bofwell's Johnfon, by Croker. Edit. 1851, p. 105.

CHAPTER XXII.

Ken refufes to concur with Sancroft and other Non-jurors, in extreme measures-His moderate views and conduct-Difapproves of clandeftine confecrations to perpetuate the SchifmDeath of Sancroft-of Tillotson-of Queen Mary.

HE great Schifm inflicted on the Church by the new government, in the uncanonical appointment of intrufive Bishops, was the cause of greater forrow to Ken than his own perfonal lofs of

fortune. It could only fpring from Eraftianifm, and lead to latitudinarian principles, a relaxed difcipline, neglect of the fervices of religion, and a deadness of faith,-of all which we are to this day reaping the bitter fruit. Had these confequences been foreseen to their full extent, it is probable that Tillotson, Burnet, and the other influential advisers of the King would have cordially united to prevent any invafion of the fpiritual offices. This, however, does not leffen their responsibility in prompting the temporal power to step beyond its limits, and to fever ties which were facred.

Another grievous trial to one fo loving and charitable arose from the ferious differences of opinion, which foon fprung up, and were afterwards carried to great extremes, among the Non-jurors themselves. Ken at once forefaw the fatal confequences of this, and

did all he could to prevent it. For himself,-being virtually shut out from the public exercise of his office by an act of the state, not grounded upon, or involving any herefy in matters of Faith,—he desired, so far as he could, to be paffive. He looked upon his fucceffor as a fchifmatical Bishop, a "traditor of his flock;" but not as incapable of a valid ministry. Having, therefore, at his deprival, publicly afferted his own canonical right, he left to Kidder the responfibility of his intrufion, being careful only not to aggravate its effects by any act of his own.

He abstained from any declaration which, by fixing the charge of Schifm on Kidder, might unfettle the Clergy, hereafter to be under his rule,-as to their obedience, or call in question his spiritual authority in ordination, and other epifcopal offices. It is effential to mark this, when examining the precise course Ken took at the time of his deprival, and afterwards, because it places in a confpicuous point of view his ftrict adherence to the ancient rules by which the Church had been governed in times of far wider divifions and this he exemplified from the beginning to the end of the controverfy,-fo that he had no occafion to retrace any one step he took, or modify any one principle he laid down for his own guidance, or that of others. We fhall hereafter fee, that, having furvived all the other Non-juring Bishops, he was richly rewarded for his moderation, in being able himself, at the right time, and by a voluntary and effectual refignation of his epifcopal rights, to put an end to all reasonable grounds for afferting, that any part of the Church of England retained a taint of Schifm.

In fact, it was reserved to him, fome years afterwards, to repair the breach which he had no hand in making.

He did not lack the courage of St. Bafil, if it could have availed to ftrengthen the principle of unity, or had there been any means of maintaining his jurifdiction: but the clergy of his Diocese having taken the Oaths, he did not pertinaciously challenge their obedience.* His aim had always been fubftantial good, rather than the maintenance of abstract theories. He could practice the mortification of his own will; not only in outward acts of felf-denial, that are foon formed into habits, and may even minister to a subtle complacency, but in a lowliness of spirit, distrusting its own ftrong impreffions, which few men love to forego. He thought it more for the interefts of religion to fuffer in filence what he could not prevent, than to widen the breach, and increase the scandal, by an active oppofition. He bore no resentments against those who took the Oaths: fome of his most intimate friends were of the number, and he never withdrew from their fociety.

He did not feel himself juftified in at once ceding his office, which would have been an acknowledgment

* See "THE CHARACTER OF A PRIMITIVE BISHOP. In a Letter to a Non-Juror," 8vo, 1709, pp. 96 and 98. So far as I can make out, it was written by Mr. John Pitts, Rector of St. Saviour's, in Norwich, himself a Non-juror, which is confirmed at pp. 142 and 143 of the work. It is now a fcarce book: but most valuable, as regards Bishop Ken, who is an object of the author's veneration and applaufe, and the confiftency of whofe conduct with the "Character of a Primitive Bishop" is frequently referred to, as justifying the author's arguments for a healing of the Schifm.

of the right of the lay power to invade the spiritual : his duty was to be a standing witness to the inviolable fanctity of the Epifcopate. He had many illuftrious precedents in the early Church to teach him not to yield up the trust committed to him, which it was not his to furrender into unauthorized hands. But he had alfo eminent examples of primitive Bishops to fanction his avoidance of contests by fubmitting, for the fake of charity, to a forced ejectment. To ufe his own words, he confidered "the peace of the Church to be of that importance, that it ought to fuperfede all ecclefiaftical Canons, they being only of human, not divine, authority.'

Sancroft, Lloyd, Turner, and White of Peterborough, took an oppofite courfe, no doubt from equally confcientious motives: but the refult, as Ken prophefied, proved adverse to the interests of religion. They held that, not only the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury, intruding into the Sees of thofe deprived, but the whole national Church, were schismatical. This was a moft exaggerated view; for in the Province of York none of the Bishops were deprived, -therefore there were no intruders. How, then, could the canonical rights of thofe Bishops be queftioned, when the Metropolitan and all his Suffragans (of whofe due confecration no doubt could exift) acted unanimously? Yet they were fuppofed guilty of Schifm by contagion, because they communicated with the fucceffors of the deprived in the other Province: they no longer appertained to the Church

* Round's Profe Works of Ken, p. 50.