Bishop Ken.

BORN A. D. 1637.--DIED A. D. 1692.

THOMAS KEN, youngest son, by the first wife, of Thomas Ken of Furnival's Inn, was born at Little Berkhamstead, Hertfordshire, in July 1637. It is not known where he received the first rudiments of his early education, but he was afterwards entered on William of Wykeham's munificent foundation at Winchester, whence he was removed to New college, Oxford, of which he became a fellow-probationer in 1657. In 1666 he obtained a fellowship in the college near Winchester, and in 1699 was promoted to the dignity of a prebendal stall in the restored cathedral church of that place. For this advancement he was indebted to Bishop Morley, whose attachment to Ken seems to have been sincere and warm, and probably originated in the kindness which he had himself experienced, during his ejectment, from Ken's sister, and her husband, Isaac Walton, in their retirement near Stafford. Morley afterwards appointed Ken his domestic chaplain, and presented him to the rectory of Brixton, in the Isle of Wight. In 1674, Ken made a tour to Rome, and soon after his return he was appointed chaplain to the princess of Orange, whom he accompanied to Holland. His stay in the royal suite was rendered uncomfortable to him by the consequences of a too conscientious discharge of his duties; and in 1683, he accepted of Lord Dartmouth's chaplainry, and accompanied that nobleman on his expedition against Tangier. On his return he was appointed chaplain to the king; but this mark of royal favour did not shake the high integrity of Ken, or render him more subservient to the royal pleasure in things unlawful. On the removal of the licentious monarch's court to Winchester, Ken's prebendal house was selected for the use of the infamous Nell Gwynn; but the possessor boldly refused to receive such a character within his doors, and Mrs Gwynn was compelled to look about for some less scrupulous landlord. The king took a proper view, however, of his chaplain's conduct, and to the surprise of his courtiers, soon afterwards nominated him bishop of Bath and Wells. Ken repaid the generosity of the dissipated monarch by attending him with the most anxious solicitude when on his death-bed; and Bishop Burnet declares that he expressed himself on that trying occasion "with great elevation of thought and expression, like a man inspired."

In 1685, Bishop Ken published an Exposition of the Church Catechism,' and in the same year a collection of Prayers for the use of the Bath.' He did not take any immediate part in the popish controversy, which now began to be agitated with so much keenness; but he was one of the famous seven bishops who openly opposed the reading of the declaration of indulgence, and was committed to the tower in consequence. He did not, however, see his way so clearly in the case of the oath of allegiance to King William, and on his refusal to take it was deprived of his bishopric in 1691. He retired to Long-Leat, the hospitable seat of his early friend, Lord Weymouth, where he composed several devotional works, and some beautiful hymns. Queen

He died at Lewson house,
He had kept his shroud

Anne settled a pension of £200 upon him. near Sherborne, in the 73d year of his age. for many years beside him, and on finding himself dying, he calmly put it on with his own hands, and having given his parting blessing to all present, gently laid down his head, breathed a sigh, and was at rest. His works were published in 1721, in 4 vols. 8vo., with a life by Hawkins prefixed. The Rev. W. L. Bowles has also written a life of this amiable prelate, in 2 vols. 8vo.

Archbishop Sancroft.

BORN A. D. 1617.-DIED A. D. 1693.

WILLIAM SANCROFT, one of the most conscientious, if not one of the most able primates of England, was born at Fresingfield, in the county of Suffolk, on the 30th of January 1617. He received the rudiments of his education at Bury. At the age of eighteen, he was sent to Emanuel college, Cambridge, of which his uncle, Dr William Sancroft, was then master. In 1642, he succeeded to a fellowship in his college. The 'solemn league and covenant' was soon after this proposed to the heads and fellows of colleges, but by what means Sancroft escaped the consequences of this test, it is now impossible to determine. He retained his fellowship, and it has been suggested that he may have succeeded in doing so through the interference of Milton, who, though not yet in public life, must have had considerable influence both in the house of commons and in the assembly of divines, and may have exerted himself in favour of a brother-poet, for Sancroft had also cultivated the muses, and professed himself an admirer of Milton's poetry. Soon afterwards, the use of the liturgy was prohibited, and public prayer, according to the directory, enjoined to be put up in every church and chapel in the kingdom. A friend advised Sancroft to yield to necessity and conform in this case, but he replied, "I do not, indeed, count myself obliged to go to chapel and read common prayer till my brains be dashed out; but to comply, by praying according to the directory, would be to throw a foul aspersion on the whole church of England since the reformation; and shall I pray for your synod and army, or give thanks for your covenant?" At last, in the month of July 1651, he gave proof of his sincerity by incurring the forfeiture of his fellowship rather than take the 'engagement,' as it was called.

