WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

Such a multitude of works from the pen of the same author engaged the attention of Henry II. who, to reward his merit, bestowed on him a canonry in the cathedral of Bayeux. Monsieur Lancelot, in his explanation of the tapestry of queen Matilda, preserved in the treasury of that cathedral, has contended that Wace borrowed several facts which he could not have found elsewhere from that valuable monument, but for this there seems very slight foundation. Dumoutier in his.“Nenstria pia” says that Wace was canon of Caen, but it is certain there was no chapter established in that city. That of St. Sepulchre, which still remains, was not founded till 1219. It is true, that in March 1152, Philip de Harcourt, bishop of Bayeux, founded three new canonries in his cathedral church, and to endow them, annexed the parish churches of Notre Dame, St. John, and St. Peter, belonging to the city of Caen; perhaps Wace being afterwards provided with one of these benefices, might have been called canon of Caen, because the chief place of his prebend was situated in that city; this conjecture acquires the greater probability on account of a practice still existing in Normandy of describing every canon by the name of the place appropriated to his canonry.

This was once a place of great fame in the university, and may be traced to very high antiquity. In 1251, pope Innocent IV. granted a power to the friars eremites of St. Austin, to travel into any countries, build monasteries, and celebrate divine service. With this permission, they first established a house in London, but deputed some of their number to go to Oxford, where they hired an obscure bouse near the public schools. Acquiring some reputation for their skill in philosophy and divinity, or at least what were then so called, they attracted the attention of sir John Handlove, or Handlow, of Burstall in Buckinghamshire, a very opulent gentleman, who purchased for them a piece of ground, enlarged afterwards by a gift from Henry III. On this tney built a house and chapel in a sumptuous form, and held schools for divinity and philosophy of such reputation, that, before the divinity school was built, the university acts were kept, and the exercises in arts were performed in this place. It was in particular enjoined that every bachelor of arts should once in ea^h year dispute, and once answer, at this house, and this continued until the dissolution, when the disputations were removed to St. Mary’s, and afterwaids to the schools. Alter the dissolution, the premises were let, on a lease of twenty-one years, at 3l. yearly, to Thomas Carwarden, or Carclon, esq. who appears to have demolished the whole, and carried off the materials. In 1552, king Edward VI. sold the site to Henry duke of Suffolk, and Thomas Duport, gentleman, who almost immediately conveyed it to Henry Baylie, M. D. formerly a fellow of New college, for forty-five shillings yearly. In 1553, Baylie sold it to his father-in-law, Edward Freere, of Oxford, who left it to his son William, by whom, in 1587, it was again sold to the mayor, bailiffs, and commonalty of Oxford lor the principal sum of 450l.

, a physician, whose writings, as well as his indolent habits of life, seem to have very strongly resembled those of the facetious Dr. William King of the Commons, was related to the preceding Wagstaffes, and descended from a very ancient family, who were lords of the manor of Knightcote in Warwickshire. He was born in 1685, and being the only son of his father the rector of Cublington in Buckinghamshire, he was educated with great care, and sent early to school at Northampton. In his sixteenth year he was removed to Lincoln college, Oxford, where he was soon distinguished, not only for talents and learning, but for a facetious humour which made his conversation very acceptable to persons of superior rank and standing in the university. After taking his degree of B. A. in 1703, he had some, thoughts of entering into the church, from no better motive, however, than the hopes of being preferred by a relation; but after taking his degree of A. M. in 1707, he left the university, and coming up to London, visited another relation, the rev. Thomas Wagstaffe, who then was a physician; and marrying this gentleman’s daughter some time afterwards, resolved on medicine as a profession, in which his wife’s relations did their utmost to assist him. After her death, he formed a second eligible union with the daughter of Charles Bernard, esq. sergeant-surgeon to queen Anne. Not long after this marriage, he completed his degrees in physic, in 1714, and returning to town was admitted fellow both of the college of physicians, and in 1717 of the Royal Society. Business gradually increasing, he was chosen one of the physicians of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, which trust he discharged with great reputation, as to skill and humanity. He appears, however, to have been a man of indolence, and of some irregular habits, which brought on lowness of spirits, and decay of health. In hopes of recovery he went to Bath in March 1724-5, but died there May 5, in the fortieth year of his age. His works were the same year collected under the title of “The Miscellaneous Works of Dr. William Wagstaffe, physician to St. Bartholomew’s hospital,” &c. 8vo. Their contents are characteristic of the author’s peculiar humour, and his opinions of his contemporaries. 1. “A comment upon the History of Tom Thumb,” in ridicule of Addison’s papers on “Chevy Chase.” 2. “Crispin the Cobler’s confutation of Ben H(oadly), in an. epistle 10 him.” 3. “The Story of the St. A(lba)n’s ghost,” &c. 4. “The testimonies of the citizens of Fickleborough, concerning the life and character of Robert Huish, commonly called Bob, &c.” 5. “The representation of the loyal subjects of Albinia.” 6. “The character of Richard St(ee)le, esq.:” not a very just one. 7. “The state and condition of our Taxes considered.” 8. “The Plain Dealer,” 16 numbers. 9. “Preface to the complete history of the treaty of Utrecht.” 10. “A Letter from the facetious Dr. Andrew Tripe, at Bath, to his loving brother the profound Greshamite, &c.” Most of these tracts were written in his early years, and without his name. He was also the author of two scarce little volumes, called “Annotations on the Tatler,” frequently quoted in the variorum editions of that periodical paper.

This tract, which is generally called Wake’s “Catechism,” was answered in “A Vindication of the bishop of Condom’s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, in answer to a book entitled, An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, &c. With a Letter from the said bishop,” 1686, 4to. To this our author replied in a book entitled, “A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator,” London, 1686, 4to. This occasioned, “A Reply to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; being a farther Vindication of the Bishop of Condom’s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux,” 1687, 4to. In answer to which Mr. Wake published “A second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux and his Vindicator. Part I. in which the Account, which hath been given of the Bishop of Meaux’s Exposition, is fully vindicated; the distinction of old and new Popery historically asserted; and the doctrine of the Church of Rome in point of image-worship more particularly considered. Part II. in which the Romish doctrines concerning the nature and object of religious worship, of the Invocation of Saints, and worship of images are considered, and the charge of Idolatry made good against those of the Church of Rome upon the account of them,” Loudon, 1638, 4to. While the second part of this treatise was writing, there was published “A full Answer to the second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. In a Letter to the Defender.”

That for which archbishop Wake appears to have been most blamed, was the share he had in a scheme of union between the English and Gallican churches; but in this, as in other parts of his conduct, the blame seems to have arisen principally from misrepresentation, at the same time that we are willing to allow that the scheme itself was a weak one, and never likely to produce any good. The outline of the affair, which is related more at large in the Appendix to the last edition of Mosheim’s History, No IV. is this. In 1717 some mutual civilities had passed between the archbishop and the celebrated ecclesiastical historian Dupin, as men of letters, by means of the rev. Mr. Beauvoir, then chaplain to lord Stair, the English ambassador at Paris. In the course of these civilities, Dupin wrote to the archbishop a Latin letter in Jan. 1718, in which, having congratulated the church of England on the enjoyment of so eminent a prelate for its metropolitan, he took occasion to express his desire for an union between the two churches of England and France, and wished to enter into a correspodence with his grace with that view. The archbishop, in return, after thanking him for his compliment, observed, that it was full time both for himself (Dupin) and the rest of his brethren of the Sorbonne, to declare openly their true sentiments of the superstition and ambition of the court of Rome; that it was the interest of all Christians to unmask that court, and thereby reduce it to those primitive limits and honours which it enjoyed in the first ages of the church. In some farther correspondence, the archbishop explained the belief, tenets, and doctrine of the chuch of England, the manner of its beginning to reform and shake off all foreign power and superstition both in church and state, and its acknowledgment that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only founder, source, and head of the church. In all his letters both to Dupin and others, he insisted constantly on this article, and always maintained the justice and orthodoxy of every individual article of the church of England, without making the least concession towards any approbation of the ambitious pretensions of the church of Rome. Some of the doctors of the Sorbonne readily concurred in this scheme, and Dupin drew up an essay towards an union, which was to be submitted for approbation to the cardinal de Noailles, and then to be transmitted to his grace. This essay, which was called a “Commonitorium,” was read by, and had the approbation of the Sorbonne, and in it was ceded the administration of the sacrament in both kinds, the performing of divine service in the vulgar tongue, and the marriage of the protestant clergy; and the invocation of saints was given up as unnecessary. The project engrossed the whole conversation of the city of Paris, and the Engiish ambassador was congratulated upon it by some great personages at court. The regent duke of Orleans himself, and the abbe Du Bois, minister of foreign affairs, and De Fleury, the attorney general, at iirst seemed to acquiesce, or at least not to interfere; but, after all, no considerate person could expect much from the scheme, which was entirely prevented by the Jesuits, who sounded the alarm, and represented the cardinal de Noailles and his friends the Jansenists as about to make a coalition with the heretics.

In 1779 he vacated his fellowship by marrying Miss Watson, niece of the rector of Stockport. This was soon followed by an invitation to undertake the post of classical tutor at the dissenting academy at Warrington, with which he complied; and he was regarded as a very valuable acquisition to this institution. He was exemplary in the discharge of his duty, and equally gained the attachment of his pupils, and the friendship and esteem of his colleagues; but the academy was at this time on the decline, and Mr. Wakefield, though accused of precipitating its downfall, has assigned sufficient reasons for that event without his agency. While here, he began his career as a theological controversialist, with an acrimony of style which was lamented by his friends, and which laid him open to the reproach of his enemies, or it would be more proper to say, created those enemies. Among his tracts now published were, “A plain and short account of the nature of Baptism according to the New Testament, with a cursory remark on Confirmation and the Lord’s Supper;” “An Essay on Inspiration;” and “A new translation of the first epistle of Paul the apostle to the Thessalon'tans.” This was followed in the next year by “A new translation of St. Matthew, with notes, critical, philological, and explanatory,” 4to; a work which displayed the extent of his reading, and the facility with which his memory called up its reposited stores for the purpose of illustration or parallelism. At this time he likewise augmented his fund for“Scripture interpretation by the acquisition of various oriental dialects. After quitting Warrington, at the dissolution of the academy, he took up his residence successively at Bramcote in Nottinghamshire, at Richmond in Surrey, and at Nottingham, upon the plan of taking a few pupils, and pursuing at his leisure those studies to which he became continually more attached. While in the first of these situations, he published the first volume of” An enquiry into the opinions of the Christian writers of the three first centuries concerning the person of Jesus Christ, 1 * which did not meet with encouragement sufficient to induce him to proceed in the design. A painful disorder in his left shoulder, with which he was attacked in 1786, and which harassed him for two years, interrupted the course of his employments; and he did no more during that period, than to draw up some remarks upon the Georgics of Virgil and the poems of Gray, which he published with editions of those respective works. As his health relumed, his theological pursuits were resumed, and he again engaged in the field of controversy. He also, in 1789, made a commenceaient of a work, which was to exhibit “Au union of theological and classical learning, illustrating the Scriptures by light borrowed from the philology of Greece and Rome.” Under the title of “Silva Critica,” three parts of this performance issued from the university press of Cambridge.

, one of the earliest reformers of the church from Popery, but erroneously said to be the founder of that body of reformed Christians called the Waldenses, was an opulent merchant of Lyons in the twelfth century. The first time when he appears to have opposed the errors of the religion in which he was educated, was about 1160, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was confirmed by pope Innocent III. with the addition that men should fall down before the consecrated wafer and worship it as God. The absurdity of this forcibly struck the mind of Waldo, who opposed it in a very courageous manner. It does not appear, however, that he had any intention of withdrawing himself from the communion of the Romish church, or that in other respects he had any very serious notions of religion. The latter appears to have been produced first by the sudden death of a person with whom he was in company. This^lett very serious impressions on his mind, and he betook himself to reading the scriptures. At that time the Latin vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures in Europe; but that language was accessible to few. Waldo, however, from his situation in life, had had a good education, and could read this volume. “Being somewhat learned,” says Reinerius, “he taught the people the text of the New Testament.” He was also now disposed to abandon his mercantile pursuits, and distributed his wealth to the poor as occasion required, and while the latter flocked to him to partake of his alms, he also attended to their spiritual instruction, and either translated, or procured to be translated the four gospels into French; and thus the inhabitants of Europe were indebted to him for the first translation of the Bible into a modern tongue, since the time that the Latin had ceased to be a living language.

, an able mathematician, was born about 1735 at Newcastle upon Tyne, and descended from a family of considerable antiquity. He received the rudiments of his education at the grammar-school of Newcastle under the care of the rev. Dr. Moises, a clergyman of the church of England. At the age of ten he was removed from Newcastle to Durham, that he might be under the immediate direction of his uncle, a dissenting minister; and having decided in favour of the ministry among the dissenters, he was in 1749 sent to one of their academies at Kendal. In 1751 he studied mathematics at Edinburgh under the tuition of Dr. Matthew Stewart, and made a very great progress in that science. In 1752 he studied theology for two years at Glasgow. Returning home, he began to preach, and in 1757 was ordained minister of a congregation of dissenters at Durham. While here he was a frequent contributor to the “Ladies’ Diary,” in which, as we have recently had occasion to notice, most of the mathematicians of the last and present age, tried their skill; and here also he finished his valuable work on the sphere, which was not, however, published until 1775, when it appeared under the title of the “Doctrine of the Sphere,” in 4to. In the end of 1761, or the beginning of 1762, he accepted of an invitation to become pastor at Great Yarmouth, where he carried on his mathematical pursuits, and having contributed some valuable papers to the Royal Society, he was in 1771 elected a fellow of that learned body. In the same year he accepted an invitation from a congregation at Birmingham, but was induced to recede from this engagement, and accept the office of mathematical tutor to the dissenting academy at Warrington, from which he again removed in 1774 to Nottingham, being chosen one of the ministers of a congregation in that town. Here he entered with great zeal into all the political disputes of the times, and always against the measures of government. After a residence of twenty-four years at Nottingham, Mr. Walker went to Manchester, where he undertook the office of theological tutor in the dissenting academy of that town, to which the duties of mathematical and classical tutor being likewise added, he was soon obliged to resign the whole, in consideration of his age and infirmities. He continued after this to reside for nearly two years in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and was for some time president of the Literary and Philosophical Society of that town, a society which has published several volumes of valuable memoirs, some contributed by Mr. Walker. He then removed to the village of Wavertree near Liverpool, and, in the spring of 1S07, died in London, at the age of seventythree. He was a man of very considerable talents, which appeared to most advantage in the departments of philosophy and the belles lettres, as may be seen in his “Essays on Various Subjects,” published in 1809, 2 vols. 8vo, to which a copious life is prefixed. Some volumes of his “Sermons” have also been published, which probably were suited to the congregations over which he presided, but contain but a very small portion of doctrinal matter, and that chiefly of what is called the liberal and rational kind.

In the mean time he visited Scotland and Ireland, for the purpose of reading lectures on elocution, and every where met with great respect and success, particularly at Oxford, where the heads of houses inviiecl him. to give private lectures in that university. In 1781 he produced his “Elements of Elocution,” a work which has the merit of beingthe first practical treatise that had yet been composed on the art of speaking, in which its principles are at once unfolded, simplified, and methodized into a system. In 1782 he published a pamphlet, called “Hints for improvement in the Art of Reading,” consisting of a number of observations that had suggested themselves to him, in the course of teaching, thrown together, as the title imports, rather in a detached than a systematical form. The most useful parts of this pamphlet he afterwards introduced into his “Rhetorical Grammar,” which he published in 1785, and which was followed by his “English Classics abridged” “The melody of speaJdng delineated,” and his “Academic Speaker,” all soon introduced into our principal seminaries, and too well known to require any farther notice here. In 1791 he published his “Critical PronouncingDictionary and Expositor of the English language,” the reputation of which was soon fixed, as the statute book of English orthoepy. A work of great utility afterwards came from his pen, under the title of a “Key to the classical pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture proper names.” To this is prefixed his portrait, a very striking likeness. His last publications were, the “Teacher’s assistant,” and the “Outlines of English grammar,” which was puhlished in May 1805. After this, as age advanced, he became very debilitated; and in July 1807 was attacked by a severe illness, which proved fatal Aug. 1, in the, seventy-sixth year of his age.

After lying in prison till 1689, he was brought by habeas corpus to Westminster-hall, and sued for bail, but instead of obtaining it, he was brought to the bar of the House of Commons, and charged with the following offences: 1. For changing his religion. 2. For seducing 1 others to it; and 3. For keeping- a mass-house in the university of Oxford. His defence was more artful than honourable to his candour. “I cannot say that I ever altered my religion, or that my principles do now wholly agree with those of the church of Rome. Mr. Anderson was my governor and director, and from him in my youth I learned those principles which I have since avowed. If they were popish, I have not changed my religion and they will not be found to be wholly agreeable with the doctrine of the Roman catholic church. 2. I never seduced others to the Romish religion. All my books and precepts tend only to make men good moralists and good Christians; nor did I ever interest myself in persuading any body to this or that party. This will be plain to every body that reads my books of” The Life of Christ,“my book” Of Education,* my book of *' Benefits,“&c. &c.” These arguments, if they may be so called, being delivered, he was, in Jan. 1690, brought again from the Tower to the bar of the king’s bench, and having given bail, was set at liberty; but in May following he was excepted out of the act of pardon of William and Mary.

From his twenty-eighth to. his thirty-fifth year, he wrote his pieces on the reduction of Sallee on the reparation of St. Paul’s; to the King on his navy the panegyric on the Queen mother; the two poems to the earl of Northumberland; and perhaps others, of which the time cannot be discovered. When he had lost all hopes of Sacharissa, he looked round him for an easier conquest, and gained a lady of the family of Bresse, or Breaux. The time of his marriage is not exactly known. It has not been discovered that his wife was won by his poetry; nor is any thing told of her, but that she brought him many children, He doubtless, says Johnson, praised some whom he would have been afraid to marry, and perhaps married one whom he would have been ashamed to praise. Many qualities contribute to domestic happiness, upon which poetry has no colours to bestow; and many airs and sallies may delight imagination, “which he who flatters them never can approve. There are charms made only for distant admiration. No spectacle is nobler than a blaze. Of this wife, however, his biographers have recorded that she gave him five sons and eight daughters, aud Aubrey says that she was beautiful and very prudent. During the long interval of parliament, he is represented as living among those with whom it was most honourable to converse, and enjoying an exuberant fortune with that independence of liberty of speech and conduct which wealth ought always to produce. Being considered as the kinsman of Hampden, he was therefore supposed by the courtiers not to favour them; and when the parliament was called in 1640, it appeared that, his political character had not been mistaken. The king’s demand of a supply produced from him a speech full” of complaints of national grievances, and very vehement; but while the great position, that grievances ought to be redressed before supplies are 'granted, is agreeable enough to law and reason, Waller, if his biographer may be credited, was not such an enemy to the king, as not to wish his distresses lightened; for he relates, “that the king sent particularly to Waller, to second his demand of some subsidies to pay off the army; and sirHenry Vane objecting against first voting a supply, because the king would not accept unless it came up to his proportion, Mr. Waller spoke earnestly to sir Thomas Jermyn, comptroller of the household, to save his master from the effects of so bold a falsity: c for,‘ he said, ’ I am but a country gentleman, and cannot pretend to know the king’s mind:' but sir Thomas durst not contradict the secretary; and his son, the earl of St. Alban’s r afterwards told Mr. Waller, that his father’s cowardice ruined the king.”

In our authorities are other proofs of his innocence in this matter; but we presume it cannot be denied that he had been of service to the republican government by this peculiar talent. He had always joined with them, and in 1653 he had the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- street, granted to him. The same year he published in 4to, Truth tried; or, Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise of the nature of Truth'.“His mother dying this year, he became possessed of a handsome fortune. In 1644 he was appointed one of the scribes or secretaries to the assembly of divines at Westminster, to whose conduct and views he gives a very different colouring from what we meet with in most of the publications of that time.” The parliament,“he asserts,” had a great displeasure against the order of bishops, or rather not so much against the order, as the men, and against the order for their sakes; and had resolved upon the abolition of episcopacy as it then stood, before they were agreed what to put instead of it; and did then convene this assembly to consult of some other form to be suggested to the parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it, or so far as they should like it. The divines of this assembly were, for the generality of them, conformable, episcopal men, and had generally the reputation of pious, orthodox, and religious protestants; and (excepting the seven independents, or, as they were called dissenting brethren) I do not know of any nonconformist among them as to the legal conformity then required. Many of them were professedly episcopal, and, I think, all of them so episcopal, as to account a well-regulated episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable and advisable; yet so as they thought the present constitution capable of reformation for the better. When I name the divines of this assembly, I do not include the Scots commissioners, who, though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the debates, as they saw occasion, yet were no members of that assembly, nor did vote with them, but acted separately in behalf of the church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scots presbytery, but could never prevail with the assembly to declare for it. On the other hand, the independents were against all united church government of more than one single congregation, holding that each single congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a church, and choose their own officers, were of themselves independent, and not accountable to any other ecclesiastical government, but only the civil magistrate, as to the public peace; admitting indeed that messengers from several churches might meet to consult in common, as there might be occasion, but without any authoritative jurisdiction* Against these, the rest of the assembly was unanimous, (and the Scots commissioners with them) that it was lawful by the word of God for divers particular congregations (beside the inspection of their own pastor and other officers) to be united under the same common government; and such communities to be further subordinate to provincial and national assemblies; which is equally consistent with episcopal and presbyterian principles. But whether with or without a bishop or standing president of such assemblies, was not determined or debated by them. When any such point chanced to be suggested, the common answer was, that this point was not before them, but was precluded by the ordinance by which they sat; which did first declare the abolition of episcopacy (not refer it to their declaration), and they only to suggest to the parliament somewhat in the room of that so abolished, And this is a true account of that assembly as to this point (and when as they were called presbyterians, it was not in the sense of anti-episcopal, but anti-independents), which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living who can give a better account of that assembly than I can. To this may be objected their agreement to the covenant, which was before I was amongst them. But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said. The covenant, as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the parliament to the assembly, seemed directly against all episcopacy, and for setting up the Scots presbytery just as among them. But the assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms, being so worded as, to preserve the government of the church of Scotland, and to reform that of England, and so to reduce it to the nearest uniformity. But before the assembly could agree to it, it was thus mollified, to preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common enemy; and to reform that of England (not so as it is in Scotland, but) according to the word of God, and the exarnpleof the best reformed churches; and to endeavour the nearest uniformity; which might be as well by reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both. And whereas the covenant, as first brought to them, was against popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. they would by no means be persuaded to admit the word prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of reformation for the better in divers things, yet to engage indefinitely against all prelacy, they would not agree. After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the parliament, who then pressed it, suggested this expedient, that by prelacy they did not understand all manner of episcopacy or superiority, but only the present episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of archbishops, bishops, and their several courts and subordinate officers, &c. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an abolition of the present prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a reformation of the present episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this it was agreed to be expressed with this interpretation; prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. And with this interpretation at length it passed; and the Scots commissioners in behalf of their church agreed to those amendments. I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that interpretation; but this was the true intendment of the assembly, and upon this occasion."

About the same time, Hobbes published his “Elementorum Philosophise sectio prima, de corpore,” in which he pretended to give an absolute quadrature of the circle. This pretence Dr. Wallis confuted the same year, in a Latin tract, entitled “Elenchus Geometrise Hobbianse; 17 which being written with some asperity, so provoked Hobbes, that in 1656 he published it in English, with the addjtion of what he called” Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics in Oxford,“4to. Upon this Dr. Wallis wrote an answer in English, entitled,” Due Correction for Mr. Hobbes; or, School Discipline for not saying his Lessons right,“1656, in 8vo; to which Mr. Hobbes replied in a pamphlet, with the title of” 2TIFMAI, &c. or, Marks of the absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish Church Politics, and Barbarisms, of John Wallis,“c. 1657, 4to. This was immediately rejoined to by Dr. Wallis in” Hob* biani Puncti Dispunctio,“1657; and here this controversy seems to have ended at this time: but four years after, 1661, Mr. Hobbes printed” Examinatio & emendatio Matheoiaticorum hodiernorum, in sex Dialogis;“which occasioned Dr. Wallis to publish, the next year,” Hobbius Heautontimorumenos," in 8vo, addressed to Mr. Boyle. Although Dr. Wallis was universally allowed to have the best of the argument in this controversy, Hobbes being notoriously deficient in mathematical science, yet none or* his answers to Hobbes were inserted in the collection of his mathematical works, published in 1699, 3 vols.'fol. because, as he says himself, he had no inclination to trample on the ashes of the dead, although it was his duty to expose the fallacious reasoning of Hobbes when alive*.

We have already mentioned his Grammar of the English tongue, published in 1653. By some observations in & that work, he had been led to suppose it possible to teach the deaf and dumb to speak. On this it is probable he had wade many experiments; and communicated what he had tried to his friends, who now were desirous to bring the matter to the test. Accordingly he was persuaded to employ his skill on one Daniel Whalley of Northampton, who had been deaf and dumb from a child. About January, 1661-2, he began to teach this person, and with such success, that in little more than a year, he taught him to pronounce distinctly even the most difficult words, and to express his mind in writing. He was likewise able to read distinctly the greater part of the Bib!e, could express himself intelligibly in ordinary affairs, understand letters written to him, and write answers to them, if not elegantly, yet so as to be understood. This being known, attracted the curiosity of the public in no common degree. Whalley was brought to the Royal Society, May the 21st, 1662, and to their great satisfaction, pronounced 'distinctly enough such words as were proposed to him by the company; and though not altogether with the usual tone or accent, yet so as easily to be understood. He did the like several times at Whitehall in the presence of his “majesty, prince Rupert, and others of the nobility; and the doctor was desired to try his skill on Alexander Popham, esq. a son of lady Wharton, by her former husband, admiral Popham. His mother, it is said, when she was big with him, received a sudden fright, in consequence of which his head and face were a little distorted, the whole right side being somewhat elevated, and the left depressed, so that the passage of his left ear was quite shut up, and that of the right ear proportionally distended and too open. However Dr. Holder says, that he was not so deaf, but that he could hear the sound of a lute string, holding one end of it in his teeth; and when a drum was beat fast and loud by him, he could hear those, who stood behind him, calling him gently by his name. When he was of the age of ten or eleven years, he was recommended to the care of Dr. William Holder, then rector of Blechindon in Oxfordshire, and taken by him into his house in 1659, where he learned to speak and pronounce his name, and some other words. Of this Wood gives us the following account; that Dr. Holder” obtained a great name for his most wonderful art in making a young gentleman, Alexander Popham, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak; that he was the first that is remembered ever to have succeeded therein in England, or perhaps in the world; and because it was a wonderful matter, many, curious scholars went from Oxford to see and hear the person speak.“However this be, three years after, viz. in 1662, this young gentleman was sent by his relations to Dr. Wallis, for him to teach him to speak, as he had taught Mr. Whalley. Wood owns, that Mr. Popham being called home by his friends, he began to lose what he had been taught by Dr. Holder. And Dr. Wallis observes, that both Mr. Whalley and Mr. Popham, notwithstanding the proficiency they had made under him in learning to speak, were apt to forget, after their departing from him, much of that nicety, which before they had, in the distinct pronouncing some letters, which they would recover, when he had been occasionally with them to set them right, they wanting the help of an ear to direct their speaking, as that of the eye directs the hand in writing. 14 For which reason,” says he, “a man, who writes a good hand, would soon forget so to do, if grown blind. And therefore one, who thus learns to speak, will, for the continuance and improvement of it, need somebody continually with him, who may prompt him, when he mistakes.” Dr. Wallis remarks likewise, that Dr. Holder had attempted to teach Mr. Popham to speak, “but gave it over.” This seems very likely to be true, because his friends did not send him again to Dr, Holder, but desired Dr. Wallis to teach him. However that be, a dispute took place between the two doctors. A letter of Dr. Wallis concerning this cure was inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions” of July 1670. This was represented, as if he had vainly assumed to himself the glory of teaching this young gentleman to speak, without taking any notice of what had been before done to him by Dr. Holder, who therefore published in 1678 at London in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wallis’ s Letter there inserted.” To this Dr. Wallis replied the very same year, entitling his papers, which were directed to the lord viscount Brouncker, president of the Roya.1 Society, “A Defence of the Royal Society, and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder,” London, 1673, in 4to. To this Dr. Holder made no reply. The reverend and learned Mr. John Lewis of ?crgate observes, in a ms life by him of Dr. Wallis communicated to the authors of the General Dictionary, that without lessening Dr. Holder’s great abilities, it is a plain and certain fact, that Dr. Wallis had, in his tract `De Loquela,' discovered the theory of this by considering very exactly, what few attended to, the accurate formation of all sounds in speaking; without which it were in vain to set about this task. This tract was printed no less than six years before Dr. Holder undertook to try his skill of teaching a dumb man to speak on Mr. Popham. And it is no disingenuous reflection to suppose, that Dr. Holder had seen it, and profited by it; whereas it does not appear, that Dr. Wallis could have the least hint from him, when he at first taught Mr. Whalley. But Wood, to shew how just and equitable a judge he was of this difference, tells us, that he knew full well, that Dr. Wallis at any time could make black white, and white black, for his own ends, and had a ready knack of sophistical evasions. Base reflections, which confute themselves, and expose their inventor 1“However, Dr. Wallis published his method of instructing persons deaf and dumb to speak and understand a language, which was printed in the Philosophical Transactions. And” I have,“says he,” since that time, upon the same account, taught divers persons (and some of them very considerable) to speak plain and distinctly, who did before hesitate and stutter very much; and others to pronounce such words or letters, as before they thought impossible for them to do, by teaching them how to rectify such mistakes in the formation, as by some impediment or acquired customs they had been subject to."

The last affair in which Dr. Wallis appears to have been consulted was on the scheme for altering the style, which he opposed on various reasons, and it was accordingly laid aside; but has since been established without any of the inconveniences either in astronomical'calculations, or otherwise, of which he was afraid. Towards the end of his life the curators of the university-press made a collection of his mathematical works, which were printed at Oxford 1699, in three -volumes in folio, with this title, “Johannis Wallis S. T. P. Gedmetriae Professoris Saviliani in celeberrima Academia Oxoniensi, Opera Mathematica, tribus Voluminibus -contenta.” This edition was dedicated to king William III. Dr. Wallis died at the Savilian professor’s house in New" college lane, Oxford, Oct. 28, 1703, in his eighty-eighth year, and was interred in St. Mary’s, where a monument was erected by his son, John Wallis, esq. a barrister. This son was born December the 26th, 1650, and placed by his father in Trinity college, in Oxford, and afterwards admitted of the Inner Temple, London, where he proceeded barrister-at-law February 1, 1681-2. He married Elizabeth daughter of John and Mary Harris, of Soundels, or Soundess, by Nettlebed, in Oxfordshire, afterwards heiress to her brother Taverner Harris, whose mother descended from Richard Taverner, a learned lawyer in king Henry VlII/s time, and high sheriff of the county of Oxford. By this match Mr. Wallis became possessed of a good estate called Soundess. His wife died August the 8th, 1693, leaving three children surviving her, viz. John, Mary, and Elizabeth.

It was not long before he acquired full ministerial power, being appointed first lord commissioner of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; and, when the king went abroad in 1723, he was nominated one of the lords justices for the administration of government, and was sworn sole secretary of state. About this time he received another distinguished mark of the royal favour; his eldest son, then on his travels, being created a peer, by the title of Baron Walpole of Walpole. In 1725 he was made knight of the bath; and, the year after, knight of the garter. Into any detail of the measures of his administration, during the Jong time he remained prime or rather sole minister, it would be impossible to enter in a work like this. They are indeed so closely involved in the history of the nation and of Europe, as to belong almost entirely to that department. His merit has been often canvassed with all the severity of critical inquiry and it is difficult to discern the truth through the exaggerations and misrepresentations of party. But this difficulty has been lately removed in a very great measure by Mr. Coxe’s elaborate “Memoirs of sir Robert Walpole,” a work admirably calculated to abate the credulity of the public in the accounts of party-writers. Although sir Robert had been called “the father of corruption” (which, however, he was not, but certainly a great improver of it), and is said to have boasted that he knew every man’s price *, yet, in 1742, the opposition

who is represented as having called number of his opponents, he said " All

In his “Essay on Criticism,” he had given him more splendid praise, and, in the opinion of his learned commentator, sacrificed a little of his judgment to his gratitude. He died in 1708, aged forty-six years. He is known more by his familiarity with greater men than by anything done or written by himself. His works are not numerous, nor of great merit. In 1691, he published, with a preface written by his friend and advocate Dryden, “A Diaipgue concerning Women, being a Defence of the Sex,” in 8vo and, the year after, “Letters and Poems, amorous and gallant,” published in what is called “Dryden’s Miscellany.” These were republished among the “Works of the Minor Poets,” printed in 1749, with other performanceSj consisting chiefly of elegies, epitaphs, odes, and songs, in which he discovers more elegance than vigour, and seldom rises higher than to be pretty.

, one of the best English historians of the fifteenth century, was a native of Norfolk, a Benedictine of St. Albans, and historiographer royal, about 1440, in the reign of Henry VI. He compiled two historical works of considerable length, the one “A History of England,” beginning at the 57th Henry III. the year 1273, and concluding with the funeral oF Henry V. and the appointment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester to the regency of England. His other work is entitled “Ypodigma Neustrise,” a sort of history of Normandy, an* ciently called Neustria, interspersed with the affairs of England from the beginning of the tenth century to 1418. In the dedication of this work, which, with the other, was published by archbishop Parker in 1574, Fol. he tells Henry V. that when he reflected on the cunning intrigues, frauds, and breaches of treaties in his enemies the French, he was tormented with fears that they would deceive him: and had composed that work, which contained many examples of their perfidy, to put him upon his guard. Walsingham himself allows that his style is rude and unpolished, and he relates many ridiculous stories of visions, miracles, and portents, but all this was the credulity of the age. In what belongs to himself he is more to be praised: his narrative is far more full, circumstantial, and satisfactory, than that of the other annalists of those times, and contains many things no where else to be found.

, duke of Fridland, a celebrated German commander, was born in 1584, and descended of a noble and ancient Bohemian family. His education appears to have been irregular. At first he had no inclination for study, but later in life he applied himself to astronomy and politics, at Padua. After his return to his own country, he married, but being soon left a widower, he went to the siege of Gradisca, in Friuli, and offered his services to the archduke Ferdinand, against the Venetians. When the troubles broke out in Bohemia, he offered himself to the emperor, with an army of thirty thousand men, on condition of being their general. The emperor having consented, Walstein marched at the head of this army, and reduced the diocese of Halberstadt and the bishopric of Halle he ravaged also the territories of Magdeburgh and Anhalt; defeated Mansfeldt in two battles retook all Silesia; vanquished the marquis d‘Urlach conquered the archbishopric of Bremen and Holsace, and made himself master of all the country between the ocean, the Baltic sea, and the Elbe; leaving only Gluckatadt to the king of Denmark, whom he also drove from Pomerania, where he had made a descent. After the treaty of Lubec, the emperor gave him the titles and spoils of the duke of Mecklenburgh, who had rebelled; but Walstein published an edict about that time, ordering the restitution of ecclesiastical property in the territories just given him; and the’ protest* tants, being alarmed, called in Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, to their assistance. This step so intimidated the emperor, that he permitted Walstein to be removed, and sent only Tilly against Gustavus. Tilly having been defeated at Leipsic by the Swedes, the conqueror rushed into Germany like a torrent, which obliged the emperor to recall Walstein, whom he appointed generalissimo. Walstein accordingly entered the lists with the Swedish monarch; defeated him, and was defeated in his turn; took from him almost the whole of Bohemia, by the capture of Prague, and fought with various success till the bloody battle of Lutzen, November 16, 1632, which Walstein lost, though Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the commencement of the action. Walstein, notwithstanding this defeat, finding himself delivered from so formidable a prince, was suspected of aiming at independence; and these suspicions being increased by his refusing to submit to the court of Vienna in any of his enterprises, the emperor degraded him, and gave the command to Galas. Walstein, alarmed at this, made the officers of his army take an oath of fidelity to him at Pilsen, January 12, 1634, and retired to Egra, a strong city on the frontiers of Bohemia and Saxony; but Gordon, a Scotchman, lieutenant-colonel and governor of Egra, nattered by the hopes of great preferment, conspired against him with Butler, an Irishman, to whom Walstein had given a regiment of dragoons, and Lasci, a Scotchroan, captain of his guards. These three, who are said to have been instigated to this crime by the court of Vienna, murdered him in his chamber, February 15, 1634. He was, at that time, fifty years old. The family of Walstein is distinguished in Germany, and has produced several other great men.

Nine languages, as we have observed, are used in this Polyglott, yet there is no one book in the whole Bible printed in so many. In the New Testament, the four evangelists are in six languages; the other books only in five; tnd those of Judith and the Maccabees only in three. The Septuagint version is printed from the edition at Rome in 1537. The Latin is the Vulgate of Clement VILI. But for these and many other particulars of the history and progress of this work, so great an honour to the English press, we must refer to Dr. Clark’s Bibliographical Dictionary, and that invaluable fund of information, Mr. Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes. The alterations in the preface to the Polyglott, in which the compliments to Cromwell are omitted or altered so as to suit Charles II. have been long the topic of curious discussion, which has had the effect to give a factitious value to the copies that happen to have the preface unaltered. This was a few years ago in some measure destroyed by Mr. Lunn, the bookseller, who printed a fac simile of the republican preface, as it has been called, which may be added by the possessors of the royal copies.

, a celebrated writer on the art of angling, and the author of some valuable lives, was born at Stafford in August 1593. His first settlement in London, as a shopkeeper, was in the Royal Burse in Cornhill, built by sir T. Gresharn, and finished in 1567. In this situation he could scarcely be said to“have had elbow-room; for, the shops over the Burse were but seven feet and a half long, and five wide; yet he carried on his trade till some time before 1624, when” he dwelt on the north side of Fleet- street, in a house two doors west of the end of Chancery-lane, and abutting on a messuage known by the sign of the Harrow;“by which sign the old timber -house at the south-west corner of Chancery-lane, in Fleet-street, till within these few years, was known. A citizen of this age would almost as much disdain to admit of a tenant for half his shop, as a knight would to ride double; though the brethren of one of the most ancient orders of the world were so little above this practice, that their common seal was the device of two riding one horse. He married probably about 1632; for in that year he lived in a house in Chancery-lane, a few doors higher up on the left hand than the former, and described by the occupation of a sempster or milliner. The former of these might be his own proper trade; and the latter, as being a feminine occupation, might be carried on by his wife: she, it appears, was Anne, the daughter of Mr, Thomas Ken, of Furnival’s-inn, and sister of Thomas, afterwards Dr. Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells. About 1643 he left London, and, with a fortune very far short of what would now be called a eompetencv, seems to have retired altogether from business. While he continued in London, his favourite recreation was angling, in which he was the greatest proficient of his time; and, indeed, so great were his skill and experience in that art, that there is scarcely any writer on the subject since his time who has not made the rules and practice of Walton his very foundation. It is, therefore, with the greatest propriety that Langbaine calls him” the common father of all anglers." The river that he seems mostly to have frequented for this purpose was the Lea, which has it source above Ware in Hertfordshire, and falls into the Thames a little below Blackwall; unless we will suppose that the vicinity of the New River to the place of his habitation might sometimes tempt him out with his friends, honest Nat. and R. Roe, whose loss he so pathetically mentions, to spend an afternoon there. In 1662 he was by death deprived of the solace and comfort of a good wife, as appears by a monumental inscription in the cathedral church of Worcester.

, an upright statesman, was the son and heir of sir George Wandesforde, knight, of Kirklington, in Yorkshire, and was born at Bishop Burton, in the East Riding of that county, in Sept. 1592. His family was very ancient and honourable, the pedigree beginning with Geoffrey de Clusters, of Kirklington, in the reign of Henry II. He was taught by his virtuous mother the rudiments of the English tongue, and of the Christian religion, and sent, as soon as it was proper, to the free-school of Wells, and there instructed in due course in the Latin and Greek languages. About the age of fifteen he was judged fit for the university, and admitted of Clare-hall, Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Milner. Here, it is supposed,his acquaintance commenced with Mr. Wentwortb, afterwards earl of Strafford, which grew into the strictest friendship and fraternal affection. Mr. Wandesforde is said to have made great progress at college in the arts and sciences, and the knowledge of things natural, moral, and divine; but applied himself closely at the same time to the study of the classics, and particularly to oratory, as appears from his subsequent speeches in parliament. At the age of nineteen he was called from the university by his father’s death, to a scene of important business, the weighty regulation of family affairs, with an estate heavily involved; his necessary attention to which prevented him from pursuing the studies preparatory to the church, which he had originally chosen as a profession, and now relinquished.

