declaring to the publique, that I am firmly of the Church of England, and not to be forc'd from her intereft by the terrors of R. [Royal] displeasure, or death itself.

"Your Grace's most obedient Servant,

"J. BRISTOL."*

In another letter from Turner, Bishop of Ely, very probably written to Ken, we have further evidence of the determined refolution of the Clergy to stand up against the King's projects:

"Moft deare Freind,

"Ely, Aug. 25, 1687.

“I sent you my hearty respects last weeke from Norwich, where I was uppon a visitt to that excellent good Prelate,† with whom I long'd to difcourfe uppon the publick affaires. I left him in expectation of being fuddenly prefft afresh on the matter of addreffing. I am very full of hopes that fince tis putt fo hard uppon the Citty of London to give thankes (not for any gratious expreffions in the Declarations, but) for the indulgence its felfe, Nothing lefs will be demaunded or accepted of us, and then we may fairly and flattly decline it, when once it resumes its first ugly shape, and is taken out of the palliating dress which has made it the greater snare to many. Wee must be call'd ungratefull if we do not make express acknowledgments for this great Grace of letting loose the King's and Churche's enemys. I would faine heare from you how the Westerne Bishops and the rest in his Majesty's Progress have scaped at their enterviews.

"Your most affectionate friend and Servant,

"FRAN. ELY."I

* Tanner MSS., vol. xxix. fol. 42.

† Dr. William Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, afterwards a Nonjuror; who had more of the confidence of Archbishop Sancroft than any other. We shall see much of him by and by as the friend of Ken, though they differed as to the proper course for the Nonjurors to take in the later period of that Controverfy.

Tanner MSS., vol. xxix. fol. 64.

James feemed to enjoy a momentary fuccefs in fomenting the spirit of jealousy between the Church and the Diffenters. He hoped to make their difunion a stepping stone to the establishment of his own creed. The Diffenters were ready to fall into the fnare, forgetting that, if Popery were once fet up on the ruins of the Church of England, they themselves would afterwards be an easy prey. But the artifice did not long escape detection. They foon perceived that this fudden toleration was but a pretence. They called to mind the long period of their flights and difabilities at the instigation of James, and how he had always teftified his repugnance to their principles. To them he had conftantly afcribed his father's death. They remembered also how marked a preference he had always shown to the members of the Church, praifing them as good and loyal fubjects, faithfully attached to the monarchy. They could not but reflect that a Roman Catholic prince must needs labour to extirpate their tenets, which he pronounced to be heretical; and that they would be the first to feel the confequences of his fuccess. The Church party likewife clearly faw that the King, disappointed of their expected fupport, wifhed to undermine their influence by pretending a liberality altogether foreign to his nature. Thefe convictions feemed likely to foften the jealoufies of both, and might have led to more charitable sentiments towards each other. But events crowded on so fast, they had scarcely time to do more than indicate a difpofition to mutual forbearance, and a united refiftance to the establishment of Romanifm. The whole brunt of the

conteft fell upon the Church, and nobly did fhe fuftain it.

The King, when it was too late, perceived that he had overacted his part: he says,

"He had much heightened the general difaffection by the great countenance he showed to many noted Presbyterians, who were in outward show grateful for their present ease; and as it is natural for a Prince to be pleas'd with those who are pleas'd with him, fo they were well looked upon at Court, and their counsel made use of in the management of several private affairs, as the regulating Corporations, and the like: but this was the fequel of that train, which his treacherous counsellors had traced out for him, to set those against him, who might otherwise have been his friends, and to court those who, they were fure, never would."*

* "Memoirs writ of his own hand." Clarke's Life of James II., vol. ii. p. 165.

CHAPTER XIV.

Ken's Sermon in the Abbey Church at Bath-The King touches for the Evil in the Abbey-Ken's conduct on the occafionHis letter to Archbishop Sancroft.

HE Bishop, having preached his Lent Sermon at Whitehall, returned as usual to his Diocefe: we find him on the following Afcenfion day (5th May, 1687) in the Abbey Church of Bath, "God is gone

"

where he preached on Pfalm xlvii. 5. up with a fhout, the Lord with the found of a trumpet.' The Sermon itself is not extant: but we gather fome of its principal points from a scarce Tract, published at the time by an Irish Jefuit. The author had been induced by fome high praises of the Bishop's eloquence to attend, for the first time in his life, the fervice of the Reformed Church, being "no lefs curious thạn defirous to hear him."

The tract is entitled, "ANIMADVERSIONS, by way of Answer to a Sermon, preached by Dr. Thomas Kenne, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the Cathedral Church of Bath, on Afcention-day laft, being the 5th of May, 1687:" It is dedicated to the King, and published "with allowance." It begins,

"I was honoured, My Lord, with being one of your Auditors laft Afcention-day, in the afternoon, at the cathedral church of Bath. Your Lordship does not, I own, want the

parts of an Orator, and of an Evangelical one too, had you but fuck'd your doctrine (as St. John hath done) ‹ de facro Dominici pectoris fonte,' that is to say within the Bosom of his only true Spoufe on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church, Mother and Mistress of all visible churches."

The writer "was much astonished at the odd fight of a preacher beginning a Sermon without making the fign of the cross." He informs us that the Bishop "was a full hour and a half in chair;"

"I took notice that your Lordship gave a fling at the Pope's Supremacy, to which you show'd all averfion imaginable, and that because he is call'd Supream Spiritual Head of Chrift's Church on Earth. We call His Holiness, it is true, Supream Spiritual and Visible Head, Vicar of Jesus Christ, and fucceffor to St. Peter, the first visible Head our Saviour hath ordained in his Church. I remember you faid that Jefus Christ was, and is, the only Spiritual Head of His Church. You must needs know I admir'd much your vehemency in protesting against that Church, which allows of any Visible Spiritual Head: you flew to such eagerness of contradiction against this Spiritual Supremacy, that I thought you had some solid authority to disprove the pretended abuse, till at last I found you had no fuch proof in nature.”.

"Let us now come to the controverfie of the last part, which was with much vehemency against the Real Presence. I did no fooner hear your folemn protestation against this Holy Sacrament, than immediately I fuppofed you were an abjurator, ready to fwear point blank that Chrift's most sacred Humanity is not really and substantially on our altars in virtue of the facramental words: for I faw you exhorted with paffion your People not to be tottered by every blast of wind, that shall say Christ is on this altar, or Christ is on that altar, for Christ is actually in Heaven, and shall continue there till He comes to judge at the end of the world.' In fine, I remember your Lordship protested mightily against Roman