6

For some years after his expulsion from Cambridge, Mr Sancroft seems to have lived chiefly with his elder brother at Fresingfield. During this period he published two tracts which made considerable noise. The first a dialogue in Latin, was entitled, Fur Prædestinatus,' and was intended to hold up the doctrines of Calvinism to ridicule; the other, entitled 'Modern Policies, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other choice authors, by an eye-witness,' was a satire on the supposed fanaticism and hypocrisy of the party in power. The latter tract was but published in 1652, but passed through seven editions in the short space of five years. Of the Fur Prædestinatus,' Sancroft's biographer, Dr D'Oyly thus writes: "The exposure of the

Calvinistic doctrines was peculiarly serviceable at that time, when both the puritans and the independents, however they differed from each other on points of church discipline and government, yet concurred in maintaining those doctrines in their utmost rigour, and pushed them to the extreme of Antinomianism; thereby obstructing the natural influence of Christianity on the human heart, and giving a free rein to perverse and headstrong passions. A dialogue is feigned between a thief condemned to immediate execution, and a Calvinistic preacher, who came to move him to repentance for his crimes. The thief, although by his own acknowledgment he had lived in the commission of the worst enormities, is full of self-satisfaction; maintains that he could not possibly act any other part than he had done, as all men, being either elect or reprobate, are predestined to happiness or misery; that the best actions, as they are reputed, partake of so much wickedness as to differ in no essential degree from the worst; that sinners fulfil the will of God as much as those who most comply with his outward commands; and that God, as working irresistibly in all men, is the cause of the worst sins which they commit. He says, that he had always reflected respecting himself in this manner-that either he must be elect or reprobate; if the former, the Holy Spirit would operate so irresistibly as to effect his conversion; if the latter, all his care and diligence for effecting his salvation, would rather do harm than good; but now, he felt satisfied that he was one of the elect, who, though they may fall into grievous sins, cannot fail of salvation."

In 1657, Sancroft quitted England, with an intention of taking up his residence in Holland; but, after visiting Amsterdam, the Hague, and Utrecht, he was persuaded to accompany a friend in a tour through the south of Europe. The restoration of Charles II. having brought Sancroft back to England, he was appointed chaplain to Bishop Cosin, and preached his consecration sermon. Preferments now flowed rapidly upon him. In 1662 he was elected master of Emanuel college, and at the close of the year 1664, the king conferred on him the deanery of St Paul's, at the request of Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, and Henchman, bishop of London. While dean of St Paul's, he eagerly promoted the design for building a new church suitable to the dignity of the see; and it was mainly through his exertions and bounty that the magnificent plan of Sir Christopher Wren was at last adopted. The first stone of the new cathedral was laid under the superintendence of Dr Sancroft as dean, but it was not completed till long after his death.

On the death of Sheldon, in 1677, Dr Sancroft, much to his own surprise, as well as that of all who were acquainted with his habits, was elevated at once to the primacy. Bishop Burnet hints that Sancroft may have been indebted for this piece of good fortune to an opinion which the court may have entertained of him, that he was a man more likely to be gained over to their secret wishes than any member of the existing prelacy. But of any thing like the slightest disposition on the part of Sancroft ever to temporize with popery, we most unhesitatingly acquit him. In fact, in a sermon which he preached before the peers, soon after his elevation to the archiepiscopal chair, he attacked the Jesuitical party with a zeal and bitterness at that time peculiarly his own; and one of the very steps which he took after his promotion,

was to solicit the king's permission to attempt the conversion of the duke of York from the errors of the church of Rome. The solicited permission was granted, and the prelate's address to the duke, which has been preserved, evinces how truly in earnest he was in his wish to win James over to the reformed faith and practice of the church of England. The suspension of Dr Wood, the infamous bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, is also highly creditable to his integrity and zeal. When Charles was laid on his deathbed, the archbishop was summoned to attend him in his dying moments. He addressed the king in a weighty exhortation, and with much freedom of speech, but his faithfulness was lost on the wretched monarch, who preferred to have the last offices of religion administered to him by Romish priests.