The first appearance he made in public was in 1716, when he published his map of Northumberland. In 1719 he was elected a fellow both of the Royal and Antiquary societies, and could not then, we presume, have been thought the ignoramus which he has since been represented. He remained a member of the Society of Antiquaries to the last, but was ejected from the Royal in June 1757, in consequence of not having made his annual payments for a great number of years. In June 1720 he was created Somerset herald, and appears to have been constantly at variance with the superiors of the college. In 1722-3 he published in four closely printed 4to pages, “A List of the Nobility and Gentry of the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and Hertford, who have subscribed, and ordered their coats of arms to be inscribed on a new map of those counties, which is now making by John Warburton, esq.” In August 1728, he gave notice, that “he keeps a register of lands, houses, &c. which are to be bought, sold, or mortgaged, in England, Scotland, or Wales, and if required, directs surveys thereof to be made: also solicits grants of arms, and performs all other matters relating to the office of a herald. For which purpose daily attendance is given at his chambers in the Heralds’ office, near Doctors Commons, London. He answers letters post-paid, and advertises, if required.” This quackery did not probahly raise him very high in the opinion of his brethren. In 1749, he published a map of Middlesex on two sheets of imperial atlas, with the arms of the nobility and gentry on the borders. But the earl marshal, supposing these to be fictitious, by his warrant commanded him not to take in any subscriptions for arms, nor advertise or dispose of any maps, till the right of such person respectively to such arms were first proved, to the satisfaction of one of the kings of arms. In his book of “London and Middlesex illustrated,” after observing the above injunction of the earl marshal, he subjoins, “which person’s (Anstis) partiality being well known to this author, he thought it best to have another arbitrator joined with him, and therefore made choice of the impartial public, rather than submit his performance wholly to the determination of a person so notoriously remarkable for knowing nothing at all of the matter. 7 ' After censuring the notion, that trade and gentility are incompatible, as a doctrine fitted only for a despotic government, and judiciously remarking the moral impossibility there would soon be of proving descents and arms for want of visitations, he returns to attack the heads of the college, by saying, that such proofs are obstructed by the exorbitant and unjustifiable fees of three heralds, called kings at arms, who receive each 30l. for every new grant. In his” London and Middlesex illustrated," he gave the names, residences, genealogy, and coat- armour of the nobility, principal merchants, and other eminent families, emblazoned in their proper colours, with references to authorities.

In 1753, Mr. Warburton published “Vallum Romanum, or the History and Antiquities of the Roman Wall, commonly called the Picts Wall, in Cumberland and Northumberland,” with plates and maps, 4to. These, with some prints, are the whole of his publications, but he had an amazing collection of Mss. books, prints, &c. relating to the history and antiquities of England, which were dispersed by auction after his death. He had also, but unfortunately lost, a large collection of old dramas, of which a catalogue, with remarks, appears in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1815. Mr. Warburton died at his apartments in the college of arms, May 11, 1759, aged seventy -eight, and was buried on the 17th in the south aisle of St. Bennet’s church, Paul’s Wharf. A peculiar circumstance attended his funeral. Having a great abhorrence to the idea of worms crawling upon him when dead, he ordered that his body should be inclosed in two coffins, one of lead, the other of oak: the first he directed should be filled with green broom, hather, or ling. In compliance with his desire, a quantity, brought from Epping forest, was stuffed extremely close round his body. This fermenting, burst the coffin, and retarded the funeral, until part of it was taken out.

Mr. Pope’s affection for Mr. Warburton was of service to him in more respects than merely increasing his fame. He introduced and warmly recommended him to most of his friends, and amongst the rest to Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior Park, whose niece he some years afterwards married. In consequence of this introduction, we find Mr. Warburton at Bath in 1742. There he printed a sermon which had been preached at the abbey-church, on the 24th of October, for the benefit of Mr. Allen’s favourite charity, the general hospital, or infirmary. To this sermon, which was published at the request of the governors, was added, “A* short account of the nature, rise, and progress, of the General Infirmary, at Bath.” In this year also he printed a dissertation on the Origin of Books of Chivalry, at the end of Jarvis’s preface to a translation of Don Quixote, which, Mr. Pope tells him, he had not got over two paragraphs of before he cried out, < Aut Erasmus, aut Dmbolus. 1 “I knew you,” adds he, “as certainly as the ancients did the Gods, by the first pace and the very gait. I have not a moment to express myself in; but could not omit this, which delighted me so much.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, however, has completely demolished Warburton’s system o-n this subject. Pope’s attention to his interest did not rest in matters which were in his own power; he recommended him to some who were more able to assist him; in particular, he obtained a promise from lord Granville, which probably, however, ended in nothing. He appears also to have been very solicitous to bring lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Warburton together, and the meeting accordingly took place, but we are told by Dr. Warton, they soon parted in mutual disgust with each other. In 1742 Mr. Warburton published “A critical and philosophical Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man: in which is contained a Vindication of the said Essay from the misrepresentations of Mr. de Resnel, the French translator, and of Mr. de Crousaz, professor of philosophy and mathematics in the academy of Lausanne, the commentator.” It was at this period, when Mr. Warburton had the entire confidence of Pope, that he advised him to complete the Dunciad, by changing the hero,- and adding to it a fourth book. This was accordingly executed in 1742, and published early in 1743, 4to, with notes by our author, who, in consequence of it, received his share of the castigation which Gibber liberally bestowed on both Pope and his annotator. In the latter end of the same year. he published complete editions of “The Essay on Man,” and “The Essay on Criticism:” and,from the specimen which he there exhibited of his abilities, it may be presumed Pope determined to commit to him the publication of those works which he should leave. At Pope’s desire, he about this time revised and corrected the “Essay on Homer,” as it now stands in the last edition of that translation. The publication of “The Dunciad” was the last service which our author rendered Pope in his life-time. After a lingering and tedious illness, the event of which had been long foreseen, this great poet died on the 30th of' May, 1744; and by his will, dated the 12th of the preceding December, bequeathed to Mr. Warburton one half of his library, and the property of all such of his works already printed as he had not otherwise disposed of or alienated, and all the. profits which should arise from any edition to be printed after his death; but at the same time directed that they should be published without any future alterations. In 1744 Warburton’s assistance to Dr. Z. Grey was handsomely acknowledged in the preface to Hudibras; but with this gentleman he had afterwards a sharp controversy (See Grey.) “The Divine Legation of Moses” had now been published some time; and various answers and objections to it had started up from different quarters. In this year, 1744, Mr Warburton turned his attention to these attacks on his favourite work; and defended himself in a manner which, if it did not prove him to be possessed of much humility or diffidence, at least demonstrated that he knew how to wield the weapons of controversy with the hand of a master. His first defence now appeared under the title of “Remarks on several Occasional Reflections, in answer to the Rev, Dr. Middleton, Dr. Pococke, the master of the Charter-house, Dr. Richard Grey, and others; serving to explain and justify divers passages in the Divine Legation as far as it is yet advanced: wherein is considered the relation the several parts bear to each other and the whole. Together with an Appendix, in answer to a late pamphlet, entitled” An Examination of Mr. W's Second Proposition,“8vo. And this was followed next year by” Remarks on several Occasional Reflections; in answer to the Rev. Doctors Stebbing and Sykes; serving to explain and justify the Two Dissertations, in the Divine Legation, concerning the command to Abraham to offer up his son, and the nature of the Jewish theocracy, objected to by those learned writers. Part II. and last;“8vo. Both these answers are couched in those high terms of confident superiority which marked almost every performance that fell from his pen during the remainder of his life. Sept. 5, 1745, the friendship between him and Mr. Allen was more closely cemented by his marriage with his niece, Miss Tucker, who survived him. At this juncture the kingdom was under a great alarm, occasioned by the rebellion breaking out in Scotland. Those who wished well to the then-established government found it necessary to exert every effort which could be used against the invading enemy. The clergy were not wanting on their part; and no one did more service than Mr. Warburton, who published three very excellent and seasonable sermons at this important crisis. I,” A faithful portrait of Popery by which it is seen to be the reverse of Christianity, as it is the destruction of morality, piety, and civil liberty. A sermon preached at St. James’s church, Westminster, Oct. 1745,“Sva. II.” A sermon occasioned by the present unnatural Rebellion, &e> preached in Mr. Allen’s chapel, at Prior Park, near Bath, Nov. 1745, and published at his request,'? 8vo. III. “The nature of National Offences truly stated. A sermon preached on the general fast-day, Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8vo. On account of the last of these sermons he was again involved in a controversy with his former antagonist, Dr. Stebbing, which occasioned “An Apologetical Dedication to the Rev. Dr. Henry Stebbing, in answer to his censure and misrepresentations of the sermon preached on the general fast-day to be observed Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8yo. Notwithstanding his great connections, his acknowledged abilities, and his established reputation, a reputation founded on the durable basis of learning, and upheld by the decent and attentive performance of every duty incident to his station; yet we do not find that he received any addition to the preferment given him in 1728 by sir Robert Sutton (except the chaplaihship to the prince of Wales) until April 1746, when he was unanimously called by the society of Lincoln’s Inn to be their preacher. In November he published “A Sermon preached on the Thanksgiving appointed to be observed the 9th Oct. for the suppression of the late unnatural Rebellion,” 1746, 8vo. In 1747 appeared his edition of “Sbakspeare,” from which he derived very little reputation. Of this edition, the nameless critic already quoted, says, “To us it exhibits a phenomenon unobserved before in the operations of human intellect a mind, ardent and comprehensive, acute and penetrating, warmly devoted to the subject and furnished with all the stores of literature ancient or modern, to illustrate and adorn it, yet by some perversity of understanding, or some depravation of taste, perpetually mistaking what was obvious, and perplexing what was clear; discovering erudition of which the author was incapable, and fabricating connections to which he was indifferent. Yet, with all these inconsistencies, added to the affectation, equally discernible in the editor of Pope and Shakspeare, of understanding the poet better than he understood himself, there sometimes appear, in the rational intervals of his critical delirium, elucidations so happy, and disquisitions so profound, that our admiration of the poet (even of such a poet), is suspended for a moment while we dwell on the excellencies of the commentator.”

In the same year he published, 1. “A Letter from an author to a member of parliament, concerning Literary Property,” 8vo. 2. “Preface to Mrs. Cockburn’s remarks upon the principles and reasonings of Dr. Rutherforth’s Essay on the nature and obligations of Virtue,” &c. 8vo. 3. “Preface to a critical enquiry into the opinions and practice of the Ancient Philosophers, concerning the nature of a Future State, and their method of teaching by double Doctrine,” (by Mr. Towne), 1747, 8vo, 2d edition. In 1748 a third edition of “The Alliance between Church and State corrected and enlarged.” In 1749, a very extraordinary attack was made on the moral character of Mr. Pope from a quarter whence it could be the least expected. His “Guide, Philosopher, and Friend,” lord Bolingbroke, published a book which he had formerly lent Mr. Pope in ms. The preface to this work, written by Mr. Mallet, contained an accusation of Mr. Pope’s having clandestinely printed an edition of his lordship’s performance without his leave or knowledge. (See Pope.) A defence of the poet soon after made its appearance, which was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and was afterwards owned by him. It was called “'A Letter to the editor of Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism, the Idea of a patriot King, and the State of Parties, occasioned by the editor’s advertisement;” which soon afterwards produced an abusive pamphlet under the title of “A familiar epistle to the most Impudent Man living,” &c. a performance, as has been truly observed, couched in Janguage bad enough to disgrace even gaols and garrets. About this time the publication of Dr. Middleton’s “Enquiry concerning the Miraculous Powers,” gave rise to a controversy, which was managed with great warmth and asperity on both sides. On this occasion Mr. Warburton puolished an excellent performance, written with a degree of candour and temper which, it is to be lamented, he did not always exercise. The title of it was “Julian or, a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which defeated the emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, 1750,” 8vo. A second edition of this discourse, <c with Additions,“appeared in 1751. The critic above quoted has some remarks on this work too important to be omitted.” The gravest, the least eccentric, the most convincing of Warburton’s works, is the ' Julian, or a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption, which defeated that emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, in which the reality of a Divine interposition is shewn, and the objections to it ar are answered/ The selection of this subject was peculiarly happy, inasmuch as this astonishing fact, buried in the ponderous volumes of the original reporters, was either little considered by an Uninquisitive age, or confounded with the crude mass of false, ridiculous, or ill-attested miracles, which “with no friendly voice” had been recently exposed by Middleton. But in this instance the occasion was important: the honour of the Deity was concerned; his power had been defied, and his word insulted. For the avowed purpose of defeating a well-known prophecy, and of giving to the world a practical demonstration that the Christian scriptures contained a lying prediction, the emperor Julian undertook to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem; when, to the astonishment and confusion of the builders, terrible flames bursting from the foundations, scorched and repelled the workmen 'till they found themselves compelled to desist. Now this phenomenon was not, the casual eruption of a volcano, for it had none of the concomitants of those awful visitations: it may even be doubted whether it were accompanied by an earthquake; but the marks of intention and specific direction were incontrovertible. The workmen desisted, the flames retired, they returned to the work, when the flames again burst forth, and that as often as the experiment was repeated.

In 1751, Mr. Warburton published an edition of Pope’s “Works,” with notes, in nine volumes, octavo and in the same year printed “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Middleton, inserted in a pamphlet entitled The Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated,” &c. 8vo. and “An Account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans, the Welsh Prophet, in the last Century;” the latter of which pieces afterwards subjected him to much ridicule. In 1753, Mr. Warburton published the first volume of a course of Sermons, preached at Lincoln’s-inn, entitled “The Principles of natural and revealed Religion occasionally opened and explained;” and this, in the subsequent year, was followed by a second. After the public had been some time promised lord Bolingbroke’s Works, they were about this time printed. The known abilities and infidelity of this nobleman had created apprehensions, in the minds of many people, of the pernicious effects of his doctrines; and nothing but the appearance of his whole force could have convinced his friends how little there was to be dreaded from arguments against religion so weakly supported. The personal enmity, which had been excited many years before between the peer and our author, had occasioned the former to direct much of his reasoning against two works of the latter. Many answers were soon published, but none with more acuteness, solidity, and sprightliness, than “A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy, in two Letters to a Friend,” 1754. The third a/id fourth letters were published in 1755, with another edition of the two former; and in the same year a smaller edition of the whole; which, though it came into the world without a name, was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and afterwards publicly owned by him. To some copies of this is prefixed an excellent complimentary epistle from the president Montesquieu, dated May 26, 1754. At this advanced period of his life, that preferment which his abilities might have claimed, and which had hitherto been withheld, seemed to be approaching towards him. In September 1754 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, and in the 'next year was presented to a prebend * in the cathedral of Durham, worth 500l. per annum, on the death of Dr. Mangey. About the same time, the degree of doctor of divinity was conferred on him by Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury; and, a new impression of “The, Divine Legation” having being called for, he printed a fourth edition of the first part of it, corrected and enlarged, divided into two volumes, with a dedication to the earl of Hardwicke. The same year appeared “A Sermon preached before his grace Charles duke of Marlborough president, and the Governors of the Hospital for the small-pox and for inoculation, at the parish church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Thursday, April the 24th, 1755,” 4to; and in 1756 “Natural and Civil Events the Instruments of God’s moral Government, a Sermon preached on the last public Fast-day, at Lincoln’s-inn Chapel,” 4to. In 1757, a pamphlet was published, called “Remarks on Mr. David Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion;” which is said to have been composed of marginal observations made by Dr. Warburton on reading Mr. Hume’s book; and which gave so much offence to the author animadverted upon, that he thought it of importance enough to deserve particular mention in the short account of his life. On Oct. 11, in this year, our author was ad­* Soon after he attained this pre- Neal’s History of the Puritans, which ferment, he wrote the Remarks on are now added to his Works. “vanced to the deanery of Bristol and in 175&republished the second part of” The Divine Legation,“divided into two parts, with a dedication to the earl of Mansfield, which deserves to be read by every person who esteems the wellbeing of society as a concern of any importance. At the latter end of next year, Dr. Warburton received the honour, so justly due to his merit, of being dignified with the mitre, and promoted to the vacant see of Gloucester. He was consecrated on the 20th of Jan. 1760; and on the 30th of the same month preached -before the House of Lords. In the next year he printed” A rational Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,“12mo. In 1762, he published” The Doctrine of Grace: or, the office and operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the insults of Infidelity and the abuses of Fanaticism,“2 vols. 12mo, one of his performances which does him least credit; and in the succeeding year drew upon himself much illiberal abuse from some writers of the popular party, on occasion of his complaint in the House of Lords, on Nov. 15, 1763, against Mr. Wilkes, for putting his name to certain notes on the infamous” Essay on Woman.“In 1765, anotber edition of the second part of” The Divine Legation“was published, as volumes III. IV. and V.; the two parts printed in 1755 being considered as volumes I. and II. It was this edition which produced a very angry controversy between him and Dr. Lowth, whom in many respects he found more than his equal. (See Lowth, p. 438.) On this occasion was published,” The second part of an epistolary Correspondence between the bishop of Gloucester and the late professor of Oxford, without an Imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated Laws of Honour and Society,“1766, 8vo. In 1776, he gave a new edition of” The Alliance between Church and State;“and” A Sermon preached before the incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign Parts, at the anniversary Meeting in the parish church of St. Mary-le-bow, on Friday, Feb. 21,“8vo. The next year produced a third volume of his” Sermons,“dedicated to lady Mansfield and with this, and a single” Sermon preached at St. Lawrence-Jewry on Thursday, April 30, 1767, before his royal highness Edward duke of York, president, and the governors of the London Hospital. &c.“4to, he closed his literary labours. His faculties continued unimpaired for some time after this period; and, in 1769, he gave the principal materials to Mr. Ruffhead, for his” Life of Mr. Pope." He also transferred 500l. to lord Mansfield, judge Wilmot, and Mr. Charles Yorke, upon trust, to found a lecture in the form of a course of sermons; to prove the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable introductory letters of bishop Hurd and the well- adapted continuation of bishops Halifax and Bagot, Dr. Apthorp, the Rev. R. Nares, and others. It is a melancholy reflection, that a life spent in the constant pursuit of knowledge frequently terminates in the loss of those powers, the cultivation and improvement of which are attended to with too strict and unabated a degree of ardour. This was in some degree the misfortune of Dr. Warburton. Like Swift and the great duke of Marlborough, he gradually sunk into a situation in which it was a fatigue to him to enter into general conversation. There were, however, a few old and valuable friends, in whose company, even to the last, his mental faculties were exerted in their wonted force; and at such times he would appear cheerful for several hours, and on the departure of his friends retreat as it were within himself. This melancholy habit was aggravated by the loss of his only son, a very promising young gentleman, who died of a consumption but a short time before the bishop himself resigned to fate June 7, 1779, in the eighty-first year of his age. A neat marble monument has been lately erected in the cathedral of Gloucester, with the inscription below *.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was of low extraction, and born in Oxfordshire about 1667. Jacob said of him, in his Lives of the Poets, that he kept a public house in the city, but in a genteel way, which was much frequented by those who were adverse to the Whig administration. Ward, however, was affronted when he read this account, not because it made him an enemy to the Whigs, or the keeper of a public house, but because his house was said to be in the city. In a book, therefore, called “Apollo’s Maggot,” he declared this account to be a great falsity, protesting that his public house was not in the city, but in Moorfelds. Oldys says he lived a while in Gray’s-­Inn, and for some years after kept a public house in Moorfields, then in Clerkenwell, and lastly a punch-house in Fulwood’s-Rents, within one door of Gray’s-Inn, where he would entertain any company who invited him with many stories and adventures of the poets and authors he had acquaintance with. He was honoured with a place in the “Dunciad” by Pope, whom, however he contrived to vex, by retorting with some spirit. He died June 20, 1731, and was buried the 27th of the same month in St. Pancras church-yard, with one mourning-coach for his wife and daughter to attend his hearse, as himself had directed in his poetical will, which was written by him June 24, 1725. This will was printed in Appleby’s Journal, Sept. 28, 1731. Ward is most distinguished by his well-known “London Spy,” a coarse, but in some respect a true, description of London manners. He wrote one dramatic piece, called “The Humours of a Coffee-house,” and some poems in the Hudibrastic style, but not “England’s Reformation,” as asserted in Mr. Reed’s edition of the Biog. Dram. 1782. That was the production of Thomas Ward, who will be mentioned hereafter.

, master of Sidney-Sussex college, Cambridge, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born of a good family in the bishopric of Durham, at a place called Bishops-Middleham. He was first sent to Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he became a scholar of the house, whence he was, on account of his extraordinary merit, elected into a fellowship at Emmanuel, and succeeded to the mastership of Sidney-Sussex college on Jan. 5, 1609. On April 29, 1615, he was installed archdeacon of Taunton, and was at that time D. D. and prebendary of Bath and Wells. On Feb. 11, 1617, he was promoted to a stall in the metropolitical church of York, where he had the prebend of Ampleford, which he kept to his death. In 1620 he was vice-chancellor of the university, and the year following was made lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. In 1622 he was at Salisbury with bishop Davenant, his intimate and particular friend, with whom, together with bishops Hall and Carleton, he had been sent by king James to the synod of Dort in 1613, as persons best able to defend the doctrine of the Church of England, and to gain it credit and reputation among those to whom they were sent.

Mr. Ward having taken his master’s degree in 1640, was chosen fellow of his college. In the same year Dr. Cosins, the vice-chancellor, pitched upon Ward to be prevaricator, the same office which is called in Oxford terree filius; and he took so many freedoms in his speech, that the vice-chancellor suspended him from his degree; though he reversed the censure the day following.

In the House of Lords he was esteemed an admirable speaker and a close reasoner, equal at least to the earl of Shaftesbury. He was a great benefactor to both his bishoprics, as by his interest the deanry of Burien, in Cornwall was annexed to the former, and the chancellorship of the garter to the latter. He was polite, hospitable, and generous: and in his life-time, founded the college at Salisbury, for the reception and support of ministers’ widows, and the sumptuous hospital at Buntingford, in Hertfordshire, the place of his birth. His intimate friend, Dr. Walter Pope, has given us a curious account of his life, interspersed with agreeable anecdotes of his friends. Pope’s zeal and style, however, provoked a severe pamphlet from Dr. Thomas Wood, a civilian, called “An Appendix to the Life,” 1679, 12mo, bound up, although rarely, with Pope’s work.

That by which he has chiefly signalized himself, as to astronomical invention, is his celebrated approximation to the true place of a planet, from a given mean anomaly, founded upon an hypothesis, that the motion of a planet, though it be really performed in an elliptic orbit, may yet be considered as equable as to angular velocity, or with an uniform circular motion round the upper focus of the ellipse, or that next the aphelion, as a centre. By this means he rendered the praxis of calculation much easier than any that could be used in resolving what has been commonly called Kepler’s problem, in which the coequate anomaly was to be immediately investigated from the mean elliptic one. His hypothesis agrees very well with those orbits which are elliptical but in a very small degree, as that of the Earth and Venus: but in others, that are more elliptical, as those of Mercury, Mars, &c. this approximation stood in need of a correction, which was made by Bulliald. Both the method, and the correction, are very well explained and demonstrated, by Keill, in his Astronomy, lecture 24.

, whom we mentioned under the article Edward Ward, as being the real author of the Hudibrastic poem called “England’s Reformation,” was, according to Dodd, a learned schoolmaster, who becoming a Roman catholic, in the reign of James II. published several books concerning religion. Dodd says that in these tc he was so successful, that, though a layman, he was able to give diversion to some of the ablest divines of the church of England. He some time rode in the king’s guards; and it was no small confusion to his adversaries, when they understood who it was they engaged with; imagining all the while, they were attacking some learned doctor of the Roman communion.“After the revolution he retired into Flanders, where he died soon after. He left two children, a daughter who became a nun, and a son whom Dodd speaks of as” now (about 1742) a worthy catholic clergyman."

On his father’s death in 1632, he succeeded him in his estate and in the office of auditor-general, of which, in 1643, he procured from the marquis of Ormond, then lord lieutenant, a reversionary grant for his son, also called James, who died in 1689. It appears by a letter which the marquis wrote on this occasion that sir James, “even when his majesty’s affairs were most neglected, and when it was not safe for any man to shew himself for them, then appeared very zealously and stoutly for them,” and, in a word, demonstrated his loyalty in the worst of times. His studies, however, were now somewhat interrupted by the duties of his office, on which he entered in 1633, on the arrival of the lord-deputy Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford, who took him into his particular confidence, and consulted him upon all occasions. To render him more useful in the king’s service, he called him to the privycouncil, and th'ere he had frequent opportunities of shewing his address and talents in the most important affairs. This year (1633) he published “Spenser’s view of the state of Ireland,” and dedicated it to the lord-deputy, as he did afterwards Meredith Haiuner’s “Chronicle,” and Campion’s “History of Ireland.”

Warham continued to hold his place of chancellor for the first seven years of Henry VIII. but became weary of it when Wolsey had gained such an ascendancy over the king, as to be intrusted with almost the sole administration of public affairs. Warham, says Burnet, always hated cardinal Wolsey, and weuld never stoop to him, esteeming it below the dignity of his see. Erasmus relates of Warham, that it was his custom to wear plain apparel, and that once when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, and Wolsey took upon him to publish an order, that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed, in silk or damask, Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s commands, came in his usual cloath-s. One misunderstanding between Warham and Wolsey was about the latter’s having the cross carried before him in the province of Canterbury. Warham as primate of all England, had taken umbrage that Wolsey, who was only archbishop of York, should cause the cross to be carried before him in the presence of Warham, and even in the province of Canterbury, contrary to the ancient custom; which was, that the cross of the see of York should not be advanced in the same province, or ia the same place, with the cross of Canterbury, in acknowledgment of the superiority of the latter see. When Warham expostulated with Wolsey on this subject, he appears to have convinced him of the impropriety of his conduct; but rather than desist from it, and lose a dignity he had once assumed, Wolsey contrived how he might, for the future, have a right to it, wkhout incurring any imputation of acting contrary to rule. And though his being a cardinal did not give him the contested right, he knew that he might assume it with a better grace, if he was invested with the legantine character; and therefore he solicited and obtained it, being made the pope’s legate a latere in November 1515. On this, in the following month, the archbishop Warham resigned the seals, and Wolsey was made lord chancellor in his room. There were subsequently many contests between these two great statesmen, in which Warham generally maintained the dignity and independence of his character with great firmness; but Wolsey, as long ag he remained the king’s favourite, was the more powerful antagonist. Still, notwithstanding his superiority, Warham sometimes was enabled to convince him that he stretched his power too far. Of this we have a remarkable instance. Warham had summoned a convocation of the prelates and clergy of his province to meet at St. Paul’s April 20, 1523, and the cardinal had summoned a convocation of his province of York to meet at Westminster at the same time. But as soon as the convocation of Canterbury met, and were about to proceed to business, the cardinal summoned them to attend him April 22, in a legantine council at Westminster. This extraordinary step gave great offence to the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury. They indeed obeyed the summons, ljut when they came to treat of business, the proctors for the clergy observed, that their commissions gave them no authority to treat or vote but in convocation. This objection proved unanswerable, and the cardinal, to his great mortification, was obliged to dismiss his legantine council. When, in 1529, Wolsey was deprived of all his honours, the great seal was again offered to Warham, but being now far advanced in years, and displeased with the general proceedings of the court, he declined the offer. In his last year, 1532, he exhibited two instances of weakness, the one in being, with many others however, imposed upon by the pretended visions of Elizabeth Barton, commonly called the Maid of Kent; the other, in a kind of protest, which he left in the hands of a notary, against all the laws that had been made, or that should thereafter be made, by the present parliament, in derogation of the authority of the pope, or the right and immunities of the church. The design of this private protest against those laws to which he had given his consent in public, is not very obvious. Burnet would suggest, that it was a piece of superstitious penance imposed on him by his confessor, in which case it must be accounted an instance of extreme weakness.

The archbishop sat in the see of Canterbury twentyeight years, and died at St. Stephen’s near that city, in the house of William Warham, his kinsman, and archdeacon of Canterbury, in 1532. He was interred, without any pomp, in his cathedral, in a little chapel built by himself for the place of his burial, on the north of Becket’s tomb, where a monument was erected for him, which was defaced in the civil wars. He laid out to the value of 300Q/. in repairing and beautifying the houses belonging to his see. It appears, from a letter of Erasmus to sir Thomas More, that though he had passed through the highest posts in church and state, he had so little regarded his own private advantage, that he left no more than was sufficient to pay his debts and funeral charges. And it is said, that, when he was near his death, he called upon his steward to know what nioney he had in his hands; who telling him “that he had hut thirty pounds,” he cheerfully answered, Satis maticiin cwlum, i.e. “That was enough to last till he got to Heaven.” ' He left his theological books to the library of All-Souls college, his civil and canon law books to New college, and all his books of church music to Winchester college.

, an old English poet, is called by Phillips, “a good honest plain writer of moral rules and precepts, in that old-fashioned kind ef seven-footed verse, which yet sometimes is in use, though in different manner, that is to say, divided into two. He may be reckoned with several other writers of the same time^ i. e> Queen Elizabeth’s reign: who, though inferior to Sidney, Spenser, Drayton, and Daniel, yet have been thought by some not unworthy to be remembered and quoted: namely George Gascoigne, Thomas Hudson, John Markham, Thomas Achely, John Weever, Charles Middleton, George TurberviTle, Henry Constable, sirEdward Dyer, Thomas Churchyard, Charles Fitzgeoffry.”

His “Albion’s England” was his principal work; and was not only a favourite with his own age, but has received very high praise from the critics of our own time. It is an epitome of the British history, and, according to the editor of the “Muses Library,” Mrs. Cooper, is written with great learning, sense, and spirit; in some places fine to an extraordinary degree, of which an instance is given in the story ofArgentill and Curan, a tale which, Mrs. Cooper adds, is full of beautiful incidents, in the romantic taste, extremely affecting, rich in ornament, wonderfully various in style, and in short one of the most beautiful pastorals she ever met with. To this opinion, high as it is, Dr. Percy thinks nothing can be objected, unless perhaps an affected quaintness in some of his expressions, and an indelicacy in some of his pastoral images. Warner’s contemporaries ranked him on a level with Spenser, and called him the Homer and Virgil of their age. But Dr. Percy remarks, that he rather resembled Ovid, whose Metamorphosis he seems to have taken for a model, having deduced a perpetiial poem from the deluge down to the reign of queen Elizabeth, full of lively digressions and entertaining episodes. And though he is sometimes harsh, affected, and indelicate, he often displays a most charming and pathetic simplicity.

ver, one of Mr. Warton’s pupils, who could not write for themselves. Kiddington, Oxon. on the presentation of George Henry earl of Litchfield, then chancellor of the university, a nobleman whose memory he afterwards honoured by an epitaph. In 1774 he published the first volume of his “History of English Poetry,” the most important of all his works, and to the completion of which the studies of his whole life appear to have been bent. How much it is to be regretted that he did not live to complete his plan, every student in ancient literature must be deeply sensible. He intended to have carried the history down to the commencement 6f the eighteenth century. A second volume accordingly appeared in 1778, and a third in 1781, after which he probably relaxed from his pursuit, as at the period of his death in 1.790, a few sheets only of the fourth volume were printed, and no part left in a state for printing. His original intention was to have comprised the whole in two or three volumes, but it is now evident, and he probably soon became aware, that five would have scarcely been sufficient if he continued to write on the same scale, and to deviate occasionally into notices of manners, laws, customs, &c. that had either a remote, or an immediate connection with his principal subject. What his reasons were for discontinuing his labours, cannot now be ascertained. It is well known to every writer that a work of great magnitude requires temporary relaxation, or a change of employment, and may admit of both without injury; but he might probably find that it was now less easy to return with spirit to his magnum opus, than in the days of more vigour and activity. It is certain that he wished the public to think that he was making his usual progress, for in 1785, when he published “Milton’s Juvenile Poems,” he announced the speedy publication of the fourth volume of the history, of which, from that time to his death, ten sheets only were finished. His brother, Dr. Joseph, was long supposed to be engaged in completing this fourth volume. In one of his letters lately published by Mr. Wooll, and dated 1792, he says, “At any leisure I get busied in finishing the last volume of Mr. Warton’s History of Poetry, which I have engaged to do, for the booksellers are clamorous to have the book finished (though the ground I am to go over is so beaten) that it may be a complete work.” Yet on his death in 1800, it did not appear that he had made any progress . Mr. Warton’s biographer has traced the origin of this work to Pope, who, according to Ruffhead, had sketched a plan of a history of poetry, dividing the poets into classes or schools; but Ruffhead’s list of poets is grossly erroneous. Gray, however, Mr. Mason informs us, had meditated a history of English poetry, in which Mason was to assist him. Their design was to introduce specimens of the Provencal poetry, and of the Scaidic, British, and Saxon, as preliminary to what first deserved to be called English poetry about the time of Chaucer, from whence their history, properly so called, was to commence. Gray, however, was deterred by the magnitude of the undertaking; and being informed that Warton was employed on a similar design, more readily relinquished his own.

In 1781 he seems to have devoted his mind to a plan as arduous as his History of Poetry. He had been for some time making collections for a parochial history, or, as it is more usually called, a c'ounty history of Oxfordshire. As a specimen, he printed a few copies of the History of the parish of Kiddington, which were given to his friends, but in 1782 an edition was offered to the public. Topography had long formed one of his favourite studies, and the acuteness with which he had investigated the progress of ancient architecture f, gave him undoubtedly high claims to the honours of an antiquary but as he stood of Holboro, 1800. pledged for the completion of his poetical history, it is to be regretted that he should have begun at this advanced period of life to indulge the prospect of an undertaking which he never could complete.

His poetry, as well as that of his brother, has been the occasion of some difference of opinion among the critics; and the school of Warton, as it is called, has not of late been always mentioned with the respect it deserves. Among the characteristics of our author’s poetry, however, his style may be considered as manly and ^energetic, but seldom varied by the graces of simplicity. His habits of thought led him to commence all his poems in a style pompous and swelling; his ideas often ran on the imaginary days of Gothic grandeur and mighty achievement, and where such subjects were to be treated, as in his “Triumph of Isis,” and in his “Laureat Odes,” no man could have cloathed them in language more appropriate.

Sir Philip Warwick was born in the parish of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, in the year 1608. He was educated at Eton-school, and afterwards travelled into France, and was some time at Geneva, where he studied under the famous Diodati. When he returned from abroad, he became secretary to the lord treasurer Juxon; and a clerk of the signet. He was diplomated bachelor of law at Oxford April llth, 1638, and in 1640 was elected burgess for Radnor in Wales, and was one of the fifty-six who gave negative to the bill of attainder against the earl of Strafford. Disapproving afterwards of the conduct of parliament, he went to the king at Oxford, and was for this desertion (by a vote of the House, Feb. 5, 1643), disabled from sitting there. Whilst at Oxford, he lodged in University-college, and his counsel was much relied upon by the king. In 1643, he was sent to the earl of Newcastle in the north, to persuade him to march southerly, which he could not be prevailed to comply with, “designing (as sir Peter Warwick perceived) to be the man who should turn the scale, and to be a self-subsisting and distinct army wherever he was.” In 1646, he was one of the king’s commissioners to treat with the parliament for the surrender of Oxford; and in the following year he attended the king to the Isle of Wight in the capacity of secretary; and there desiring, with some others, a leave of absence to look after their respective affairs, he took leave of the king, and never saw him more. Besides being engaged in these important commissions, he took up arms in the royal cause; one time serving under captain Turberville, who lost his life near Newark, at another in what was called the Troop of Show, consisting of noblemen, gentlemen, and their attendants, in all about 500 horse, whose property taken together was reckoned at 100,000l. per annum, and who, by his majesty’s permission, (they, being his guards,) had the honour of being engaged in the first charge at the battle of Edgehill. He was busily engaged in private conferences with the chief promoters of the Restoration; but this he does not relate “to creep into a little share in bringing back the king,” as he attributed that event to more than earthly wisdom, in the first parliament called by Charles II. he was returned burgess for his native city of Westminster, and about that time received the honour of knighthood, and was restored to his place of clerk of the signet. He was likewise employed by the virtuous earl of Southampton as secretary to the treasury, in which office he acquitted himself with such abilities and integrity as did honour to them both, and in which post he continued till the death of that earl in 1667. The loss which the public sustained in his retirement from business is handsomely acknowledged in one of sir William Temple’s letters to our author.

He married, about the year 1638, Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Button of Mash, Yorkshire, by whom he had an only son Philip. Towards the end of Charles the First’s reign he purchased the seat called Frognal, in the parish of Chiselhurst, in Kent, now or lately the seat of lord viscount Sidney; and about the year 1647, he married, to his second wife, dame Joan, widow of sir William Botteler, bart. who was killed in the battle at Cropredy-bridge, and daughter of sir Henry Fanshaw, of More-park, a near kinswoman to General Fairfax.

The plenipotentiaries who framed the treaty of Aix la Chapelle, by leaving the boundaries of the British and French territories in North America unfixed, had sown the seeds of a new war, at the moment when they concluded a peace. The limits of Canada and Louisiana, furnished a motive, or a pretext, for one of the most successful but one of the most bloody and wasteful wars in which Great Britain had ever been engaged. In the disputes which arose between the French and English officers on this subject, major Washington was employed by the governor of Virginia, in a negotiation with the French governor of Fort du Quesne (now Pitsburgh); who threatened the English frontiers with a body of French and their Indian allies. He succeeded in averting the invasion; but hostilities becoming inevitable, he was in the next year appointed lieutenant colonel of a regiment raised by the colony for its own defence; to the command of which he soon after succeeded. The expedition of general Braddock followed in 1755; of which the fatal issue is too well known to require being described by us. Colonel Washington served in that expedition only as a volunteer; but such was the general confidence in his talents, that he may be said to have conducted the retreat. Several British officers lately alive, attested the calmness and intrepidity which he shewed in that difficult situation, and the voluntary obedience which was so cheerfully paid by the whole army to his superior mind. After having acted a distinguished part in a subsequent and more successful expedition to the Ohio, he was obliged by ill health, in 1758, to resign his military situation. The sixteen years which followed of the life of Washington, supply few materials for the biographer. Having married Mrs. Curtis, a Virginian lady of amiable character and respectable connections, he settled at his beautiful seat of Mount Vernon, of which we have had so many descriptions; where, with the exception of such attendance as was required by his duties as a magistrate and a member of the assembly, his time was occupied by his domestic enjoyments, and the cultivation of his estate, in a manner well suited to the tranquillity of his unambitious mind. At the end of this period he was called by the voice of his country from this state of calm and secure though unostentatious happiness.

The conclusion of the American war permitted Washington to return to those domestic scenes, from which nothing but a sense of duty seems to have had the power to draw him. But he was not allowed long to enjoy this privacy. The supreme government of the United States, hastily thrown up, in a moment of turbulence and danger, as a temporary fortification against anarchy, proved utterly inadequate to the preservation of general tranquillity and permanent security. The confusions of civil war had given a taint to the morality of the people, which rendered the restraints of a just and vigorous government more indispensably necessary. Confiscation and paper money, the two greatest schools of rapacity and dishonesty in the world, had widely spread their poison among the Americans. One of their own writers tells us that the whole system of paper money was a system of public and private frauds. In this state of things, which threatened the dissolution of morality and government, good men saw the necessity of concentrating and invigorating the supreme authority. Under the influence of this conviction, a convention of delegates was assembled at Philadelphia, which strengthened the bands of the federal union, and bestowed on congress those powers which were necessary for the purposes of good government. Washington was the president of this convention, as he, in three years after, was elected president of the United States of America, under what was called “The New Constitution,” though it ought to have been called a reform of the republican government, as that republican government itself was only a reform of the ancient Colonial coustiuitioii under the British crown. None of these changes extended so far as an attempt to newmodel the whole social and political system.

Events occurred during his chief magistracy, which convulsed the whole political world, and which tried most severely his moderation and prudence. The French revolution took place. Both friends and enemies have agreed in stating that Washington, from the beginning of that revolution, had no great confidence in its beneficial operation. He must indeed have desired the abolition of despotism, but he is not to be called the enemy of liberty, if he dreaded the substitution of a more oppressive despotism. It is extremely probable that his wary and practical understanding, instructed by the experience of popular commotions, augured little good from the daring speculations of inexperienced visionaries. The progress of the revolution was not adapted to cure his distrust, and when, in 1793, France, then groaning under the most intolerable and hideous tyranny, became engaged in war with almost all the governments of the civilized world, it is said to have been a matter of deliberation with the president of the United States, whether the republican envoy, or the agent of the French princes should be received in America as the diplomatic representative of France. But whatever might be his private feelings of repugnance and horror, his public conduct was influenced only by his public duties. As a virtuous man he must have abhorred the system of crimes which was established in France. But as the first magistrate of the American commonwealth, he was bound only to consider how far the interest and safety of the people whom he governed, were affected by the conduct of France. He saw that it was wise and necessary for America to preserve a good understanding and a beneficial intercourse with that great country, in whatever manner she was governed, as long as she abstained from committing injury against the United States. Guided by this just and simple principle, uninfluenced by the abhorrence of crimes which he felt, he received Mr. Genet,the minister of the French republic, and was soon shocked by the outrages which that minister committed, or instigated, or countenanced against the American government. The conduct of Washington was a model of firm and dignified moderation. Insults were offered to his authority in official papers, in anonymous libels, by incendiary declaimers, and by tumultuous meetings. The law of nations was trampled under foot. His confidential ministers were seduced to betray him, and the deluded populace were so inflamed by the arts of their enemies that they broke out into insurrection. No vexation, however galling, could disturb the tranquillity of his mind, or make him deviate from the policy which his situation prescribed. With a more confirmed authority, and at the head of a longer established government, he might perhaps have thought greater vigour justifiable. But in his circumstances, he was sensible that the nerves of authority were not strong enough to bear being strained. Persuasion, always the most desirable instrument of government, was in his case the safest; yet he never overpassed the line which separates concession from meanness. He reached the utmost limits of moderation, without being betrayed into pusillanimity. He preserved external and internal peace by a system of mildness, without any of those virtual confessions of weakness, which so much dishonour and enfeeble supreme authority. During the whole of that arduous struggle, his personal character gave that strength to a new magistracy which in other countries arises from ancient habits of obedience and respect. The authority of his virtue was more efficacious for the preservation of America, than the legal powers of his office.

During this turbulent period he was re-elected to the office of president of the United States, which he held from April 1789 till September 1796. Probably no magistrate of any commonwealth, ancient or modern, ever occupied a place so painful and perilous. Certainly no man was ever called upon so often to sacrifice his virtuous feelings (he had no other sacrifices to make) to his public duty. Two circumstances of this sort deserve to be particularly noticed. In the spring of 1794 he sent an ambassador to Paris with credentials, addressed to his “dear friends, the citizens composing the committee of public safety of the French republic,” whom he prays God “to take under his holy protection.” Fortunately the American ambassador was spared the humiliation of presenting his credentials to those bloody tyrants. Their power was subverted, and a few of them had suffered the punishment of their crimes, which no punishment could expiate, before feis arrival at Paris.

