Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

BISHOP KEN

[Thomas Ken (1637-1711), Bishop of Bath and Wells, was born at Great or Little Berkhampstead in July 1637. His father was a lawyer of Furnival's Inn, who married twice, Thomas being the son of the second wife. He lost both his parents while he was yet a boy, but found a home with his sister Anna, many years his senior, who had married the famous Izaak Walton. On 26th September 1651 he was elected scholar of Winchester, where he remained more than four years; in 1656 he was elected to New College, Oxford, but as there was no immediate vacancy he spent a few terms at Hart Hall before proceeding to New. In 1661 he took his B.A. degree, and became Tutor of New College. About the same time he received Holy Orders, and in 1663 was presented by Lord Maynard to the rectory of Little Easton in Essex. He resigned this living in 1665 in order to become domestic chaplain to Bishop Morley at Winchester, where he also undertook gratuitously the charge of the poor parish of St. John in the Soke. In 1666 he was elected Fellow of Winchester, and in 1667 accepted the living of Brightstone in the Isle of Wight, which he held until 1669, when he was made a Prebendary of Winchester and Rector of East Woodhay. In 1672 he resigned East Woodhay in favour of George Hooper, who was afterwards his successor at Bath and Wells, and returned to Winchester, resuming the charge of St. John in the Soke. In 1679 he went to reside at The Hague as chaplain to the Princess Mary of Orange. In 1680 he returned to Winchester, and soon became one of the King's chaplains. It was probably in the summer of 1683 that he refused to receive Eleanor Gwynne into his prebendal house; and in the same year he went to Tangier as chaplain to Lord Dartmouth, commander of the fleet. In 1684 he was appointed Bishop of Bath and Wells by the express wish of King Charles II., who is said to have declared that no one should have the see, but "" the little black fellow that refused his lodging to poor Nelly." He was consecrated 25th January 1685, and in the same year he was summoned to the death-bed of King Charles, when he spoke "like one inspired." He ministered to the Duke of Monmouth on the night before his execution and on the scaffold, and he interceded, not without effect, with King James, who always respected him, in behalf of the prisoners after the Battle of Sedgmoor. In 1687 he was one of the seven bishops who were committed to the Tower for refusing to oblige their clergy to read in church the King's declaration of indulgence. After the Revolution he refused to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, and was deprived of his see in 1691. Henceforth he lived in poverty and retire

ment, chiefly at Longleat, the seat of Lord Weymouth, who was his staunch and kind friend. In 1702, Queen Anne offered to restore him to his bishopric, but his conscience would not allow him to accept it. He did not, however, sympathise with the extreme party among the Non-jurors, among whom he incurred much obloquy by making a cession of the canonical right to his see in favour of George Hooper, whom he had long known, and in whose Church principles he had the fullest confidence. He died at Longleat, 19th March 1711, and was buried beneath the east window of the parish church of Frome.]

If this were a hagiology there would be much to be said about the saintly character of Bishop Ken; or if it were a critique on poetry the writer of the most popular hymns in the English language might claim a high place; but as a prose writer Ken holds a very subordinate position. In the first place, he would fall under the condemnation which Dr. Johnson pronounced upon Gray: he was "a barren rascal." A Manual of Prayers for the use of the Winchester Scholars, an Exposition of the Church Catechism entitled The Practice of Divine Love, and three single sermons, Prayers for the use of all Persons who come to the Baths (that is Bath) for cure, with a short but interesting introduction, one or two pastoral addresses to his clergy, and a number of private letters, exhaust the list of writings in prose which are universally acknowledged to be his, though there are a few which almost certainly and a few more which possibly came from his pen. His undoubted prose works, all told, are not sufficient to fill one decently sized volume; and, such as they are, they would scarcely have attracted much attention if they had been written by any one else. It is the man who gives an interest to the writings, rather than the writings that enhance the reputation of the man. At the same time, what he has written makes us wish that he had written more. The sermons especially are the compositions of a good and effective preacher, who might with advantage have left many more to posterity. He had a wonderfully high reputation as a preacher among his contemporaries; this may no doubt be partly accounted for by the halo of sanctity which surrounded the man, and partly by the action and energy with which his sermons are said to have been delivered; but, even when read in cold blood, the three specimens still extant are not disappointing; they are lively, earnest, and written in an easy and pure style. One of his chief merits is that he never loses sight of his text, which, like Bishop Andrews, he pricks to the bone ;

