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

In 1741 the second volume of “The Divine Legation,” in two parts, containing books IV. V. VI. was published; as was also a second edition of the “Alliance between Church and State.” In the summer of that year Mr. Pope and Mr. Warburton, in a country-ramble, took Oxford in their way, where they parted; Mr. Pope, after one day’s stay, going westward; and Mr. Warburton, who stayed aday after him to visit Dr. Conybeare, then dean of Christ Church, returning to London. On that day the vice chancellor, Dr. Leigh, sent a message to his lodgings with the usual compliment, to know if a doctor’s degree in divinity would be acceptable to him; to which such an iuiiswer was returned as so civil a message deserved. About the same time Mr. Pope had the like offer made him of a doctor’s degree in law, which he seemed disposed to accept, until he learnt that some impediment had been thrown in the way of his friend’s receiving the compliment intended for him by the vice-chancellor. He then absolutely refused that proposed to himself. “Mr. Pope,” says Hurd, “retired with some indignation to Twickenham, but consoled himself and his friend with this sarcastic reflection, ' We shall take our degree together in fame, whatever we do at the university?” This biographer also informs us that “the university seemed desirous of enrolling their narmes among their graduates,” but that “intrigue and envy defeated this scheme.” He adds, that this was “the fault of one or two of its (the university’s) members,” a number surely insufficient to produce such an effect. But the real history of this matter seems never to have been given.

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.

* Were infidelity itself, when it would evade the force of testimony, to prescribe what qualities it expected in a faultless testimony, it could invent none but what might be found in the historian here produced. He was a pagan, and so not prejudiced in favour of Christianity: he was a dependent, follower, and profound admirer of Julian, and so not inclined to report any thing to his dishonour. He was a lover of truth, and so would not relate what he knew, or but suspected, to be false. He had great sense, improved by the study of philosophy, and so would not suffer himself to be deceived: he was not only contemporary to the fact, but at the time it happened resident near the place. He related it, not as anuncertain hearsay, with diffidence, but as a notorious fact at that time no more questioned in Asia than the project of the Persian expedition: he inserted it not for any partial purpose, in support or confutation of any system, in defence or discredit of any character; he delivered it in no cursory or transient manner; nor in a loose or private memoir; but gravely and deliberately, as the natural and necessary part of a composition the most useful and important, a general history of the empire, on the complete performance of which the author was so intent, that he exchanged a court life for one of study and contemplation, and chose Rome, the great repository of the proper materials, for the place of his retirement.'

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 *.

the Christian Religion; Dr. Johnson’s character of this literary phenomenon is too remarkable to be omitted. “About this time (1738), Warburton began to make his appearance in the first ranks of learning. He was a man of vigorous faculties, a mind fervid and vehement, supplied by incessant and unlimited inquiry, with wonderful extent and variety of knowledge, which yet had not oppressed his imagination nor clouded his perspicacity. To every work he brought a memory full fraught, together with a fancy fertile of original combinations; and at once exerted the powers of the scholar, the reasoner, and the wit. But his knowledge was too multifarious to be always exact, and his pursuits were too eager to be always cautious. His abilities gave him a haughty consequence, which he disdained to conceal or mollify; and his impatience of opposition disposed him to treat his adversaries with such contemptuous superiority as made his readers commonly his enemies, and excited against the advocate the wishes of some who favoured the cause. He seems to have adopted the Roman emperor’s determination, ‘oderint dum metuant;’ he used no allurements of gentle language, but wished to compel rather than persuade. His style is copious without selection, and forcible without neatness; he took the words that presented themselves: his diction is coarse and impure, and his sentences are unmeasured.” To this character, which has been often copied, we shall subjoin some remarks from the able critic of whom we have already borrowed, and whose opinions seem entitled to great attention.