In 1714, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, at the exercise for which he gave a proof of no common abilities. He chose for his first question, upon which consequently his thesis was made, “Whether Arian subscription be lawful?” a question, says Mr. Seed, worthy of him who abhorred all prevarications, and had the capacity to see through and detest those evasive arts, with which some would palliate their disingenuity. When Dr. James, the professor, had endeavoured to answer his thesis, and embarrass the question with the dexterity of a person long practised in all the arts of a subtle disputant, he immediately replied in an extempore discourse of about half an hour long, with such an easy flow of proper and significant words, and such an undisturbed presence of mind, as if he had been reading, what he afterwards printed, “The case of the Arian subscription considered.” He unravelled the professor’s fallacies, reinforced his own reasoning, and shewed himself so perfect a master of the language, the subject, and himself, that all agreed no one ever appeared to greater advantage. He was on this occasion happy in a first opponent Mr. (afterwards the celebrated bishop) Sherlock, who gave full play to his abilities, and called for all that strength of reason of which he was master. One singular consequence is said to have followed this exercise. I)r. Clarke, in the second edition of his “Scripture Doctrige,” &c. published in 17 19, omitted the following words, which were in his former edition of that book: “It is plain that a man may reasonably agree to such forms (of subscription to the thirty-nine articles) whenever he can in any sense at all reconcile them with scripture.” This is remarked by our author in the preface to his vindication of Christ’s divinity, as redounding to Dr. Clarke’s honour, and it is well known that Dr. Clarke afterwards constantly refused subscription.

On the death of Dr. James, regius professor of divinity, Mr. Waterland was generally considered as fit to succeed him, but his great esteem for Dr. Bentley, who was elected, prevented his using his interest. He was soon after appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to George I. who, on a visit to Cambridge in 1717, honoured him with the degree of D.D. without his application; and in this degree he was incorporated at Oxford, with a handsome encomium from Dr. Delaune, president of St. John’s college in that university. In 1719, he gave the world the first specimen of his abilities on a subject which has contributed most to his fame. He now published the first “Defence of his Queries,” in vindication of the divinity of Christ, which engaged him in a controversy with Dr. Clarke. (See Clarke, p. 409.) The “Queries” which he thus defended were originally drawn up for the use of Mr. John Jackson the rector of Rossington in Yorkshire (See Jackson, p. 420), and it was intended that the debate should be carried on by private correspondence; but Jackson having sent an answer to the “Queries,” and received Waterland’s reply, acquainted him that both were in the press, and that he must follow him thither, if he wished to prolong the controversy. On this Dr. Waterland published “A vindication of Christ’s Divinity: being a defence of some queries, &c. in answer to a clergyman in the country;” which being soon attacked by the Arian party, our author published in 1723, “A second vindication of Christ’s Divinity, or, a second defence of some queries relating to Dr. Clarke’s scheme of the holy Trinity, in answer to the country clergyman’s reply,” &c. This, which is the longest, has always been esteemed Dr. Waterland’s most accurate performance on the subject. We are assured that it was finished and sent to the press in two months; but it was a subject he had frequently revolved, and that with profound attention. In answer to this work, Dr. Clarke published in the following year, “Observations on the second defence,” &c. to which Dr. Waterland replied in “A farther defence of Christ’s divinity,” &c. It was not to be expected that these authors would agree, as Dr. Clarke was for explaining the text in favour of the Trinity, by what he called the maxims of right reasoning, while Dr. Waterland, bowing to the mysterious nature of the subject, considered it as a question above reason, and took the texts in their plain and obvious sense, as, he proved, the fathers had done before him.

Dr. Clarke’s exposition of the Church Catechism being published in 1730, our author immediately printed some remarks upon it, with a view to point out what he esteemed to be dangerous passages in that exposition, and to counteract their influence. In the prosecution of this design, he advanced a position concerning the comparative value of positive and moral duties, which drew him into a controversy with Dr. Sykes. Sykes having published an answer to Dr. Waterland’s “Remarks,” the latter replied in a pamphlet, entitled “The nature, obligation, and efficacy of the Christian Sacraments considered as also the comparative value of moral and positive duties distinctly stated and cleared.” Other pamphlets passed between them on the same subject, until Dr. Waterland' s attention was called to Tindal’s deistical publication of “Christianity as old as the Creation.” Against this, he wrote “Scripture vindicated, in answer to Christianity as old as the Creation,” 1730 1732, three parts; and two charges to the clergy of the archdea* conry of Middlesex on the same subject. He now found an antagonist in Middleton, (a Tindal in disguise), who published “A Letter to Dr. Wateriand,” c. the purport and consequences of which we have already detailed. (See Middleton, p. 137.)

In 1778, he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in a very honourable manner, having previously acquired the friendship of its president sir Joseph Banks, the late Dr. Solander, and several other men of eminence. In the autumn of 1780, he was called to the bar, and travelled the western circuit, where he always met with that reception which his friends had promised and his abilities warranted. Having commenced this profession, at this period of his life, he deemed it very expedient to be uncommonly assiduous in his application to the study of the law. This attention to business he paid to the last, allowing himself little rest, seldom indulging in relaxation of any kind. In July 1783, his excellent father departed this life. On his removal to London, he had been chosen pastor of a congregation in the Borough of Southwark, and continued in that relation till his death. At the close of 1787, Mr. Watson was called to the rank of serjeant, with Messrs. Runnington and Marshall. The year before he was elected recorder of Bridport in Dorsetshire, and was then so much esteemed by the corporation, that in the last parliament he was chosen one of their representatives without any opposition. His attendance in the senate was frequent, and though he did not signalize himself so much in debate as some others have done, yet he rendered himself useful as a chairman upon several committees, for which indeed his firmness, tempered with sweetness, admirably qualified him. But he reserved his greatest strength for the India court of proprietors, of which he was one, and where he frequently spoke with much applause.

On the much-lamented death of the very celebrated sir William Jones, Mr. Watson was appointed to succeed him in March 1795, an honour which he, and every one connected with him, very deeply felt; but while he was preparing for his voyage, his filial piety suffered a deep blow, death depriving him of his valuable mother, who departed this life on the 26th of April that year. But on the 8th of July, having been previously knighted, though far from agreeable to his modest disposition, he, accompanied by his lady, and two eldest children, set sail for Calcutta in the Berrington. The voyage was long and stormy, for they did not reach their destination till Feb. 27, 1797. It being term-time, on his arrival at Calcutta, he was immediately called upon to discharge the duties of his office, and went through the business with the utmost spirit and reputation. But a period was soon put to his active services, for on April 29th he was seized with a fever, of which he died May 2. Next day he was inferred with the customary honours of his rank, his corpse being followed to the grave by a numerous concourse of the gentlemen of the settlement, who had been led to form considerable expectations of his merit.

The principles expressed by Mr Gibbon, in various parts of the “History of the Rise and Declension of the Roman Empire,” called forth the zeal of Dr. Watson; whose 66 Apology for Christianity, in a series of letters, addressed to Edward Gibbon, e*q " was published in 1776, 12mo, and several times repr.nted. This work is certainly replete with sound information and reasoning, but it produced in the learned historian no diffidence of his own powers, although he did not choose to exert them in controversy. A correspondence took place on that occasion between the antagonists, which is preserved in the Life of Gibbon by lord Sheffield. In this, which consists of only two short letters, Dr. Watson must, we think, be allowed to have carried his politeness or his liberality to the utmost verge .

In 1796, his lordship’s powers in theological controversy were called forth on a most important occasion, though by a very inferior antagonist to Gibbon. Thomas Paine, after having enlightened the world in regard to politics, proceeded, in his “Age of Reason,” to dispel the clouds in which, he impiously conceived, Christianity had for so many ages enveloped the world. The arguments of this man were abundantly superficial; but his book was likely to produce greater effect than the writings of the most learned infidels. The connexion of his political with his religious opinions tended still farther to increase the danger; for atheism and jacobinism at that time went hand in hand. It was on this occasion that the bishop of Landaff stood forward in defence of Christianity, by publishing his most seasonable and judicious “Apology for the Bible, in a Series of Letters addressed to Thomas Paine,” 12mo. His genius was here rendered peculiarly conspicuous, by his adopting the popular manner and style of his antagonist; and by thus addressing himself in a particular manner to the comprehensions and ideas of those who were most likely to be misled by the arguments he so very ably confuted. By this he in a great measure contributed to prevent the pernicious effects of “The Age of Keason” among the lower classes of the community, and at the same time led them to suspect and (detest the revolutionary and political tenets of the author. The British Critics, speaking of this apology, say, “We hail with much delight the repetition of editions of a book so important to the best of causes, the cause of Christianity, as the present. It is written in an easy and popular style. The author has purposely, and we think wisely, abstained from pouring into it much of that learning which the stores of his mind would readily have supplied. He has contented himself with answering every argument or cavil in the plainest and clearest manner, not bestowing a superfluous word, or citing a superfluous authority for any point whatever.”

“A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Landaff in June 1805,” was published in that year; and another in 1808: “Two Apologies, one for Christianity against Gibbon, and the other for the Bible against Paine, published together with two Sermons and a Charge in Defence of Revealed Religion,” in 1806, 8vo: “A Second Defence of Revealed Religion, in two Sermons; preached in the Chapel-royal, St. James’s, 1807.” “Communica r tion to the Board of Agriculture, on Planting and Waste Lands,” 1808. His lordship’s latest publication was a collection, of “Miscellaneous Tracts on Religious, Political, and Agricultural subjects,” 1815, 2 vols. 8vo. Some articles by him occur in the Transactions of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, of which he was one of the earliest members, During the last years of his life his lordship employed his leisure upon a history of his own times, after the manner of bishop Burnet’s celebrated work; and left directions for its publication after his decease. Such a performance from so, eminent a character will, of course, be expected with no ordinary anxiety by the political as well as the literary world, and will throw light on those parts of his own character and conduct which have been the subject of some difference of opinion. In the mean time it may be said of him, that he was an excellent public speaker, both in the pulpit and in the senate; his action graceful, his voice full and harmonious, and his delivery chaste and correct. As far as his influence extended, he was invariably the patron of merit. As a writer, bishop Watson united the knowledge of a scholar with the liberality of a gentlemaa, and in the course of a long, active, and conspicuous life, his lordship’s demeanour was marked by the characteristics of a very superior mind. His partiality to unlimited toleration in regard to religious opinion called down upon him the applauses of one part of the community, and the censures of the other. He uniformly exerted his endeavours to procure the abolition of the corporation and test-acts. In his private deportment, though somewhat reserved, he was remarkable for the simplicity of his manners, and the equality of his temper; enjoying all the emoluments of his stations, and the fame arising from his writings, in rural retirement, at Calgarth-park, Westmorland, a beautiful sequestered situation on the celebrated Lakes, a retreat which he had not only adorned and improved, but in some measure created, and where he passed much of his time in the indulgence of those deep studies to which his whole life was addicted. His plantations here were very extensive, and in 1789 gained him a premium from the Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. On the whole, Dr. Watson may justly be pronounced a prelate of distinguished abilities, learning, research, and industry. He had a numerous family, and many distinguished personages were attached to him by the ties of friendship; amongst whom, the late duke of Grafton, to the close of his life, was long one of the most conspicuous.

Bishop Watson has been confounded by Wood, Dodd, and others, with Thomas Watson, the sonnetteer, and they have attributed to the prelate the translation of the “Antigone” of Sophocles, which belongs to the other. Bishop Watson, indeed, who appears to have been at one time a polite scholar, composed a Latin tragedy called “Absolon;” but this he would not allow to be printed because in locis paribus, anapaestus was twice or thrice used instead of iambus"

, a nonconformist divine of considerable eminence, was educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, where he was remarked to be a very hard student. In 1646, he became rector of St. Stephen’s, W r albrook, by the sequestration of his predecessor, and was a preacher of great fame and popularity until the restoration, when he was ejected for nonconformity. In other respects he was a man rather of loyal principles, and besides a vigorous opposition to the measures adopted against the life of Charles 1. and a remonstrance to Cromweli r against the murder of that sovereign, he was concerned in what was called Love’s plot to bring in Charles II. and was for some time imprisoned in the Tower on that account. After his ejectment from St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, he occasionally preached where he could with safety, until undulgence being granted in 1672, he fitted up the great hall in Crosby House, Bishopsgate-street, which then belonged to sir John Langham, a nonconformist, and preached there several years. At length he retired to Essex, where he died sud* denly, as is supposed about 1689 or 1690. The time, either of his birth or death, is no where mentioned. He published a variety of small works on practical subjects, particularly “The Art of Divine Contentment,” which has gone through several editions; but his greatest work is his “Body of Divinity,” 1692, fol. consisting of a series of sermons on the Assembly’s Catechism, reprinted a few years ago in 2 vols. 8vo.

Soon alter his admission he distinguished himself as a botanist, and communicated some ingenious papers to the society, which are printed in their Transactions, particularly “Critical remarks on the Rev. Mr. Pickering’s paper concerning the Seeds of Mushrooms,'” which that gentleman considered as a new discovery, whereas Mr. Watson shewed that they had been demonstrated several years prior to that period by M. Micheli, in his “Nova plantarucn genera,” printed at Florence in 1729. But "that which attracted the attention of foreign botanists mostly, was his description of a rare and elegant species of fungus, called from its form geaster. This was written in Latin, and accompanied with an engraving. In 1748 Mr. Watson had an opportunity of showing attention to M. Kalm, during his abode in England, which was from February till August, when' he embarked for America. He introduced him to the curious gardens, and accompanied hjm in several botanical excursions in the environs of London. This eminent pupil of Linnæus, who was a Swedish divine, on his return home, became professor of osconomy at Abo, where he died Nov. 16, 1779. (See Kalm.) The same civilities were manifested by Dr. Watson to the eminent Dr. Pallas, of Petersburgh, during his abode in England, which was from July 1761 to April 1762.

Nothing however contributed so much to extend Mr. Watson’s fame as his discoveries in electricity. He took up this subject about 1744, and made several important discoveries in it. At this time it was no small advancement in the progress of electricity, to be able to fire spirit of wine. He was the first in England who effected this, and he performed it, both by the direct and the repulsive power of electricity. He afterwards fired inflammable matter, gunpowder, and inflammable oils, by the same means. He also instituted several other experiments, which helped to enlarge the power of the electrician; but the most important of his discoveries was, the proving that the electric power was not created by the globe or tube, but only col* lected by it. Dr. Franklin and Mr. Wilson were alike fortunate about the same time. It is easy to see the extreme utility of this discovery in conducting all subsequent experiments. It soon led to what he called “the circulation of the electric matter.”

It ought also to be remembered, that Mr. Watson conducted some other experiments, with so much Sagacity and address, relating^ to the impracticability of transmitting odours, and the power of purgatives, through glass; and those relating to the exhibition of what was called the “glory round the head,” or the “beatification,” boasted to have been done by some philosophers on the continent; that he procured, at length, an acknowledgment from Mr. Bose, of what he called “an embellishment,” in conducting the experiments; a procedure totally incompatible with the true spirit of a philosopher!

Of late years a Very important part of Dr. Watts’ s character has been called in question. It has been confidently asserted by some anti-trinitarians, that before his death he was come over to their party, and that he left some papers behind him, containing a recantation of his former sentiments, which his executors thought it most prudent to suppress. But against this charge he has been defended by the late rev. Samuel Palmer of Hackney, who published, in J 785, “The Life of Dr. Watts,” &c. with, among other additions, “An authentic account of his last sentiments on the Trinity.” In this account Mr. Palmer endeavours to demonstrate that Dr. Watts never gave up the orthodox faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, but that he had somewhat altered his judgment with respect to the manner of expressing and maintaining it. Upon a careful perusal of the whole, we are inclined to think that Mr. Palmer has riot removed all the difficulties attending the question; although on the other hand he has ably and fully vindicated Dr. Watts from the last evidence to be produced from his own pen; and all that remains to affect the character of the doctor rests on an anonymous accusation in a literary journal, (Month. Rev. vol. LXVI. p. 170,) the author of which we suspect to be Dr. Kippis, who is no longer to be called upon for the proofs of his assertion. With respect to the reports propagated by some Arian and Socinian writers, that the author revised his Hymns and Psalms, a little before his death, in order to render them, as they say, “wholly unexceptionable to every Christian professor,” they are generally discredited. Yet in reliance on this report, editions have been published, in which his sentiments have been mutilated, with no sparing hand, to accommodate them to Socinian principles.

, a learned sufferer during the usurpation, was born near Lynn in Norfolk, about the end of the sixteenth century, and was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1610, and that of A. M. in 1614, in which last he was incorporated at Oxford in 1618. After leaving college, he travelled abroad and became master of various languages. On his return he was made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I. In 1639 he took his degree of D.D. at Oxford, and had the living of St. Alban’s, Wood-street, but the time of his admission does not appear. He was afterwards chaplain under the earl of Arundel, general of the forces in the. Scotch expedition in 1639, and prebendary of Wells. About 1642, his living in London was sequestered, his wife and family turned out of doors, and himself compelled to fly. Some small pittance is said to have been afterwards given to his family out of the sale of his goods. He now joined the king, who appointed him to attend as chaplain upon prince Rupert, and he was present with his highpess in all his engagements. He also served under the prince on board of ship, and was with him when he was blocked up in the harbour at Kingsale in Ireland. While here, Dr. Watts was “taken with a distemper which no physic could cure,” and of which he died in 1649. Dr. Watts is often mentioned by Vossius, as one of the most learned men of his time. He had a principal hand in Spelman’s Glossary, and was the editor of Matthew Paris, a fine edition printed at London in 1640, fol. In the preface he acknowledges his obligations to sir Henry Spelman. He also published in 1631, a translation of “St. Augustine’s Confessions,” with marginal notes, &c. 12mo. Wood mentions some other treatises from his pen, but it seems doubtful if they were printed. Wood adds that he published, before the civil wars of England began, “several numbers of newsbooks,” which appear to be the newspapers called “The German Intelligencer,” 1630, and the “Swedish Intelligencer,” 1631; but he was educated for other and more important labours, had the unhappy circumstances of the times permitted him the quiet use and enjoyment of his time and talents.

learning, and had a good collection are in the possession of Mr. Nichols. “Remark^' a second edition was published the same year. 4.” Excerpta ex Instruments publicis de Juda;is,“consisting of seven pages small 4to. 5.” Short, but true, tate of facts relative to the Jew-Bill, submitted to the consideration of the Public,“three pages small 4to. 6.” Five plates of Records relating to the Jews, engraven at the expence of Philip Carteret Webb, esq.“7.” The Question whether a Jew born within the British dominions was, before the making the late Act of Parliament, a Person capable by Law to purchase and hold Lands to him and his heirs, fairly stated and considered. To which is annexed an Appendix, containing copies of public records relating to the Jews, and to the plates of Records, by a gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn,“1753, 4to. Printed for Roberts, price 2s. 6d.” A Reply“to this, in the same size and at the same price, written, as it is supposed, by Mr. Grove, author of the Life of cardinal Wolsey, was printed for Robinson, Woodyer, and Swan. 8.” A short Account of some particulars concerning Domesday- Book, with a view to promote its being published,“1756, 4to. 9.” A short Account of Danegeld, with some farther particulars relating to William the Conqueror’s Survey,“1758, 4to. 10.” A State of Facts, in defence of his Majesty’s right to certain Fee-farm rents in the county of Norfolk,“1758, 4to. 11.” Ah Account of a Copper Table, containing two inscriptions in the Greek and Latin tongues; discovered in the year 1732, near Heraclea, in the Bay of Tarentum, in Magna Grecia. By Philip Carteret Webb, Esq. Read at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries the 13th of December, 1759, and ordered to be printed,“1760, 4to. 12.” Some Observations on the late determination for discharging Mr. Wilkes from his commitment to the Tower of London, for being the author and publisher of a seditious libel called ‘ The North Briton, No. 45.’ By a member of the House of Commons," 1763, 4to. He also printed a quarto pamphlet, containing a number of general warrants issued from the time of the Revolution; and some other political tracts, particularly at the time of the rebellion in 1745, on the close of which his abilities, as solicitor on the trials in Scotland, proved of eminent service lo the public. Mr. Webb was twice married; and by his first lady (who died in 'March 12, 1756) left one son of his own name. His second wife was Rhoda, daughter of John Cotes, esq. of Dodiogton, in Cheshire, by Khoda, one of the daughters and coheirs of sir John Huborn, barr. of Warwickshire; but by her he had no issue.

, earl of Rosslyn, and lord high chancellor of England, the descendant of an ancient Scotch family, was the eldest son of Peter Wedderburn, of Chesterhail, esq. one of the senators of the college of justice, in Scotland. He was born Feb. 13, 1733, and bred to the law, in which profession some of his ancestors had made a very distinguished figure. He is said to have been called to the bar when scarcely twenty years of age, and was making some progress in practice when an insult, or what he conceived to be such, from the bench, determined him to give up the farther pursuit of the profession in that country, and remove to England. Accordingly he came to London, and enrolled himself as a member of the Inner Temple in May 1753, and after the necessary preparatory studies, was called to the bar in November 1757. One of his main objects during his studies here, was to divest himself as much as possible of his national accent, and to acquire the English pronunciation and manner, in both which he was eminently successful under the instructions of Messrs. Sheridan and Macklin.

Immediately after this commotion he was appointed chief justice of the common pleas, and called to the house of peers by the name, style, and title of lord Loughborough, baron of Loughborough, in the county of Leicester. In 1783 his lordship was appointed first commissioner for keeping the great seal; but as soon as the memorable coalition between loVd North and Mr. Fox look place, his lordship joined his old friend lord North, and remained in opposition to the administration of Mr. Pitt. It has been said that it was by his advice that Mr. Fox was led to act the unpopular part which lost him so many friends during his majesty’s indisposition in 1788-9. In 1793, when many members both of the house of lords and commons, formerly in opposition, thought it their duty to rally round the throne, endangered by the example of Fiance, lord Loughborough joined Mr. Pitt, and on Jan. 27th of that year, was appointed lord high chancellor of England, which ' office he held until 1801, when he was succeeded by thfe present lord Eldon. In Oct. 1795 his lordship obtained a new patent of a barony, by the title of lord Loughborough, of Loughborough in the county of Surrey, with remainder severally aud successively to his nephews, sir James Sinclair Erskine, bart. and John Erskine, esq. and by patent, April 21, 1801, was created earl of Rosslyn, in the county of Mid Lothian, with the same remainders.

At an early period of his life, seeing the impossibility of extending considerably the manufactory he was engaged in on the spot which gave him birth, without the advantages of inland navigation, he was the proposer of the Grand Trunk canal, and the chief agent in obtaining the act of parliament for making it, against the prejudices of the landed interest, which at that time were very strong. The Grand Trunk canal is ninety miles in length, uniting the rivers Trent and Mersey; and branches have been since made from it to the Severn, to Oxford, and to many other parts; with also a communication with the grand junction canal from Braunston to Brentford. In the execution of this vast scheme, he was assisted by the late ingenious Mr. Brindley, whom he never mentioned but with respect. By it he enabled the manufacturers of the inland part of Staffordshire and its neighbourhood, to obtain from the distant shores of Devonshire, Dorsetshire, and Kent, those materials of which the Staffordshire ware is composed affording, at the same time, a ready conveyance of the manufacture to distant countries, and thus not only to rival, but undersell, at foreign markets, a commodity which has proved, and must continue to prove of infinite advantage to these kingdoms; as the ware, when formed, owes its value almost wholly to the labour of the honest and industrious poor. Still farther to promote the interest and benefit of his neighbourhood, Mr. Wedgwood planned and carried into execution, a turnpike-road, ten miles in length, through that part of Staffordshire, called the pottery, thus opening another source t of traffic, if, by frost or other impediment, the carriage by water should be interrupted. His pottery was near Newcastle-under-Lyne, in Staffordshire, where he built a village called Etruria, from the resemblance which the clay there dug up bears to the ancient Etruscan earth.

On one occasion he stept forward in favour of general trade, when, in his opinion, Mr. Pitt’s propositions for adjusting the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland, threatened to be of very pernicious consequence to the British manufacturers. He was, therefore, in 1786, the founder and chief promoter of an association in London, called “The General Chamber of the Manufacturers of Great Britain.” Mr. Wedgwood was very assiduous in writing and printing upon this great national subject, and in consequence of so firm an opposition dje propositions were abandoned.

, a modern German poet and miscellaneous writer of great fame in his country, was a native of Saxony, where he was born in 1726. He appears to have devoted the principal part of his life to literary pursuits, particularly poetry, the drama, and the principles of education. He obtained the place of electoral receiver for the circle of Upper Saxony, which probably made his circumstances easy, while it did not interrupt his numerous dramatic and other compositions. He died at Leipsic, Dec. 15, 1804, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. He wrote a great many tragedies and comedies, the former of which are esteemed by his countrymen equal to those of Racine, and his comedies had great success, although the German critics give the preference to his comic operas. They also speak in the highest terms of his Anacreontic odes, his Amazonian songs, and his translation of Tyrtaeus. He was a long time editor of the “Library of the Belles Lettres,” a much esteemed German literary journal. He published also a periodical work from 1776 to 1782, called the “Friend of Children,” collected afterwards into volumes, and consisting of many interesting articles calculated to promote a love of virtue and of instruction in young minds. In this he has had several imitators; and Berquin’s “Ami des enfans” is said to be little more than a translation or imitation of Weisse’s work. He published also “The correspondence of the family of the Friend of children,” in a periodical form, but which is said to be a new edition, in a more convenient shape, of his preceding work.

, a minor poet and miscellaneous writer, born at Abington in Northamptonshire in 1689, received the rudiments of his education in Westminsterschool, where he wrote the celebrated little poem called “Apple-Pie,” which was universally attributed to Dr. King, and as such had been incorporated in his works. Very early inlife Mr. Welsted obtained a place in the office of ordnance, by the interest of his friend the earl of Clare, to whom, in 1715, he addressed a small poem (which Jacob calls “a very good one”) on his being created duke of Newcastle; and to whom, in 1724, he dedicated an octavo volume, under the title of “Epistles, Odes, &c. written on several subjects; with a translation of Longinus’s Treatise on the Sublime.” In 1717 he wrote “The Genius, on occasion of the duke of Marlborough’s Apoplexy;” an ode much commended by Steele, and so generally admired as to be attributed to Addison; and afterwards ' An Epistle to Dr. Garth, on the Duke’s death.“He addressed a poem to the countess of Warwick, on her marriage with Mr Addison; a poetical epistle to the duke of Chandos; and an ode to earl Cadogan, which was highly extolled by Dean Smedley. Sir Richard Steele was indebted to him for boih the prologue and epilogue to” The Conscious Lovers;“and Mr. Philips, for a complimentary poem on his tragedy of” Humfrey duke of Gloucester.“In 1718, he wrote” The Triumvirate, or a letter in verse from Palemon to Celia, from Bath,“which was considered as a satire against Mr. Pope. He wrote several other occasional pieces against this gentleman, who, in recompence for his enmity, thus mentioned him in his” Dunciad:"

In 1726 he published a comedy called “The Dissembled Wanton.” In the notes on the “Dunciad,” II. 207, it is invidiously said, “he wrote other things which we cannot remember.” Smedley, in his Metamorphosis of Scriblerus, mentions one, the hymn of a gentleman to his Creator : and there was another in praise either of a cellar or a garret. L. W. characterised in the “Bathos, or the Art of Sinking,” as a didapper, and after as an eel, is said to be this person, by Dennis, Daily Journal of May 1 ], 1728. He was also characterised under the title of another animal, a mole, by the author of a simile, which was handed about at the same time, and which is preserved in the notes on the Dunciad.

In another note, it is maliciously recorded that he received at one time the sum of five hundred pounds for secret service, among the other excellent authors hired to write anonymously for the ministry. That sum did certainly pass through his hands; but it is now well known that it was for the use of sir Richard Steele. And in a piece, said, but falsely, to have been written by Mr. Welsted, called “The Characters of the Times,” printed in 1728, 8vo, he is made to say of himself, that “he had, in his youth, raised so great expectations of his future genius, that there was a kind of struggle between the two universities, which should have the honour of his education; to compound this, he civilly became a member of both, and, after having passed some time at the one, he removed to the other. Thence he returned to town, where he became the darling expectation of all the polite writers, whose encouragement he acknowledged, in his occasional poems, in a manner that will make no small part of the fame of his protectors. It also appears from his works, that he was happy in the patronage of the most illustrious characters of the present age Encouraged by such a combination in his favour, he published a book of poems, some in the Ovidian, some in the Horatian, manner in both which the most exquisite judges pronounced he even rivalled his masters. His love- verses have rescued that way of writing from contempt. In translations he has given us the very soul and spirit of his authors. His odes, his epistles, his verses, his love-tales, all are the most perfect things in all poetry.” If this pleasant representation of our author’s abilities were just, it would seem no wonder, if the two universities should strive with each other for the honour of his education. Our author, however^ does not appear to have been a mean poet; he had certainly, from nature, a good genius; but, after he came to town, he became a votary to pleasure; and the applauses of his friends, which taught him to overvalue his talents, perhaps slackened his diligence; and, by making him trust solely to nature, slight the assistance of art. Prefixed to the collection of his poems is “A Dissertation concerning the Perfection of the English language, the State of Poetry,” &c.

A parliament having been summoned to meet in 1621, Wentworth was returned for the county of York, and appeared in the House of Commons at a period when an unusual combination of circumstances drew forth a singular display of address, intrepidity, and eloquence. The part which Wentwortb acted during the two sessions of this parliament, was circumspect and moderate. We indeed find him active in promoting the expulsion of a member who had spoken with much irreverence of a bill for repressing those licentious sports on the sabbath, which the royal proclamation had authorised; and when the king hazarded the assertion that the privileges of the commons were enjoyed by his permission, and their deliberations controulable by his authority, Wentworth urged the House to declare explicitly that their privileges were their right and inheritance, and the direction of their proceedings subject solely to their own cognizance. The abrupt dissolution of the parliament, he followed with expressions of regret and apprehension. Yet his language towards the court was always respectful, and his eloquence more frequently employed to moderate than to excite the zeal of his colleagues. Two years after, in 1624, another parliament was called, in which Wentworth, again returned, appears to have refrained from any particular activity. On the accession, however, of Charles I. he took his station among the most conspicuous of the party in opposition to the measures of the court. But this did not last long. Buckingham found means to conciliate him by expressions of esteem, and promises of future favour. These overtures were not unacceptable to Wentworth. To the request for his good offices, he replied “that he honoured the duke’s person, and was ready to serve him in the quality of an honest man and a gentleman.” The duke replied by cordial acknowledgments; and during the short remainder of the session Wentworth exerted himself to moderate the resentment of his party. This, however, did not remove the apprehensions of Buckingham, and therefore, when in 1625 another parliament was called, he took care that Wentworth should be nominated sheriff of the county, which office then included a disability to serve in parliament. Wentworth did all he could to avert this blow, but in vain; and he was flattering himself that he bore it with great composure and resignation, when Buckingham made him new overtures. Alarmed at the accusations preparing in parliament, and fearful of the general indignation bursting around him, Buckingham deemed it high time to conciliate some of those angry spirits whom his former insolence had exasperated. To Wentworth, whose vigour and influence were objects of dread, he forgot not to apply his arts; and, having called him to a personal interview, assured him that his nomination as sheriff had taken place without his knowledge, and during his absence; and begged thai all former mistakes should be buried in a contract of permanent friendship. The protestations of his grace were evidently false, his proffer of amity probably insincere; yet Wentworth met his advances with cordiality; and having again waited upon the duke, and experienced the most obliging reception he departed in full satisfaction for Yorkshire, to await, amidst his private and official avocations, the result of these favourable appearances.

In this parliament Wentworth condemned the arbitrary measures that had been adopted since they last met, and maintained that they were alike pernicious to the sovereign and the subject. He also was a strenuous advocate for that memorable declaration which was called a petition of right, and prevailed on the House to resolve, “that grievances and supply should go hand in hand, and the latter, in no case, precede the former.” When some proposed to rest satisfied with the king’s assurances of future adherence to law, without pressing the petition of right, he strenuously opposed this dangerous remission. “There hath been,” said he, “a public violation of the laws bj his majesty’s ministers; and nothing shall satisfy me but a public amends. Our desire to vindicate the subject’s rights exceeds not what is laid down in former laws, with some modest provision for instruction and performances.” When the lords proposed to add to the petition a saving clause, importing that all their pretensions for liberty still left entire the claims of royal authority, and using the new term “sovereign power,” instead of “prerogative,” Wentworth exclaimed against the evasion. “If we do admit of this addition,” said he, “we shall leave the subject in a worse state than we found him. Let us leave all power to his majesty to bring malefactors to legal punishment; but our laws are not acquainted with e sovereign power. We desire no new thing, nor do we offer to trench on his majesty’s prerogative; but we may not recede from this petition, either in whole or in part.”

He then embarked for England, although at that time labouring under serious indisposition. On his recovery, he was made lieutenant-general of the English forces in the North, but the king having agreed to a truce with the Scots, his lordship had business of a more serious nature to attend to. On Nov. 3, 1640, the parliament, called afterwards the long parliament, met, and was composed of men who were determined to redress what they called abuses, by their own authority. In this design, the only dangerous obstacle which they feared to encounter, was the vigour and talents of Strafford. While the popular leaders detested him as a traitor to their cause, and the Scots as the implacable enemy of their nation, all equally dreaded those abilities which had laid Ireland prostrate at his feet, and which had almost inspired the royal counsels with decision. While he continued at the head of an army, there was no security that he might not, by some sudden movement, confound and crush their projects; and nothing seemed, therefore, possible to be achieved, till his destruction was first accomplished.

Strafford, notwithstanding his voluntary surrender of his life, in the letter he wrote to the king, was not quite prepared to expect so sudden a dereliction by his sovereign* When secretary Carleton waited on him with the intelligence, and stated his own consent as the circumstance that had chiefly moved the king, the astonished prisoner inquired it' his majesty had indeed sanctioned the bill? and when assured of the fatal truth, he exclaimed: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men; for in them there is no salvation.” Resuming, however, his accustomed fortitude, he began now to prepare for his fate, and employed the short interval of three days, which was allowed him, in the concerns of his friends and his family. He humbly petitioned the House of Lords to have compassion on his innocent children. He wrote his last instructions to his eldest son, exhorting him to be obedient and grateful to those entrusted with his education; to be sincere and faiiliful towards his sovereign, if he should ever be called into public service; and, as he foresaw that the revenues of the church would be despoiled, he charged him to take no part in a sacrilege which would certainly be followed by the cnrse of Heaven. He shed tears over the untimely fate of Wandesford, whom he had entrusted with the care of his government, and the protection ofhis family, and who, on learning the dangers of his friend and patron, had fallen a victim to grief and despair. In a parking letter to his wife, he endeavoured to support her courage; and expressed a hope, that his successor, lord Dillofy would behave with tenderness to her and her orphans. On being refused an interview with sir George Radcliffe and archbishop Laud, his fellow-prisoners in the Tower, he conveyed a tender adieu to the one, and to the other an earnest request for his prayers and his parting blessing.

, son of the preceding, was born about 1692, and sent to Westminster-school in 1704, and admitted a king’s scholar in 1707, whence he was elected to Christ- church, Oxford, in 1711. Here, as well as at Westminster, he acquired the character of an excellent classical scholar. He was the author of two poems of considerable merit, “The Battle of the Sexes,” and “The Prisons opened;” and of another called “The Parish-Priest, a Poem, upon a clergyman lately deceased,” a very dutiful and striking eulogy on his wife’s father; which are all printed among his poems, and several humorous tales, in 1736, 4to, and after his death in 1743, 12mo. He gave to the Spalding society an annulet that had touched the heads of the three kings of Cologne, whose names were in black letters within. When he took his master’s degree, he was appointed to officiate as usher at Westminster-school; and soon after he took orders, under the patronage of bishop Atterbury, to whom he was ever greatly attached, and the banishment of that celebrated prelate made no change in his friendship for him, as he was Fully convinced of his innocence. This attachment, and his opposition to sir Robert Walpole, barred all hopes of preferment at Westminster, but in 1732 he was appointed mas* ter of Tiverton-school in Devonshire, over which he presided till his death. Samuel Wesley was unquestionably the best poet of his family, but he was a very high-rhurchman, and totally disapproved of the conduct of his brothers, John and Charles, when they became itinerant preachers, being afraid that they would make a separation from the church of England. He died at Tiverton Nov. 6, 1739, and was buried in the church-yard there, with a long epitaph.

At Oxford he resided from Nov. 172y to Oct. 1735, and it was during this period that the first Methodist society was established, or rather begun. In the mean time he obtained pupils, and became a tutor in Lincoln college; he also presided in the hall a* moderator in the disputations, beld six times a week, and had the chief direction of the religious society, which, as we have already observed, had at first no other view than their own benefit. By the advice of one f the number, Mr. Morgan, a commoner of Christ Church, they began to visit some prisoners in the jail, and thence extended their visits to the sick poor in the city. In this they first 'met with some degree of encouragement, but afterwards had to encounter considerable opposition and much ridicule; and, among other names, were called Saoramentarians, because they partook of the sacrament once a week. But their principal name was Methodists^ alluding to a sect of ancient physicians so called, who were the disciples of Themison, and boasted that they found out a more easy method of teaching and practising the art of physic. In the mean time the society, which consisted only of John and Charles Wesley, Mr. Morgan before-mentioned, Mr. Kirkman of Merton college, Mr. Ingham of Queen’s, Mr. Broughton of Exeter, Mr. Clayton of Brasenose, Mr. James Hervey, and George Whitfield, continued to visit the prisoners, and some poor families in the town when they were sick; and that they might have wherewith to relieve their distress, they abridged themselves of all the superfluities and of many of the conveniences of life. They also took every opportunity of conversing with their acquaintance, to awaken them to a sense of religion; and by argument defended themselves as well as they could against their opponents, who attacked them principally because they thought all this superfluous, mere works of supererogation. But it does not appear that either they or the society itself had fear or hope of the important consequences that would follow.

During his voyage to Georgia he had met with a company of Moravians, with whose behaviour he was greatly delighted; and on his return to England he met with a new company who had just arrived from Germany. From them he seems to have learned some of his peculiar doctrines, particularly instantaneous conversion, and assurance of pardon for sin. These discoveries made him desirous to go to the fountain-head of such, and accordingly he went to Germany, and visited the settlements of the Moravians. In 1738 he returned to London, and began with great diligence to preach the doctrine which he had just learned. His “Journals,” in which he records the whole progress of his ministry, discover a surprising state of mind, which it is difficult to characterize: considerable attention to the sacred Scriptures, with an almost total abandonment to impressions of mind, which would go to make the Scriptures useless: some appearance of scrupulous regard to the real sense of scripture, while an enthusiastic interpretation is put upon passages, according as they happen first to strike the eye on opening the Bible. Great success, we are told, attended his preaching, and yet some are said to have been “born again” in a higher sense, and some only in a lower. But in this anomalous spirit he was called to assist Mr. Whitfield, who had begun his career of field-preaching at Bristol, and was now about to return to Georgia. Mr. Wesley trod in Whitrield’s irregular steps at Bristol; though he confesses that he had been so tenacious of decency and order, that he should have thought the saving of souls almost a sin, if not done in a church. The multitudes which attended the preaching of Wesley were great, though not so great as those which had flocked to Whitfield;' but the sudden impressions, loud cries, and groans of the hearers, were far greater than any thing we find recorded in the life of Whitfield. It was in the neighbourhood of Bristol that the first regular society of methodists was formed, in May 1739, and laid the foundation of that unlimited power which Wesley afterwards exercised over the whole sect. The direction of the building at Kingswood was first committed by him to eleven feoffees of his own nomination. But for various reasons, urged by his friends, this arrangement was changed. One of those reasons, he says himself, “was enough, viz. that such feoffees would always have it in their power to controul me, and if I preached not as they liked, to turn me out of the room I had built.” He therefore took the whole management into his own hands: and this precedent he ever after followed, so that from time to time the whole of the numerous meeting-houses belonging to the methodists were either vested in him, or in trustees who were bound to admit him, and such other preachers as he should appoint, into the pulpits. Whitfield was one of those who advised this plan in the case of the Kingswood meeting, and was himself afterwards excluded from this very pulpit. Whitfield and Wesley had run their course together in amity, but on the return of the former from America, in 1741, a breach took place between them, both of them having now become more decided in their principles. Whitfield was a Calvinist, and Wesley an Arminian. “You and I,” said Whitfield, “preach a different gospel;” and after some unavailing struggles, principally on the part of their friends, to bring about a reconciliation, they finally parted, and from this time formed two sects, different in their form as well as principles, for Whitfield seems to have trusted entirely to the power of his doctrines to bring congregations and make converts,- while Wesley had already begun and soon perfected a gigantic system of connf:ction^ of which his personal influence was the sole mover. Although it is not our intention, and would indeed be impracticable, within any reasonable bounds, to give an account of the progress of the Wesley an method ism, we may mention a few links of that curious chain which binds the whole body. The first division of the society is a class. All those hearers who wish to be considered as members, must join a class. This is composed of such as profess to be seeking their salvation. About twelve form a class, at the head of which is the most experienced person, called a class-leader, whose business Mr. Wesley thus defines: “to see each person in his class once a week, at least, in order to inquire how their souls prosper; to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort, as occasion may require: to receive what they may be willing to give to the poor; to meet the minister and the stewards of the society, to inform the minister of any that are sick, or disorderly, and will not be reproved, and to pay to the stewards what they have received of the several classes in the week preceding.” These classes, according to the present custom, meet together once a week, usually in the place of worship, when each one tells his experience, as it is called, giv*s a penny a week towards the funds of the society, and the leader concludes the meeting- with prayer. The next step is to gain admission into the bands, the business of which seems to be much the same with the other, but there is more ample confession of secret sins here, and consequently admission into these bands implies the members having gone through a higher degree of probation. They have also watch-nights, and love-feasts, which are merely meetings for prayer, exhortation, and singing, and are more general, as to admission, than the preceding. Against the classes and the bands, as far as confession of secret sins and temptations to sin are concerned, very serious objections have been urged, but they are too obvious to be specified. Wesley had always great difficulty in preventing this from being considered as equivalent to popish confession. Besides these subordinate societies, the methodists have a kind of parliamentary session, under the name of a conference, in which the affairs of the whole body are investigated, funds provided, and abuses corrected. The origin of the conference is said to have been this. When the preachers at first went out to exhort and preach, it was by Mr. Wesley’s permission and direction; some from one part of the kingdom, and some from another > and though frequently strangers to each other, and to those to whom they were senkj yet on his credit and sanction alone they were received and provided for as friends, by the societies wherever they came. But having little or no communication or intercourse with one another, nor any subordination among themselves, they must have been under the necessity of recurring to Mr. Wesley for directions how and where they were to officiate. To remedy this inconvenience, he conceived a design of calling them together to an annual confercnce: by this means he brought them into closer union with each other, and made them sensible of the utility of acting in concert and harmony. He soon found it necessary also to bring their itinerancy under certain regulations, and reduce it to some fixed order, both to prevent confusion and for his own ease. He therefore took fifteen or twenty societies, more or less, which lay round some principal society in those parts, and which were so situated, that the greatest distance from the one to the other was not much more than twenty miles, and united them into what was called a circuit. At the yearly conference he appointed two, three, or four preachers to one of those circuits, according to its extent, which at first was very often considerable; and here, and here only, they were to labour for one year, that is, until the next conference. One of the preachers on every circuit was called the assistant, because he assisted Mr. Wesley in superintending the societies and other preachers: he took charge of the societies within the limits assigned him: he enforced the rules every where, and directed the labours of the preachers associated with him, pointing out the day when each should be at the place fixed for him, to begin a progressive motion round it, according to a plan which he gave them. There are few parts of Mr. Wesley’s system that have been more admired, as a trick of human policy, than his perpetually changing the situations of his preachers, that they might neither, by a longer stay, become more agreeable, or disagreeable to their flock, than the great mover of all wished. The people felt this as a gratification of their love of variety; but it had a more important object, in perpetuating the power of the founder. The first of these conferences was held in 1744, and Mr. Wesley lived to preside at fortyseven of them.

