BISHOP KEN.
1688.
Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, the openness of whose countenance corresponded with the simplicity of his character,[203] is the best known of all the seven. A Wykehamist, and an Oxonian, he took orders in the Church just after the Restoration, and became Fellow of Winchester College, and Chaplain to the Bishop. In his former capacity he refused to admit to his lodgings Nell Gwynn, the mistress of Charles II., when she accompanied her lover on a visit to the romantic old city; and it is to the honour of the erring King, that, instead of showing resentment for this high-principled act, he rewarded with a mitre the virtues of the pure-hearted clergyman.[204] People suspected that, in consequence of a journey he made to the City of Rome, Ken had become tinged with Popery; but though ascetic in his habits, a High Churchman in principle, and decidedly “Catholic” in feeling, his protest from the pulpit against the errors of Rome, and his resistance of the policy of James, is sufficient to clear him from any suspicion of that kind: James did not personally dislike him, and listened to what he had to say on behalf of sufferers in the Monmouth Rebellion. His popularity appears to have been very great. Evelyn speaks of the crowd to hear him at St. Martin’s, as “not to be expressed, nor the wonderful eloquence of this admirable preacher;” and again at Whitehall, the same Diarist speaks of the Holy Communion after the Morning Service being interrupted by “the rude breaking in of multitudes, zealous to hear the second sermon to be preached by the Bishop of Bath and Wells.”[205] On that occasion Ken applied the story of the persecution of the Church of Judah, by the Babylonians, to the peculiar position of the Church of England; and he so powerfully urged the congregation to cling to the reformed faith, that they could scarcely refrain from an audible response. Sent for by James, and reproved for his boldness, Ken quietly replied “that if His Majesty had not neglected his own duty of being present, his enemies had missed the opportunity of accusing him.” But the Bishop’s wide fame rests mainly on his Morning, Evening, and Midnight Hymns, respecting which, it has been truly said, had he endowed three hospitals, he might have been less a benefactor to posterity.[206] Nor should we overlook the interest which he took in the young, his manual of prayer for Wykeham’s scholars, his establishment of parish schools, and his zeal for catechizing.[207]
BISHOP LLOYD.
William Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, took a leading part in the proceedings of the seven. He had been ordained by Bishop Brownrigg, in the time of the Commonwealth, and had been made Dean of Ripon at the Restoration. In 1676 he had obtained the vicarage of St. Martin’s, Westminster; and amidst the excitement of the Popish plots had distinguished himself by his Protestant zeal. He had preached Godfrey’s funeral sermon, and had been indefatigable in his endeavours to elicit evidence in support of the accusations by Titus Oates.[208] Decidedly a party man, although sincere and honest, he showed himself apt practically to adopt the principle, that the end sanctifies the means, and to betray feelings of a kind which, though sometimes attributed exclusively to Papists, are rather the bad qualities of human nature.[209] He combined, with his Protestant activities, a fondness for prophetical studies, dwelling much upon the predicted downfall of Babylon, and bringing to bear upon his Biblical and other researches a considerable amount of learning, not always under the control of a sober judgment. Promoted in the year 1680 to the see of St. Asaph, he endeavoured to reduce the Dissenters to conformity by means of argument and friendly influence; and where he failed to convince he won respect.[210]
Such were the Bishops engaged in the Lambeth Conference, and it ended in the drawing up of a petition to the King, in which the petitioners professed that their objection to publish the Declaration did not arise from disloyalty to the King, nor from any want of due tenderness to Dissenters, in relation to whom they were willing to come to such a temper as should be thought fit, when the subject should be considered, and settled in Parliament and Convocation; but such a dispensing power as he now exercised had been by Parliament pronounced illegal.[211]
1688.
THE SEVEN BISHOPS.
Of the disposition of the petitioners to obey the commands of the King, so far as their conscience allowed, there can be no doubt; for some at least of the Bishops had maintained, or countenanced, the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance. Nor did they consider themselves as now acting inconsistently with that doctrine,—inasmuch as they distinguished between active and passive obedience, and refused only an active compliance with authority, which they had never held to be binding in cases where conscience interposed to the contrary. They would not do what the King commanded, but they would, as Confessors, patiently accept the consequences, should all constitutional and legal defence of themselves prove in vain. They would countenance no forcible resistance, they would not sanction taking up arms against His Majesty, and they would oppose the accession to the throne of any other claimants, however supported by the nation, so long as the anointed prince continued to live; and hence the attitude which they assumed as nonjurors. Respecting their conduct on this occasion, I must, without a grain of sympathy in their opinions, say, that they did not act so inconsistently as is supposed. But if justice requires this to be said, it requires also something more. As it regards Sancroft his conduct must be pronounced inconsistent. For although he now refused to read the Royal Declaration it appears that in the Prayer Book of Cosin,—amongst MS. suggestions, where it is said that nothing is to be read in church, but by direction of the Ordinary,—Sancroft had added the significant words “or the King’s order:”[212] and, moreover, he had recommended, or approved, at a recent period, the publishing of Royal declarations by the clergy in service-time.[213] As it regards the seven Bishops generally, in their relation to Dissenters, they now declared that they did not resist the Royal demand from any want of tenderness to them,—a plea which would have been valid had they all shown a tolerant and charitable spirit, but they had not done so. It is notorious that persecution had continued nearly up to the time of the first Declaration; and this, too, with the connivance or encouragement of some of the Bishops. The Bishop of St. Asaph, indeed, had distinguished himself by his moderation, Ken had not manifested a persecuting temper, but Sancroft, though appearing to advantage in comparison with Sheldon, cannot be defended from a charge of intolerance, for a letter exists, in which, after alluding to Conventicles at Bury and Ipswich, he expresses His Majesty’s pleasure, that effectual care should be taken for the suppression of unlawful assemblies.[214]
1688.