;

hence a mere extract can hardly convey a fair estimate of the excellence of the whole sermon; but the one given below has an adventitious interest when read in the light of the preacher's own life, which shows that he practised to the letter what he preached. His other works do not, from the nature of the case, afford scope for the writing of consecutive prose; but the short extract given will show what he might have done, and will make the reader regret that he did not do more.

J. H. OVERTON.

DANIEL, A MAN GREATLY BELOVED

You have seen how Daniel served his God; and you are next to see how he served his prince, I may add, the people too; for the prince and the people have but one common interest, which is the public prosperity; and none can serve the prince well, but he does serve the people too: and Daniel served his prince and not himself; the love of God had given him an utter contempt of the world. And this made him despise Belshazzar's presents, Thy gifts be to thyself, and thy rewards give to another"; to show, that it was a cordial zeal for the king and not self-interest, that inclined him to his service. This was

evident in all his ministry; insomuch, that when the Medean presidents and princes combined in his destruction, he had so industriously done the king's business, was so remarkably righteous a person, so faithful in the discharge of his duty both to king and people, so beneficent to all, so sincerely sought the good of Babylon, was so forward to rescue an injured innocence, as he did Susanna; so tender of men's lives, that he was never at rest till he saved all the wise men of Babylon, when the decree was gone out for their massacre; so careful of their peace and prosperity that he sat in the gate of the king to hear every man's cause, and with great patience and assiduity to do justice to all: he had behaved himself so irreproachably, that they could find no occasion nor fault in him concerning the kingdom; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.

For this reason, when no accusation, no slander could stick on him from the law of the land, the conspirators resolve to take advantage against him from the law of his God, and put Darius upon making that impious decree, That whoever should ask any petition of God or man for thirty days together, save of the king, should be cast into the den of lions. It was a decree

which was one of the greatest pieces of flattery imaginable : nothing could better please a proud infidel king, than to be deified. It was the most opportune device in the world, to try whether the Babylonians would pay an entire obedience to their new Medean emperor: it was a kind of idolatry, the most plausible that could be invented. To worship an idol, such as Bel, or such as Nebuchadnezzar's golden image was, that had been a test too gross; and a man may much more rationally worship himself than a creature of his own making. To worship an animal that had motion and strength, such as the dragon, was better than to worship a lifeless trunk; yet this had been to sink the worshipper infinitely beneath the beast he worshipped; but to worship a king, that is much more defensible; the very statues of kings have been venerated, even by Christians, and met with solemn processions and placed in their very temples; insomuch, that from the honour there paid to the images of emperors, an analogical inference was afterwards made, for the introducing of the images of saints and martyrs in churches. But to worship the king himself, seems much more allowable, especially such a king, the greatest monarch on earth, who has power of life and death, who in dominion, in rewards and punishments, was the liveliest image of God in the world; who was able to hear and grant the petitions there offered him; if any idolatry can be excusable or venial, it is certainly this. And nothing could ever be thought on, so ensnaring to Daniel, as this project of the Medean princes. Not to worship the king had been to show him a personal dishonour; and it was grievous for Daniel personally to affront Darius, who had been so gracious, and indulgent a master to him. Not to pray to God for thirty days together, and yet to pray to the king in his stead, had been all the while to renounce God, and to exalt a creature into his throne. On the one hand, the den and the lions threaten him; on the other, the bottomless pit, and the damned spirits.

In this strait in which Daniel was, could no expedient be found? What if he had worshipped the king, that worship might be interpreted allegiance, rather than idolatry; or it was only worshipping God in the king that represented him; or he might for thirty days together petition the king to repeal his ungodly decree, and to worship the true God; and all the time, secretly, and in a corner, or mentally, he might have worshipped God; any one of these expedients had reconciled

« AnteriorContinuar »