, one of the most learned men of the fifteenth century, was born at Groningen about 1419, and having lost his friends in his infancy, was sent by a benevolent lady, along with her only son, to be educated at a college at Swoll, which at that time happened to be in greater estimation than that of Groningen. This college was superintended by a community of monks, and Wesselus had at one time an inclination to have embraced the order, but was disgusted by some superstitious practices. After having studied here with great diligence, he removed to Cologne, where he was much admired for his proficiency, but already betrayed a dislike to the sentiments of the schoolmen. Being invited to teach theology at Heidelberg, it was objected that he had not received his doctor’s degree; and when he offered to be examined for that degree, he was told that the canons did not permit that it should be bestowed on a layman. Having therefore a repugnance to take orders, he confined his services to the reading of some lectures in philosophy; after which he returned to Cologne; and afterwards visited Louvain and Paris. The philosophical disputes being carried on then with great warmth between the realists, the formalists, and the nominalists, he endeavoured to bring over the principal champions of the formalists to the sect of the realists, but at lasthimself sided with the nominalists. He appears, however, to have set little value on any of the sects into which philosophy was at that time divided; and to a young man who consulted him concerning the best method of prosecuting his studies, he said, “You, young man, will live to see the day when the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and other modern disputants of the same stamp, will be exploded by all true Christian ditines, and when the irrefragable doctors themselves will be little regarded.” A prediction, says Brucker, which discovers so much good sense and liberality, that Wessel ought to be immortalized under the appellation of the Wise Doctor. Brucker admits him in his History of Philosophy, from the penetration which, in the midst of the scholastic phrenzy of his age, enabled him to discover the futility of the controversies which agitated the followers of Thomas, Scotus, and Occam. Some say that Wesseltis travelled into Greece, to acquire a more perfect acquaintance with the Greek and Hebrew languages than was then to be found in Europe. It is certain that he gained the esteem and patronage of Francis della Rovera, afterwards pope Sixtus IV. who, in an interview at Rome, offered him preferment. Wesselus desired only a copy of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek; and when the pope asked why he did not solicit for a bishopric, our philosopher replied, “Because I do not want one,” On his return he taught philosophy and philology at Groningen with great approbation, and died here Oct. 4, 1489. On his death-bed he was perplexed with doubts, which were soon relieved. His biographer says, that, “Being visited, in the sickness which brought him to his end, by a friend, who inquired after his health, he replied, that ‘he was pretty well, considering his advanced age, and the nature of his indisposition but that one thing made him very uneasy, viz. that being greatly perplexed with various thoughts and arguments, he began to entertain some little doubts with respect to the truth of the Christian religion.’ His friend was much surprised, and immediately exhorted him to direct all his thoughts to Christ the only Saviour; but, finding that such an admonition was displeasing, he went away deeply afflicted. But an hour or two after, Wesselus seeing his friend come back to him, he said, with an air of as much satisfaction and joy as one in his weak condition cpuld discover, < God be praised all those vain doubts are fled and now, all I know is Jesus Christ, and Rim crucified' after which confession he resigned his soul to God.” It appears that his religious sentiments were in many respects contrary to those of the Romish church, and some even called him the forerunner of Luther. Many of his Mss. were burnrd after his death by the contrivance of the monks, but what his friends saved were published at Groningen in 1614, consisting of “Tractatus de Oratione -r- de cohibendis cogitationibus de causis incarnationis de sacramento euchanstiae Farrago rerum Theologicarum epistolsp,” &c. Foppens, however, mentions an edition prior to this, published by Luther in 1525, and another at Marpurg in 1617, 4to.

Soon afterwards he married, and settled himself in a very pleasant house at Wickham in Kent, where he devoted himself to learning and to piety. Of his learning his works exhibit evidence, and particularly the dissertations which accompany his version of Pindar. Of his piety the influence has probably been extended far by his “Observations on the Resurrection,” published in 1747, for which the university of Oxford created him a doctor of laws by diploma, March 30, 174S, and would doubtless have reached yet further had he lived to complete what he had for some time meditated, the Evidences of the Truth of the New Testament. Perhaps it may not be without effect to tell, that he read the prayers of the public liturgy every morning to his family, and that on Sunday evening he called his servants into the parlour, and read to them first a sermon, and then prayers. Crashaw is now not the only maker of verses to whom may be given the two venerable names of poet and saint.

, lord-chancellor of Ireland, a lawyer of whom we have very little information, studied his profession in one of the Temples. He married Elizabeth, one of the two daughters of bishop Burnet. He was appointed king’s counsel the 24th of October, 1717; and in 1725, advanced to the office of lord-chancellor of Ireland. This high post he did not long enjoy, but died the 3d of December, 1726, in circumstances not adequate to the dignity which he had possessed. He left one son, a very promising young gentleman, who is sufficiently known to the public by his friendship with Mr. Walpole, afterwards lord Orford, in whose works is his correspondence, and with the celebrated poet Gray. Our author, the chancellor, wrote, “A Discourse concerning Treasons and Bills of Attainder,” 1714. He also compiled, chiefly from the Petyt Mss. in the Inner-Temple library, entitled “De Creatione Nobilium,” 2 vols. fol. a work called “An Inquiry into the Manner cf creating Peers/ 7 1719. He wrote some papers in the” Freethinker,“a periodical essay; and Whincop says, he was supposed to have written,” Hecuba," a tragedy, 1726, 4to,

In Dec. 1716, the marquis arrived in England, where he did not remain long till he set out for Ireland; in which kingdom, on account of his extraordinary qualities, he had' the honour of being admitted, though under age, to take his seat in the House of Peers as earl of Rathfarnham and marquis Catherlough. He made use of this indulgence to take possession of his estate, and receive his rents, asking his tenants “if they durst doubt of his being of age, after the parliament had allowed him to be so?” In the Irish parliament he espoused a very different interest from that which he had so lately embraced. He distinguished himself, in this situation, as a violent partizan for the ministry; and acted in all other respects, as well in his private as public capacity, with the warmest zeal for government . In consequence of this zeal, shewn at a time when they stood much in need of men of abilities, and so little was expected from him, the king created him duke of Wharton; and, as soon as he came of age, he was introduced into the House of Lords in England, with the like blaze of reputation. Yet a little before the death of lord Stanhope, his grace again changed sides, opposed the court, and endeavoured to defeat the schemes of the ministry. He was one of the roost forward and vigorous in the defence of the bishop of Rochester, and in opposing the bill for inflicting pains and penalties on that prelate; and, as if this opposition was not sufficient, he published, twice a week, a paper called “The True Briton,” several thousands of which were dispersed weekly. In the mean time his boundless profusion had so burthened his estate, that a decree of chancery vested it in the hands of trustees fur the payment of his debts, allowing a provision of 1200l. per annum for his subsistence. This not being sufficient to support his title with dignity at home, he resolved to go abroad till his estate should be clear. But in this he only meant, as it should seem, to deceive by an appearance; for he went to Vienna, to execute a private commission, not in favour of the English ministry; nor did he ever shine to greater advantage as to his personal character than at the Imperial court. From Vienna he made a tour to Spain, where his arrival alarmed the English minister so much, that two expresses were sent from Madrid to London, upon an apprehension that his grace was received there in the character of an ambassador; upon which the duke received a summons under the privy seal to return home. His behaviour on this occasion was a sufficient indication that he never designed to return to England whilst affairs remained in the same state. This he had often declared, from his going abroad the second time; which, no doubt, was the occasion of his treating that solemn order with so much indignity, and endeavouring to inflame the Spanish court, not only against the person who delivered the summons, but also against the court of Great Britain itself, for exercising an act of power, as he was pleased to call it, within the jurisdiction of his Catholic majesty. After this he acted openly in the service of the Pretender, and appeared at his court, where he was received with the greatest marks of favour.

Like Buckingham and Rochester* says lord Orford, he <c comforted all the grave and dull by throwing away the. brightest profusion of parts on witty fooleries, debaucheries, and scrapes, which may mix graces with a great character, but can never compose one.“It is difficult to understand a sentence composed of such incoherent materials, but his lordship is more intelligible when he tells us that” with attachment to no party, though with talents to govern any party, this lively man exchanged the free air of Westminster for the gloom of the Escurial; the prospect of king George’s garter for the Pretender’s; and with indifference to all religion, the frolic lord who had written the ballad on the archbishop of Canterbury, died in the habit of a capuchin.“For this last particular, however, there appears no foundation. Lord Orford proceeds to mention that there are two volumes in 8-vo, called his” Life and Writings,“but containing of the latter nothing but seventyfour papers of the True Briton, and his celebrated speech in the House of Lords, in defence of Atterbury. But there are two other volumes 12mo, without date and with the same life as in the 2 vols. 8vo. (1731) th title of which is” The Poetical Works of Philip late Duke of Wharton aid others of the Wharton family, and of the duke’s intimate acquaintance, &c. with original letters, novels, &c.“In this farrago are some few poetical pieces which have generally been attributed to the duke, but the greater part are by other hands, and the whole given without any apparent authority. The late Mr. Ritson had formed the design of publishing Wharton’s genuine poetry, with a life. What he prepared is now before us, but does not amount to much. He probably began the collection in his latter days. Wharton appears to have been at one time a patron of men of letters. He certainly was such to Dr. Young, who dedicated the tragedy of the” Revenge" to him, in a style of flattery which must excite surprise in all who observe the date, 1722, and know that long before that period Wharton’s character was decided and notorious. Young might perhaps blush now, and it is certain that be lived afterwards to be completely ashamed, and to suppress his dedication.

, an English divine of great name, was descended of an ancient and good family in the county of Salop, and was the sixth son of Christopher Whichcote, esq. at Whichcote-hall in the parish of Stoke, where he was born March 11, 1609-10. He was admitted of Emanuel-college, Cambridge, in 1626, and took the degrees in arts: that of bachelor in 1629; and that of master in 1633. The same year, 1633, he was elected fellow of the college, and became a most excellent tutor; many of his pupils, as Wallis, Smith, Worthington, Cra,­dock, &c. becoming afterwards men of great eminence. Jn 1636 he was ordained both deacon and priest at Buckden by Williams bishop of Lincoln; and soon after set up an afternoon-lecture on Sundays in Trinity church at Cambridge, which, archbishop Tillotson says, he served near twenty years. He was also appointed one of the university-preachers; and, in 1643, was presented by the master and fellows of his college to the living of North-Cadbury in Somersetshire. This vacated his fellowship; and upon this, it is presumed, he married, and went to his living; but was soon called back to Cambridge, being appointed to succeed the ejected provost of King’s-college, Dr. Samuel Collins, who had been in that office thirty years, and was also regius professor of divinity. This choice was perfectly agreeable to Dr. Collins himself; though not so to Dr. Whichcote, who had scruples about Accepting what was thus irregularly offered him: however, after some demurring, he complied, and was admitted pro-r vost, March 16, 1644. He had taken his bachelor of divinity’s degree in 1640; and he took his doctor’s in 1649. He now resigned his Somersetshire living, and was presented by his college to the rectory of Milton in Cambridgeshire, which was void by the death of Dr. Collins. Jt must be remembered, to Dr. Whichcote’s honour, that, during the life of Dr. Collins, one of the two shares out of the common dividend allotted to the provost was, not only with Dr. Whichcote’s consent, but at his motion, paid punctually to him, as if he had still been provost. Dr. Whichcote held Milton as long as he lived; though, after the Restoration, he thought proper to resign, and resume it by a fresh presentation from the college. He still continued to attend his lecture at Trinity, church with the same view that he had at first set it up; which was, to preserve and propagate a spirit of sober piety and rational religion in the university of Cambridge, in opposition to the style of preaching, and doctrines then in vogue: and he may be said to have founded the school at which many eminent (divines after the Restoration, and Tillotson among them, who had received their education at Cambridge, were formed, and were afterwards distinguished from the more orthodox by the epithet latitudinarian. In 1658 he wrote verses upon the death of Oliver Cromwell, which, his biographer supposes, were done entirely out of form, and not put of any regard to the person of the protector. Nor had Dr. Whichcote ever concurred with the violent measures of those times by signing the covenant, or by any injurious sayings or actions to the prejudice of any man. At the Restoration, however, he was removed from his provostship by especial order from the king; but yet he was not disgraced or frowned upon. On the contrary, he went to London, and in 1662 was chosen minister of St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, where he continued till his church was burned down in the dreadful fire of 1666. He then retired to Milton for a while; but was again called up, and presented by the crown to the vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, vacant by the promotion of Dr. VVilkins to the see of Chester. During the building of this church, upon invitation of the court of aldermen, in the mayoralty of sir William Turner, he preached before the corporation at Guildhall chapel, with great approbation, for about seven years. When St. Lawrence’s was rebuilt, he preached there twice a week, and had the general love and respect of his parish, and a very considerable audience, though not numerous, owing to the weakness of his voice in his declining age. A little before Easter in 1683, he went down to Cambridge; where, upon taking cold, he fell into a distemper, which in a few days put an end to his life. He died at the house of his ancient and learned friend Dr. Cuclworth, master of Christ’s-college, in May 1683 and was interred in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry. Dr. Tillotson, then lecturer there, preached his funeral-sermon, where his character is drawn to great advantage. Burnet speaks of him in the following terms: “He was a man of a rare temper; very mild and obliging. He had credit with somewhat had been eminent in the late times; but made all the use he could of it to protect good men of all persuasions. He was much for liberty of conscience; and, being disgusted with the dry systematical way of those times, he studied to raise those who conversed with him to a nobler set of thoughts, and to consider religion as a seed of a deiform nature (to use one of his own phrases) . In order to this, he set young students much on reading the ancient philosophers, chiefly Plato, Tully, and Piotin; and on considering the Christian religion as a doctrine sent from God, both to elevate and sweeten human nature, in which he was a great example as well as a wise and kind instructor. Cudworth carried this on with a great strength of genius, as well as a vast compass of learning.” Baxter numbers him with “the best and ablest of the conformists.”

In the beginning of the last century he was called to be sir Isaac Newton’s deputy, and afterwards his successor in the Lucasian professorship of mathematics; when he resigned his living, and went to Cambridge. In 1702 he published “A short view of the Chronology of the Old Testament, and of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists,” in 4to; and in March 1702-3, “Tacquet’s Euclid, with select theorems of Archimedes, and practical corollaries,” in Latin, for the use of young students in the university. This edition of Euclid was reprinted at Cambridge in 1710; and afterwards in English at London, under his own inspection. He tells us that it was the accidental purchase of Tacquet’s own Euclid at an auction, which occasioned his first application to mathematical studies. In 1706 he published an “Essay on the Revelation of St. John;” in 1707, “Proslectiones astronomicae;” and sir Isaac Newton’s “Arithmetic* Universalis,” by the author’s permission. The same year, 1707, he preached eight sermons upon the accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies, at the lecture founded by the honourable Mr. Boyle; which he printed the year alter, with an appendix to the same purpose. About August, 1708, he drew up an “Essaly upon the Apostolical Constitutions,” and offered it to the vicechancellor, for his licence to be printed at Cambridge; but was refused it. He tells us that he had now read over the two first centuries of the church; and found that the Eusebian, or commonly called Arian, doctrine was, for the main, the doctrine of those ages; and, as he thought it a point of duty to communicate what he had thus discovered, so his heterodox notions upon the article of the Trinity were now very generally known.

In 1709 he published a volume of “Sermons and Essays oh several subjects;” one of which is to prove that our blessed Saviour had several brethren and sisters properly o called, that is, the children of his reputed father Joseph, and of his true mother, the Virgin Mary. Dr. Clarke, he says, wrote to him to suppress this piece, not on account of its being false, but that the common opinion might go undisturbed but, he adds, <: that such sort of motives were of no weight with him, compared with the discovery and propagation of truth. In 1710 he published “Praelectiones Physico-Mathematicae sive Pbilosophia clarissimi Newtoni Mathematica illustrata” which, together with the “Prajlectiones Astronomicae” before mentioned, were afterwards translated and published tn English; and it may be said, with no small honour to the memory of Mr. Whiston, that he was one of the first, if not the very first, who explained the Newtonian philosophy in a popular way, and so that the generality of readers might comprehend it with little difficulty. About this year, 1710, Menkenius, a very learned man in Germany, wrote to Dr. Hudson, the keeper of the Bodleian library at Oxford, for an account of Mr. Whiston; whose writings then made, as he said, a great noise in Germany. He had some time embraced the Arian heresy, and was forming projects to support and propagate it and, among other things, had translated the “Apostolical Constitutions” into English, which favoured that doctrine, and which he asserted to be genuine. His friends began to be alarmed for him; they represented to him the dangers he would bring upon himself and family, for he had been married many years, by proceeding in this design; but all they could say availed nothing: and the consequence was, that, Oct. 30, 1710, he was deprived of his professorship, and expelled the university of Cambridge, after having been formally convened and interrogated for some days before.

It was, as we have seen, in June 1708, that he began to be first heard of as a reputed Arian. In the August following, he offered a small essay on the apostolical constitutions to the licenser of the press at Cambridge, and was refused the licence. In 1709 he published a sermon against the eternity of hell-punishments. In 1710 he boldly asserted the apostolical constitutions to be “of equal authority with the four gospels themselves;” and a tract included in them, and called the doctrine of the apostles, to be “the most sacred of the canonical books.” In 1712 he published in favour of the Anabaptists; and the next year printed “A book of Common Prayer,” that had been reformed the backward way into Anabaptism and Arianism, and, two years afterward, set up a meeting-house for the use of it; having strangely drawn up his liturgy before he had provided his church. But he had still farther to go in his novelties. In 1723 he published a dissertation to prove the Canticles not a canonical book of scripture; in 1727 another, to prove the apocryphal book of Baruch canonical; in the same year another, to prove the epistle of Baruch to the nine tribes and a half equally canonical; jn the same year another, to prove the second book of Esdras, equally canonical; in the same year another, to prove eighteen psalms of a second Solomon equally canonical; in the same year another, to prove the book of Enoch equally canonical; in the same year another, to prove “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” equally canonical; and another to prove an epistle of the Corinthians to St. Paul, with St. Paul’s answer to it, equally canonical. In 1745 he published his “Primitive New Testament in English, in four parts,” and added a page at the end “exhibiting the titles of the rest of the books of the New Testament, not yet known by the body of Christians/' Among these were specified, besides, the works above recited, <: the Epistles of Timothy to Diognetus, and the Homily;” the “two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians;” “Josephus’s homily concerning Hades;” the “Epistles of Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp;” the “Shepherd of Hernias,” and the “Martyrdom of Polycarp.” He thus, according to his own enumeration, enlarged the number of the canonical books in the New Testament, from twenty-seven to fiftysix. In 1749 he gradually reached (says the historian of Arianism) the highest point of heretical perfection. He gravely asserted, first, that “neither a bishop, a presbyter, nor a deacon, ought to be more than once married that” primitive Christianity also forbad either bishops, presbyters, or deacons, to marry at all after their ordination and that, “in the days of the apostles, a fourth marriage was entirely rejected, even in the laity.” He also ventured upon the bold presumption of ascertaining the very year, “according to the scripture prophecies,” for certain events of the highest consequence to the world; and, sucli was the ingenuous simplicity of the man, was confident enough to name a year at no great distance. In this wayhe prophesied that the Jews were to rebuild their temple, and the millenium was to commence before the year 1766. But such a spirit as Whiston’s could not stop even here, and in the same year he ventured to assert the falsehood of some things in St. Paul’s epistles, as “no part of Christ’s revelation to him,” namely, where the apostle speaks of original sin. Whiston says, they are rather “weak reasonings of his own, accommodated to the weak Jews at that time only!”

That controversy, however, appears to have cost him his life. For coming up to London with the five Lambeth articles, as they were called, and pursuing that business warmly, but withocrt success, and having paid what proved to be a farewell visit at the deanery of St. Paul’s, on his return to Cambridge, fatigued and disappointed, he fell sick, and within a fortnight died, in the forty-seventh year of his age, Dec. 4, 1595. Of the dignity of his person and eloquence of speech (besides innumerable allusions in the verses on his death) we have evidence in the pointed appeal of Bishop Hall, who knew him well, to his correspondent Mr. Bedell, who also knew him well: “Who,” says he, “ever saw him without reverence, or heard him without wonder?” Of his unwearied industry and profound learning his various works afford a pregnant proof; nor were his charity and humility less conspicuous. When he lay on his death-bed, and was told of the symptoms of his approaching dissolution, he said, “Life or death is welcome to me; and I desire not to live, but so far as I may be serviceable to God and his church.” Gataker, who wrote his life, says, “He was a man very personable, of a goodly presence, tall of stature, and upright; of a grave aspect, with black hair, and a ruddy complexion; a solid judgment, a liberal mind, an affable disposition; a mild, yet not remiss governor; a contemner of money; of a moderate diet; a life generally unblameable, and (that which added a lustre to all the rest) amidst all these endowments, and the respects of others, even the greatest, thereby deservedly procured, of a most meek and lowly spirit.” Wood says, he “was one of the greatest men his college ever produced; and the desire and love of the present times, and the envy of posterity, that cannot bring forth a parallel.”

, a learned divine, but of unsteady character, was born in 1638, at Rushden, -or Rusden, in Northamptonshire, and was in 1653 admitted of Trinity college, Oxford, of which he was elected a scholar in June 1655. He took his degree of B. A. in 1657, and that of M. A. in 1660. In 1664, he was elected fellow of his college, and the same year he engaged in controversy with the popish writers, by publishing, 1. “Romish Doctrines not from the beginning: or a Reply to what S. C. (Serenus Cressy), a Roman catholick, hath returned to Dr. Pierce’s Sermon preached before his Majesty at Whitehall, Feb. 1, 1662, in vindication of our Church against the novelties of Rome,” Lond. 4to. This was followed in 1663 by another piece against Serjeant, entitled, 2. “An Answer to Sure Footing, so far as Mr Whitby is concerned in it,” &c. 8vo. 3. “An endeavour to evince the certainty of Christian Faith in general, and of the Resurrection of Christ in particular.” Oxford, 1671, 8vo. 4. “A Discourse concern”, ing the idolatry of the Church of Rome; wherein that charge is justified, and the pretended Refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet’s Discourse is answered.“London, 1674, 8vo. 5.” The absurdity and idolatry of Host-Worship proved, by shewing how it answers what is said in Scripture and the Writings of the Fathers; to shew the folly and idolatry committed in the worship of the Heathen Deities. Also a full answer to all those pleas hy which Papists would wipe off the charge of Idolatry; and an Appendix against Transubstantiation; with some reflections on a late Popish book, called, The Guide of Controversies,“London, 1679, 8vo. 6.” A Discourse concerning the Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil made against Heretics by Popes, Emperors, and Kings, Provincial and General Councils, approved by the Church of Rome. Shewing, I. What Protestant subjects may expect to suffer under a Popish Prince acting according to those Laws. II. That no Oath or Promise of such a Prince can give them any just security that he will not execute these laws upon them. With a preface against persecuting and destroying Heretics,“London, 1682, 4to. Reprinted at London, 1723, in 8vo, with an Introduction by bishop Kennet, who ascribes this piece to Dr. Maurice, but it was reclaimed by Dr. Whitby himself in his” Twelve Sermons preached at the Cathedral of Sarum."

Thus far Dr. Whitby had proceeded with credit to himself, and with satisfaction to the church to which he belonged, and the patron who had befriended him. Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, who made him his chaplain, and in Oct. 1668 collated him to the prebend of Yatesbury in that cathedral, and in November following to the prebend of Husborn Tarrant and Burbach. He was also in September 1672 admitted precentor of the same church, about which time he accumulated the degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was preferred to the rectory of St. Edmund’s church in Salisbury. But in 182 he excited general censure by the publication of, “The Protestant Reconciler, humbly pleading for condescension to Dissenting Brethren in things indifferent and unnecessary, for the sake of peace; and shewing how unreasonable it is to make such things the necessary conditions of Communion. By a well-wisher to the Church’s Peace, and a Lamenter of her sad Divisions,” Lond. 1683, in 8vo. What kind of work this was, wili appear most clearly by his own declaration hereafter mentioned. It was published without his name, but he must have been soon discovered. The first opposition made to it was in the way of controversy, by various divines who answered it. Among these were, Laurence Womack, D. D. in his “Suffragium Protestantium: wherein our governors are justified in their impositions and proceedings against Dissenters, Meisner also, and the Verdict rescued from the cavils and seditious sophistry of the Protestant Reconciler,” Loud. 1683, 8vo; David Jenner, B. D. sometime of Caius college in Cambridge, afterwards rector of Great Wariey in Essex, prebendary of Sarum, and chaplain to his majesty, in his “Bilrons: or a new discovery of Treason under the fair face and mask of Religion, and of Liberty of Conscience, &c.” Lond. 1683, 4to; the author of “An awakening Word to the Grand jury men of the nation,” Lond. 1683, 4to, to which is added, “A brief comparison between Dan. Whitby and Titus Gates: the first protected in his virulence to sacred majesty by one or two of his fautors: the second punished for his abuses of the king’s only brother by the loyal chiefjustice Jefferies. The first saved harmless in many preferments (three of which are in one church of Sarum:) the second fined in mercy no more than 100,Oooz.” Samuel Thomas, M. A. in two pieces printed without his name, viz. “Animadversions upon a late treatise, entitled, the Protestant Reconciler,” &c. Lond. 1683, 8vo, and “Remarks on the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler, in a letter to a friend: dated February the 28ih, 1682,” Lond. 1683, 4to. The author of the pamphlet entitled “Three Letters of Thanks to the Protestant Reconciler. 1. From the Anabaptists at Munster. 2. From the Congregations in New England. 3. From the Quakers in Pensylvania.” It does not appear that Dr. Whitby made any reply to these; and the disapprobation of his book increased so much, that at length it was condemned by the university of Oxford in their congregation held July the 21st, 1683, and burnt by the hands of the university-marshal in the Schools Quadrangle. Some passages, likewise, gave such offence to bishop Ward, that he obliged our author to make a retractation, which he did in the following form: “October the 9th, 1683. I Daniel Whitby, doctor of divinity, chantor of the church of Sarum, and rector of the parish church of St. Edmund’s in the city and diocese of Sarum, having been the author of a book called * The Protestant Reconciler,' which through want of prudence and deference to authority I have caused to be printed and published, am truly and heartily sorry for the same, and for any evil influence it hath had upon the Dissenters from the Church of England establised by law, or others. And whereas it contained several passages, which I am confirmed in my conscience are obnoxious to the canons, and do reflect upon the governors of the said church, I do hereby openly revoke and renounce all irreverent and unmeet expressions contained therein, by which I have justly incurred the censure or displeasure of ray superiors. And furthermore, whereas these two propositions have been deduced and concluded from the said book, viz. 1. That it is not lawful for superiors to impose any thing in the worship of God, that is not antecedently necessary; 2. The duty of not offending a weak brother is inconsistent with all human authority of making laws concerning indifferent things: I do hereby openly renounce both the said propositions, being false, erroneous, and schismatical, and do revoke and disclaim all tenets, positions, and assertions contained in the said book, from whence these positions can be inferred. And whereinsoever I have offended therein, I do heartily beg pardon of God and th church for the same.” This retractation is styled by one of his biographers “an instance of human weakness,” but it was of such weakness as seems to have adhered to this divine throughout life, for we shall soon find him voluntarily retracting opinions of far greater consequence. In the mean time he carried the same weakness so far, as to publish a second part of his “Protestant Reconciler, earnestly persuading the Dissenting Laity to join in full Communion with the Church of England; and answering all the objections of Nonconformists against the lawfulness of their submission unto the rights and constitutions of that Church,” Lond. 1683, 8vo. His next publications were two pamphlets in vindication of the revolution, and the oath of allegiance. He also published some more tracts on the popish controversy, and an excellent compendium of ethics. “Ethices compendium in usum academicae juventutis,” Oxford, 1684, 12mo, which has often been reprinted and used as a text-book. In 1691 he published “A Discourse concerning the truth and certainty of the Christian faith, from the extraordinary gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, vouchsafed to the Apostles and primitive professors of that faith.”

, a nonconformist lawyer, and commonly called, from his principal publication, Century White, was the son of Henry White of Heylan in Pembrokeshire, where he was born June 29, 1590. He was educated in grammar learning at home, and about 1607 entered of Jesus college, Oxford, and after studying there between three and four years, went to the Middle Temple, and in due time was admitted to the bar, was summer reader 17 Car. I. and at length a bencher of that society. While a barrister he was much employed by the puritans in the purchase of impropriations, which were to be given to those of their own party; for which he received such a censure in the starchamber, as served to confirm the aversion he had already conceived against the hierarchy. In 1640, he was chosen member of parliament for the borough of Southwark, joined in all the proceedings which led to the overthrow of the church, was appointed chairman of the committee for religion, and a member of the assembly of divines. He did not however live to see the consequences of all those measures, but, as Wood says, “very unwillingly submitted to the stroke of death,” Jan. 29, 1644-5, and was buried in the Temple church. A marble stone was afterwards placed over his grave, with these lines,

Wood, who has accumulated all the party scandal of the day against White, some of which, for aught we know, may be true, informs us that two of his speeches only were published, and a pamphlet called “The Looking-glass:” but his most curious publication was that entitled “The First Century of scandalous, malignant Priests, made and admitted into benefices by the Prelates, in whose hands the ordination of ministers and government of the church hath been; or a narration of the causes for which the Parliament hath ordered the sequestration of the benefices of several ministers complained of before them, for vitiousnesse of life, errors in doctrine, contrary to the articles of our religion, and for practising and pressing superstitious innovations againt law, and for malignancy against the parliament,” 1643, 4to. Neal says this was published in order to “silence the clamours of the royalists, and justify the severe proceedings of the (parliamentary) committees;” but it will not be thought any very convincing justification of these committees, that, out of eight thousand clergymen whom they ejected from their livings, about an hundred might be found who deserved the punishment. And even this is a great proportion, for out of this hundred, it is evident that a considerable number suffered for what was called malig-. nancy, another name for loyalty. White promised a second century, but either was not able to find sufficient materials, or was dissuaded by his party, who did not approve of such a collection of scandal.

, a puritan divine, and, Wood says, usually called the Patriarch Of Dorchester, was born in the latter end of December, 1574, at Stanton St. John, in Oxfordshire. He was sent for education to Winchester school, and after two years of probation, was admitted perpetual fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1595. Here he took his degrees in arts, was admitted into holy orders, and became a frequent preacher in, or near Oxford. In 1606 he became rector of Trinity church, Dorchester, in the county of Dorset, where in the course of his ministry he expounded the whole of the scripture, and went through about half of it a second time, having, says Wood, “an excellent faculty in the clear and solid interpreting of it.”

, an eminent Oriental scholar, canon of Christ Church, Regius professor of Hebrew, and Laudian professor of Arabic in the university of Oxford, was born in 1746, of parents in low circumstances in Gloucester, where his father was a journeyman-weaver, and brought up his son to the same business. Being however a sensible man, he gave him what little learning was in his power at one of the charity-schools at Gloucester. This excited a thirst for greater acquisitions in the young man, who employed all the time he could spare in the study of such books as fell in his way. His attainments at length attracted the notice of a neighbouring gentleman of fortune, who sent him to the university of Oxford, where he was entered of Wadham college. He took the degree of M. A. Feb. 19, 1773; and about that time engaged in the study of the Oriental languages, to which he was induced by the particular recommendation of Dr. Moore, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He had before acquired a tolerable share of Hebrew learning, by which his progress in the other Oriental languages was greatly facilitated. In 1775, he was appointed archbishop Laud’s professor of Arabic; on entering upon which office he pronounced a masterly oration, which was soon afterwards printed with the title of f ' De Utilitate Ling. Arab, in Studiis Theologicis, Oratio habita Oxoniis in Schola Linguarum, vii Id. Aprilis, 1775,“4to. He was at this time fellow of his college, being elected in 1774. In 1778, Mr. White printed the Syriac Philoxenian version of the Four Gospels (the ms. of which Dr. Gloster Ridley had given to New college), entitled, <c Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. Mss. Ridleianis in Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. repositis, nunc primum edita, cum Interpretatione et Annotationibus Josephi White,” &c. 2 vols. 4to. On November 15, 1778, he preached a very ingenious and elegant sermon before the university, which was soon afterwards printed, under the title of “A revisal of the English translation of the Old Testament recommended. To which is added, some account of an antient Syriac translation of great part of Origen’s Hexaplar edition of the LXX. lately discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan,” 4to. About this time he was appointed one of the preachers at Whitehall chapel. In 1779, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and in the same year published “A Letter to the bishop of London, suggesting a plan for a new edition of the LXX; to which are added, Specimens of some inedited versions made from the Greek, and a Sketch of a Chart of Greek Mss.” In 1780, Mr. White published, “A Specimen of the Civil and Military Institutes of Tjmour, or Tamerlane; a work written originally by that celebrated Conqueror in the Magul language, and since translated into Persian. Now first rendered from the Persian into English, from a ms. in the possession of William Hunter, M.D.; with other Pieces,” 4to. The whole of this work appeared in 1783, translated into English by major Davy, with Preface, Indexes, Geographical Notes, &c. by Mr. White, in one volume, 4to. In Easter term, 1783, he was appointed to preach the Bampton lecture for the following year. As soon as he was nominated, he sketched out the plan; and finding assistance necessary to the completion of it in such a manner as he wished, called to his aid Mr. Samuel Baclcork and Dr. Parr. Although his own share of these labours was sufficient to entitle him to the celebrity which they procured him, he bad afterwards to lament that he had not acknowledged his obligations to those elegant scholars, in a preface to the volume, when it was published. As soon as the lectures were delivered, the applause with which they were received was general throughout the university. They were printed the same year, and met with universal approbation. A second edition appeared in 1785; to which the author added a sermon, which he had recently preached before the university, on the necessity of propagating Christianity in the East Indies. Mr. White’s reputation was now established, and he was considered as one of the ablest vindicators of the Christian doctrines which modern times had witnessed. Lord Thnrlow, then lord chancellor, without any solicitation, gave him a prebend in the cathedral of Gloucester, which at once placed him in easy and independent circumstances. In 1787 he took his degree of D. D. and was looked up to with the greatest respect in the university, as one of its chief ornaments. In the year 1788, the death of Mr.Badcock was made the pretence for an attack on Dr. White’s character both as an author and a man, by the late Dr. R. B. Gabriel, who published a pamphlet, entitled, “Facts relating to the Rev. Dr. White’s Bampton Lectures.” By this it appears that there was found among the papers of the deceased Mr. Badcock, a promissory note for 500l. from Dr. White for literary aid; the payment of which was demanded, but refused by him on the ground that it was illegal in the first instance, as not having the words “value received,' 7 and, secondly, it was for service to be rendered in the History of Egypt, which the doctor and Mr. Badcock had projected. The friends of the deceased, however, were of a different opinion; and the doctor consented to liquidate the debt. This he informs us he did,” partly because he apprehended that his persisting to refuse the payment of it might tend to the disclosure of the assistance which Mr. Badcock had given him in the Bampton Lectures; and partly, because he was informed that the note, by Mr. Badcock’s death, became a part of his assets, and, as such, could legally be demanded.“But whoever reads Dr. White’s” Statement of Literary Obligations“must be convinced that he was under no obligation to have paid this money, and that his opponents availed themselves of his simplicity and the alarm which they excited for his literary character. Gabriel, however, a man neither of literary talents or character, was at the head of an envious junto who were determined to injure Dr.White if they could; and notwithstanding his payment of the money, printed all Mr, Badcock’s letters in the above pamphlet, in order, as he said, to vindicate the character of the deceased, as well as his own, both of which he ridiculously pretended had been assailed on this occasion. In consequence of this publication, Dr. White printed” A Statement of his Literary Obligations to the Rev. Mr. Samuel Badcock, and the Rev. Samuel Parr, LL.D,“By this it appeared, that, though Mr. Badcock’s share in the Lectures was considerable, yet that it was not in that proportion which had been maliciously represented, the plan of the whole, and the execution of the greatest part, being Dr. White’s, and Dr. Parr’s being principally literal corrections. This statement gave sufficient satisfaction to the literary world at large. But the malice of his enemy was not yet satiated, as may appear by the following correspondence, which having been circulated chiefly at Oxford, may be here recorded as an additional defence of Dr. White. ”A printed paper, entitled ‘Minutes of what passed at three interviews which lately took place between Dr. White and Dr. Gabriel in London and in Bath,’ and signed

This was the last of Dr. White’s publications. His constitution had now suffered much by a paralytic attack, which interrupted his studies, although he continued at intervals his favourite researches. He died at his canonry residence at Christchurch, May 22, 1814. From the number of works Dr. White published, and the assiduity with which he cultivated most branches of learning, particularly Oriental languages and antiquities, it may be thought improbable that there was a considerable portion of indolence in his habit. Yet this certainly was the case, and, in the opinion of his friends, must account for his needing assistance in the composition of his Bampton Lectures. Even in the composition of a single sermon, he was glad to accept of aid, if ife was wanted at a time when he felt a repugnance to study. In his private character, he united a degree of roughness with great simplicity of manners; few men were ever more deficient in what is called knowledge of the world. Yet he was friendly, liberal, and of great integrity. He owed all he had to his talents and fame, and however grateful he might be for favours, he never knew or practised the arts of solicitation. To his parents, after he attained promotion, he was a most dutiful son, and it is yet remembered at Gloucester, with what eagerness he left his dignified friends on the day he was installed prebendary, to embrace his aged father, who stood looking on among the crowd.

At what time he first projected the foundation of a college is not known. His original intention was to have founded it at Reading, but he relinquished tliatin favour of Oxford, and on May 1, 1555, obtained a licence from Philip and Mary, empowering him, to the praise and honour of God, the Virgin Mary, and St. John Baptist, to found a college, for divinity, philosophy, and the arts; the members to be, a president, thirty scholars, graduate or non-graduate, or more or less as might be appointed in the statutes; and the site to be Bernard-college, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, without the north-gate of the city of Oxford, and to be called St. John Baptist college in the university of Oxford.

