much attention, and as it has been attributed to our Bishop, may not be paffed over. It is often the penalty of distinction and fame to bear the burthen of other people's fayings and doings. No one was more heavily laden after this fort than Ken; the works injuriously afcribed to him being equal in number to his real productions. His biographer, Hawkins, complains of this to Lord Weymouth, and gives a clue by which his real works might be discovered: "His frequent joining the fyllable Co-* to words, befide the great propriety thereby preferv'd, may be taken (tho' I dare not averr it to be so intended) for a defign'd Characteriftic of his genuine performances, from such as are spurious: he having met with ill treatment of that nature in his lifetime. And for the further prevention of which (as far as in me lies), I beg leave to affure your Lordship, that nothing more of his performances are ever to be published.”† Mr. Round, in the Preface to his very valuable book, "THE PROSE WORKS OF BISHOP KEN," has fo fatisfactorily difproved Ken's authorship of these fpurious performances," that little more need be faid. One of them was the anonymous pamphlet in question against Tenifon. It abounds in fevere reflexions "As in Co-eval, Co-spire, Co-glorious, Co-Une, Co-Trine, Coharmonious, &c." "Epifle Dedicatory, to the Right Honourable Thomas, Lord Viscount Weymouth, Baron of Warminster," prefixed to "The Works of the Right Reverend, Learned, and Pious, Thomas Ken, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells. Published from Original Manufcripts; by William Hawkins, Esq." 4 volumes, 8vo, 1721. A Letter to Dr. Tenifon on his Sermon preached at the Funeral of her late Majesty. 4to, 1694. U U on the Archbishop for his not having awakened the confcience of the dying Queen to a fenfe of her guilty conduct towards her father, and for not having called on her to fhow fome tenderness towards him in her last moments. Her many admirable qualities and Christian graces are freely recognized, and great allowance made for the conflict of duties by which she was befet; but Tenifon throughout is handled with severe hoftility. In ftyle and fentiment the whole letter betrays that it was not the production of Ken.* It was not likely that he fhould now, for the first time, and on fuch an occafion, enter the lifts of a political controverfy. If anything could draw him *It was reprinted in 1752, in the "True Briton" (vol. iii. p. 589), a periodical of a political character, and a bitter affailant, with more malevolence than ability, of the House of Hanover, and the memory of William III. The correspondent who sent it, figned himself “Pfeudadelphomaftix," and vouched for its being "indifputably drawn up by the fame incomparable hand," that fo effectually chaftifed Bishop Burnet at an earlier period. This is an additional reason against the authorship of Ken, who never published anything against Burnet. My own impreffion is, that Hickes was the author of the "Letter." In a note to vol. i. of Tindal's Continuation of Rapin's Hiftory, fol., 1758, p. 264, it is stated, that "This Sermon [of Tenifon's] gave great offence to the disaffected, who were greatly incenfed at the Queen for her conduct towards her father; and Dr. Thomas Kenn, the deprived Bishop of Bath and Wells, wrote a letter to Dr. Tennifon, dated March 29th, 1695, upon the occasion of his Sermon, reproaching him particularly for not calling upon her Majesty, on her death-bed, to repent of the share she had in the Revolution." † In vol. xxxii. p. 10, of Hearne's MSS. in the Bodleian, we find this entry, "Bishop Kenn's Letter to Tenifon, on the Death of Queen Mary, and Mr. Dodwell's Letter to Tillotson about Schifm, were printed together at London, 1705, 8vo." This has reference to the fubfequent edition. In vol. ii. p. 522, of "A Collection of State Tracts, published during the Reign of King William III., "there is a out of his retirement into the din of a contentious world, this at least was a topic uncongenial to him. The author of "The Practice of Divine Love" was incapable of traducing the character of a Princess "whose high esteem he had gained by his moft prudent behaviour, and ftrict piety, and whom to his death be diftinguifh'd by the title of his Mistress." In all his acknowledged writings, or in his correfpondence, no expreffion can be found that would harmonize with the whole tenor of this Letter of vehement animadverfion. But perhaps the best evidence we can have, to fet this question at reft, is the opinion of Tenifon himself. In a letter to John Evelyn, dated St. Martin's Church Yard, 20th April, 1695, he fays, "I have with this fent you my Sermon at the Queen's Funeral though I ordered one long ago, yet I fear Defence of the Archbishop's Sermon on the Death of her late Majesty of blessed Memory," and of Sermons by Tillotson and other eminent Divines. This "Defence" is principally directed against a Pamphlet by fome other hand, and has only a few lines of remark on the "Letter" in question. Nothing is furmised of Ken being the author: and the writer fays, "The Stile of it is, indeed, much modester than that I have just now dispatched, but the Design is the fame; and tho' the Voice be Jacob's, the Hands are Efau's." See p. 538. * As one paffage alone of that work might show; "O, my God, amidst the deplorable divisions of Thy Church, let me never widen its breaches; but give me Catholic charity to all that are baptized in Thy Name, and Catholic Communion with all Chriftians in defire. O give me grace to pray daily for the peace of Thy Church, and earnestly to seek it, and to excite all I can to praife and love Thee." + Hawkins's Life of Ken, p.7. This is the opinion of Round: he fays, "In the absence of all evidence in favour of it's genuineness, the tone and temper shown through the whole of it are fufficient to prove, that it was not written by Ken." Preface to Profe Works of Ken, p. v. it was not fent; you will excufe the plainnefs of it. There is come forth an answer to it, said to be written by Bishop Kenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, and less malice." Ken, therefore, we may be fure, was not the author. In his contemplative life, amid the fecluded walks of Longleat, he was very differently engaged. "There," as Hawkins fays, "he compofed many excellent, useful, and pious pieces," to be found in his volumes of poetry. "His cholick pains rendering him uncapable of more serious study, he applied himself so happily to this favourite entertainment, his great relish for Divine Poesy,' as thereby, in some measure, to palliate the acuteness of his pain. So close was his application to these studies, and so was his mind bent on quietness, that during all the time of his retirement, and among all the attempts of, and clamours against, those called Jacobites, in the reign of King William, he was never once disturb'd in that quiet enjoyment of himself; and 'tis prefumed never suspected of any ill defign, fince never publickly molested, or privately rebuk'd. 'Tis true, he was once fent for by warrant to appear before the Privy Council, in the year 1696; but having the particular of that matter by me, left under his own hand, I think it best to refer the reader to it."† * Evelyn's Diary and Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 345. CHAPTER XXIII. Ken's humane difpofition-Circular letter of the deprived Bishops, recommending a Charitable Fund for the relief of the Non-juring Clergy-Character and Death of KettlewellKen fummoned before the Privy Council, and releafed. HE friendship of Lord Weymouth had placed Ken beyond the reach of perfonal want: but he felt deeply for the diftrefs of others. His alms now could not reach to the extent of his charitable defires, which had ever been unbounded: and, perhaps, he might fometimes figh for the means of relieving others, like the charitable Anthony Horneck, of whom his biographer relates, "I never heard him complain but once, and that was a little before his last sickness, and then he complained that he wanted money to give to the poor." When the Bishop of Bath and Wells gave a great part of 4000l. to the exiled Huguenots, it did not fatisfy him how much lefs could he effect on 80l. a year! Then, of his abundance, he caft in all, as an offering to God;-now, his poor mite was an equally acceptable oblation, and laid up in the fame treasury, not the lefs bleffed to himself. Writing to Bishop Lloyd, he excufes himself from coming to London, as |