In 1685, on the accession of James II., Sancroft's difficulties began. Deceived by the assurances which the king gave that he would support the church as established by law, the archbishop presented to him an address in his own name, and that of the other bishops. He likewise placed the crown on his majesty's head. But it has been disproved by Dr D'Oyly that he officiated on this occasion, without insisting on the administration of the sacrament, as Burnet insinuates. His refusal to act under the ecclesiastical commission which James issued, and his petitioning with the six bishops against reading the king's declaration for liberty of conscience, were acts which gave great offence at court. We have elsewhere noted the issue of this contest. When the infatuated monarch became aware of the danger of his situation, he sent for the archbishop in haste and earnestly besought his advice how to regain the ground which he had lost in the affections of his people. Sancroft complied with the request of his sovereign, and drew up ten articles for his consideration, in the last of which he firmly but respectfully stipulates for permission to attempt the conversion of the king himself from the errors of popery. James promised to listen to his advice, and commanded him to compose public prayers suited to the state of the kingdom at this critical period.

On the king's first departure from his capital, Sancroft was foremost to sign the address to the prince of Orange, praying him to summon a parliament. But he had already wavered greatly as to the line of conduct which it was his duty to pursue with respect to the prince. There is extant a paper in his own handwriting, in which he discusses three different modes of settling the government. The first was to declare the prince of Orange-who, at the instance of the nobility and some commoners, was administering the public affairs both civil and military -king, and solemnly to crown him. A second plan was to set up the next heir to the crown after the king's death, and to crown her. The third was, "To declare the king, by reason of his unhappy principles, and his resolution to act accordingly, incapable of the government, with which such principles are inconsistent and incompatible, and to declare the prince of Orange custos regni, who shall carry on the government in the king's right and name." To the last of these modes he gave a decided preference, reasoning on what must be done in hereditary monarchies when the king is rendered incapable of directing the government through delicacy,' or otherwise. Yet, though he thus seems to have made up his mind as to what should be done, he obstinately refused to introduce the subject to the peers; and when all public func

tionaries were required to take an oath of allegiance to King William, he, with nine other prelates, refused to comply, pleading their previous oath to King James, his heirs, and successors. He was still, however, allowed to continue in the exercise of his metropolitical powers until the 1st of August, 1689, when he was suspended from office. On the 1st of February following, he was, with five other bishops, deprived by act of parliament, without any previous trial or censure. On the 3d of August, he finally left the metropolis, and retired to Fresingfield, the place of his nativity, which he never afterwards quitted. He spent the remainder of his life in great privacy, and died on the 24th of November, 1693.

We have already expressed our opinion of the integrity of this prelate's character. We think that he gave repeated evidence of his readiness to sacrifice all worldly advantage to what he believed to be his duty at the time. Yet he was not without many foibles, and even some of the darker traits of character. He was austere in his own life, and intolerant towards others. In some things too he was inconsistent. He maintained the doctrine of passive obedience, yet on James's first departure from his capital, the archbishop himself went from Guildhall, and having demanded and obtained the keys of the Tower, delivered them over as by order from the lords, to Lord Lucas, which, as has been observed in a tract attributed to Lord Somers, “would have been as real acts of læsæ majestatis, if King James had not forfeited the duty aud obedience of his subjects as if he had stabbed him to the heart." His literary character presents nothing very remarkable; his style partook largely of all the common defects in the taste of the age, but is often highly terse and piquant. The archbishop's life has been recently written by Dr D'Oyly, in two volumes, octavo.

William Bates, D. D.

BORN A. D. 1625.-DIED A. D. 1699.

In fact,

DR WILLIAM BATES, a distinguished puritan divine, was born Nov. 1625, in the very year that Charles I. succeeded to the throne. Neither his ancestry nor his birth-place has been left on record. no regular account of him at all has been transmitted from his contemporaries; a circumstance rather singular, considering the esteem which he commanded, and the eminence he reached among the men of his generation. Howe, who seems to have been longest and best acquainted with him, having known him, as he tells us himself, above forty years, has left us no other memorial of his friend than the funeral sermon preached upon his death, and which, though marked with much of its author's usual power and grandeur, and sketching the character of Bates with great felicity and fulness, has scarcely even furnished us with the outlines of his life.

More fortunate than some of his nonconforming brethren of that age, he enjoyed the advantages of a university education, and commenced his studies at Cambridge, being early admitted to Emanuel college;