, an English philosopher, and Roman catholic priest, who obtained considerable celebrity abroad, where he was usually called Thomas Anglus, or Thomas Albius, was the son of Richard White, esq. of Hatton, in the county of Essex, by Mary, his wife, daughter of Edmund Plowden, the celebrated lawyer in queen Elizabeth’s reign. His parents being Roman catholics, he was educated, probably abroad, in the strictest principles of that profession, and at length became a secular priest, in which character he resided very much abroad. He was principal of the college at Lisbon, and sub-principal of that at Douay; but his longest stay was at Rome and Paris. For a considerable time he lived in the house of sir Kenelm Digby; and he shewed his attachment to that gentleman’s philosophy by various publications. His first work of this kind was printed at Lyons, in 1646. It is entitled “Institutionum Peripateticarum ad mentem summi clarissimique Philosophi Kenelmi Equitis Digbaei.” “Institutions of the Peripatetic Philosophy, according to the hypothesis of the great and celebrated philosopher sir Kenelm Digby.” Mr. White was not contented with paying homage to sir Kenelm on account of his philosophical opinions, but raised him also to the character of a divine. A proof of this is afforded in a book published by him, the title of which is “Quaestio Theologica, quomodo secundum principia Peripatetices DigbsEanae, sive secundum rationem, et abstrahendo, quantum materia patitur, ab authoritate, human! Arbitrii Libertas sit explicanda, et cum Gratia efficaci concilianda.” “A Theological question, in what manner, according to the principles of sir Kenelm Digby’s Peripatetic Philosophy, or according to reason, abstracting, as much as the subject will admit, from authority, the freedom of a man’s will is to be explained and reconciled with efficacious grace.” Another publication to the same purpose, which appeared in 1652, was entitled “Institutiones Theologicae super fundamentis in Peripatetica Digbacana jactis exstructae.” “Institutions of Divinity, built upon the foundations laid down in sir K. Digby’s Peripatetic Philosophy.” By his friend sir Kenelm Mr. White was introduced, with large commendations, to the acquaintance of Des Cartes, who hoped to make a proselyte of him, but without success. White was too much devoted to Aristotle’s philosophy to admit of the truth of any other system. In his application of that philosophy to theological doctrines, he embarrassed himself in so many nice distinctions, and gave such a free scope to his own thoughts, that he pleased neither the Molinists nor the Jansenists. Indeed, though he had a genius very penetrating and extensive, he had no talent at distinguishing the ideas which should have served as the rule and foundation of his reasonings, nor at clearing the points which he was engaged to defend. His answer to those who accused him of obscurity may serve to display the peculiarity of his disposition. “I value myself,” says he, “upon such a brevity and conciseness, as is suitable for the teachers of the sciences. The Divines are the causg that my writings continue obscure; for they refuse to give me any occasion of explaining myself. In short, either the learned understand me, or they do not. If they do understand me, and find me in an error, it is easy for them to refute me; if they do not understand me, it is very unreasonable for them to exclaim against my doctrines.” This, observes Bayle, shews the temper of a man who seeks only to be talked of, and is vexed at not having antagonists enough to draw the regard and attention of the public upon him. Considering the speculative turn of Mr. White’s mind, it is not surprising that some of his books’ were condemned at Rome by the congregation of the “Index Expurgatorius,” and that they were disapproved of by certain universities. The treatises which found their way into the “Index Expurgatorius” were, “Institutiones Peripatetica?;” “Appendix Theologica de Origine Mundi” “Tabula suffragialis de terminandis Fidei Litibus ab Ecclesia Catholica Fixa;” and “Tessera3 Romanae Evulgatio.” In opposition to the doctors of Douay, who had censured two-and-twenty propositions extracted from his “Sacred Institutions,” he published a pieoe entitled “Supplicatio postulativa Justitiae,” in which he complains that they had given a vague uncertain censure of him, attended only with a respective, without taxing any proposiiion in particular; and he shews them that this is acting like prevaricating divines. Another of his works was the “Sonitus Buccina?,” in which he maintained that the church had no power to determine, but only to give her testimony to tradition. This likewise was censured. Mr. White had a very particular notion concerning the state of souls separated from the body, which involved him in a dispute with the bishop of Chalcedon. Two tracts were written by him upon this subject, of which a large and elaborate account is given in archdeacon Blackburne’s Historical View of the controversy 'concerning an intermediate state. The conclusion drawn by the archdeacon is, that Mr. White entered into the questibn with more precision and greater abilities than any man of his time; and that it is very clear, from the inconsistencies he ran into to save the reputation of his orthodoxy, that if the word purgatory had been out of his way, he would have found no difficulty to dispose of the separate soul in a state of absolute unconscious rest.

“Ordered, That the Committee to which the Bill against Atheism and profaneness is committed, be impowered to receive information touching such books as tend to Atheism, Blasphemy, and profaneness, or against the essence and attributes of God, and in particular the book published in the name of one White, and the book of Mr. Hobbes called the Leviathan, and to report their opinions to the House.”

The names by which Mr. White was occasionally distinguished, besides that of Thomas Anglus, were Candidus, Albius, Bianchi, Richworth, and Blackloe. Descartes generally called him Mr. Vitus.

Although we have called Whitefield the founder of the Calvinistic rnethoclists, it would perhaps be more proper to say that he was the reviver of Calvinism in these kingdoms. He left indeed a few places of worship, yet in most instances, he was satisfied with impressing upon the multitudes who flocked to hear him, the importance of their salvation, and leaving them to the constant care of their regular clergymen, or dissenting ministers with whom he maintained communion. But to those distinct congregations which he had raised, have been added, what is called lady Huntingdon’s connection; and since his death the successors at his chapels have laboured diligently to extend their pale, and have formed what is called the union of the Calvinist methodists, which may be considered as having amalgamated the different parties into one body. It has been remarked by a late writer, as a striking difference between Wesley and Whitefield, that “while Wesley was drilling his followers into a regular system, with all the policy of the catholic fathers of Paraguay, and thus raising a well-disciplined army, which moved obsequious to his commanding voice; his less politic brother neglected to provide for the perpetuity of his name, and with generous indifference to self, raised only a popular standard, around which detached parties of flying troops voluntarily ranged themselves.” Whitefield’s Works, practical and controversial, were published in 6 vols. 8vo.

When the marriage of the prince of Wales in 1736, and the birth of his son, the present king, called for the gratulatory praises of the universities, Whitehead wrote some verses on these subjects, which he inserted in the first collection of his poems, published in 1754, but omitted from the second in 1774. They are restored, however, to the late edition of the English Poets, as they have been reprinted in some subsequent collections; nor can there be much danger to the reputation of a poet in telling the world that his earliest efforts were not his best.

Mr. Mason complains that these elegies were not popular, and states various objections made to them; he does not add by whom: but takes care to inform us that the poet bore his fate contentcrdly, because he was no longer under the necessity of adapting himself to the public taste in order to become a popular writer. He had received, while yet in Italy, two genteel patent placesf, usually united, the badges of secretary and register of the order of the Bath; and two years after, on 'he death of old Gibber, he was appointee) poet laureat. This last place was offered to Gray, by Mr. Mason’s mediation, and an apology was made for passing over Mr. Mason himself, “that being in orders, he was thought, merely on that account, less eligible for the office than a layman.” Mr. Mason says, he was glad to hear this reason assigned, and did not think it a weak one. It appears, however, that a higher respect was paid to Gray than to Whitehead, in the offer of the appointment. Gray was to hold it as a sinecure, but Whitehead was expected to do the duties of the Laureat. In this dilemma, if it may be so called, Mr. Mason endeavoured to relieve his friend by an expedient not very promising. He advised him to employ a deputy to write his annual odes, and reserve his own pen for certain great occasions, as a peace, or a royal marriage: and he pointed out to him two or three needy poets who, for the reward of five or ten guineas, would be humble enough to write under the eye of the musical composer. Whitehead had more confidence in his powers, or more respect for his royal patron, than to take this advice, and set himself to compose his annual odes with the zeal that he employed on his voluntary effusions. But although he had little to fear from the fame of his predecessor, he was not allowed to enjoy all the benefits of comparison. His odes were confessedly superior to those of Gibber, but the office itself, under Gibber’s possession, had become so ridiculous, that it was no easy task to restore it to some degree of public respect. Whitehead, however, was perhaps the man of all others, his contemporaries, who could perform this with most ease to himself. Attacked as he was, in every way, by “the little fry” of the poetical profession, he was never provoked into retaliation, aud bore even the more dangerous abuse of Churchill, with a real or apparent indifference, which to that turbulent libeller must have been truly mortifying. He was not, however, insensible of the inconvenience, to say the least, of -a situation which obliges a man to write two poems yearly upon the same subjects; and with this feeling wrote “The Pathetic Apology for all Laureats,” which, from the motto, he appears to have intended to reach that quarter where only redress could be obtained, but it was not published till after his death.

For some years after his return to England, he lived almost entirely in the house of the earl of Jersey, no longer as a tutor to his son, but as a companion of amiable manners and accomplishments, whom the good sense of that nobleman and his lady preferred to be the partner of their familiar and undisguised intimacy, and placed at their table as one not unworthy to sit with guests of whatever rank. The earl and countess were now advanced in years, and his biographer informs us, that Whitehead “willingly devoted the principal part of his time to the amusement of his patron and patroness, which, it will not be doubted by those who know with what unassuming ease, and pleasing sallies of wit, he enlivened his conversation, must have made their hours of sickness or pain pass away with much more serenity.” The father of lord Nuneham also gave him a general invitation to his table in town, and to his delightful seat in the country; and the two young lords, during the whole of his life, bestowed upon him every mark of affection and respect. During this placid enjoyment of high life, he produced “The School for Lovers,” a comedy which was performed at Drury-lane in 1762. In the advertisement prefixed to it, he acknowledges his obligations to a small dramatic piece written by M. de Fontenelle. This comedy was not unsuccessful, but was written on a plan so very different from all that is called comedy, that the critics were at. a loss where to place it. Mr. Mason, who will not allow it to be classed among the sentimental, assigns it a very high station among the small list of our genteel comedies. In the same year, he published his “Charge to the Poets,” in which, as Laureat, he humorously assumes the dignified mode of a bishop giving his visitatorial instructions to his clergy. He is said to have designed this as a continuation of “The Dangers of writing verse.” There seems, however, no very close connection, while as a poem it is far superior, not only in elegance and harmony of verse, but in the alternation of serious advice and genuine humour, the whole chastened by candour for his brethren, and a kindly wish to protect them from the fastidiousness of criticism, as well as to heal the mutual animosities of the genus irritabile. But, laudable as the attempt was, he had not even the happiness to conciliate those whose cause he pleaded. Churchill, from this time, attacked him whenever he attacked any, but Whitehead disdained to reply, and only adverted to the animosity of that poet in a few lines which he wrote towards the close of his life, and which appear to be part of some longer poem. They have already been noticed in the life of Churchill. One consequence of Churchill’s animosity, neither silence nor resentment could avert. Churchill, at this time, had possession of the town, and made some characters unpopular, merely by joining them with others who were really so. Garrick was so frightened at the abuse he threw out against Whitehead, that he would not venture to bring out a tragedy which the latter offered to him. Such is Mr. Mason’s account, but if it was likely to succeed, why was it not produced when Churchill and his animosities were forgotten? The story, however, may be true, for when in 1770, he offered his “Trip to Scotland,” a farce, to Mr. Garrick, he conditioned that it should be produced without the name of the author. The secret was accordingly preserved both in acting and publishing, and the farce was performed and read for a considerable time, without a suspicion that the grave author of “The School for Lovers” had relaxed into the broad mirth and ludicrous improbabilities of farce.

At about the age of 2 1 his eagerness after new ideas carried him to Dublin, having heard of an ingenious piece of mechanism in that city, being a clock with certain curious appendages, which he was very desirous of seeing, and no less so of conversing with the maker. On his arrival, however, he could neither procure a sight of the former, nor draw the least hint from the latter concerning it. Thus disappointed, he fell upon an expedient for accomplishing his design; and accordingly took up his residence in the house of the mechanic, paying the more liberally for his board, as he had hopes from thence of more readily obtaining the indulgence wished for. He was accommodated with a room directly over that in which the favourite piece was kept carefully locked up; and he had not long to wait for his gratification, for the artist, while one day employed in examining his machine, was suddenly called down stairs; which the young inquirer happening to overhear, softly slipped into the room, inspected the machine, and, presently satisfying himself as to the secret, escaped undiscovered to his own apartment. His end thus compassed, he shortly after hid the artist farewell, and returned to his father in England.

Whitelocke was one of those who opposed in the House of Commons the disbanding of the parliamentary army, and from this time was much courted by Cromwell and his adherents. He says himself that he resorted much with sir Henry Vane, and “other grandees of that party.” As to Cromwell, he had been once consulted by general Essex’s party, who were jealous of him, whether he could not be proceeded against as an incendiary. Whitelocke was of opinion that he could not, but at the same time expressed his sentiments^of him in the following language: “I take lieut.-gen. Cromwell to be a gentleman of quick and subtle parts, and one who hath (especially of late) gained no small interest in the House of Commons, nor is he wanting of friends in the House of Peers, nor of abilities in himself to manage his own part or defence to the best advantage. If this be so, it will be the more requisite to be well prepared against him before he be brought upon the stage, lest the issue of the business be not answerable to your expectations.” Wood says that Whitelocke gave Oliver. notice of this plot against him, but Whitelocke attributes the discovery to some present who were false brethren, and informed Cromwell of all that passed among them. Be this as it may, he was now quite in the confidence of Cromwell and his adherents. As he had attended at the siege of Oxford, so he did also at that of Wailingfoud, where he acted the part of secretary, and kept a strong garrison in his seat of Fawley-court, for the use of the prevailing powers. In Dec. 1646, we find him earnestly promoting the ordinances for taking away all coercive power of committees; and all arbitrary power from both or either of the houses of parliament, or any of their committees, in any matter between party and party, judging that to be for the honour of parliament, and the ease and right of the people; and being well skilled in foreign affairs, he was usually in every committee relating to them. At the same time he did not neglect his profession, but attended the assizes, and was much employed. In Sept. 1647, the city of London were very desirous of appointing him to the office of recorder, but this he declined, as well as that of speaker of the House of Commons. He was soon after appointed one of the commissioners of the great seal, and sworn into that office April 12, 1648, with a salary of 1000l. a year. He now resigned his place of attorney of the duchy of Lancaster, which, -with his practice, amounted to more than he gained by his new office, while even in it he soon began to think himself insecure, and looked upon the self-denying ordinance, as it was called, to be contrived to remove him. When the army began to controul the House of Commons, he made some of those salutary reflections, which, it is to be regretted, did not occur sooner to him. “We may take notice,” said he, “of the uncertainty of worldly affairs; when the parliament and their army had subdued their common enemy, then they quarrelled among themselves, the army against the parliament; when they were pretty well pieced together again, then the apprentices and others made an insurrection against the parliament and army. Thus we were in continual perplexities and dangers, and so it will be with all who shall engage in the like troubles.” The fate of the unhappy king being determined, Whitelocke was appointed one of the committee of thirty-eight, who were to draw up a charge against his tnajesty; but he never attended, as he totally disapproved of that measure, and therefore went into the country. He returned to London, however, while the king’s trial was pending, but took no concern with it, and refused afterwards to approve the proceedings of the high court of justice, as it was called, His memorandum on the king’s death is thus expressed: “Jan. 30, 1 went not to the House, but stayed all day at home in my study and at my prayers, that this day’s work might not so displease God, as to bring prejudice to this poor afflicted nation.” That he was sincere in all this, or in some of his former professions respecting peace, seems very doubtful, for on Feb. 1 following, he declared in the House of Commons his disapprobation of the vote of Dec.

The first edition of his “Memorials of the English Affairs,” was published in 1682, and the second, with many additions and a better Lulex, in 1732: called “An historical Account of what passed from the beginning of the reign of king Charles the First to king Charles the Second his happy Jlestauration; containing the public transactions civil and military, together with the private consultations and secrets of the Cabinet,” in folio. Besides these memorials, he wrote also “Memorials of the English Affairs, from the supposed expedition of Brute to this island, to the end of the reign of king James the First. Published from his original manuscript, with some account of his life and writings, by William Penn, esq. governor of Pennsylvania; and a preface by James Welwood, M.D. 1709,” folio. There are many speeches and discourses of Mr. Whitelocke to be found in his “Memorials of English Affairs,” and in other collections. Oldmixon, who stands at the head of infamous historians, has drawn a comparison between Whitelocke and Clarendon; there is also an anonymous pamphlet entitled “Clarendon and Whitelocke farther compared,” which was written by Mr. John Davys, some time of Harthall, Oxford. It ought to be remarked that our author’s “Memorials” are his Diary, and that he occasionally entered facts in it when they came to his knowledge but not always on those days in which they were transacted. This has led his readers into some anachronisms. It has been remarked also that his “Memorials” would have been much more valuable, if his wife had not burnt many of his papers. As they are, they contain a vast mass of curious information, and are written with impartiality.

He had the year before been a considerable benefactor to Peter-house, where, in 1567, he held the place of president, but was called thence in April to Pembroke-hall, being chosen master of that house, and not long after was appointed regius professor of divinity. In both these prejfertnents he succeeded his old frrend Dr. Hutton, now made dean of York, and to the first was recommended, as Dr. Hutton had been, by Grindal, then bishop of London. But he remained at Pembroke-hall only about three months, for upon the death of Dr. Beauchamp, the queen promoted him to the mastership of Trinity-college. This place was procured for him, chiefly by the interest of sir William Cecil, who, notwithstanding some objections had been made tq his age, secured the appointment. The same year he took his degree of doctor in divinity; and in 1570, having first applied to Cecil for the purpose, he compiled a new body of statutes for the university, which were of great service to that learned community.

Lord Burleigh, in another letter, still insisting that he would not call his proceedings rigorous and captious, but that they were scarcely charitable, the archbishop sent him, July 15, a defence of his conduct in a paper entitled “Reasons why it is convenient that those which are culpable in the articles ministered judicially by the archbishop of Canterbury and others, her majesty’s commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, shall be examined of the same articles upon their oaths.” In this paper he maintained, 1. That by the ecclesiastical laws remaining in force, sucli articles may be ministered: this is so clear by all, that it was never hitherto called into doubt, 2. That this manner of proceeding has been tried against such as were vehemently suspected, presented, and detected by their neighbours, or whose faults were notorious, as by open preaching, since there hath been any law ecclesiastical in this realm. 3. For the discovery of any popery it hath been used in king Edward’s time, in the deprivation of sundry bishops at that time, as it may appear by the processes, although withal for the proof of those things that they denied, witnesses were also used. 4. In her majesty’s most happy reign, even/rom the beginning, this manner of proceeding has been used against the one extreme and the other as general, against all the papists, and against all those who would not follow the Book of Common Prayer established by authority; namely, against Mr. Sampson and others; and the lords of the privy council committed certain to the Fleet, for counselling sir John Southwood and other papists not to answer upon articles concerning their own facts and opinions, ministered unto them by her highness’s commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, except a fame thereof were first proved. 5. It is meet also to be done ex officio mero, because upon the confession of such offences no pecuniary penalty is set down whereby the informer (as in other temporal courts) may be considered for his charge and pains, so that such faults would else be wholly unreformed. 6. This course is not against charity, for it is warranted by law as necessary for reforming of offenders and disturbers of the unity of the church, and for avoiding delays and frivolous exceptions against such as otherwise should inform, denounce, accuse, or detect them; and because none are in this manner to be proceeded against, but whom their own speeches or acts, the public fame, and some of credit, as their ordinary or such like, shall denounce, and signify to be such as are to be reformed in this behalf. 7. That the form of such proceedings by articles ex officio mero is usual; it may appear by all records in ecclesiastical courts, from the beginning; in all ecclesiastical commissions, namely, by the particular commission and proceedings against the bishops of London and Winton, in king Edward’s time, and from the beginning of her majesty’s reign, in the ecclesiastical commission, till this hour; and therefore warranted by statute. 8, If it be said that it be against law, reason, and charity, for a man to accuse himself, quia nemo ienetur seipsum prodere aut propriam turpitudmem revelare, I answer, that by all charity and reason, Proditus per denundationem alterius sive per famam, tenetur seipsum ostendere, ad evitandum scandalum, et seipsum pur gandum. Prælatus potest inquirere sine prævia fama, ergo a fortiori delegati per principem possunt; ad hæc in istis articulis turpitudo non inquiritur aut flagitium, sed excessus et errata clericorum circa publicam functionem ministerii, de quibus ordinario rationem reddere coguntur. (The purport of our prelate’s meaning seems to be, that although no man is obliged to inform against himself, yet, if informed against by others, he is bound to come forwards, in order to avoid scandal, and justify himself; that a bishop may institute an inquiry upon a previous fame, much more delegates appointed by the sovereign; and besides, that in these articles no inquiry is made as to tur-' pitude or criminality, but as to the irregularities and errors of the clergy, in matters relating to their ministerial functions, an account of which they are bound to render to their ordinary) 9. Touching the substance of the articles, first, is deduced there being deacons and ministers in the church, with the lawfulness of that manner of ordering; secondly, the establishing the Book of Common Prayer by statute, and the charge given to bishops and ordinaries for seeing the execution of the said statute; thirdly, the goodness of the book, by the same words by which the statute of Elizabeth calls and terms it. Fourthly, several branches of breaches of the book being de propriis factis. Fifthly, is deduced detections against them, and such monitions as have been given them to testify their conformity hereafter, and whether they wilfully still continue such breaches of law in their ministration. Sixthly, Their assembling of conventicles for the maintenance of their factious dealings. Jo. For the second, fourth, and sixth points, no man will think it unmeet they should be examined, if they would have them touched for any breach of the book. 11. The article for examination, whether they be deacon or minister, -ordered according to the law of the land> is most necessary; first, for the grounds of the proceeding, lest the breach of the book be objected to them who are not bound to observe it; secondly, to meet with such schismatics, whereof there is sufficient experience, which either thrust themselves into the ministry without any lawful calling at all, or else to take orders at Antwerp, or elsewhere beyond the seas. 12. The article for their opinion of the lawfulness of their admission into the ministry is to meet with such hypocrites as, to be enabled for a living, will be content to be ordained at a bishop’s hands, and yet, for. the satisfaction of their factious humour, will afterwards have a calling of Certain brethren ministers, with laying on of hands, in a private house, or in a conventicle, to the manifest slander of the Church of England, and the nourishing of a flat schism; secondly, for the detection of such as not by private, but by public speeches, and written pamphlets spread abroad, do deprave the whole order ecclesiastical of this church, and the lawfulness of calling therein; advouching no calling lawful but where their fancied monstrous signorie, or the assent of the people, do admit into the ministry. 13. The sequel that wo^ild follow of these articles being convinced or proved, is not -so much as deprivation from ecclesiastical livings, if there be no obstinate persisting, or iterating the same offence; a matter far different from the bloody inquisition in time of popery, or of the six articles, where death was the sequel against the criminal. 14. It is to be considered, what encouragement and probable appearance it would breed to the dangerous papistical sacraments, if place be given by the chief magistrates ecclesiastical to persons that tend of singularity, to the disturbance of the good peace of the church, and to the discredit of that, for disallowing whereof the obstinate papist is worthily punished. 15, The number of these singular persons, in comparison of the quiet and conformable, are few, and their qualities are also, for excellence of gifts in learning, discretion, and considerate zeal, far inferior to those other that yield their conformity; and for demonstration and proof, both of the numbers, and also of the difference of good parts and learning in the province of Canterbury, there are but — hundred that refuse, and — thousands that had yielded their conformities. These sentiments of the archbishop, although the detail of them may seem prolix, will serve to shew the nature of that unhappy dispute between the church and the puritans which, by the perseverance of the latter, ended in the fatal overthrow both of church and state in the reign of Charles I. They also place the character of Whitgift in its true light, and demonstrate, that he was at least conscientious in his endeavours to preserve the unity of the church, a,nd was always prepared with arguments to defend his conduct, which could not appear insufficient in the then state of the public mind, when toleration was not known to either party. That his rigorous protection of the church from the endeavours of the puritans to new mould it, should be censured by them and their descendants, their historians and biographers, may appear natural, but it can hardly be called consistent, when we consider that the immediate successors of Whitgift, who censured him as a persecutor, adopted every thing, that was contrary to freedom and toleration in his system, established a high commission-court by a new name, and ejected from their livings the whole body of the English clergy who would not conform to their ideas of church-government: and even tyrannized over such men as bishop Hall and others who were doctrinal puritans, and obnoxious only as loving the church that has arisen out of the asbes of the martyrs.

, one of our early grammarians, was born in Lichfield about 1480, and educated under the famous grammarian, John Stanbridge, in the school adjoining to Magdalen college, Oxford. He afterwards made a considerable progress in philosophy, but took more pleasure in classical and grammatical studies, in which he fancied himself destined to shine. In 150.1 he began to teach a grammar-school, probably in London, as all his publications were dated thence. In the beginning of 1513, he supplicated the congregation of regents of the university of Oxford, by the name of Robert WhittingtOn, a secular chaplain, and a scholar of the art of rhetoric, that whereas he had spent fourteen years in the study of the said art, and twelve years in teaching, “it might be sufficient for him that he might be ia'ureated.” This being granted, he composed an hundred verses which were stuck up in public places, especially on the doors of St. Mary’s church, and was solemnly crowned with a wreath of laurel, &c. that is, he was made doctor of grammar, an nnusual title and ceremony, and the last of the kind. This appears to have conferred no academical rank, for he was afterwards admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts. From this time, however, he called himself in several of his works Protovates Angli<e, an assumption which his fellow-grammarians, Herman and Lily, did not much relish. He appears indeed to have been very conceited of his abilities, and to have undervalued those who were at least his equals. Yet historians allow him to have been an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and a man of a facetious turn, but too much given to personal satire both in conversation, and in his literary disputes with Lily, Aldridge, and others. He was alive in 1530, but' how long afterwards does not appear. He wrote a great many grammatical treatises, some of which must have long been in use in schools, for they went through many editions. They are enumerated by Wood, and, more correctly, by Mr.Dibdin in his Typographical Antiquities. Warton also mentions a few of them, and says that some of.his Latin poetry is in a very classical style, and much, in the manner of the earlier Italian poets.

Dr. Whytt’s celebrity as an author was very great. His first publication was, “An Essay on the Vital and other Involuntary motions of animals,” which was written fifteen years before publication in 1751. His next publication was his “Essay on the virtues of Lime-water and Soap in the cure of the stone,” 1752, part. of which had appeared several years before in the “Edinburgh Medical Essays.” His “Physiological Essays,” were first published in 1755. In 1764 appeared his principal work, entitled “Observations on the nature, causes, and cure of those disorders which are commonly called nervous, hypochondriac, and hysteric.” The last of his writings, “Observations on the Dropsy of the Brain,” did not appear till two years after his death, when all his works were collected and published in one volume quarto, under the direction of his son, and of his intimate friend the late sir John Pringle. Besides these five works, he wrote many papers which appeared in different periodical publications; particularly in the Philosophical Transactions, the Medical Essays, the Medical Observations, and the Physical and Literary Essays.

, Wicliff, de Wyclif, or Wiclef (John), a very learned English divine in the fourteenth century, and the first champion of that cause which was afterwards called Protestantism, was born at a village then called Wickliffe, from which he took his surname, near Richmond in Yorkshire, in 1324. Of the parents of one who lived in so remote a period, it cannot be expected that we should be able to procure any account. He was sent early to Oxford, and was first admitted commoner of Queen’s college, and afterwards of Merton, where he became probationer, but not fellow, as has been usually reported. While he resided here, he associated with some of the most learned men of the age who were members of that college, and it is said that Geoffry Chaucer was at one time his pupil. Among his contemporaries, he was soon distinguished both for study and genius. He acquired all the celebrity which a profound knowledge of the philosophy and divinity then in vogue could confer, and so excelled in wit and argument as to be esteemed more than human. Besides the learning of the schools, he accumulated a profound knowledge of the civil and canon law, and of the municipal laws of our own country, which have been rarely an object of attention until the establishment of the Vinerian professorship. He also not only studied and commented upon the sacred writings, but translated them into English, and wrote homilies on several parts of them; and to all this he added an intimate acquaintance with the fathers of the Latin church, with St. Austin and St. Jerome, St. Ambrose and St. Gregory.

With these acquisitions, he did not hastily obtrude the novel opinions to which they had given rise. He was thirty-six years of age before his talents appeared to the world, and even then they were called forth rather by necessity than choice. In 1360 he became the advocate for the university against the incroachments made by the mendicant friars, who had been very troublesome from their first establishment in Oxford in 1230, and had occasioned great inquietude to the chancellor and scholars, by infringing their statutes and privileges, and setting up an exempt jurisdiction. Their misconduct had decreased the number of students from thirty thousand to six thousand, parents being afraid to send their children to the university, where they were in danger of being enticed by these friars from the colleges into convents; and no regard was paid to the determination of parliament in 1366, that the friars should receive no scholar under the age of eighteen. But Wickliffe now distinguished himself against these usurpations, and, with Thoresby, Bolton, Hereford, and other colleagues, openly opposed the justification which the friars had advanced in favour of their begging trade from the example of Christ and his apostles. Wickliffe also wrote several tracts against them, particularly “Of Clerks Possessioners,” “Of the Poverty of Christ, against able Beggary,” and “Of Idleness in Beggary.” These were written, with an elegance uncommon in that age, in the English language, of which he may be considered as one of the first refiners, while his writings afford many curious specimens of old English orthography. His controversies gave him such reputation in the university, that, in 1361 he was advanced to be master of Baliol college; and four years after he was made warden of Canterbury-hall, founded by Simon de Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1361, and now included in Christ-church. The letters of institution, by which the archbishop appointed him to this wardenship, were dated 14 Dec. 1365, and in them he is styled, “a person in whose fidelity, circumspection, and industry, his grace very much confided; and one on whom he had fixed his eyes for that place, on account of the honesty of his life, his laudable conversation, and knowledge of letters.” Wickliffe amply fulfilled these expectations, till the death of the archbishop in 1366, who was succeeded in che archiepiscopal dignity by Simon Langham. This prelate had been a monk, and being inclined to favour the religious against the seculars, was easily persuaded by the morrks of Canterbury to eject Wickliffe in 1367 from his wardenship, and the other seculars from their fellowships. He also issued out his mandate, requiring WicklifFe and all the scholars to yield obedience to Wodehall as their warden. This Wodehall had actually been appointed warden by the founder, but he was at such variance with the secular scholars, that the archbishop was compelled to turn him and three other monks out of his new-founded hall, at which time he appointed Wickliffe to be warden, and three other seculars to be scholars. The scholars now, however, refused to yield obedience to Wodehall, as being contrary to the oath they had taken to the founder, and Langham, irritated at their obstinacy, sequestered the revenue, and took away the books, &c. belonging to the balL Wickliffe, and his expelled fellows, appealed to the pope, who issued a bull, dated at Viterbo 28 May, 1370, restoring Wodehall and the monks, and imposing perpetual silence on Wickliffe and his associates. As this bull was illegal, and interfered with the form of the licence of mortmain, the monks in 1372 screened themselves by procuring the royal pardon, and a confirmation of the papal sentence, for which they paid 200 marks, nearly 800l. of our money.

On the 5th of May, 1415, the council of Constance condemned forty-five articles maintained by Wickliffe, as heretical, false, and erroneous. His bones were ordered to be dug up and cast on a dunghill; but this part of his sentence was not executed till 1428, when orders were sent by the pope to the bishop of Lincoln to have it strictly performed. His remains, which had now lain in the grave forty-four years, were dug out and burnt, and the ashes cast into an adjoining brook, called the Swift. It is said that the gown which Wickliffe wore now covers the communion-table of the church of Lutterworth.

The principles which this eminent reformer endeavoured to introduce may be gathered from the nineteen articles before-mentioned, which were extracted from his public lectures and sermons, by the monks, and sent to the pope. It appears that he held the doctrine of predestination in as strong a sense as any who have since supported it, and, in the opinion of a late writer, carries it much farther than any modern or ancient writers have attempted. He was, indeed, an absolute necessitarian, and among certain articles extracted from his works by Thomas Netter (commonly called Thomas of Walden, who flourished about 1409) we find the following, “That all things come to pass by fatal necessity; that God could not make the world otherwise than it is made; and that God cannot do any thing which he doth not do.” Other less unguarded expressions have been laid to his charge, of which Fuller observes, that were all his works extant, “we might read the occasion, intention, and connection of what he spake, together with the limitations, restrictions, distinctions, and qualifications, of what he maintained. There we might see what was the overplus of his passion, and what the just measure of his judgment.” He maintained, with the church in after-times, the doctrine of pardon and justification by the alone death and righteousness of Christ. The several points in which he differed from the then established popery were these; the reading of the bible in the vulgar tongue, and making them the sole rule of a Christian’s faith and practice, without faith in tradition, or any human authority; his opposing the pope’s supremacy and infallibility; his rejecting and condemning transubstantiation, indulgences, confession, and absolution, extreme unction; the celibacy of the clergy; forced vows of chastity; prayers to, and worship of saints, shrines and pilgrimages. But the opinions which rendered him most obnoxious in his day, were those which struck at the temporal dominion of the pope, and which occasioned many of his followers to be persecuted in the subsequent reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V.

In 1656, he represented both Northumberland and the city of York in parliament, and being chosen Speaker, was approved by Cromwell. His salary as speaker was 1829l. besides 5l. for every private act, and the like sum for every stranger made a free denizen; when ill he appointed Whitelock for his deputy, as we noticed in the life of that statesman. In June 1658 he was appointed lord chief baron of the exchequer, and in Jan. 1660, one of the council of state and a commissioner of the great seal. He was returned both for Berwick and York in the parliament called in this year, and by some interest in the court of the restored king, Charles II. he was included in the call of serjeants, June 1, 1660. It was thought somewhat singular, and even mean that be should have submitted to this, as he had so long borne that title, had filled high offices in the state, was by no means a young man, and was possessed of a considerable fortune. With regard to his fortune, however, he had suffered some loss. He and Thomas Coghill, esq. had purchased the manor of Crayke, belonging to Durham cathedral, which was now ordered to revert to the church again. On the other hand, as some compensation, he was appointed temporal chancellor for life of thai bishopric. He died May 13, 1664, and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles’s in the Fields, where a handsome monument against the north wall was placed by his four surviving daughters, ten years after, but it does not now exist Although sir Thomas had drank deep in the spirit of the times, we are told that his great abilities were only equalled by his integrity, and it was probably the latter which procured him favour after the restoration. He married Frances, daughter of lord Fairfax, of Cameron, and sister of lord Fairfax, the parliamentary general; she died in 1649, and likewise lies buried in St. Giles’s.

, an able physician, called in Latin Wierus, and sometimes Piscinarius, was born in 1515, at Grave, on the Meuse, in the duchy of Brabant, of a noble family. He studied philosophy under the famous Henry Cornelius Agrippa; made several voyages even to Africa, but returned again into Europe, and was physician to the duke of Cleves during thirty years. Wier had so strong a constitution, that he frequently passed three or four days without eating gr drinking, and found not the least inconvenience from it. He died suddenly Feb. 4, 1588, at Tecklenbourg, a German town in the circle of Westphalia, in the seventy-third year of his age. His works were printed at Amsterdam, 1660, one volume, quarto, which includes his treatise “De Prestigiis et Incantationibus,” translated into French, by James Grevin 1577, 8vo. He maintains in this work, that those accused of witchcraft were persons whose brain was disordered by melancholy, whence they imagined falsely, and without any reason, that they had dealings with the devil, and were therefore deserving of pity rather than of punishment. It seems strange that, with this opinion, Wier should in other instances give the readiest credit to fabulous stories. The above mentioned book made much noise.

, a late amiable and ingenious writer, was the only son of Dr. Joseph Wilcocks, of whom we have the following particulars. He waa born in 1673, and was educated at Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he formed a lasting friendship with Mr. Boulter, afterwards primate of Ireland; Mr. Wilcocks was chosen a demy of his college at the same election with Boulter and Addison, and from the merit and learning of the elect, this was commonly called by Dr. Hough, president of the college, “the golden election.” He was ordained by bishop Sprat, and while a young man, went chaplain to the English factory at Lisbon; where, as in all the other scenes of his life, he acquired the public love and esteem, and was long remembered with grateful respect. While here, such was his sympathy and his courage, that although he had not then had the small-pox, yet when that dreadful malady broke out in the factory, he constantly attended the sick and dying. On his return to England, he was appointed chaplain to George I. and preceptor to his royal granddaughters, the children of George II. He also had a prebend of Westminster, and in 1721 was made bishop of Gloucester, the episcopal palace of which he repaired, which for a considerable time before had stood uninhabited; and thus he became the means of fixing the residence of future bishops in that see. In 1731 he was translated to the bishopric of Rochester, with which he held the deanry of Westminster. Seated in this little diocese, he declined any higher promotion, even that of the archbishopric of York, frequently using the memorable expression t>f bishop Fisher, one of his predecessors, “Though this my wife be poor, I must not think of changing her for one more opulent.” The magnificence of the west-front of Westminster-abbey, during his being dean, is recorded as a splendid monument of his zeal for promoting public works, in suitable proportion to his station in life. He wouJd doubtless have been equally zealous in adorning and enlarging his cathedral at Rochester, had there been ground to hope for national assistance in that undertaking; but its episcopal revenues were very inadequate to the expence. He was constantly resident upon his diocese, and from the fatigue of his last Visitation there, he contracted the illness which terminated his life by a gradual decay, March 9, 1756, aged eighty-three. He was buried in a vault in Westminster-abbey, under the consistory court, which he had built the year before, by permission from the Chapter. His son erected a monument for him next to that of Dr. Pearce. He married Jane, the daughter of John Milner, esq. sometime his Britannic majesty’s consul at Lisbon, who died in her twenty-eighth year. By her he hd Joseph, the more immediate subject of the present article.

, a nonconformist divine, poet, and wit, was born at St. Ives in Huntingdonshire in 1609, and was educated at the university of Cambridge. In 1642 he was created bachelor of divinity at Oxford, and, probably had the degree of doctor there also, as he was generally called Dr. Wild. In 1646 he was appointed rector of Aynho in Northamptonshire, in the room of Dr. Longman, ejected by the parliamentary visitors; and on this occasion Calamy’s editor gives us one of his witticisms. He and another divine had preached for the living, and Wild being asked whether he or his competitor had got it, he answered “We have divided it; I have got the Ay, and he the No.” Wood says he was “a fat, jolly, and boon presbyterian,” but Calamy asserts that those who knew him commended him not only for his facetiousness, but also his strict temperance and sobriety; and he was serious, where seriousness was wanted. He was ejected from Aynho at the restoration. He died at Oundle, in Northamptonshire in 1679, aged seventy. His works afford a curious mixture. 1. “The tragedy of Christopher Love at Tower-hill,” Lond. 1660, a poem in one sheet 4to. 2. “Iter Boreaie, attempting something upon the successful and matchless march of the L Gen. George Monk from Scotland to London,” ibid. 1660, 4to, in ridicule of the republican party. This was at that time a favourite subject, and Wood mentions three other Iter Borealt’s by Eades, Corbet, and Master. 3. “A poem on the imprisonment of Mr. Edmund Calamy in Newgate,” 1662, printed on a broad sheet, which produced two similar broadsheets in answer, the one “Antiboreale, an answer to a lewd piece of poetry upon Mr. Calamy, &c.” the other “Hudibras on Calamy’s imprisonment and Wild’s poetry.” These, with his Iter Boreaie, and other pieces of a similar cast and very indifferent poetry, but with occasional flashes of genuine humour, were published together in 1668 and 1670. Wood mentions “The Benefice, a comedy,” written in his younger years, but not printed till 1689. Wood adds, that there “had like to have been” a poetical war between Wild and Flaxman, but how it terminated he knows not. Wild had the misfortune to have some of his poems printed along with some of lord Rochester’s. He has a few serrrjons extant.

In 1762 he began to engage in political discussion. In March of that year he published “Observations on the papers relative to the rupture with Spain, laid before both houses of parliament on Friday, Jan. 29, 1762.” As much of his information on this subject was supplied by lord Temple (who, with Mr. Pitt, had retired from the cabinet in consequence of a negative being put upon their proposition for an immediate war with Spain) the success of this pamphlet is little to be wondered at. As he did not put his name to it, it was ascribed to Dr. Douglas, or Mr. Manduit, by the sly suggestions of the real author. In the beginning of June following he commenced his celebrated paper called “The North Briton.” The purpose of this was ostensibly to expose the errors of the then ministry, and hold them up to public contempt, but really, to give the author that sort of consequence that might lead to advantages which his extravagant mode of living had by this time rendered necessary. We have his own word that he had determined to take advantage of the times and to make his fortune, and that he soon formed an idea of what would silence and satisfy him. “If government,” says he, “means peace or friendship with me, I then breathe no longer hostility. And, between ourselves, if they would send me ambassador to Constantinople, it is all I should wish.” Again, “It depends on them (the ministry) whether Mr. Wilkes is their friend or their enemy It he starts as the latter, he will lash them with scorpions, and they <ire already prepared; I wih, however, we may be friends; and I had rattier follow the plan I had marked out in my letter from Geneva/' alluding to the embassy to Constantinople. In a subsequent letter he says,” If the ministers do not find employment for me, I am disposed 10 find employment for them." In these extracts we have anticipated the order of time, for they were written in 1764, when he was an exile, but they are necessarily introduced here to unfold the real character of Mr. Wilkes, and to determine to what species of patriots he belonged. We see nt the same time here how very near the most popular character of the age was to dropping into comparative obscurity, and at what a cheap rate the ministry might have averted the hostility of Wilkes, and all its consequences, which we have always considered as more hurtful than beneficial to his country.

In the mean time being found guilty on both informalions, and neglecting to make any personal appearance, when called upon to receive the judgment of the court of King’s Bench, he Was, towards the close of the year, outlawed. He had again repaired to France, whence he addressed a letter, in defence of his conduct, to the electors of Aylesbury, which, like all his publications, was read with much avidity. It was in this year (1764), and when at Paris, that he addressed those letters to his friends, of which we have already given extracts, to prove that, whatever his popularity, he had no very high expectations from it, and had sense. enough to perceive that his deranged circumstances could be restored only by making peace with administration. His terms, we have seen, were not exorbitant, and might probably have been agreed to, had they been known, which it is doubtful whether they were.

The years 1765 and 1766 he passed in a journey through Italy. But as he knew too well the nature of the multitude, not to be aware that a long retirement would soon cause him to be forgotten, even by those whose sympathy in his favour was most warm, when the duke of Grafton became minister, towards the end of 1766, Mr. Wilkes solicited, in a letter to him, the clemency of his sovereign; and finding. his address but faintly listened to, he, in a second letter to the same nobleman, again called the public attention to his case. He endeavoured also to keep his name alive, by publishing in 1767, “A collection of the genuine Papers, Letters, &c. in the Case of J. Wilkes, late member for Aylesbury in the county of Bucks; a Paris, chez J. W. imprimeur, Run du Columhier, Fauxburgk St. Germain, a I' Hotel de Saxe” In 1768 he again appeared personally upon the theatre of public action. On the 4th of March he addressed a letter of submission to the king, which was delivered by his servant at Buckingham Gate. This, like his first letter to the duke of Grafton, supplicated pardon, which one of his biographers says he was enabled to do without meanness, because “in no one syllable of his otherwise offensive publications had he offended against the personal respect due to the prince on the throne.” But this writer surely forgets the obvious tenour-of his No. 45, as well as the repeated and atrocious attacks he made on the princess dowager, his majesty’s mother.

For some years this made no alteration in his mode of life; and as a clergyman he only occasionally assisted in some neighbouring churches, while he devoted his principal time to his farm and his studies. He appears to have been early ambitious of the character of a poet, and having read Homer, as Don Quixote read romances, he determined to sally forth as his rival, or continuator; and this enthusiasm produced “The Epigoniad,” published in 1753. Ou this poem he is said to have employed fourteen years, which ill agrees with what his biographers tell us of his propensity to poetry, and the original vigour of his mind; for after so much labour it appeared with all the imperfections of a rough sketch. Its reception by the English public was not very flattering, but in his own country “The Epigoniad” succeeded so well, that a second edition was called for in 1759, to which he added a dream in the manner of Spenser. Yet, as this edition was slowly called for, an extraordinary appeal from the general opinion was made by the celebrated Hume, who wrote a very long encomium on the “Epigoniad,” addressed to the editor of the Critical Review. This has been inserted in the late edition of the “English. Poets,” and those who knew Mr. Hume’s taste, friendship, or sincerity, will be best able to determine whether he is serious.

, one of the sons of the preceding, and called Long Harry, to distinguish him from a contemporary and cousin of the same names, who was called Dean Harry, was born at Waddesdon in 1609, and in 1622 became a commoner of Magdalen-hall, where, making great proficiency in his studies, he took the degrees in arts, became a noted tutor, master of the schools, and divinity reader in his hall. In 1638, he was admitted B.D. and preached frequently in and near Oxford, “not,” says Wood, “without girds against the actions, and certain men of the times,” by which we are to understand that he belonged to that growing party which was hostile to the ecclesiastical establishment. Of this he gave so decided a proof in a sermon preached at St. Mary’s in Sept. 1640, in which he inveighed against the ceremonies, &c. that he was ordered to recant, and a form drawn up accordingly. But as he peremptorily refused to sign this, well knowing that the power of the church was undermined, he was suspended from preaching, &C; within the university and itsprecincts, according to the statute. Immediately, however, on the meeting of the Long parliament, he complained to the House of Commons of the treatment he had met with from the vice chancellor: and the committee of religion not only took off his suspension, but ordered his sermon to be printed, as suiting their views.

With this encouragement Wilkinson went on preaching what he pleased without fear, but removed to London, as the better scene of action, where he was made minister of St. Faith’s, under St. Paul’s, and one of the assembly of divines. He was also a frequent preacher before the parliament on their monthly fasts, or on thanksgiving days. In 1645 he was promoted to the rectory of St. Dunstan’s in the West. Soon after he was constituted one of the six ministers appointed to go to Oxford (then in the power of parliament), and to establish preachings and lectures upon presbyterian principles and forms. He was also made one of the visitors for the ejection of all heads of houses, fellows, students, &c. who refused compliance with the now predominant party. For these services he was made a senior fellow of Magdalen college (which, Wood says, he kept till he married a holy woman called the Lady Carr), a canon of Christ church, doctor of divinity, and, after Cheynel’s departure, Margaret professor. Of all this he was deprived at the restoration, but occasionally preached in or about London, as opportunity offered, particularly at Clapham, where he died in September 1675, and his body, after lying in state in Drapers’ hall, London, was buried with great solemnity in the church of St. Dunstan’s. His printed works are entirely “Sermons” preached before the parliament, or in the “Morning Exercise” at Cripplegate and Southwark, and seem to confirm part of the character Wood gives of him, that “he was a good scholar, always a close student, an excellent preacher (though his voice was shrill and whining),” yet, adds Wood, “his sermons were commonly full of dire and confusion, especially while the rebellion lasted.”

, denominated sometimes Junior, but commonly called Dean Harry, to distinguish him from the preceding, was the son of the rev. William Wilkinson of Adwick, or Adwickstreet, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the brother of the first Henry Wilkinson, rector of Waddesdon; and consequently cousin to the preceding Long Harry. He was born at Adwick in 1616, and was educated in grammar at a school in All Saints parish, Oxford. He entered a commoner of Magdalen-hall in 1631, took the degrees in arts, was admitted into holy orders, and became a noted tutor, and moderator or dean of Magdalen-hall. Being of the same principles with his relations, he quitted the university in 1642, and going to London, took the covenant, and became a frequent preacher. On the surrender of Oxford to the parliamentary forces, he returned thither, and was created bachelor of divinity, and made principal of his hall, and moral philosophy reader of the university. He also took the degree of D. D. and became a frequent preacher at the different churches in Oxford. As the governor of a society, Wood ipeaks of him very highly, and his character indeed in this respect was so well established, that he might have remained principal, if he could have conformed. He suffered considerably afterwards for nonconformity, while endeavouring to preach at Buckminster in Leicestershire, Gosfield in Essex, Sible-Headingham, and finally at Connard near Sudbury in Suffolk, where he died May 13, 1690. He was buried at Milding near Lavenham, in Suffolk. Wood says “he was a zealous person in the way he professed, but overswayed more by the principles of education than reason. He was very courteous in speech and carriage, communicative of his knowledge, generous and charitable to the poor; and so public-spirited (a rare thing, adds Wood, in a presbyterian), that he always minded the common good, more than his own concerns.” He was a considerable benefactor to Magdalen -hall, having built the library, and procured a good collection of books for it.

Dr. Willet was usually called a living library, from the great extent of his reading and. of his memory. He was also not less admired as a preacher, not only in his parish, but at court. He also obtained a great, degree of celebrity by his numerous publications, particularly his “Synopsis Papismi; or a general view of papistrie,” a work dedicated to the queen, which, although a folio of 1300 pages, passed through five editions, and was much admired in both universiyes, and by the clergy and laity at large, aa the best refutation of popery, which had then appeared. He died of the consequences of a fall from his horse, at Hoddesdon, in Hertfordshire, Dec. 4, 1621, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. He was interred in the chancel of Barley church, where there is a representation of him at full length, in a praying attitude, and with an inscription, partly Latin and partly English.

, an eminent divine among the dissenters, aud a munificent benefactor to their and other societies, both of the learned and charitable kind, was born about 1644, at Wrexham, in the county of Denbigh, in North Wales. No particulars are known of his parents, or of his early years, but it appears that he laboured under some disadvantages as to education, which, however, he surmounted by spirit and perseverance. He says of himself, that “from five years old, he had no employment, but his studies, and that by nineteen he was regularly admitted a preacher.” As this was among the nonconformists, it is probable that his parents or early connections lay among that society. As he entered on his ministry about 1663, when the exercise of it was in clanger of incurring the penalties of the law, he was induced to go to Ireland, and was there invited to be chaplain to the countess of Meath. Some time after he was called to be pastor to a congregation f dissenters assembling in Wood-street, Dublin, in which situation he continued for nearly twenty years, and was highly approved and useful. Here he married Ins first wife, a lady of family and fortune, which last, while it gave him a superior rank and consequence to many of his brethren, he contemplated only as the means of doing good.

During the troubles in Ireland, at the latter end of the reign of king James II. he found it necessary to return to London in 1687, and resided in London. Here he was of great use upon a very critical occasion. Some of the court agents at that time endeavoured to bring the dissenters in the city to address the king upon his dispensing with the penal laws. In a conference at one of their meetings upon that occasion, in the presence of some of the agents, Mr. Williams declared, “That it was with him past doubt, that the severities of the former reign upon the protestant dissenters were, rather as they stood in the way ^arbitrary power, than for their religious dissent, So it were better for them to be reduced to their former hardships, than declare for measures destructive of the liberties of their country; and that for himself, before he would concur in such an address, which should be thought an approbation pf the dispensing power, he would choose to lay down his liberty at his majesty’s feet.” He pursued the argument with such clearness and strength, that all present rejected the motion, and the emissaries went away disappointed. There was a meeting at the same time of a considerable number of the city clergy, waiting the issue of their deliberation, who were greatly animated and encouraged by this resolution of the dissenting ministers. Very recent experience has shewn how much Mr. Williams differs in this matter from his descendants, many of whom have been the professed advocates fqr what is called catholic eman r cipation.

After the revolution, Mr. Williams was not only frer quentiy consulted by king William concerning Irish affairs, with which he was well acquainted, but often regarded at court on behalf of several who fled from Ireland, and were capable of doing service to government. He received great acknowledgments and thanks upon this account, when, in 1700, he went back to that country to visit his old friends, and to settle some affairs, relative to his estate in that kingdom. After preaching for some time occasionally in London, he became pastor of a numerous congregation at Hand-alley in Bishopsgate- street in 1688, and upon the death of the celebrated Richard Baxter in 1691, by whom Jhe was greatly esteemed, he ^succeeded him as one of those who preached the merchants’ -lecture, at Pinners’- hall, Broad-street. But it was not long before the frequent clashings in the discourses of these lecturers caused a division. Mr. Williams had preached warmly against some antinotnian tenets, which giving offence to many persons, a design was formed to exclude him from the lecture. Upon this he, with Dr. Bates, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Alsop, &c. retired and raised another lecture at Salter’s-hall on the same day and hour. This division was soon after increased by the publication of some of Dr. Crisp’s works, (See Crisp) and a controversy took place as to the more or less of antinomianism in these works, which lasted for some years, and was attended with much intemperance and personal animosity. What is rather remarkable, the contending parties appealed to bishop Stillingfleet, and Dr. Jonathan Edwards of Oxford, who both approved of jivhat Mr. Williams had done. Mr. Williams’ s chief publication on the subject was entitled “Gospel Truth stated and vindicated,” 1691, 12mo. The controversy by his friends was called the antinonpian, but by Dr. Crisp’s advocates the neonomian controversy. Mr. Williams was not only reckoned a heretic, but attempts were even made to injure his moral character, which, however, were defeated by the unanimous testimony of all who knew him, or took he trouble to inquire into the ground of such accusations^ In his congregation, it is said, he lost no friend. $H

Some time after the death of his wife, he married in 1701, as his second, Jane, the widow of Mr. Francis Barkstead, and the daughter of one Guill, a French refugee; by her also he had a very considerable fortune, which he devoted to the purposes of liberality. Of his political sentiments, we Jearn only, that he was an enemy to the bill against occasional conformity, and a staunch friend to the union with Scotland. When on a visit to that country in 1709, he received a diploma for the degree of D. D. from the university of Edinburgh, and another from Glasgow, Qne of his biographers gives us the following account of his conduct on this occasion. “He was so far from seeking or expecting thjs honour, that he was greatly displeased with the occasion of it, and with great modesty he entreated Mr. Carstairs, the principal of the college at Edinburgh, to prevent it. But the dispatch was made before that desire of his could reach them. I have often heard Jiim express his dislike of the thing itself, and much more his distaste at the pfficious vanity of some who thought they had much obliged him when they moved for the procuring it; and this, not that he despised the honour of being a graduate in form in that profession in which he was now a truly reverend father; nor in the least, that he refused to receive any favours from the ministers of the church gf Scotland, for whom he preserved a very great esteem, and on many occasions gave signal testimonies of his respect; but he thought it savoured of an extraordinary franity? that the English presbyterians should accept a nominal distinction, which the ministers of the church of Scotland declined for themselves, and did so lest it should break in upon that parity which they so severely maintained; which parity among the ministers of the gospel, the presbyterians in England acknowledged also to be agreeable to that scripture rule, ‘ Whosoever will be greatest among you let him be as the younger,’ Luke xxii. 26 and Matt, xxiii. 8, `Be ye not called Rabbi,' of which text a learned writer says, it should have been translated, `Be ye not called doctors’ and the Jewish writers and expositors of their law, are by some authors styled Jewish Rabbins, by others, and that more frequently, doctors, &c. &c.” Our readers need scarcely be told that this is another point on which Dr. Williams differs much from his successors, who are as ambitious of the honour of being called doctor, as he was to avoid it.

, bishop of Ossory, in Ireland, was born at Caernarvon, in North Wales, about 1589. In 1603 he was sent to Oxford by his uncle but this relation failing to support him, he was, after two years, received at Cambridge by the kindness of a friend, and admitted of Jesus college, where he took his degrees in arts, and after entering into holy orders, was appointed curate of Hanwell, in Middlesex. Afterwards the earl of Southampton gave him the rectory of Foscot, in Buckinghamshire; and he was for some years lecturer of St. Peter’s, Cheapside, London. While in this situation, he informs us, “his persecutions began from the puritans,” who took offence at something he had preached and printed; and it was now he published his first book, called “The Resolution of Pilate,” which neither Harris nor Wood mention among his works; and another called “The Delight of the Saints. A most comfortable treatise of grace and peace, and many other excellent points, whereby men may live like saints on earth, and become true saints in heaven,” Lond. 1622, /di. reprinted 1635. His boldness in the pulpit raised him many enemies, but their persecutions were for some time of no avail, until at length they prevailed on the bishop of London to suspend him. This appears to have been in his twenty-seventh year, when, notwithstanding, he went back, to Cambridge and took his degree of B. D. On his return to London he found friends in Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and in the chancellor Egerton, who gave him the Jiving of Llan-Lechyd, in the diocese of Bangor, worth lOQl. and a better rectory than what he was suspended from by the bishop of London. He now found a new enemy. Refusing another living in exchange for what -he had just got, the bishop of Bangor presented certain articles against him ex officio, and he was again obliged to appeal to the Arches. The bishop of Bangor being in town, the archbishop of Canterbury sent for them both, and checked the bishop for his prosecution, and gave Mr. Williams a licence to preach through several dioceses of his province.

The chancellor Egerton dying the 15th of March, 1616—17, gave Williams some books and papers, all written with his own hand. His lordship, upon the day of his death, called Williams to him, and told him “that if he wanted money he would leave him such a legacy in his will as should enable him to begin the world like a gentleman.” “Sir,” says Williams, “I kiss your hands you have filled my cup full; I am far from want, unless it be of your lordship’s directions how to live in the world if I survive you.” “Well,” said the chancellor, “I know you are an expert workman; take these tools to work with; they are the best I have;” and so gave him the books and papers. Bishop Hacket says that he saw the notes; and that they were collections for the well-ordering the high court of parliament, the court of chancery, the star-chamber, and the council-board: so that he had a good stock to set up with; and Hacket does not doubt but his system of politics was drawn from chancellor Egerton’s papers.

The lord chancellor Bacon being removed from his office in May 1621, Williams was made lord keeper of the great seal of England, the 10th of July following; and the same month bishop of Lincoln, with the deanery of Westminster, and the rectory of Waldgrave, in commendam. When the great seal was brought to the king from lord Bacon, his majesty was overheard by some near him to say, upon the delivery of it to him, “Now by my soule, I am pained at the heart where to bestow this for, as to my lawyers, I thinke they be all knaves.” In this high office bishop Williams discharged his duties with eminent ability, and with extraordinary diligence and assiduity. It is said by Hacket, that when our prelate first entered upon the office, he had such a load of business, that he was forced to sit by candle-light in the court of chancery two hours before day, and to remain there till between eight and nine; after which he repaired to the House of Peers, where he sat as speaker till twelve or one every day. After a short repast at home, he then returned to hear the causes in chancery, which he could not dispatch in the morning; or if he attended the council at Whitehall, he came back towards evening, and followed his chancery business till eight at night, and later. After this when he came home, he perused what papers his secretary brought to him; and when that was done, though late in the night, he prepared himself for the business which was to be transacted next morning in the House of Lords. And it is said that when he had been one year lord keeper, he had finally concluded more causes than had been decided in the preceding seven years. In the Star-chamber he behaved with more lenity and moderation in general, than was usual among the judges of that court. He would excuse himself from inflicting any severe corporal punishment upon an offender, by saying that “councils had forbidden bishops from meddling with blood in a judicial form.” In pecuniary fines he was also very lenient, and very ready to remit his own share in fines. Of this we have the following instance. Sir Francis Inglefield had asserted before witnesses, that “he could prove this holy bishop judge had been bribed by some that had fared well in their causes,” The lord keeper immediately called upon sir Francis to prove his assertion, which he being unable to do, was fined some thousand pounds to be paid to the king and the injured party. Soon after bishop Williams sent for sir Francis, and told him he would give him a demonstration that he was above a bribe; and “for my part,” said he, “I forgive you every penny of my fine, and will beg of his majesty to do the same.” This piece of generosity made sir Francis acknowledge his fault, and he was afterwards received into some degree of friendship and acquaintance with the lord keeper. Weldon’s charge of corruption against Williams seems to be equally ill founded,nothing of the kind having ever been proved.

, an eminent statesman and benefactor to Queen’s college, Oxford, was son of Joseph Williamson, vicar of Bridekirk in Cumberland from 1625 to 1634. At his first setting out in life he was employed as a clerk or secretary by Richard Tolson, esq.; representative in parliament for Cockermouth; and, when at London with his master, begged to be recommended to Dr. Busby, that he might be admitted into Westminsterschool, where he made such improvement that the master recommended him to the learned Dr. Langbaine, provost pf Queen’s college, Oxford, who came to the election at Westminster. He admitted him on the foundation, under the tuition of Dr. Thomas Smith (for whom sir Joseph afterwards procured the bishopric of Carlisle), and provided for him at his own expence; and when he had taken his bachelor’s degree, February 2, 1653, sent him to France as tutor to a person of quality. On his return to college he was elected fellow, and, as it is said, took deacon’s orders. In 1657 he was created A. M. by diploma. Soon after the restoration he was recommended to sir Edward Nicholas, and his successor Henry earl of Arlington, principal secretary of state, who appointed him clerk or keeper of the paper-office at Whitehall (of which he appointed Mr. Smith deputy), and employed him in translating and writing memorials in French; and June 24, 1677, he was sworn one of the clerks of the council in ordinary, and knighted. He was under-secretary of state in 1665; about which time he procured for himself the writing of the Oxford Gazettes then newly set up, and employed Charles Perrot, fellow of Oriel college, who had a good command of his pen, to do that office under him till 1671. In 1678, 1679, 1698, 1700, he represented the borough of Thetford in parliament. In 1685, being then recorder of Thetford, he was again elected, but Heveningham the mayor returned himself, and on a petition it appeared that the right of election was in the select body of the corporation before the charter; and in 1690 he lost his election by a double return. Wood says he was a recruiter for Thetford to sit in that parliament which began at Westminster May 8, 1661. At the short treaty of Cologne, sir Joseph was one of the British plenipotentiaries, with the earl of Sunderland and sir Leolin Jenkins, and at his return was created LL.D. June 27, 1674, sworn principal secretary of state September 11, on the promotion of the earl of Arlington to the chamberlainship of the household, and a privy counsellor. On November 18, 1678, he was committed to the Tower by the House of Commons, on a charge of granting commissions and warrants to popish recusants; but he was the same day released by the king, notwithstanding an address from the House. He resigned his place of secretary February 9, 1678, and was succeeded by the earl of Sunderland; who, if we believe Kapin, gave him 6000l. and 500 guineas to induce him to resign. In December that year he married Catherine Obrien, baroness Clifton, widow of Hen/y lord Obrien, who died in August. She was sister and sole heiress to Charles duke of Richmond, and brought sir Joseph large possessions in Kent and elsewhere, besides the hereditary stewardship of Greenwich. Some ascribe the loss of the secretary’s place to this match, through the means of lord Danby, who intended this lady for his son. She died November 1702. Sir Joseph was president of the Royal Society in 1678. Under 1674, Wood says of him that “he had been a great benefactor to his college, and may be greater hereafter if he think fit,” Upon some slight shewn by the college, he had made a will by which he had given but little to it, having disposed of his intended benefaction to erect and endow a college at Dublin, to be called Queen’s college, the provosts to be chosen from its namesake in Oxford, But soon after his arrival in Holland 1696, with. Mr. Smith, his godson and secretary, (afterwards, 1730, provost of Queen’s college, Oxford,) being seized with a violent fit of the gout, he sent for his secretary, who had before reconciled him tothe place of his education, and calling him to his bedside, directed him to take his will out of a drawer in the bureau, and insert a benefaction of 6000l. When this was done and ready to be executed, before the paper had been read to him, “in comes sir Joseph’s lady.” The secretary, well knowing he had no mind she should be acquainted with it, endeavoured to conceal it; and on her asking what he had got there, he answered, “nothing but news, Madam;” meaning, such as she was not to know: and by this seasonable and ready turn prevented her further inquiries.

Although Dr. Willis’s works abound with the reveries of the chemical philosophy, and consequently have fallen into considerable neglect, there are many useful and curious things to be found in them. His “Cerebri Anatome” is the best of his works; but even here, although his anatomical descriptions be good, yet his physiological opinions must be acknowledged to be altogether extravagant and absurd. For example, he lodges common sense in the corpus striatum of the brain, imagination in the corpus callosum, and memory in the cineritious matter which encompasses the medullary. Yet^ after all, what is this to the more monstrous absurdities of that modern piece of quackery, called Craniology? Vieussens, who in his “Neurographia,” animadverted on Willis, is notwithstanding under great obligations to him, and Willis’s enumeration of the nerves is still adhered to by anatomists.

The rev. Mr. Gibberd, curate of Whaddon, gives him the following character. “He was strictly religious, without any mixture of superstition or enthusiasm. The honour of God was his prime view in every action of his life. He was a constant frequenter of the church, and never absented himself from the holy communion; and, as to the reverence he had for places more immediately set apart for religious duties, it is needless to mention what his many public works, in building, repairing, and beautifying churches, are standing evidences of. In the time of health he called his family together every evening, and, besides his private devotions in the morning, he always retired into his closet in the afternoon at about four or five o'clock. In his intercourse with men he was in every respect, as far as I could judge, very upright. He was a good landlord, and scarce ever raised his rents; and that his servants likewise had no reason to complain of their master is evident from the long time they generally lived with him. He had many valuable and good friends, whose kindness he always acknowledged. And though perhaps he might have some disputes with a few people, tfye reason of which it -would be disagreeable to enter into f yet it is with great satisfaction that I can affirm that he was perfectly reconciled with every one. He was, with regard to himself, peculiarly sober and temperate; and he has often told me, that he denied himself many things, that he might bestow them better. Indeed, he appeared to me to have no greater regard to money than as it furnished him with an opportunity of doing good. He supplied yearly three charity schools at Whaddon, Bletchley, and Fenny Stratford; and besides what he constantly gave at Christmas, he was never backward in relieving his poor neighbours with both wine and money when they were sick, or in any kind of distress. He was a faithful friend where he professed it, and always ready to contribute any thing to their advantage.”

, a celebrated natural historian, was the only sort of sir Francis Willughby, knt, and was born in 1635. His natural advantages, with regard to birth, talents, and fortune, he applied in such a manner as to procure to himself honours that might more truly be called his own. He was addicted to study from his childhood, and was so great an ceconomist of his time, that he was thought by his friends to have impaired his health by his incessant application, By this means, however, he attained great skill in all branches of learningand got deep insight into the most abstruse kinds of knowledge, and the most subtle parts of the mathematics. But observing, in the busy and inquisitive age in which he lived, that the history of animals was in a great measure neglected by his countrymen, he applied himself particularly to that province, and used all diligence to cultivate and illustrate it. To prosecute this purpose more effectually, he carefully read over what had been written by others on that subject; and in 1660, we find him residing at Oxford for the benefit of the public library. But he had been originally a member of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1656, and of A. M. in 1659. After leaving Oxford, he travelled, in search of natural knowledge, several times over his native country; and afterwards to France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Low-Countries, attended by his ingenious friend Mr. John Ray, and others; in all which places, says Wood, he was so inquisitive and successful, that not many sorts of animals, described by others, escaped his diligence. He died July 3, 1672, aged only thirty-seven; to the great loss of the republic of letters, and much lamented by those of the Royal Society, of which he was an eminent member and ornament. He left to Mr. Ray the charge of educating his two infant sons, with an annuity of 70/, which constituted ever after the chief part of Ray’s income. A most exemplary character of him may be seen iti Ray’s preface to his “Ornithology;” whence all the particulars are concisely and elegantly summed up in a Latin epitaph, on a monument erected to his memory in the church of Middleton in Warwickshire, where he is buried with his ancestors. His works are, “Ornithologiae libri tres: in quibus aves omnes hactenus cognitse in methodum naturis suis convenientem redactoe accurate describuntur, descriptiones iconibus elegantissimis, & vivarnm avium simillimis atri incisis illustrantur,” 1676, folio. This was prepared for the press, corrected and digested into order, by Hay, afterwards by him also translated into English, with an appendix, and figures engraved at the expense of Mr. Willaghby, but of inferior merit, 1673, folio. 2. “Historiae Piscium libri quatuor, &c.” 1686, folio. This was revised and digested by Ray, with engravings of many species, not then known in England. 3. “Letter containing some considerable observations about that kind of wasps called Ichneumones, &c. dated Aug. 24, 1671.” See the Phil. Trans. N* 76. 4. “Letter about the hatching a kind of bee lodged in old willows, dated July 10, 1671.” Trans. N fl 47. 5. “Letters of Francis Wiilughby, esq.” added to “Philosophical Letters between the late learned Mr. Ray and several of his correspondents,” 8vo, By William Derham.

, a teacher of considerable note, and a publisher of some school-books of reputation, was the second son of Thomas Willymot of Royston, in the county of Cambridge, by his wife Rachel, daughter of Dr. Pindar of Springfield in Essex. He was born, we are not told in what year, at Royston, and admitted scholar of King’s- college, Cambridge, Oct. 20, 1692. He proceeded A. B. in 1697, A. M. in 1700, and LL. D. in 1707. After taking his master’s degree he went as usher to Eton, where Cole says “he continued not long, but kept a school at Isleworth in Middlesex:” Harwood, however, says that he was many years an assistant at Eton, and was the editor of several books for the use of boys educated there* Harwood adds that he was tutor, when at King’s college, to lord Henry and lord Richard Lumley, sons of the earl of Scarborough; and Cole informs us that he was private tutor in the family of John Bromley, of Horseheath-hall, in Cambridgeshire, esq. father of Henry lord Montfort; “but here endeavouring to pay his addresses to one of the ladies of the family, he was dismissed. 7 ' When he left Eton is uncertain, but in 1721 we find him master of a private school at Isleworth, and at that time one of the candidates for the mastership of St. Paul’s school, in which he did not succeed. By an advertisement then published by him, it would appear that his failure arose in son>$, measure from his being suspected of an attachment to the pretender, which he denies. Some time before this he had studied civil law, and entered himself of Doctors’-comtnons, but changing his mind, returned to college, took holy orders, and was made vice-provost of King’s college hi the above year, 1721, at which time he was senior fellow. In 1735 he was presented to the rectory of Milton near Cambridge, after a contest with the college, which refused him, in consideration of his not having remained and performed the requisite college exercises. Even with this, Cole says, he was soon dissatisfied, and would have returned to his fellowship had it been possible. He died June 7, 1737, of an apoplexy, at the Swan Inn, at Bedford, on his return from Bath. Among his publications for the use of schools arej 1.” The peculiar use and signification of certain words in the Latin tongue,“&c. 1705, 8vo. 2.” Particles exemplified in English sentences, &c.“1703, 8vo. 3.” Larger examples, fitted to Lilly’s grammarrules.“4.” Smaller examples, &c.“5.” Three of Terence’s comedies, viz. the Andria, the Adelpbi, and th Hecyra, with English notes,“1706, 8vo. 6.” Select stories from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, with English notes.“7.” Phscdrus Fables, with English notes,“&c. &c. He published also” A collection of Devotions for the Altar,“2 vols. 8vo” Lord Bacon’s Essays,“2 vols. 8vo. and” A new translation of Thomas a, Kempis,“1722, The com* mon copies are dedicated” To the Sufferers by the South Sea.“It was originally dedicated to Dr. Godolphin, provost of Eton, but as he had abused the fellows of the college in it, upon recollection he called it in,” so,“says Cole,” this curious dedication is rarely to be met with."

, a learned lawyer, and lord chief justice of the court of common pleas, was the second son of Robert Wilmot, of Osmaston in the county of Derby, esq. and of Ursula, one of the daughters and coheiresses of sir Samuel Marow, of Berkswell, in the county of Warwick, bart.He was born Aug. 16, 1709, at Derby, where his father then lived, and after having acquired the rudiments of learning at the free-school in that town, under the Ker, Mr. Blackwell, was placed with the Rev. Mr. Hunter at Lichfield, where he was contemporary with Johnson and Garrick. At an after period of his life it could be remarked that there were then five judges upon the bench who had been 'educated at Lichfield school, viz. Willes, Parker, Noel, Lloyd, and Wilmot. In Jan. 1724, he was removed to Westminster-school, and placed under Dr. Freind; and here, and at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he resided until Jan. 1728, he laid the foundation of many friendships, which he preserved through a long life. At the university he contracted a passion for study and retirement that never quitted him, and he was often heard to say, that at this time the height of his ambition was to become a fellow of Trinity- hall, and to pass his life in that learned society. His natural disposition had induced him to give the preference to the church; but his father, who was a man of sagacity as well as of reading, had destined him to the study of the law, which he accordingly prosecuted with much diligence at the Inner Temple, and was called to the fear in June 1732. In 1743 he married Sarah, daughter of Thomas Rivett, of Derby, esq.

We are not acquainted with any interesting particulars of Mr. Wilmot’s life between the period of his leaving the university and his being in a considerable degree of practice as a barrister: but as duty and filial piety, more than inclination, had induced him to embrace the profession of the law, his pursuit after its emoluments was not eager, though his study of it was unremitted. He was regular in his attendance on the terms, but his practice was at this, time chiefly confined to jhe county of Derby, where he was much respected. In town his business was not great; jet in those causes in which he was engaged, his merit, learning, and eloquence, were universally acknowledged, and gained him the esteem and approbation of some of the greatest ornaments of the profession, among whom were sir Dudley Ryder, then attorney-general, and the lord chancellor Hardwicke. In 1753, the chancellor proposed to make him one of his majesty’s counsel, and afterwards king’s serjeant: but both these he declined, chiefly from a disinclination to London business, and a wish, that never left him, of retiring altogether into the country. On this he was so determined that in 1754, he actually made what he called his farewell speech in the court of exchequer, which he had of late years attended more than any other. Perhaps his disposition was not calculated for forensic disputation, though his profound knowledge and indefatigable labour, as well as ability and penetration, had made him, in the opinion of those who knew him, one of the best lawyers of his time. He had more than one offer of a seat in the House of Commons about this period, bat he uniformly djeclined every temptation of this kind. He had not however long enjoyed his retirement in Derbyshire before he received a summons to town to succeed sir Martin Wright, as judge of the court of King’s Bench. With much persuasion, aided perhaps by the increase of his family, consisting now of five children, he was induced to accept this preferment in February 1755, which was accompanied, as usual, with the honour of knighthood. It is not known to what interest he owed this promotion, and it seems most fair to conclude that a sense of his merit only must have induced his patrons to send to the country for one so resolute on retirement, when so many, at hand, would have been glad to accept the office.

Among many other parts of this laborious profession, to which sir Eardley had given unremitting attention, is that of taking notes, to which he had invariably accustomed himself both before and after he was called to the bar. These notes were transcribed by his clerk, and he thus by degrees became possessed of many volumes of ms. notes, both in law and equity. The same practice he continued after he was raised to the bench, till he heard that Mr. (afterwards sir James) Burrow intended to publish his notes from the time of lord Mansfields being appointed chief justice; but he uniformly lent Mr. Burrow his papers from this period, and with such short notes as he took himself. We may here mention that the “Notes of Opinions delivered in different courts,” by sir John Eardley Wilmot, vrere published in 1802, 4to, by his son, with a memoir of his life, from which we have extracted the present account.

Although sir Eardley persevered unremittingly in the discharge of his duty, it was not without a frequent sigh for a more quiet and retired station than that of the court of King’s Bench. In 1765, a serious treaty was set on foot by him, to exchange his present office for one, not less honourable indeed, but undoubtedly at that time less lucrative and less conspicuous, that of chief justice of Chester, which was then held by Mr. Morton; but the treaty was at length broken off, and when in the summer of 1766, lord Camden, who had been chief justice of the common pleas about four years, was appointed lord chancellor, sir Eardley was promoted to the chief justiceship in his room. Here, however, as in former instances, his friends had no little trouble in overcoming his repugnance to a more elevated situation. It is believed, that next to his character for learning and integrity, he was indebted for this preferment, to the high opinion and esteem of both the old and new chancellor, and also to the friendship of lord Shelburne, appointed at that time one of the secretaries of state. His lordship, though a much younger man, had ever since his first acquaintance with him, several years before, conceived so great an admiration of his talents; and esteem for his virtues, that he had Jong lived with him in habits of the greatest intimacy and friendship. In the evening of the day that sir Eardley kissed hands on being appointed chief justice, one of his sons, a youth of seventeen, attended him at his bed-side. “Mow,” said he, “my son, I will tell you a secret worth your knowing and remembering; the elevation I have met with in life, particularly this last instance of it, has not been owing to any superior merit or abilities, but to my humility, to my not having set up myself above others, and to an uniform endeavour to pass through life, void of offence towards God and man.” Sir Eardley was now called to preside in a court where he had many seniors on the bench; but the appointment gave general satisfaction, and his acknowledged abilities, his unaffected modesty and courtesy, soon made him as much esteemed and beloved in his new court, as he had been before in his old one.

, second son of the preceding, was born in 1748, and received the first rudiments of education at Derby and at Westminster schools, at both which places he remained but a very short time. From thence he was placed at the academy at Brunswick; and having remained there till he was seventeen, he went to University college, Oxford, where he was contemporary with many men who have since distinguished themselves in public and private life. He was at first intended for the church, as we have seen in our account of his father; but, upon the death of his elder brother in the East Indies, and upon the elevation of his father to one of the highest judicial situations, his intended pursuits were changed, and the profession of the law was ultimately fixed upon. From All Soujs college, of which he had been elected a fellow, he removed to the Temple, and studied the law under the superintendance of sir Eardley. He was at the usual time called to the bar, and went the Midland circuit. He soon after married the only daughter of S. Sainthill, esq. by whom he had four daughters and one son, all of whom survived him.

It was in the summer of 1790, that the revolutionary storm, so long collecting in France, suddenly discharged itself; and an immense number of French clergy and laity took refuge in this country. The subject of these memoirs was then in town; and the continual scenes of distress he was daily witnessing in the streets, added to particular instances of misery which came under his own immediate observation, induced him alone, without previous communication with any one, to advertize for a meeting of the gentlemen then in town, at the Freemason’s Tavern, to take into consideration some means of affording relief to their Christian brethren. The meeting was most numerous and respectable; the archbishop of Canterbury, many bishops, and most of the nobility then in London, attending; and Mr. Wilmot being called to the chair, and having stated his object in calling them together, subscriptions to a large amount were immediately entered into; and a fund created, which, with the assistance of parliament, and the 'contributions of every parish in the kingdom, relieved, and continued to relieve until the late prosperous events rendered a continuance unnecessary, those unhappy exiles from theit native country. Mr. Wilmot continued, till he retired into the country a few years before his death, to dispense under government this national bounty; a task well suited to that universal benevolence and kindness of heart which so eminently distinguished him, and in, which he had few equals, and none superior.

It is not known at what time he returned to England, but he was in London in 1758, and resided over the north arcade of the piazza, Covent-garden, at whjch time he had gained great celebrity as a landscape-painter. To the first exhibition of 1760, he sent his picture of Niobe, which is now in the possession of his royal highness the duke of Gloucester. Sir Joshua Reynolds, in his last lecture but one, has offered some strictures on the figures introduced in this celebrated picture, in which Mr. Fuseli seems to agree, but which Edwards labours to oppose; and even to trace sir Joshua’s opinion to private pique. In 1765, Wilson exhibited, with other pictures, a view of Rome, from the villa Madama, a capital performance, which was purchased by the late marquis of Tavistock, and is probably in the collection of the duke of Bedford. When the Royal Academy was instituted, he was chosen one of the founders, and, after the death of Hayman, was made librarian; an office which his necessities rendered desirable, and which he retained until his decayed health compelled him to retire to his brother’s in Wales, where he died in May 1782. Mr. Opie says, in his “Lectures,” that Wilson, though second to no name of any school or country in classical and heroic landscape, succeeded with difficulty, by pawning some of his works at the age of seventy (sixty-seven or sixty-height), in procuring ten guineas to carry him to die in unhonoured and unnoticed obscurity in Wales.“Edwards informs us, that” though be had acquired great fame, yet he did not find that constant employment which his abilities deserved. This neglect might probably result from his own conduct; for it must be confessed, that Mr. Wilson was not very prudentially attentive to his interest; and though a man of strong sense, and superior education to most of the artists of his time, he certainly did not possess that suavity of manners which distinguished many of his contemporaries. On this account, his connexions and employment insensibly diminished, and left him, in the latter part of his life, in comfortless infirmity.“This appears to us but a sorry excuse for the neglect Wilson met with for what has patronage to do with the temper of anartist Wilson’s taste was so exquisite, says Fuseli, and his eye so chaste, that whatever came from his easel bore the stamp of elegance and truth. The subjects he chose were such as did credit to his judgment. They were the selections of taste; and whether of the simple, the elegant, or the sublime, ^they were treated with an equal felicity. Indeed, he possessed that versatility of power, as to be one minute an eagle sweeping the heavens, and the next, a wren twittering a simple note on the humble thorn. His colouring was in general vivid and natural; his touch, spirited and free; his composition, simple and elegant; his lights and shadows, broad and well distributed; his middle tints in perfect harmony, while his forms in general produced a pleasing impression. Wilson has been called the English Claude; a comparison which Mr. Fuseli cannot admit, from the total dissimilarity of their style.” Claude,“he adds,” little above mediocrity in all other branches of landscape-painting, had one great prerogative, sublimity; but his powers rose and set with the sun, he could only be serenely sublime or romantic. Wilson, without so great a feature, had a more varied and more proportionate power: he observed nature in all her appearances, and had a characteristic touch for all her forms. But though in effects of dewy freshness and silent evening lights few equalled, and fewer excelled him, his grandeur is oftener allied to terror, bustle, and convulsion, than to calmness and tranquillity. Figures, it is difficult to say, which of the two introduced or handled with greater infelicity: treated by Claude or Wilson, St. Ursula with her Virgins, and yneas Landing, Niobe with her family, or Ceyx drawn on the shore, have an equal claim to our indifference or mirth."

From this time our prelate continued to perform all the offices of a good bishop and a good man; and we hear little more of him till 1721 and 1722, when the orthodoxy of his spirit, and zeal for church-discipline, seem to have involved him in altercations and difficulties. When the famous work called “The Independent Whig,” came into the diocese of Man, the bishop immediately issued an act against it, dated Jan. 27, 1721, declaring its purpose to be subversive of the doctrine, discipline, and government, of the church, as well as undermining the Christian religion. But his zeal against it did not stop here, for he took it upon him to seize it wherever he found it: and accordingly, when, Mr. Worthington sent it as a present to the public library of the island, the bishop commanded one Stevenson to take and keep it; so that it should neither be deposited in the library, nor yet restored to the right owner. Complaint was made to the governor of the island, who committed Stevenson to prison till he should make reparation. The bishop remonstrated; and the governor replied, in which reply he charged the bishop, who had pleaded obedience to the king’s commands in his attempts to suppress irreligion, with having neglected to use the prayers composed in the time of the rebellion in 1715, which was also an equal object of obedience. The issue of this affair was, that the book was restored, and Stevenson set at liberty.

* When about to visit that country in perhaps I make the time shorter than his official capacity, he called on Dr. it was. Such conversation I shall not Johnson and in the course of con- have again till I come back to the reversation lamented that he should be gions of Literature, and there Windunder the necessity of sanctioning ham is inter stellas luna. minores.“Alpractices of which he could not ap- though e have said that illness was prove.” Don't be afraid, sir,“said the cause of Mr. Windham’s resignathe tioctor, with a pleasant smile, tion, his biographer affords some rea­”you will soon in -ke a very pretty son to think that it really arose from rascal.“Dr. Johnson in a letter to the conscientious scruples which Dr. Dr. Bruckle.-'by, written an Ashbourne Johnson thought might soon vanish, in 1784 says:” Mr. Wjiuiham has and that it was owing to his being been here to see me he came, [ dissatisfied with some part of the lord think, forty miles ou of his Vay, lieutenaut’s conduct, and staid about a day aud a half; Although from the time of his coming into parliament, he usually voted with the opposition of that day, he never was what is called a thorough party-man, frequently deviating from those to whom he was in general attached, when, in matters of importance, his conscience directed him to take a different course from them; on which account his virtues and talents were never rightly appreciated by persons of that description, who frequently on this ground vainly attempted to undervalue him. After thq rupture between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in consequence of the French revolution, Mr. Windham attached himself wholly to the latter, with whom he had for many years lived in the closest intimacy; and of whose genius and virtues he had always the highest admiration. Being with him thoroughly convinced of the danger then impending over his country from the measures adopted by certain classes of Englishmen, in consequence of that tremendous convulsion, he did not hesitate to unite with the duke of Portland, lord Spencer, and others, in accepting offices under the administration in which Mr. Pitt then presided. On this arrangement Mr. Windham was appointed secretary at war, with a seat in the cabinet, an honourable distinction which had never before been annexed to that office. This station he continued to fill with the highest reputation from that time (17S4) till 1801, when he, lord Spencer, lord Grenville, and Mr. Pitt, resigned their offi-r ces; and shortly afterwards Mr. Addington (now lord viscount Sidmouth) was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury. On the preliminaries of peace with France being acceded to by that statesman aod his coadjutors, in 1801, Mr. Windham made his celebrated speech in parliament, which was afterwards (April 1802) published, with an Appendix, containing a character of the Usurper of the French throne, which will transmit to posterity the principal passages of his life up to that period, in the most lively colours. On Mr. Addington being driven from the helm, in 1805, principally by the battery of Mr, Windham’s eloquence, a new administration was again formed by Mr. Pitt, which was dissolved by his death, in 1806; and shortly afterwards, on lord Grenville’s accepting the office of first lord of the Treasury, Mr. Windham was appointed secretary of state for the war department, which he held till his majesty in the following year thought fit to constitute a new administration. During this period he carried into a law his bill for the limited service of those who enlist in our regular army; a measure which will ever endear his name to the English soldiery. But it is not our purpose to detail the particular measures which either originated from him, or in which he took a part. This indeed would be impossible within any prescribed limits; and would involve the history of perhaps the whole of the war. It may suffice to notice that his genius and talents were universally acknoxvledged. He was unquestionably not inferior, in many respects, to the most admired characters of the age that is just gone by. He had been in his earlier years a very diligent student, and was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. In his latter years, like Burke and Johnson, he was an excursive reader, but gathered a great variety of knowledge from different books, and from occasionally mixing, like them, with very various classes and descriptions of men. His memory was most tenacious. In his parliamentary speeches his principal object always was to convince the understanding by irrefragable argument, which he at the same time enlivened by a profusion of imagery, drawn sometimes from the most abstruse parts of science, but oftener from the most familiar objects of common life. But what gave a peculiar lustre to whatever he urged, was his known and uniform integrity, and a firm conviction in the breasts of his hearers, that he always uttered the genuine and disinterested sentiments of his heart. His language, both in writing and speaking, was always simple, and he was extremely fond of idiomatic phrases, which he thought greatly contributed to preserve the purity of our language. He surveyed every subject of importance with a philosophic eye, and was thence enabled to discover and detect latent mischief, concealed under the plausible appearance of public advantage. Hence all the clarnourers for undefined and imaginary liberty, and all those who meditate the subversion of the constitution under the pretext of Reform, shrunk from his grasp; and persons of this description were his only enemies. But his dauntless intrepidity, and his noble disdain of vulgar popularity, held up a shield against their malice; and no fear of consequences ever drove him from that manly and honourable course, which the rectitude and purity of his mind induced him to pursue. As an orator, he was simple, elegant, prompt, and graceful. His genius was so fertile, and his reading so extensive, that there were few subjects on which he could not instruct, amuse, and persuade. He was frequently (as has justly been observed) “at once entertaining and abstruse, drawing illustrations promiscuously from familiar life, and the recondite parts of science; nor was it unusual to hear him through three adjoining sentences, in the first witty, in the second metaphysical, and in the last scholastic.” But his eloquence derived its principal power from the quickness of his apprehension, and the philosophical profundity of his mind. In private life no man perhaps of any age had a greater number of zealous friends and admirers. In addition to his extraordinary ta-^ lents and accomplishments, the grace and happiness of his address and manner gave an irresistible charm to his conversation; and few, it is believed, of either sex (for his address to ladies was inimitably elegant and graceful) ever partook of his society without pleasure and admiration, or quitted it without regret. His brilliant imagination, his various knowledge, his acuteness, his good taste, his wit, his dignity of sentiment, and his gentleness of manner (for he never was loud or intemperate) made him universally admired and respected. To crown all these virtues and accomplishments, it mav be added, that he fulfilled all the duties. of life, the lesser as well as the greatest, with the most scrupulous attention; and was always particularly ardent in vindicating the cause of oppressed merit. But his best eulogy is the general sentiment of sorrow which agitated every bosom on the sudden s and unexpected stroke which terminated in his death. During the nineteen days of his sickness, his hall was daily visited by several hundred successive inquirers concerning the state of his health; and that part of Pall Mall in which his house was situated, was thronged with carriages filled with ladies, whom a similar anxiety brought to his door. Every morning, and also at a late hour every evening, when his physicians and surgeons attended, several apartments in his house were filled with friends, who anxiously waited to receive the latest and most accurate accounts of the progress or abatement of his disorder. This sympathetic feeling extended almost through every class, and even reached the throiio, for his majesty frequently inquired concerning the state of his health, pronouncing on him this high eulogy, that “he was a genuine patriot, and a truly honest man.” Of the fatal malady which put an end to his invaluable life, erroneous accounts have been published, but the fact was, that on the 8th of July 1809, Mr. Windham, returningon foot at twelve o'clock at niiht from the house of a friend, as he passed by the end of Conduit-street, saw a house on fire, and instantly hastened to the spot, with a view to assist the sufferers; and soon observed that the house of the Hon. Mr. Frederic North was not far distant from that which was then on fire. He therefore immediately undertook to save his friend’s library, which he knew to be very valuable. With the most strenuous activity he exerted himself for four hours, in the midst of rain and the playing of the fire-engines, with such effect that, with the assistance of two or three persons whom he had selected from the crowd assembled on this occasion, he saved four parts out of five of the library; and before they could empty the fifth book room, the house took fire. The books were immediately removed, not to Mr. Windham’s house, but to the houses of the opposite neighbours, who cook great care of them. In removing same heavy volumes he accidentally fell, and suffered a slight contusion on his hip, of which, however, he unfortunately took no notice for some months, when an indolent encysted tumour was formed, which, after due consultation, it was judged proper to cut out. The operation was accordingly performed apparently with success on May 17, 1810, but soon after unfavourable symptoms came on, and terminated fatally June 4, to the unspeakable regret of all who knew him.

, whom Dr. Hutton pronounces one of the clearest writers on arithmetic, &c. in the English language, was the son of Roger Wingate, esq. of Bornend and Sharpenhoe, in Bedfordshire, but was born in Yorkshire in 1593. In 1610 he became a commoner of Queen’s-college, Oxford, and after taking a degree in arts, removed to Gray’s -Inn, London, where he studied the law. His chief inclination, however, was to the mathematics, which he had studied with much success at college. In 1624 he was in France, where he published the scale, or rule of proportion, which had been invented by Gunter, and while in that country gave instructions in the English language to the princess Henrietta Maria, afterwards wife of Charles I. and to her ladies. After his return to England, he became a bencher of Gray VInn; and on the breaking out of the great rebellion, he joined the popular party^ took the covenant, was maxle justice of the peace for the county of Bedford, where he resided at Woodend in the parish of Harlington. His name occurs in the register of Anipthill church, as a justice, in 1654, at which period, according to the republican custom, marriages were celebrated by the civil magistrate. In 1650 he took the oath, commonly called the engagement, became intimate with Cromwell, and was chosen into his parliament for Bedford. He was also appointed one of the commissioners, for that county, to eject from their situations those loyal clergymen and schoolmasters who were accused as being scandalous and ignorant. He died in Gray’s- Inn, in 1656, and was buried in the parish church of St. Andrew Holborn.

"With the cord about his neck, and his wounds streaming, the abbe had still strength to rise, and descending from the second floor to the first, he placed himself against the balustrade, and called for assistance. Moved with compassion, those who heard his cries hastened to his relief, and helping him to his room, laid him upon his bed, where, having no hope of recovery, he received the sacraments, and made his will. After suffering a great deal with heroic constancy, and truly Christian piety, not complaining of his murderer, but most sincerely pardoning him, he calmly breathed his last about fourin the afternoon.

, originally a barber, author of the “Lives of the Poets;” of “Select Lives of England’s Worthies;” “Historical Rarities;” “The Loyal Martyrology;” and some single lives; all in 8vo. Granger says he is a fantastical writer, and of the lowest class of biographers:. but we are obliged to him for many notices of persons and things, which are mentioned by no other writer, which must account for his “England’s Worthies” being a book still in request; and, as some of the vampers think, even worthy of being illustrated by prints. It is not, however, generally known, that it is necessary to have both editions of this work; those of 1660 and 1684, in order to possess the whole of his biographical labours: Winstanley, who could trim in politics as well as trade, omitted from the latter all the republican lives, and substituted others in their room. He flourished in the reigns of Charles I. II. andJames II. and was probably alive at the publication of his second edition, in which he changed his dedication, adopting new patrons. * In the “Gensura Literaria,” vol. V. is an account of “The Muses Cabinet,” 1655, 12mo, containing his original poetry, which is called in the title-page “both pleasant and profitable;” but now we are afraid will not be thought either. He was a great plagiary, and took his character of the English poets from Phillips’s “Theatrum,” and much from Fuller and others, without any acknowledgment.

, a learned divine, of whom our memorial is but scanty, was born at Gloucester -28th April 1737. He was educated chiefly in his native city, and distinguished by his thirst after^knowledge, and his diligent application to school-exercises. Obtaining an exhibition at Pembroke-college, Oxford, he there became scholar^ fellow, and tutor, taking his degree of M. A. in 1759. In 1767, archbishop Seeker made him rector of Wittri.shamin Kent, and called him to be one of his domestic chaplains and the following year he went to Oxford, and took his degree of bachelor of divinity. After the deathof his grace, in the following year, he resided at Wittrisham, or on the small living of St. Peter, in Wallingford; until, in 1774, relinquishing these preferments, he was presented,. by the late bisbrop of Winchester, to the rectory of Brightwell, Berks. At Brightwell he lived constantly forty years, and at Brightwell he died, July 29, 1814, leaving a widow, two sons, and one grand -daughter. In early life Mr. Wintle was unremitting in the attainment of useful learning, and in the practice of religion and virtue; and in his more mature and later years he ceased not, by precept and example, to set forth the expediency and advantages of religion, while his fame in the literary world was not inconsiderable. He published, 1st, “An improved Version of Daniel attempted, with a Preliminary Dissertalion, and Notes critical, historical, and explanatory.” 2. “A Dissertation on the Vision contained in the second chapter of Zechariah.”3. “Eight Sermons on the Expediency, Prediction, and Accomplishment, of the Christian Redemption, preached at the Bampton Lecture.” 4. “Christian Ethics, or Discourses on the Beatitudes, with isome preliminary and subsequent Discourses the whole designed to explain, recommend, or enforce, the Duties of the Christian Life.” 5. “A Letter to the Lord Bishop of Worcester, occasioned by his Strictures on Archbishop Seeker and Bishop Lowth, in his Life of Bishop Warburton.” The two first of, these publications will class Mr. Wintle with the most distinguished Biblical scholars, and the Bampton Lectures and Christian Ethics are not less valuable, as illustrations of the Christian system.

In 1738, Mr. Wise published a Letter to Dr. Mead concerning some antiquities in Berkshire, particularly showing that the White Horse was a Saxon monument, 4to. This pamphlet was answered by an anonymous person (supposed to be one Asplin, vicar of Banbury) who in his pamphlet, entitled “The Impertinence and Imposture of Modern Antiquaries displayed,” insinuated a suspicion that Mr. Wise was no friend to the family on the throne. This insinuation gave Mr. Wise great uneasiness, as he then had in view, some preferment from the officers of state (the place of Radcliffe Librarian). He therefore drew up in 1742, another treatise, called “Further Observations upon the White Horse, &c.” and was vindicated also both in his political principles and antiquarian conjectures by a friend (the Rev. Mr. North, F.S.A.) who then concealed his name. (See North, George).

, a name well known among the readers of old English poetry, and revived, of late, by the taste and judgment of some eminent poetical antiquaries, was born at Bentworth, near Alton in Hampshire, June 11, 1588. He was the only son of George Wither of Bentworth (by Anne Serle), who was the second son of John Wither of Manydowne near W r otton St. Lawrence in that county, at which' seat Mr. Bigg Wither, the heir (not the heir male, hut the heir female, who has taken the name), still resides. The poet was educated under John Greaves of Colemore, a celebrated schoolmaster, whom he afterwards commemorated with gratitude in a poem published in 1613. About 1604- he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, under the tuition of John Warner, afterwards bishop of Rochester. Here he informs us, in the proemium to his “Abuses stript and whipt,” that he found the v art of logic, to which his studies were directed, first dull and unintelligible; but at the moment it began all at once to unfold its mysteries to him, he was called home “to Jiold the plough.” He laments that he was thus obliged to forsake “the Paradise of England” to go “in quest of care, despair, and discontent.”

, an able physician and botanist, was born in 1741, at Wiliington in Shropshire, where his father was an apothecary. After being initiated in pharmacy and medicine under his father, he was sent to the university of Edinburgh, where he studied the usual time, and took the degree of doctor of physic in 1766. Not long after he left the university, he settled at Stafford, where meeting with little encouragement, he removed in 1774 to Birmingham; and here his abilities were soon called into action; and in a few years his practice became very extensive, and having a studious turn, he devoted those hours which remained after the business of the day, to philosophical and scientific pursuits. In 1776 he published, in 2 vols. 8vo, the first edition of his “Botanical Arrangement;” a work which, at that time, could be considered as little more than a mere translation from Linnæus of such genera and species of plants as are indigenous in Great Britain and in which Ray’s “Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Britannicarum,” and Hudson’s “Flora Angiica,” could not fail to afford him great assistance; but, in the course of the two other editions of it (the last of which, in 4 vols. 8vo, was published in 1796), this “Arrangement” has been so mucii improved and enlarged, as to have become, in a great measure, an original work; and certainly, as a national Flora^ it must be allowed to be a very elaborate and complete, performance. Botany, however, did not engross all ouf author’s attention: many of his leisure hours he devoted to chemistry and mineralogy. In 1783, he translated Bergman’s “Sciagraphia Regni Mineralis,” under the title of “Outlines of Mineralogy;” and, before and since that time, he addressed!to the Koyal Society several communications relative to those branches of knowledge. Thus, in 1773, we find inserted in the Philosophical Transactions his experiments on different kinds of marie found in Staffordshire. In the same Transactions for 1782, his analysis of the toad-stone, a fossil met with in Derbyshire. In the same work for 1784, his experiment on the terra ponderosa. And lastly, in 1798, his analysis of a hot mineral spring in Portugal. Amidst these diversified pursuits he did not relax in his professional studies. In 1779, he published an “Account of the Scarlet Fever and Sore Throat” and, in 1785, appeared his account of the fox-glove; wherein he laid before the public a very satisfactory body of evidence in favour of the diuretic virtues of this vegetable in various kinds of dropsies. From early life Dr. Withering was of a slender and delicate habit of body; and, not. long after his first establishment in practice, he became subject to attacks of peripneumony. By these repeated attacks his lungs were at length so much injured, and his whole frame so much debilitated, that he found it necessary to repair to a warmer climate. Accordingly, in the autumn of 1793, he made a voyage to Lisbon, where he passed the winter, returning to England the following spring. Thinking he had received benefit from the climate of Portugal, he made a second voyage to Lisbon the following winter, and returned home again 1795. While he was in Portugal, he analyzed the hot mineral waters, called the Caldas. This analysis was published in the Memoirs of the royal academy of sciences at Lisbon; and since in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in London. After his return from his last voyage to Lisbon, his health remained in a very fluctuating state, sometimes so tolerable as to allow going out in a carriage; at other times, so bad as to contine him to his room. In this manner his existence was protracted until Sept. 1799, when he removed from Edgbaston-hall, where he had resided (under a lease granted by the late lord Calthorpe) for several years, to a house. which he had recently purchased, and had named the Larches, and where he died Oct. 6, 1799. To the distinguished rank which he held in *he medical profession, Dr. Withering was raised wholly by personal merit. He possessed great clearness of discernment, joined with a most persevering application. He was of a humane and mild disposition. With his family and among his friends he was cheerful and communicative; but with the world at large, and even in his professional character, he. was shy and reserved.

, an eminent divine in Scotland and America, and a lineal descendant from Knox the celebrated Scotch reformer, was born Feb. 5, 1722, at Yester near Edinburgh, of which parish his father was minister. After some previous education at the public school at Haddingtonj he was, at the age of fourteen, sent to the university of Edinburgh, and having gone through the usual course of academical studies, was licensed to preach, and soon after was ordained minister of the parish of Beith, in the west of Scotland, whence, in a few years, he was removed to be minister at the large and flourishing town of Paisley. During his residence here he was much admired for his general learning, his abilities in the pulpit, and for his writings, one of which, his “Ecclesiastical Characteristics,” is perhaps one of the most humorous satires ever written on a subject which apparently did not admit of that mode of treatment. No satire in our time was read with more approbation and interest than Witherspoon’s a Characteristics“for many years in Scotland. It is levelled at the party in the general assembly of Scotland, who were called the moderate men, in contradistinction to those called the orthodox, of who adhered strictly to the doctrines contained in their national” Confession or Faith.“From this publication, and from his speeches in the general assembly, Witherspoon acquired much influence, but he had to contend with almost all the literary force of the assembly, the Blairs, Gerards, Campbells, and Robertsons, who were considered as the leaders of the moderate party. One day, after carrying some important questions against Dr. Robertson, the latter said in his pleasant manner,” I think you have your men better disciplined than formerly.“”Yes,“replied Witherspoon,” by urging your politics too far, you have compelled us to beat you with your own weapons."

From Philip Muller, and Frederic Beckman, he received his knowledge of theology: a treatise written by Tschirnhausen, entitled “Medicina Mentis & Corporis, 17 engaged him for some time; in consequence of which, in 1702, he had a conference with the author, to clear up some doubts concerning particular passages. The detail into which Tschirnhausen had the complaisance to enter with this’ young philosopher, enabled him to model the whole on a more extensive plan. Having finished that part of his education which he was destined to receive at Jena, he went to Leipsic in 1702; and, having obtained a permission to give lectures, he began his new employment, and, in 1703, opened with a dissertation called” Philosophia practica universalis, methodo mathematica conscripta;“which first attempt served greatly to enhance the reputation of his talents. Wolfe chose, for the foundation of his lessons, the method followed by Tschirnhausen, His philosophy bore as yet a very strong resemblance to that of Descartes, as may be seen in his dissertation” De loquela," which he published in 1703. Leibnitz, to whom he sent it, told him, that he plainly perceived, that his hypothesis concerning the union of the soul and body was not hitherto sufficiently just and explicit. These objections made him review the whole, which afterwards went through several material alterations.

, a brave English officer, was the son of lieutenant-general Edward Wolfe, and was born at Westerham, in the county of Kent, where he was baptised the 11th of Jan. 1726. He seemed by nature formed for military greatness his memory was retentive, his judgment deep, and his comprehension amazingly quick and clear: his constitutional courage was not only uniform and daring, perhaps to an extreme, but he possessed that higher species of it, that strength, steadiness, and activity, of mind, which no difficulties could obstruct, or dangers deter. With an universal liveliness, almost to impetuosity of temper, he was not subject to passion; with the greatest independence of spirit, free from pride. Generous, almost to profusion, he contemned every little art for the acquisition of wealth; whilst he searched after objects for his charity and beneficence, the deserving soldier never went unrewarded, and even the needy inferior officer frequently tasted of his bounty: constant and distinguishing in his attachment, manly and unreserved, yet gentle, kind, and conciliating in his manners. He enjoyed a large share of the friendship, and almost the universal good-will, of mankind; and, to crown all, sincerity and candour, a true sense of honour, justice, and public liberty, seemed the inherent principles of his nature, and the uniform rule of his conduct. He betook himself, when very young, to the profession of arms; and with such talents, joined to the most unwearied assiduity, he was soon singled out as a most rising military genius. Even so early as the battle of Lafeldt, when scardely twenty, he exerted himself in so masterly a manner, at a very critical juncture, that it drew the highest encomiums from the great officer then at the head of the army. During the whole war, he went on, without interruption, forming his military character; was present at every engagement, and never passed undistinguished. Even after the peace, whilst others lolled on pleasure’s downy lap, he was cultivating the arts of war. He introduced (without one act of inhumanity) such regularity and exactness of discipline into his corps, that, as long as the six British battalions on the plains of Minden are recorded in the annals of Europe, so long, will Kingsley’s stand amongst the foremost of that day. Of that regiment he continued lieutenant-colonel, till Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, who roused the sleeping genius of his country, called him forth into higher spheres of action. He was early in the most secret consultations for the attack upon Rochfort: and what he would have done there, and what he afterwards did at Louisbourg, are recorded in history, with due approbation. He was scarcely returned thence, when he was appointed to command the important expedition against Quebec. There his abilities shone out in their brightest lustre: in spite of many unforeseen diifiaulties, from the nature of the situation, from great superiority of numbers, the strength of the place itself, and his own bad state of health, he persevered with unwearied diligence, practising every stratagem of war to effect his purpose. At last, singly, and alone in opinion, he formed and executed that great, that dangerous, yet necessary, plan which drewout the French to their defeat, and will for ever denominate him the conqueror of Canada. When, however, within the grasp of victory, he received a ball through his wrist, which immediately wrapping up, he went on, with the same alacrity, animating his troops by precept and example: but, in a few minutes after, a second ball, through his body, obliged him to be carried off to a small distance in the rear. There, roused from fainting, in the last agonies, by the sound of “They run,” he eagerly asked, “Who run?” and being told the French, and that they were defeated, he said, “then I thank God; I die contented;” and almost instantly expired, Sept. 13, 1759.

Yet in the plenitude of that political influence which he now maintained to the exclusion of the ancient nobility and courtiers, it appears that for some time he preserved the peace of the country, by a strict administration of justice, and by a punctuality in matters of finance, which admitted no very unfavourable comparisons between him and his predecessors. Perhaps the splendour and festivities which he encouraged in the court might, by a diffusion of the royal wealth among the public, contribute to a certain degree of popularity, especially when contrasted with the more economical habits encouraged by Henry VII. It was not until he established his legantine court, a species of English popedom, that the people had reason to complain of a vast and rapacious power, unknown to the constitution, boundless in its capricious decrees, and against which there was no redress. This court, however, could not have inflicted many public injuries, as it formed no part of the complaints of parliament against him, when complaints mi<rht have been preferred with safety, and would have been welcomed from any quarter. At that time, the legality of the power was called in question, but, not the exercise of it.

In 1524, he intonated to the university of Oxford his design of founding a college there, and soon commenced that great work. About two years after he founded his school , or college, as it has been sometimes called, at Ipswich, as a nursery for his intended college at Oxford, aiul this for a short time is said to have rivalled the schools of Winchester and Eton. As he mixed ecclesiastical dignity with all his learned institutions, he appointed here a dean, twelve canons, and a numerous choir. At the same time he sent a circular address to the schoolmasters of England, recommending them to teach their youth the elements of elegant literature, literatura elegantissima, and prescribed the use of Lily’s grammar.

But, as unconnected as Wood represents himself with all human things and persons, it is certain that he had his prejudices and attachments, and strong ones too, for certain notions and systems; and these prejudices and attachments will always be attended with partialities for or against those who shall be found to favour or oppose such notions or systems. They had their influence upon Wood, who, though he always spoke to the best of his judgment, and often with great truth and exactness, yet sometimes gave way to prejudice and prepossession. Among other, freedoms, he took some with the earl of Clarendon, their late chancellor, which exposed him to the censure of the university. He had observed in the life of judge Glynne, that “after the restoration of Charles II. he was made his eldest serjeant at law, by the corrupt dealing of the then chancellor,” who was the earl of Clarendon: for which expression, chiefty, the succeeding earl preferred an action in the vice-chancellor’s court against him for defamation of his deceased father. The issue of the process was a hard judgement given against the defendant; which, to be made the more public, was put into the Gazette in these words: “Oxford, July 31, 1693. On the-29th instant, Anthony Wood was condemned in the vice-chancellor’s court of the university of Oxford, for having written and published, in the second volume of his book, entitled `Athense Oxonienses,' divers infamous libels against the right honourable Edward late earl of Clarendon, lord high chancellor of England, and chancellor of the said university; and was therefore banished the said university, until such time as he shall subscribe such a public recantation as the judge of the court shall approve of, and give security not to offend in the like nature for the future: and his said book was therefore also decreed to be burnt before the public theatre; and on this day it was burnt accordingly, and public programmas of his expulsion are already affixed in the three usual places.” An historian who has recorded this censure says, that it was the more grievous to the blunt author, because it seemed to come from a party of men whom he had the least disobliged. His bitterness had been against the Dissenters; but of all the zealous Churchmen he had given characters with a singular turn of esteem and affection. Nay, of the Jacobites, and even of Papists themselves, he had always t spoken the most favourable things; and therefore it was really the greater mortification to him, to feel the storm coming from a quarter where he thought he least deserved, and might least expect it. For the same reason, adds the historian, this correction was some pleasure to the Presbyterians, who believed there was a rebuke due to him, which they themselves were not able to pay. Wood was animadverted upon likewise by Burnet, in his “Letter to the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, concerning a book of Anthony Harmer (alias Henry Wharton), called `A Specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,' &c.” upon which, in 1693, he published a vindication of himself, which is reprinted before the second edition of his “Athenæ Oxonienses.”

Mr. Wood was meditating future publications relating to other parts of his tour, especially Greece, when he was called upon to serve his country in a more important station, being appointed under-secretary of state in 1759, by the earl of Chatham; during the whole of whose prosperous administration, as well as in those of his two immediate successors, he continued in that situation.

Mr. Wood had drawn up a great part of his “Essay on Homer” in the life-time of Mr. Dawkins, who wished it to be made public. “But,” says Mr. Wood, “while I was preparing it for the press, I had the honour of being called to a station, which for some years fixed my whole attention upon objects of so very different a nature, that it hecame necessary to lay Homer aside, and to reserve the farther consideration of my subject for a time of more leisure. However, in the course of that active period, the duties of my situation engaged me in an occasional attendance upon a nobleman (the late earl Granville), who, though he presided at his majesty’s councils, reserved some moments for literary amusement. His lordship was so partial to this subject, that I seldom had the honour of receiving his commands on business, that he did not lead the conversation to Greece and Homer. Being directed to wait upon his lordship a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, I found him so languid, that I proposed postponing my business for another time^ but he insisted that I should stay, saying,” it could not prolong his life, to neglect his duty:“and, repeating a passage out of Sarpedon’s speech, dwelt with particular emphasis on a line which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs. His lordship then repeated the last word several times with a calm and determined resignation; and, after a serious pause of some minutes, he desired to hear the treaty read; to which he listened with great attention; and recovered spirits enough to declare the approbation of a dying statesman (1 use his own words) on the most glorious war, and most honourable peace, this country ever saw.” Mr. Wood also left behind him several Mss. relating to his travels, but not sufficiently arranged to afford any hopes of their being given to the public. The house in which he lived in Putney is situated between the roads which lead to Wandswprth and Wimbledon, and became the residence of his widow. Mr. Wood purchased it of the executors of Edward Gibbon, esq. whose son, the celebrated historian, was born there. The farm and pleasuregrounds which adjoin the house are very spacious, containing near fourscore acres, and surrounded by a gravel-walk, which commands a beautiful prospect of London and the adjacent country. Mr. Wood was buried in the cemetery near the upper road to Richmond. On his monument is the following inscription, drawn up by the hon. Horace Walpole, earl of Orford, at the request of his widow:

, a divine and poet, eldest son of Robert Woodford, of Northampton, gent, was born in the parish of All-hallows on the Wall, London, April 15, 1636; became a commoner of Waclham college in 1653; took one degree in arts in 1656; and in 1658 returned to the Inner Temple, where he was chamber-fellow with the poet Flatman. In 1660, he published a poem “On the return of king Charles II.” After that period, he lived first at Aldbrook, and afterwards at Bensted in Hampshire, ift^i married and secular condition, and was elected F. R. S. in Nov. 1664. He took orders from bishop Morley, and was soon after presented by sir Nicolas Stuart, bart. to the rectory of Hartley-Maudet in Hampshire. He was installed prebend of Chichester May 27, 1676; made D. D. by the diploma of archbishop Sancroft in 1677; and prebendary of Winchester, Nov. 8, 1680, by the favour of his great patron, the bishop of that diocese. He died in 1700. His poems, which have some merit, are numerous. His “Paraphrase on the Psalms, in five books,” was published in 1667, 4to, and again in 1678, 8vo. This “Paraphrase,” which was written in the Pindaric and other various sorts of verse, is commended by R. Baxter in the preface to his “Poetical Fragments,” 1681 and is called by others “an incomparable version,” especially by his friend Flatman, who wrote a Pindaric ode on it, and a copy of verses on Woodford’s “Paraphrase on the Canticles,” 1679, 8vo. With this latter paraphrase are printed, 1. “The Legend of Love, in three cantos.'. 12.” To the Muse,“a Pindaric ode. 3.” A Paraphrase upon some select Hymns of the New and Old Testament.“4.” Occasional compositions in English rhymes," with some translations out, of Latin, Greek, and Italian, but chiefly out of the last;. some of which compositions and translations were before falsely published by a too-curious collector of them, from very erroneous copies, against the will and knowledge of their author. Dr. Woodford complains, that several of his translations of some of the moral odes had been printed after the same incorrect manner.

, whom Dr. Whitby pronounces “the most ingenious and solid writer of the Roman (catholic) party,” and who merits some notice from his name occurring so frequently in the popish controversy at the latter end of the seventeenth century, was the son of John Woodhead of Thornhill in Yorkshire, and was born in 1608 at Meltham in the parish of Abbersbury, or Ambury, in that county. He had his academical education in University college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, was elected fellow in 1633, and soon after entered into holy orders. In 1641 he served the office of proctor, and then set out for the continent as travelling tutor to some young gentlemen of family who had been his pupils in college. While at Rome he lodged with the duke of Buckingham, whom he taught mathematics, and is supposed about the same time to have embraced the communion of the church of Rome, although for a long time he kept this a profound secret. On his return to England he had an apartment in the duke of Buckingham’s house in the Strand, and was afterwards entertained in lord Capel’s family. In 1648 he was deprived of his fellowship by the parliamentary visitors, but merely on the score of absence, aod non-appearance, when called. After the restoration he was reinstated in his fellowship, but rinding it impossible any longer to conform, he obtained leave to travel, with the allowance of a travelling fellowship. Instead, Kbwever, of going abroad, he retired to an obscure residence at Hoxton near London, where he spent several years, partly in instructing some young gentlemen of popish families, and partly in composing his works. Here he remained almost undiscovered, until a little while before his death, which happened at Hoxton, May 4, 1678. He was buried in St. Pancras church-yard, where there is a monument to his memory.

During his residence here, sir Ralph Dutton, who was Dr. Barwick' s son-in-law, invited Mr. Woodward to accompany the doctor on a visit to his seat at Sherborne, in Gloucestershire. He probably made some stay here, for we are told that he was now first led to inquire into that branch of natural philosophy, which became afterwards the favourite object of his studies, and the foundation of the fame which he acquired. The country about Sherborne, and the neighbouring parts of Gloucestershire, to which he made frequent excursions, abounded with stone; and there being quarries laid open almost every where, he was induced to visit them, and to examine the nature and condition of the stone. In these visits he was struck with the great variety of sea-shells, and other marine productions, with which the sand of most of this stone was incorporated; and being encouraged by the novelty, and as he judged, the singular importance of this speculation, he resolved to pursue it through the remote parts of the kingdom. In consequence of this resolution, he travelled throughout almost all England, in order to inform himself of the present condition of the earth, and all bodies contained in it, as far as either grottoes, caverns, mines, quarries, &c. led him into a knowledge of the interior, and as far as his best observations could extend in respect to the exterior surface, and such productions as any where occurred, plants, insects, sea, river, and land-shells. He directed his attention likewise to the fluids; as well those within the surface of the earth, the water of mines, grottoes, caverns, &c. as those upon the surface, the sea, rivers, and springs; and in making these observations, he entered every curious circumstance, with great care$ in a journal. When he had finished these researches, and had returned to London, he would gladly have gone to the continent on the same pursuit, hut was prevented by the war which at that time disturbed the quiet of Europe. In order, however, to supply this defect as far as possible, he applied to gentlemen who had travelled, and were likely to give him information on the subject of his inquiries; and he also drew up a list of questions upon this subject, which he sent off to all parts of the world, whereever either himself, or any of his acquaintance, had any friends resident; the result of which was, that in time he was abundantly satisfied, that the circumstances after which he inquired, were much the same every where. Being now prepared with information, and, as it will appear, not unprovided with a theory, he published in 1695, in 1 vol. 6vo, “An Essay towards a natural history of the Earth and terrestrial bodies, especially minerals; as also of the sesj rivers, and springs. With an account of the universal deluge, and of the effects that it had upon the earth.' 1 He called it an” Essay," because it was designed, as, he said, to be followed by a large work upon the same subject, of whi-ch this was but a specimen.

Dr. Woodward left a great many manuscripts, enumerated by Dr. Ward, some of which he ordered to be burnt, but others came into the possession of his executor, colonel Richard King, and were sold in 1768 with the rest of the colonel’s collection. Dr. Woodward was in many respects a visionary and an enthusiast, but the extent of his ingenuity and learning cannot well be called in question, and it ought not to be forgot that the circumstances of his youth were discouraging, and that he had no help in his progress from academical instruction.

, an English divine, very notorious in his day for the pertinacity with which he published the most dangerous opinions, was born in 1669, at Northampton, where his father was a reputable tradesman. After a proper education at a grammar-school, he was entered of Sidney college, in Cambridge, in 1685, where he took both the degrees in arts, and that of bachelor of divinity, and was chosen fellow of his college. From this time, in conformity to the statutes of that society, he applied himself to the study of divinity and entering into holy orders, soon, we are told, became distinguished and esteemed for his learning and piety. Of what sort the latter was, his life will shew. It appears that he had very early conceived some of those notions which afterwards so much degraded his character. His first appearance as an author was in 1705, when he printed at Cambridge a work entitled “The old Apology of the Truth for the Christian Religion against the Jews and Gentiles revived,” 8vo. The design of this work, which is an octavo of near 400 pages, is to prove that all the actions of Moses were typical of Christ, and to shew-tljat some of the fathers did not think them real, but typical relations of what was to come. This allegorical way of interpreting the scriptures of the Old Testament our author is said to have adopted from Origen, whose works, however, he must have studied very injudiciously; yet he became so enamoured of this methocf of interpretation, that he not only thought it had been unjustly neglected by the moderns, but that it might be useful, as an additional proof of the truth of Christianity. He preached this doctrine first in the college chapel, and afterwards before the university at St. Mary’s, to the great surprise of his audience. Yet, as his intentions seemed to be good, and his character respected, and as he had not yet begun to make use of the indecent language which disgraced his subsequent works, no opposition was raised; and when the volume appeared in print, though there were some singular notions advanced, and a new manner of defending Christianity proposed, yet there was nothing that gave particular offence, and many things which shewed great ingenuity and learning. He still continued to reside at Cambridge, applying himself indefatigably to his studies, in a quiet and retired way, until 1720, ^hen he published a Latin dissertation entitled “De Pontii Pilati ad Tiberium Epistola circa res Jesu Christi gestas; per Mystagogum,” 8vo, in which he endeavours to prove that Pontius Pilate wrote a letter to Tiberius Caesar concerning the works of Christ; bwt that the epistle delivered down to us under that name among the writings of the fathers, was forged. The same year he published another pamphlet in Latin, with the title of “Origenis Adamantii Renati Epistola ad Doctores Whitbeium, Waterlandium, Whistonium, aliosque literates hujus saeculi disputatores, circa fidem vere orthodoxam et scripturarum interpretationem;” and, soon after, a second epistle with the same title. The rage of allegorizing the letter of the holy scriptures into mystery, with which this writer was incurably infected, began now to shew itself more openly to the world than it had hitherto done. In 1720 and 1721, he published two letters to Dr. Bennet, rector of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, London; one upon this question, “Whether the people called quakers do not the nearest of any other sect of religion resemble the primitive Christians in principles and practice?” by Aristobulus; the other, “In defence of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers of the Church, for their allegorical interpretation of the law of Moses, against the ministers of the letter and literal commentators of this age;” and, soon after, he himself published an answer to these two letters; in all which his view appears to have been rather to be severe upon the clergy th,an to defend either apostles, fathers, or quakers. At what time he left college does not appear, but he had about this time absented himself from it beyond the time limited by the statutes. The society and his friends, however, compassionating his case, and judging it to be in some degree the effect of a bodily distemper, allowed him the revenues of his fellowship for a support. The supposition hurt his pride, and he went directly to Cambridge to convince the gentlemen of his college that he laboured under no disorder, and as he at the same time refused to reside, he lost his fellowship.

His writings are, 1. “An answer to a popish pamphlet, &c. entitled ‘Certain Articles,’ &c.” Lond. 1605, 4to. 2. “A defence of Mr. Perkins’ booke called A Reformed Catholike, &c.” ibid. 1606, 4to. 3. “The tryal of the Roman Clergy’s title to the Church,” ibid. 1608, 4to. 4. “Sermons on part of chapter first of St. John’s Gospel,” ibid. 1609, 4to. 5. “Run from Rome; or, The necessity of separating from that Church,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 6. “De reconciliatione peccatoris, &c.” Basil. 1624, 4to. 7. “An answer to a book, entitled Appello Coesarem, written by Mr. Richard Mountague,” ibid. 1626. 8. “The art of Logick,” ibid. 1626, 8vo. This is an English translation of Ramus’s logic, made by his son, and with a dedication by our author. This son, Samuel, who died in 1680, was rector of East and West Wretham in Norfolk.

The dean’s life, we have seen, was chiefly devoted to political affairs, yet he was not wholly unemployed as a divine. In 1537, the more learned ecclesiastics of that period were called together in order to the composition of the book entitled “The godly and pious institution of a Christian man;” among these was Dr. Wotton. To their discussion and judgment many of the principal points of religion were submitted. From his compliance under the differing reigns of Henry, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, he has been concluded to be a time-server, and a man of no decided religious principle; and he certainly is rather to be considered as a politician than an ecclesiastic, for it was in the former character principally that his services were required by his respective sovereigns. His learning is said to have been profound and extensive, and to have been displayed to the greatest advantage in the force of his arguments, and in the easiness of his elocution. In council his sentiments were delivered with admirable discretion, and maintained with undaunted resolution. The vigilance of his political conduct, both at home and abroad, distinguished him as an exemplary statesman; and the facility with which he could discuss the merits of a cause (his method being exact, and his memory tenacious), marked him as an acute civilian. His knowledge of trade ^nd commerce was no less conspicuous, and in an acquaintance with the polity of nations he was inferior to none. To the greatness of his character Holinshed and Camden have bequeathed their testimonies ^ and Henry VIII. is said to have thus addressed him, when he was about to depart on an embassy> “Sir, I have sent a head by Cromwell, a purse by Wolsey, a sword by Brandon, and I must now send the law by you to treat with enemies.”

, a learned and loyal divine of the seventeenth century, was the son of Richard Wright, citizen and silk-dyer of London, who was the son of Jeffrey Wright, of Loughborough, in Leicestershire. He was born in Black- Swan alley, Thames-street, in the parish of St. James’s, Garlick Hythe, London, Dec. 23, 1611, and educated partly at Mercers’- chapel school, but principally at Merchant Taylors, whence he was elected scholar of St. JobnVcollege, Oxford, in 1629, by the interest of Dr. Juxon, then president, w/ho became his patron. He was much admired at this time for a natural eloquence, and a love of polite literature. In 1632 he was elected fellow, and while bachelor of arts, made a collection of modern Latin poetry, which he published afterwards under the title of “Delitiae delitiarum, siveepigrammatum ex optimis quibusque hujus novissimi seculi Poetis in amplissima ilia Bibl. Bodleiana, et pene omnino alibi extantibus artthologia in unum corollum connexa,” Ox. 1637, 12mo. In 1636, when archbishop Laud entertained the royal family at St. JohnVcollege, Mr. Wright was selected to make an English address, and afterwards distinguished himself as a performer in a comedy called “Love’s Hospital,” which was acted before their majesties in the hall, by a company of St. John’s men.

In Sept. 1637, and 1639, betook deacon’s and priest’s orders, and was so much admired as an eloquent preacher as to be frequently called upon to preach at St. Mary’s, St. Paul’s, London, &c, In 1645 he became vicar of Okeham in Rutlandshire, by the interest of his patron Jnxon, now bishop of London, and received institution, but refused induction, because in that case he must have taken the covenant, which was altogether repugnant to his principles, and therefore a nonconformist was placed in his living, one Benjamin King. Mr. Wright then went to London, and lived retired till after the death of the king, when he was hospitably received into the family of sir George Grime or Graham at Peckham, and while here he instructed sir George’s sons in Latin and Greek, and read the Commonprayer on all Sundays and holidays, and preached and administered the sacrament. About 1655 he returned to London, on being chosen by the parishioners of St. Olave, Silver-street, to be their minister. In this office he remained for four years, and was in fact rector, but would not take possession on account of the republican oaths and obligations necessary. He performed all his duties, however, according to the forms of the Church of England, although at some risk. On the restoration Benjamin King, who had been put into his living at Okeham, resigned, by his hand and seal, all title to it, and Mr. Wright took possession and retained it to his dying day, refusing some other preferments. He lived here to a very advanced age, and died May 9, 1690, and was buried in Okeham church. Besides the “Delitiae paetarum” already mentioned, he published 1. “Five Sermons in five several stiles or ways of preaching,” Lond. 1656, 8vo. The object of this curious collection is to exhibit the advantages of education in fitting for the ministry, as well as the different styles of some eminent men of that period, viz. bishop Andrews, bishop Hall, Dr. Mayne, and Mr. Cartwright. Dr. Birch is mistaken in calling this an imitation of different stjles; it is a selection from the works of the respective authors, 2. “A practical commentary, or exposition on the hook of Psalms,” Lond. 1661, fol. 3. “Practical Commentary on the Pentateuch,” ibid. fol. 4. “Parnassus biceps, or several choice pieces of poetry, composed by the best wits that were in both the universities before their dissolution,” ibid. 1656, 8vo. He wrote some other works which have not been printed.

Wright, who was born about 1644, was probably educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, but was not of either university. In 1666 be became a student of New Inn, and in three years removed to the Middle Temple, and was at length called to the bar. He died about 1715.

, a noted English mathematician, who flourished in the latter part of the sixteenth century and beginning of the seventeenth, is thus characterised in a Latin paper in the library of Gonvile and Caius college, Cambridge: “This year (1615) died at London, Edward Wright, of Garveston, in Norfolk, formerly a fellow of this college; a man respected by all for the integrity and simplicity of his manners, and also famous for his skill in the mathematical sciences; so that he was not undeservedly styled a most excellent mathematician by Richard Hackluyt, the author of an original treatise of our English navigations. What knowledge he had acquired in the science of mechanics, and how usefully he employed that knowledge to ths public as well as to private advantage, abundantly appear both from the writings he published, and from the many mechanical operations still extant, which are standing monuments of his great industry and ingenuity. He was the first undertaker of that difficult but useful work, by which a little river is brought from the town of Ware in apew canal, to supply the city of London with water but by the tricks of others he was hindered from completing the work he had begun. He was excellent both in contrivance and execution, nor was he inferior to the most ingenious mechanic in the making of instruments, either of brass or any other matter. To his invention is owing whatever advantage Hondius’s geographical charts have above others; for it was Wright who taught Jodocus Horn dius the method of constructing them, which wa.s till then unknown; but the ungrateful Hondius concealed the name of the true author, and arrogated the glory of the invention to hjmself. Of this fraudulent practice the good man could nqt help complaining, and justly enough, in the preface to his treati.se of the” Correction of Errors in the art of Navigation;“which he composed with excellent judgment and after long experience, to the great advancement of naval affairsi For the improvement of this art he was appointed mathematical lecturer by the East India company, and read lectures in the house of that worthy knight sir Thomas Smith, for which he had a yearly salary of fifty pounds, This office he discharged with great reputation, and much to the satisfaction of his hearers. He published in English a book on the doctrine of the sphere, and another concerning the construction of sun-dials. He also prefixed an ingenious preface to the learned Gilbert’s book on the loadstone. By these and other his writings, he has transmitted his fame to latest posterity. While he was yet a fellow of this college, he could not be concealed in his private study, but was called forth to the public business of the nation by the queen, about 1593. He was ordered to attend the earl of Cumberland in some maritime expeditions. One of these he has given a faithful account of, in the manner of a journal or ephemeris, to which he has prefixed an elegant hydrographical chart of his own contrivance. A little before his death he employed himself about an English translation of the book of logarithms, then lately discovered by lord Napier, a Scotchman, who had a great affection for him. This posthumous work of his- was published soon after by his only son Samuel Wright, who was also a scholar of this college. He had formed many other useful designs, but was hindered by death from bringing them to perfection. Of him it may truly be said, that he studied more to serve the public than himself; and though he was rich in fame, and in the promises of the great, yet he died poor, to tfie scandal of an ungrateful age.” So far the memoir; other particulars concerning him are as follow:

, commonly called Wright of Derby, a very distinguished painter, was born at Derby, September 3, 1734. His father was an attorney there. In early life, he gave indications of a taste for mechanics, and those habits of attentive observation, which generally lead to perfection in the fine arts. In 1751, he came to London, and was placed with Hudson, the most eminent portraitpainter of the day, and who, lord Orford tells us, pleased the country gentlemen with “his honest similitudes, fair tied wigs, blue velvet coats, and white sat tin waistcoats, which he bestowed liberally on his customers.” Wright used to lament that he could not receive much instruction from this master, but it is certain he at this time painted both portraits and historical pieces in a very capital style, of which his “Blacksmith’s forge,” “Air-pump, &c.” are proofs. In 1773, after marrying, he visited Italy, and made great advances in his profession. In 1775, he returned to England, and settled for two years at Bath, after which his residence was entirely at Derby.

, of Barwell, Leicestershire, barrister at law, was elected recorder of Leicester in 1680; called by Writ, April 11, 1692, to take the degree of serjeant at law; knighted Dec. 30, 1696, and made king’s serjeant. On the refusal of the lords chief justices Holt and Treby, and Trevor the attorney-general, to accept the great seal, which was taken from lord Somers, it was delivered to sir Nathan, with the title of lord-keeper, May 21, 1700. As he was raised to this situation by the tories, so he seems to have acted in conformity to the views of that party. Burnet says, that many gentlemen of good estates and ancient families were put out of the commission of the peace by him, for no other visible reason but because they had gone in heartily to the revolution, and had continued zealous for king William; and, at the same time, men of no worth nor estate, and known to be ill-affected to queen Anne’s title, and to the protestant succession, were put in. He adds, that the lord-keeper was a “zealot to the party, and was become very exceptionable in all respects. Money, as was said, did every thing with him; only in his court, I never heard him charged for any thing but great slowness, by which the chancery was become one of the heaviest grievances of the nation.” The same author likewise says, that the lord-keeper “was sordidly covetous; and did not at all live suitable to that high post: he became extremely rich, yet I never heard him charged with bribery in his court.” One of the most remarkable events that happened while he was in office, was his sentence for dissolving the Savoy, July 13, 1702; and in the same year, Nov. 30, he reversed a decree of his great predecessor, lord Somers. Sir Nathan’s removal, however, which happened in May 1705, is said to have “been a great loss to the church.” He passed the remainder of his days in retirement, beloved and respected, at Chaldecot-Hall, in Warwicksbire,"wbere he died Aug. 4, 1721.

Anthony Wydeville distinguished himself both as a warrior and statesman in king Edward’s service. The Lancastrians making an insurrection in Northumberland, he attended the king into that country, and was a chief commander at the siege of Atnwick castle; soon after which he was elected into the order of the garter. In the tenth of the same reign, he defeated the dukes of Clarence and Warwick in a skirmish near Southampton, and prevented their seizing a great ship called the Trinity, belonging to the latter. He attended the king into Holland on the change of the scene, returned with him, and had a great share in his victories, and was constituted governor of Calais, and captain-general of all the king’s forces by sea and land. He had before been sent ambassador to negociate a marriage between the king’s sister and the duke of Burgundy; and in the same character concluded a treaty between king Edward and the duke of Bretagne. On prince Edward being created prince of Wales, he was appointed his governor, and had a grant of the office of chief butler of England; and was even on the point of attaining the high honour of espousing the Scottish princess, sister to king James III.; the bishop of Rochester, lord privy-seal, and sir Edward Wydeville, being dispatched into Scotland to perfect that marriage.

A remarkable event of this earl’s life was a personal victory he gained in a tournament, over Anthony count de la Roche, called the bastard of Burgundy, natural son of duke Philip the Good. This illustrious encounter was performed -in a solemn and most magnificent tilt held for that purpose in Smithfield. Our earl was the challenger; and from the date of the year, and the affinity of the person challenged, this ceremony was probably in honour of the afore-mentioned marriage of the lady Margaret, the king’s sister, with Charles the Hardy, last duke of Burgundy. Nothing, lord Orford observes (whose narrative we follow), could be better adapted to the humour of the age, and to the union of that hero and virago, than a single combat between two of their near relations. A long account of this affair is given in a note in the Biog. Brit. art. Caxton, vol. III. new edit. It may be sufficient for our purpose to say that Wydeville was victorious.

The works of this gallant and learned nobleman were (with the exception of a ballad in Percy’s collection) translations, published in the infancy of English printing by Caxton: 1 “The Dictes and Sayinges of the Philosophers, translated out of Latyn into Frenshe by a worshipful man called Messire Jehan de Teonville, sometyme provost of Parys,” and thence rendered into English by lord Rivers. It is supposed to have been the second book ever printed in England by Caxton. The date is Nov. 18, 1477. 2. “The morale Proverbes of Christyne of Pyse.” 3. “The boke named Cordyale or Memorare novissima,” a third translation from the French, the original author not named, dated 1480. Caxton says that lord Rivers “made divers babdesayenst the seven dedely synnes.” All these curiosities will be found amply described in Mr. Dibdin’s “Typographical Antiquities.” Hume says that earl Rivers “first introduced the noble art of printing into England,” but this is evidently a mistake. He did indeed countenance and employ Caxton, and appears to have introduced him to Edward IV.; and both he and Tiptoft, earl of Worcester (See Tiptoft), contributed very much, by their example and patronage, to the restoration of learning in this kingdom. From various causes, however, England was long behind other nations on the continent in real learning, or a wish for it; and we have no great pleasure or pride in contemplating the productions of our first printers.

Within less than three years from this commencement of his plan, the society consisted of a warden and seventy fellows, who were called Pauperes Scholares Vtnerabilis Domini Domini Wilhelmi de Wykeham Wynton. Episcopi. The warden had a salary of 20l. a year, and the fellows were lodged in the places hired for them, and then known by the names of Blake-hall, Hert-hall, Shule-hall, Mayden-hall, and Hamer-hall. The annual expense of their lodging amounted to iOi 13.S. 4d.; and each was allowed Is. and 6d. a week for commons.

, an eminent statesman, chancellor of the exchequer in the reign of queen Anne, was descended from a very ancient family, which derives its descent from Ailwardus, an eminent Saxon, in the county of Norfolk, soon after the Norman conquest, who being possessed of lands in Wymondham, or Wyndham, in that county, assumed his surname thence. Sir John Wyndham, who was knighted at the coronation of king Edward VI. had the estate of Orchard, in the county of Somerset, in right of his wife, Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir of John Sydenham, of Orchard, esq. His great grandson John married Catharine, daughter of Robert Hopton, esq. sister and co-heir to Ralph lord Hopton, by whom he had issue sir William Wyndham, advanced to the dignity of a baronet by king Charles II. whose eldest son, Edward, married Catharine, daughter of sir William Levison Gower, bart. and by that lady had one daughter, Jane, wife of sir Richard Grosvenor, of Eton, in Cheshire, bart. and an only son, the subject of this article, who was born about 1687; and upon the decease of his father, while he was very young, succeeded to the title and estate. He was educated at first at Eton school, and thence removed to Christ Church, Oxford, where his excellent genius soon discovered itself, and afterwards received great advantage from his travels into foreign countries. Upon his return to England he was chosen knight of the shire for the county of Somerset, in which station he served in the three last parliaments of queen Anne, and all the subsequent ones till his death. This public scene of action soon called forth his eminent abilities, and placed him in so conspicuous a point of light, that, after the change of the ministry under that queen in the latter end of 1710, he was first appointed master of her majesty’s hart and buck hounds, then secretary at war, and at last, about August 1713, was advanced to the important post of chancellor of the exchequer. In this station he had an opportunity of appearing in his judicial capacity in a cause of Dr/Hooper, bishop of Bath and Wells, in which he gave sentence, and at the same time explained the grounds of it with a perspicuity, force of reasoning, and extent of knowledge worthy the most experienced judge. In May the year following he brought into the House of Commons, and carried successfully through it, the “Bvll to prevent tae growth of schism, and for the future security of the Church of England,” &c. and was appointed to carry it up to the House of Lords, where also it passed. Upon the breach between the earl of Oxford, lord high treasurer, and lord Bolidgbroke, secretary of state, in July 1714, sir William adhered to the interests of the latter.

, a learned barrister and law-writer, was born in 1734. He was the grandson of Owen Wynne, esq. LL. D. sometime umler-secretary of state to Charles II. and James II. and son of William Wynne, esq. by his wife, Grace, one of the daughters of William Brydges, esq. Serjeant at law. He followed his father’s profession, and was called to the bar; but, whatever his success, seems to have devoted a considerable portion of his time to study and to the composition of some works, which unite great elegance of style to great legal knowledge and acuteness. In his private character he was noted for many virtues, and extensive liberality and charity. He died at his house at Chelsea, of that dreadful disorder, a cancer in the mouth, Dec. 26, 1784, in the fiftieth year of his age.

, a man of some original genius, but whose works will not entitle him to any very Jjigh rank in literature, was descended from a very respectable family in South Wales, where he was born in 1743. At what time he arrived in London, is not known, but for some time he gained his bread in the printing business, with which he became disgusted, and had interest enough to obtain an appointment in a regiment about to go abroad. Such was the perverseness of his temper while on shipboard vyith liis brother officers, that they refused to associate with him, and actually left him behind when the ship arrived at its first place of destination. From thence he contrived to return to England, where he married a young woman of some property. This was probably soon spent, as about this time he commenced author by profession, but either his works or his employers were of the lowest order, for it was with difficulty he could procure the necessaries of life by his labours. In 1770, however, he began to aim at higher fame, and published “A General History of theJBritish Empire in America: including all the countries in North America and the West-Indies ceded by the peace of Paris, 2 vols. 8vo. This as a compilation did him no discredit.In 1771 he published the” Prostitute, a Poem,“4to; in 1772” Choice Emblems, natural, historical, fabulous, moral, and divine, for the improvement of youth; in verse and prose/* 12mo. The same year appeared his principal work, “A general History of Ireland, from the earliest accounts to the present time,” 2 vols. 8vo., This was more popular, from the nature of the subject, than his History of America, but far enough removed from the merit that would enrol him among historians. Next year he published “tables of Flowers for the Female Sex,” “Evelina, a poem;” and “The Four Seasons, a poem.” In poetry he was ill -qualified to excel, although there are passages in some of his pieces that indicate superior talents, had he cultivated them at leisure, and been possessed of a mind better regulated. In 1787 he published a novel called “The Child of Chance;” and at different periods of his life supplied the magazines and newspapers with essays, poems, &c. generally with his name. All these were written to supply immediate wants, which they did but imperfectly. He died Dec. 2, 1788. It is mentioned to his honour that through a long life of poverty, he abhorred and avoided every mean and dishonest expedient to improve his finances, and was even so extravagant in his notions of independence that to do him an act of kindness unsolicited, was to incur his bitterest reproaches.

whereas the information contained in all the other histories of Scotland preceding the middle of the seventeenth century, if we except the brief chronicle subjoined to some manuscripts of Wyntown, and the translations of Ballenden and Read, was effectually concealed from the unlearned part of mankind under the veil of a dead or a foreign language. In Wyntbwn’s Chronicle the historian may find what, for want of more ancient records, which have long ago perished, we must now consider as the original accounts of many transactions, and also many events related from his own knowledge or the reports of eye-witnesses. His faithful adherence to his authorities appears from comparing his accounts with unquestionable vouchers, such as the Fcedera Anglise, and the existing remains of the Register of the priory of St. Andrew’s, that venerable monument of ancient Scottish history and antiquities, generally coaeval with the facts recorded in it, whence he has given large extracts, almost literally translated. All these we have hitherto been obliged to take at second or third hand in copies by Bower and others, with such additions and embellishments as they were pleased to make to Wyntown’s simple and genuine narrative. An ecclesiastical historian of Scotland can no where find so good an account of the bishops of St. Andrew’s, with occasional notices concerning the other sees, as from Wyntown, who in describing the churches, their buildings and paraphernalia, shews himself quite at home. The compiler of a Scottish peerage may obtain from Wyntown more true information concerning the ancient noble families of Scotland, than is to be found in any work extant, except the accurate and elaborate research made by the late lord Hailes in the celebrated Sutherland case, wherein he has repeatedly had recourse to our author for proofs of the laws and customs of succession. In this view the lawyer will also find the Chronicle of Wyntown an useful addition to his library, and may consult it with advantage, when called upon to adjust a disputed inheritance in an ancient family. Mr. Ellis, who allows that Wynton is highly valuable as a historian, adds that his versification is easy, his language pure, and his style often animated.

, commonly called the Apostle of the Indies, was born April 7, 1506, in Navarre, at the castle of Xavier. His father, Don John de Jasso, was one of the chief counsellors of state to John III. king of Navarre. Among their numerous family of children, of which Francis was the youngest, those that were elder bore the surname of Azpilcueta, the younger that of Xavier. Francis was sent to the university of Paris, in the eighteenth year of his age. He was afterwards admitted master of arts, and tauglit philosophy in the college of Beauvais, with an intention of entering the society of the Sorbonne; but having formed a friendship with Ignatius Loyola, he renounced all establishments, and became one of his first disciples. Xavier then went to Italy, where he attended the sick at the hospital of incurables at Venice, and was ordained priest. Some time after, John III. king of Portugal, having applied to St. Ignatius for some missionaries to preach the gospel in the East Indies, Xavier was chosen for that purpose, who, embarking at Lisbon, April 7, 1541, arrived at Goa, May 6, 1542. In a short time he spread the knowledge of the Christian religion, or, to speak more properly, of the Romish system, over a great part of the continent, and in several of the islands of that remote region. Thence in 1549 he passed into Japan, and laid there, with amazing rapidity, the foundation 'of the famous church which flourished during so many years in that vast empire. His indefatigable zeal prompted him to attempt the conversion of the Chinese, and with this view he embarked for that extensive and powerful kingdom, but died on an island in sight of China, Dec. 2, 1552. The body of this missionary lies interred at Goa, where it is worshipped with the highest marks of devotion. There is also a magnificent church at Cotati dedicated to Xavier, to whom the inhabitants of the Portuguese settlements pay the most devout tribute of veneration and worship. In 1747, the late king of Portugal obtained for Xavier, or rather for his memory, the title of protector of the Indies, from Benedict XIV. There are two lives of this saint, the one by Tursellinus, and the other by Bouhours, but the latter is little more than a translation from Latin into French of the former, dressed out in a more elegant manner. They both contain the miracles ascribed to this saint, which are among the most absurd and incredible in the annals of superstition. For this, however, Xavier, who appears to have been only a zealous enthusiast, ought not to be censured. He claims no miracles for himself, nor were any such heard of for many years after his death; on the contrary, in his correspondence with his friends, during his mission, he not only makes no mention of miracles, but disclaims all supernatural assistance. For the miracles, therefore, his biographers must be accountable, and we know of no evidence they have produced in confirmation of them. The life of Xavier is not unknown in this country. No less a person than our celebrated poet Dryden published a translation of Bouhours’s Life of Xavier, in 1688, in consequence qf the queen of James II. having, when she solicited a son, recommended herself to Xavier as her patron saint. Besides this, a Wesleyan preacher published, in 1764, anabridgment of Bouhours, as if he had intended to assist bishop Lavington in proving the alliance between the enthusiasm of the methodists and papists. Xavier’s Letters were published at Paris, 1631, 8vo, with some lesser works ascribed to him.

After this retreat, Xenophon went into Asia with Agesilaus, king of the Lacedemonians; to whom he delivered for a sum of money the soldiers of Cyrus, and by whom he was exceedingly beloved. Cicero says, that Xenophon instructed him; apd Plutarch, that by his advice Agesilaus sent his sons to be educated at Sparta. Agesilaus passed into Asia, the first year of the 96th Olympiad, and carried on the war successfully against the Persians; but the year after, was called home by the Lacedemonians, to assist his country, which was invaded by the Thebans and their allies, whom the Persian, with a view of drawing the war from his dominions, had corrupted. During the absence of Xenophon, the Athenians proclaimed a decree of banishment against him; some say, for his going to Agesilaus; others, because he took part against the king of Persia their friend, and followed Cyrus, who had assisted the Lacedemonians against them. Whatever was the reason, he was obliged to fly; and the Lacedemonians, to require hint for Buffering in their cause, maintained him at the public charge. Then they built a town at Scilluntes in Elea, having driven the Ele.ans thence, and bestowed a fair house and lands upon Xenophon: upon which he left Agesilaus, and went thither, with his wife Philesia, and his two sons Diodorus and Qryllus. At this place of retirement, he employed himself in planting, hunting, and writing; and led a life truly philosophic, dividing his time between his friends, rural amusements, and letters.

, an eminent statesman and patron of literature, was born in 1437, at Torrelaguna, in Old Castille, and was the son of Alphonso de Cimeros de Ximenes, procurator of that city. He was educated for the church, at Alcala and Salamanca, and then went to Rome, but having been robbed on his journey home, brought nothing back with him, except a bull for the first prebend which should be vacant. This the archbishop of Toledo refused to grant, and confined him in the tower of Uceda, where it is said a priest, who had long been prisoner there, foretold to him that he should, one day, be archbishop of Toledo. Having recovered his liberty, he obtained a benefice in the diocese of Siguenza, and cardinal Gonsalez de Mendoza, who was bishop there, made him his grand vicar. Ximenes entered soon after among the Franciscans of Toledo, and took the vows; but finding himself embarrassed by visits, he retired to a solitude called Castauel, where he studied the Oriental languages and divinity. On his return to Toledo, queen Isabella of Castille appointed him her confessor, and nominated him to the archbishopric of Toledo, 14.95, without his knowledge. When Ximenes received the bulls from the hand of this princess, he only kissed them, returned them to her, unopened, saying, “Madam, these letters are not addressed to me,” and went immediately back to his convent at Castanel, being determined not to accept the archbishopric. The queen was much pleased with this refusal; but when Ximenes still persisted in his refusal, an express command from the pope became necessary to overcome his resolution. Nor would he even then yield but upon the following conditions: “That he should never quit his church of Toledo; that no pension should be charged on his archbishopric (one of the richest in the world); and that no infringement of the privileges and immunities of his church should ever be attempted.” He took possession of it in 1498, being received with unusual magnificence at Toledo. This prelate’s first care was to provide for the poor, visit the churches and hospitals, and clear his diocese from usurers and licentious houses. Those judges who neglected their duty, he degraded, supplying their places with persons whose probity and disinterestedness were known to him. He held a synod afterwards at Alcala, and another at Talavera, where he made very prudent regulations for the clergy of his diocese, and laboured at the same time to reform the Franciscans throughout Castille and Arragon, in which he happily succeeded, notwithstanding the obstacles he had to encounter. Ximenes established a celebrated university at Alcala, and founded there in 1499, the famous college of St. Ildephonsus, built by Peter Gumiel, one of the best architects of that time. Three years after he undertook the great plan of a Polyglot Bible, for the execution of which he invited many learned men from Alcala to Toledo, who were skilled in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and other languages necessary for the perfect understanding the holy scriptures. This Bible, though began in 1502, was not printed till 1517, 6 vols. folio, at Alcala. It contains the Hebrew text of the Bible, the version of the LXX. with a literal translation, that of St. Jerome, and the Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos on the Pentateuch only. In the original preface, addressed to pope Leo X. the learned archbishop says, “It is doing great service to the church to publish the scriptures in their original language, both because no translation cati give a perfect idea of the original, and because, according to the opinion of the holy fathers, we should refer to the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, and to the Greek for the New Testament.” The work was above fifteen years in finishing. Ximenes himself assisted in it with great assiduity, and paid the whole expence, which amounted to an immense sum. He purchased seven Hebrew copies, that cost four thousand crowns, and gave vast prices for ancient Mss. To the above-mentioned Bible, which is called the Polyglot of Ximenes, he added a dictionary of the Hebrew and Chaldee words in the Bible. In 1507 pope Julius II. gave him a cardinal’s hat; and Ferdinand the catholic entrusted him with the administration of state affairs, from which moment cardinal Ximenes became the soul of all that was done in Spain. He began his ministry by delivering the people from an oppressive tax, which had been continued on account of the war of Grenada; and he laboured so zealously and successfully in the conversion of the Mahometans, that he made near three thousand proselytes, among whom was the prince of the blood royal of Grenada. This great multitude he baptized in a spacious square, awd ordering all the copies of the Koran to be brought thither, set them on fire; which memorable day was afterwarda kept as a festival in Spain. Cardinal Ximenes extended Ferdinand’s dominion over the Moors, 1509, by the conquest of Oran, a city in the kingdom of Algiers. He undertook this conquest at his own expence, and marched himself at the head of the Spanish army in his pontifical habit, accompanied by a great number of ecclesiastics and monks, and at his return was met within four leagues of Seville by Ferdinand, who alighted to embrace him. Foreseeing afterwards an uncommon dearth, he ordered public granaries to be built at Toledo, Alcala, and Torrelaguna, and stored them with corn at his own cost; which made him so generally beloved, that his eulogy was engraved in the senate-house at Toledo, and in the public square, to perpetuate the memory of this noble action. King Ferdinand dying in 1516, appointed him regent of his dominions, and the archduke Charles (afterwards the emperor Charles V.) confirmed this appointment. No sooner was cardinal Ximenes established in the regency, than he became intent on exerting his authority. He introduced a reformation among the officers of the supreme council, and those of the court, ordered the judges to repress all extortions of the rich and of the nobility, and dismissed prince Ferdinand’s two favourites. These changes excited murmurs among the grandees, and some officer’s asked the cardinal, by what authority he thus acted? Ximenes immediately showed them the soldiers who composed his common guard, and replied, that his power consisted in their strength; then shaking his cord of St. Francis, said, “This suffices me to quell my rebellious subjects.” At the same time he ordered the cannon, which he kept behind his palace, to be fired, and concluded with these words: “Haec est ratio ultima regis;” i. e. This is the decisive argument of kings. He opposed the reformation of the inquisition; devoted himself, with indefatigable ardour, to the affairs of the church and state; and omitted nothing that he thought could contribute to the glory of religion, and the advantage of his sovereigns. At length, after having governed Spain twenty -two years, in the reigns of Ferdinand, Isabella, Jane, Philip, and Charles of Austria, he died November 8, 1517, as some think, by poison, in the eighty-first year of his age. His remains were interred in the college of Ildephonsus, at Alcala, where his tomb may be seen. This cardinal had settled several excellent foundations; among others, two magnificent female convents; one for the religious education of a great many young ladies of high rank, but destitute of fortune the other to be an asylum; for such poor maidens as should be found to have a real call to the monastic life. He also founded a chapel in his cathedral for the performance of divine service according to the Mozarabic rites. If we add the fountain of springwater, which he conveyed to the town of Torrelaguna, for public use, to the other sums he expended there, it will appear that he laid out nearly a million in that one place.

, a German of great abilities and learning, was born at Augsburg in 1532, of very poor parents, and the love therefore of learning, which he discovered from his infancy, would have been fruitless if he had not met with a patron, in Wolfgang Relinger, a senator of Augsburg. This gentleman made him be supported at the public expence, till his progress in literature procured him admittance into the colleges, where the city maintained a certain number of students. In 1549 he was sent to the university of Tubingen, and afterwards to that of Basil, where he became an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. Melchior Adam affirms, that he took a master of arts degree at Basil in 1556; but Bayle is of opinion, that this date must be a mistake; for he thinks it improbable, that a man who had employed himself vigorously in study, and possessed such excellent natural talents, did not take that lower degree till his 24th year. Xylander certainly wrote his Latin version of Dion Cassius in 1557; at which time he was so good a scholar, that he employed but seven months in this work; for the truth of which he appeals to Mr. Herwat, a senator of Augsburg and his patron, to whom he dedicates it. Having given ample proof of his learning, and especially of his uncommon skill in the Greek tongue, he was invited in 1558 to Heidelberg, to take possession of the Greek professor’s chair, then vacant. In 1566, the elector-palatine Frederic III, and the duke of Wirtemberg, having called an assembly of the clergy to hold a conference upon the eucharist, about which there were great disputes, Xylander was chosen by the elector as secretary of the assembly, together with Osiander, who was named by the duke he executed the same office upon a similar occasion in 1581. Excessive application to study is supposed to have brought an illness upon him, of which he died in February 1576, aged forty-three years.

, an eminent lawyer, was the son of Philip Yorke, an attorney, and was born at Dover, in Kent, December 1, 1690; and educated under Mr. Samuel Morland, of Bethnal Green, in classical and general learning, which he ever cultivated amidst his highest employments. He studied the law in the Middle Temple under the instruction of an eminent conveyancer of the name of Salkeld; and, being called to the bar in 1714, he soon became very eminent in his profession. In 1718 he sat in parliament as member for Lewes, in Sussex; and, in the two successive parliaments, for Seaford. In March 1719-20, he was promoted to the office of solicitorgeneral by the recommendation of the lord-chancellor Parker; an obligation he never forgot, returning it by every possible mark of personal regard and affection. He received also about the same time the honour of knighthood. The trial of Mr. Layer at the king’s bench for high. treason, gave him, in Nov. 1722, an opportunity of shewiug his abilities; his reply, in which he summed up late at night the evidence against the prisoner, and answered all the topics of defence, being justly admired as one of the ablest performances of that kind extant. About the same time, he gained much reputation in parliament by opening the bill against Kelly, who had been principally concerned in bishop Atterbury’s plot, as his secretary. la February 1723-4, he was appointed attorney-general, in the execution of which important office he was remarkable for his candour and lenity. As an advocate for the crown, he spoke with the veracity of a witness and a judge; and, though his zeal for justice and the due course of law was strong, yet his tenderness to the subject,- in the court of exchequer, was so distinguished, that upon a particular occasion in 1733, the House of Commons assented to it with a general applause. He was unmoved by fear or favour in what he thought right and legal; and often debated and voted against the court in matters relating to the South-Sea company, when he was solicitor; and,‘ in the affair of lord Derwentwater’s estate, when he was attorneygeneral. Upon the resignation of the great seal by Peter lord King, in October 1733, sir Philip Yorke was appointed lord chief-justice of the king^s bench. He was soon after raised to the dignity of a baron of this kingdom, with the title of lord Hardwicke, baron of Hardwicke, in the county of Gloucester, and called to the cabinet council. The salary of chief-justice of the king’s bench being thought not adequate to the weight and dignity of that high office, was raised on the advancement of lord Hardwicke to it, from 2000l. to 4000l. per ann. to the chiefjustice and his successors; but his lordship refused to accept the augmentation of it; and the adjustment of the two vacancies of the chancery and king’s bench (which happened at the same time) between his lordship and lord Talbot, upon terms honourable and satisfactory to both, was thought to do as much credit to the wisdom of the crown in those days, as the harmony and friendship, with which they co-operated in’the public service, did honour to themselves. In the midst of the general approbation with which he discharged his office there, he was called to that of lord high chancellor, on the decease of lord Talbot, February 17, 1736-7.

Convinced of the great principles* of religion, and steady in his practice of the duties of it, he maintained a reputation of virtue, which added dignity to the stations which he filled, and authority to the laws which he administered. His attachment to the national church was accompanied with a full conviction, that a tender regard to the rights of conscience, and a temper of lenity and moderation, are not only right in themselves, but most conducive in their consequences to the honour and interest of the church. The strongest recommendation to him of the clergy, to the ecclesiastical preferments in his disposal, was their fitness for the discharge of the duties of their profession. And that respectable body owes a particular obligation to his lordship, and his predecessor lord Talbot, for the opposition which they gave in the House of Lords to the “Act for the more easy recovery of Tithes, Church-rates, and other ecclesiastical Dues, from People called Quakers,” which might have proved of dangerous consequences to the rights and property of the clergy; though if. had passed the other house, and was known to be powerfully supported. Many facts and anecdotes which do him honour may be recollected and set down, when resentments, partialities, and contests, are forgot.

In 1786, when the professorship of philosophy in Trinity college became vacant, he had attained so high reputation in that branch of science, that he was elected to the office without opposition. His “Essay on Sounds” had been published two years, and it was known that he was engaged in the arduous task of illustrating the “Principia” of Newton. He now devoted himself to the duties of his professorship: and the college having been enriched with the excellent apparatus of Mr. Atwood, Dr. Young improved the occasion of carrying his lectures to a degree of perfection unknown in the university of Dublin, and never perhaps exceeded in any other. He proceeded in the mean time in his great work, “The method of Prime and Ultimate Ratios, illustrated by a commentary on the first two books of the Principia,” and had nearly completed it in English, when he was advised by his friends to publish it in Latin. He readily acquiesced, and thus had an opportunity, while translating it, of revising the whole, and rendering it fuller and more perfect. It was finished a year or two before his promotion to the see of Clonfert, at which time he was engaged in preparing it for the press. The^circumstances of this promotion reflect equal honour on himself and on the lord lieutenant (earl Cornwallis) who conferred it. It was a favour as unsolicited as unexpected, unless the report made to his excellency by his principal secretary, on being consulted as to the properest person to fill the vacant see, may be called solicitation. His report was, that “he believed Dr. Young to be the most distinguished literary character in the kingdom.”

In 1633, he published an edition of Clemens Romanus reprinted in 1637, with a Latin version “Catena Graecorum patrum in Jobum, collectore Nsceta Heraclere Metropolitaa,” to which he subjoined, from the Alexandrian ms. a continued series of the books of scripture, called Poetici. This was followed, in 1638, by the “Expositio in Canticum Canticorum Gilberti Folioti episc. Londini, una cum, Alcuini in idem Canticum compendio,” with a dedication to bishop Juxon. He made preparations for publishing several other curious Mss. while he continued in the royal library, which was till near the death of Charles I. when it was seized by the republican party, and preserved, amidst many vicissitudes, with more care than could have been expected. Mr. Young now retired to Bromfield, in Essex, to the house of Mr. John Atwood, a -civilian, who had married his eldest daughter. There he died Sept. 7, 1652, and was interred in the chancel of Brornfield church.

, an eminently learned Italian Jesuit, was born in Venice, March 27, 1714, the son of an eminent Tuscan lawyer, settled in the Venetian states. He received his education in the schools of the Jesuits in that metropolis, and, as early as the age of fifteen, evinced such uncommon powers and attainments as to be introduce'd into that society, already proverbial for its sagacity and conduct in discovering juvenile talents of every kind. In October 1731, he took the habit, went through his noviciate in Vienna, and became soon after professor of belles lettres in the college of his order at Govitz. It was not long before he was called by his superiors to Rome, ordained a priest in 1740, attached to the Roman province, and sent on a mission to the Marche of Ancona. He exercised similar functions also in Tuscany, Lombardy, and almost the whole of northern Italy, with extraordinary success and fame, and without the least diversion from his favourite pursuit the study of ecclesiastical, civil, and literary history. He availed himself of these peregrinations through the several capitals of Italy, in cultivating the friendship of all the eminent literary characters he met with, and in making every where those deep researches in literature, antiquities, -bibliography, and history, which have supplied him with a great part of his literary history of Italy, his annals of literature, and his several historical and diplomatic collections.

, an eminent Spanish physician, was born at Lisbon in 1575, and is usually called Lusitanus. He studied both philosophy and medicine at Salamanca and Coimbra, and took his degree of doctor in 1594 at Saguntum, now called Morvedre, a famous university in Spain. After this, he practised physic at Lisbon till 1624; when, by an edict of Philip IV. who governed Spain with a high hand, the whole race of Jews were interdicted the kingdom. Zacutus, being a Jew, retired into Holland, practising chiefly at Amsterdam and the Hague; at the former of which places he died, in 1641 or 1642, aged about sixtysix or seven. His works, written in Latin, were printed at Lyons in France, in 1649, 2 vols. fojio. Before the second is placed what he calls “Introitus ad Praxin; or, An Introduction rto Practice;” in which be displays the qualities of a physician, morale as well as intellectual; and shews, not only what are the qualifications necessary to the art, but also what are the duties necessary to the man.

, called also Baramus, a monk of the sixth century, rendered himself conspicuous in the Eastern church by reviving the sect of the Monophysites, founded by Eutyches, and called from him Eutychians. Their doctrine was, that in Christ there is but one nature, that of the incarnate word. The sect was now reduced to very few, but these had ordained Zanzalus bishop of Edessa, and by his uncommon zeal and indefatigable labours, he left his sect, when he died in 588, in a most flourishing state in Syria, Mesopotamia* Armenia, Egypt, &c. and other countries, and such as exist in those countries are still called by the name of Jacobites in honour of him.

, the founder of the Stoic sect (a branch from the Cynic, ad a far as respected morals, differing from it in words more than in reality), was a native of Cittius, a maritime town of Cyprus, and as this place was originally peopled by a colony of Phenicians, he is sometimes called a Phenician. His father, a merchant, encouraged him in the study of philosophy, and bought for him several of the writings of v the most eminent Socratic philosophers, which he read with great avidity and when he was about thirty years of age, determined to take a voyage to Athens, which was so celebrated both as a mart of trade and of science. Whether this voyage was in part mercantile, or wholly undertaken for the sake of conversing with those philosophers whose writings Zeno had long admired, is uncertain. If it be true, as some writers relate, that he brought with him a valuable cargo of Phenician purple, which was lost by shipwreck upon the coast of Pira3us, this circumstance will account for the facility with which he at first attached himself to a sect whose leading principle was the contempt of riches. Upon his first arrival in Athens, going accidentally into the shop of a bookseller, he took up a volume of the Commentaries of Xenophon, and formed so high an idea of the author, that he asked the bookseller, where he might meet with such men. Crates, the Cynic philosopher, happening at that instant to be passing by, the bookseller pointed to him, and said, “Follow that man,” which he did, and was so well pleased with his doctrine, that he became one of his disciples. But though he highly admired the general principles and spirit of the Cynic school, he could not easily reconcile himself to their peculiar manners; nor would his inquisitive turn of mind allow him to adopt their indifference to scientific inquiry. He therefore attended upon other masters, who professed to instruct their disciples in the nature and causes of things, and when Crates, displeased at this, attempted to drag him by force out of the school of Stilpo, Zeno said to him, “You may seize my body, but Stilpo has laid hold of my mind.” After continuing to attend upon the lectures of Stilpo several years, he passed over to other schools, particularly those of Xenocrates and Diodorus Cronus. By the latter he was instructed in dialectics; and at last, after attending almost every other master, he offered himself as a disciple of Polemo, who suspected that his design was to collect materials for a new system: nor was he mistaken. The place which Zeno chose for his school was called 2/rea, or the Porch, and hence the name of Stoics. Zeno had advantages as the founder of a new sect; he excelled in that kind of subtle reasoning which was at that time popular, and while he taught a system of moral doctrine, his own morals were unexceptionable. He therefore soon became much followed, and on account of his integrity the Athenians deposited the keys of their citadel in his hands, and honoured him with a golden crown and a statue of brass. In his person Zeno was tall and slender; his aspect was severe, and his brow contracted. His constitution was feeble; but he preserved his health by great abstemiousness. The supplies of his table consisted of figs, bread, and honey; notwithstanding which, he was frequently honoured with the company of great men. It was a singular proof of, his moderation, mixed indeed with that high spirit of independence which afterwards distinguished his sect, that when Democharis, son of Laches, offered to procure him some gratuity from* Antigonus, he was so offended, that from that time he declined all intercourse with him. In public company, to avoid every appearance of an assuming temper, he commonly took the lowest place. Indeed, so great was his modesty, that he seldom chose to mingle with a crowd, or wished for the company of more than two or three friends at once. He paid more attention to neatness and decorum in external appearance, than the Cynic philosophers. In his dress indeed he was plain, and in all his expences frugal, which arose from a contempt of external magnificence. He showed as much respect to the poor as to the rich; and conversed freely with persons of the meanest occupations. He had only one servant, or, according to Seneca, none. Yet with all these virtues, several philosophers of great ability and eloquence employed their talents against him, and Arcesilaus and Carneades, the founders of the middle and new academy, were his professed opponents. Towards the latter end of his life he found another powerful adversary in Epicurus, whose temper and doctrines were alike inimical to the severe gravity and philosophical pride of the Stoic sect. Hence mutual invectives passed between the Stoics and other sects, to which little credit is due. At least it may be fairly presumed that Zeno, whose personal character was so exemplary, never countenanced gross immorality in his doctrine.

, called the Eleatic, to distinguish from the preceding, and 'from others, flourished about 463 B.C. He was a zealous friend of civil liberty, and is celebrated for his courageous and successful opposition to tyrants; but the inconsistency of the stories related by different writers concerning him, in a great measure destroys their credit. He chose to reside in his small native city of Elea, rather than at Athens, because it afforded freer scope to his independent and generous spirit, which could not easily submit to the restraints of authority. It is related that he vindicated the warmth with which he resented reproach, by saying, “If I were indifferent to censure, I should also be indifferent to praise.” The invention of the dialecticart has been improperly ascribed to Zeno; but there can be no doubt that this philosopher, and other metaphysical disputants in the Eleatic sect, employed much ingenuity and subtlety in exhibiting examples of most of the logical arts which were afterwards reduced to rule by Aristotle and others. According to Aristotle, Zeno of Elea taught that nothing fcan be produced either from that which is similar or dissimilar; that there is only one being, and that is God; that this being is eternal, homogeneous, and spherical, neither finite nor infinite, neither quiescent nor moveable; % that there are many worlds; that there is in nature no vacuum; that all bodies are composed of four elements, heat and moisture, cold and dryness; and that the body of man is from the earth, and his soul an equal mixture of these four elements. He argued with great subtlety against the possibility of motion. If Seneca’s account of this philosopher deserves credit, he reached the highest point of scepticism, and denied the real existence of external objects. The truth is, that after all that has been advanced by different writers, it is impossible to determine whether Zeno understood the term one, metaphysically, logically, or physically; or whether he admitted or denied a nature properly divine.

The count himself superintended the rising settlement. The first houses were built near the hill called the Hutberg, i. e. the Watch-Hill; and hence the new settlement was called Herrnhut, i e. the Watch of the Lord; and the brethren were by some denominated (but very improperly) Herrnhutters. In 1724, more emigrants arrived at Herrrihut from Moravia, just as the brethren were beginning to lay the foundation of an edifice intended for the education of the children of the noblesse, for printing cheap Bibles, and preparing medicines for their neighbours, in which building was also to be a chapel.

From this period, in particular, when elders and wardens were chosen, and a union established between the brethren from Moravia, both among themselves, and with their Lutheran and Calvinistic brethren, the Moravian writers date the renewal of the “Unity of the Brethren.” The whole congregation was divided into classes, called choirs, and one of their own sex and station in life appointed to have the special care of each choir under the inspection of the elders. The ministers were appointed by lot, according to the apostolic practice, which they have continued ever since. They have adopted also other primitive practices, as the foot-washing, the kiss of charity, and the celebration of the agapæ, or love feasts. All matrimonial contracts were subject to the direction and approbation of the elders. Their worship is directed principally to Jesus Christ; and, in their religious services^ they admit of instrumental as well as vocal mtisic.

The Moravians retain the discipline of their ancient church, and make use of episcopal ordination, which has been handed down to them, in a direct line of succession for more than 300 years. In their doctrines they adhere to the confession of Augsburgh, which was drawn up by Melancthon, at the desire of the protestant princes then assembled in that city, and by them presented to the die( of the empire, in 1530. In 1732, count Zinzendorf determining to devote h is whole time to the benefit of the brethren, and to the great work of preaching the gospel among the heathens, resigned his situation as one of the council of regency at Dresden. He had been appointed in 1727, one of the wardens of the congregation. These wardens, where necessary, were to patronize the congregation, and to have an eye to the maintenance of good order and discipline. To them, and to the elders in conjunction, the direction of the congregation, both internally and externally, was committed. This office he resigned in 1730, but upon the urgent entreaties of the congregation, resumed it in 1733. He entered into holy orders in 1734, at Tubingen, in the duchy of Wirtemberg; and in 1737, he received episcopal ordination, on which occasion he received a letter of congratulation from Dr. Potter, archbishop of Canterbury, and from this time we always find him called the Ordinary of the brethren. In 1741, he laid aside his episcopal function, as he believed it would be prejudicial to his intended labours in Pennsylvania, where he purposed to appear merely as a Lutheran divine.