“Warburton’s whole constitution, bodily as well as mental, seemed to indicate that he was born to be an extraordinary man: with a large and athletic person he prevented the necessity of such bodily exercises as strong constitutions usually require, by rigid and undeviating abstinence. The time thus saved was uniformly devoted to study, of which no measure or continuance ever exhausted his understanding, or checked the natural and lively flow of his spirits. A change in the object of his pursuit was his only relaxation; and he could pass and n pass from fathers and philosophers to Don Quixote, in the original, with perfect ease and pleasure. In the mind of Warburton the foundation of classical literature had been well laid, yet not so as to enable him to pursue the science of ancient criticism with an exactness equal to the extent in which he grasped it. His master-faculty was reason, and his master-science was theology; the very outline of which last, as marked out by this great man, for the direction of young students, surpasses the attainments of many who have the reputation of considerate divines. One deficiency of his education he had carefully corrected by cultivating logic with great diligence. That he has sometimes mistaken the sense of his own citations in Greek, may perhaps be imputed to a purpose of bending them to his own opinions. After all, he was incomparably the worst critic in his mother tongue. Little acquainted with old English literature, and as little with those provincial dialects which yet retain much of the phraseology of Shakespeare, he has exposed himself to the derision of far inferior judges by mistaking the sense of passages, in which he would have been corrected by shepherds and plowmen. His sense of humour, like that of most men of very vigorous faculties, was strong, but extremely coarse, while the rudeness and vulgarity of his manners as acontrovertist removed all restraints of decency or decorum in scattering his jests about him. His taste seems to have been neither just nor delicate. He had nothing of that intuitive perception of beauty which feels rather than judges, and yet is sure to be followed by the common suffrage of mankind: on the contrary, his critical favours were commonly bestowed according to rules and reasons, and for the most part according to some perverse and capricious reasons of his own. In short, it may be adduced as one of those compensations with which Providence is ever observed to balance the excesses and superfluities of its own gifts, that there was not a faculty about this wonderful man which does not appear to have been distorted by a certain inexplicable perverseness, in which pride and love of paradox were blended with the spirit of subtle and sophistical reasoning. In the lighter exercises of his faculties it may not unfrequently be doubted whether he believed himself; in the more serious, however fine-r spun his theories may have been, he was unquestionably honest. On the whole, we think it a fair subject of speculation, whether it were desirable that Warburton’s education and early habits should have been those of other great scholars. That the ordinary forms of scholastic institution would have been for his own benefit and in some respects for that of mankind, there can be no doubt. The gradations of an University would, in part, have mortified his vanity and subdued his arrogance. The perpetual collisions of kindred and approximating minds, which constitute, perhaps, the great excellence of those illustrious seminaries, would have rounded off‘ some portion of his native asperities; he would have been broken by the academical curb to pace in the trammels of ordinary ratiocination; he would have thought always above, yet not altogether unlike, the rest of mankind. In short, he would have become precisely what the discipline of a college was able to make of the man, whom Warburton most resembled, the great Bentley. Yet all these advantages would have been acquired at an expence ill to be spared and greatly to be regretted. The man might have been polished and the scholar improved, ’but the phenomenon would have been lost. Mankind might not have learned, for centuries to come, what an untutored mind can do for itself. A self-taught theologian, untamed by rank and unsubdued by intercourse with the great, was yet a novelty; and the manners of a gentleman, the formalities of argument, and the niceties of composition, would, at least with those who love the eccentricities of native genius, have been unwillingly accepted in exchange for that glorious extravagance which dazzles while it is unable to convince, that range of erudition which would have been cramped by exactness of research, and that haughty defiance of form and decorum, which, in its rudest transgressions against charity and manners, never failed to combine the powers of a giant with the temper of a ruffian.”

, 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.

His son John appears to have early contracted a love for learning, and longed for a situation in which he could make it his chief object. He was for some years a clerk in the navy office, and prosecuted iiis studies at his leisure hour* with great eagerness, and had the assistance of a Dr. John Ker, who appears to have been originally a physician, as he took his degree of M. D. at Leyden, but kept an academy at Highgate, and afterwards in St. John’s-square, Clerkenwell. Mr. Ward continued in the navy-office until 1710, when he resigned his situation, and opened a school in Tenter-alley, Moorfields, which he kept for many years, being more desirous, as he said, to converse even with boys upon subjects of literature, than to transact the ordinary affairs of life with men. In 1712, he became one of the earliest members of a society of gentlemen, who agreed to meet once a week, or as often as their affairs would permit, to prepare and read discourses, each in his turn, upon the civil law, and the law of nature and nations. In the prosecution of this laudable design, they went through the “Corpus Juris civilis,” Grotius “De Jure belli et pacis,” Puffendorff “De officio hominis et civis,” and ended with Cicero “De Officiis.” Some of the society were divines, and some lawyers; and as their affairs from time to time obliged any of them to leave the society, they were succeeded by others. But in order to preserve a perfect harmony and agreement among themselves, it was always a standing rule not to admit any new member, till he was first proposed by one of their number, and approved of by all the rest. This society, with some occasional interruptions, was kept up till Michaelmas-term 1742. Several of the members were afterwards persons of distinction both in church and state, and Mr. Ward continued highly esteemed among them while the society subsisted.

In 1741 he translated into Latin the life of Dr. Arthur Johnston, for auditor Benson’s edition of that poet’s Latin version of the Psalms; and in 1750 he addressed a Latin letter to Dr. Wishart, principal of the university of Edinburgh, which was the year following added to the principal^ edition of Volusenus, or Wilson, “De animi tranquillitate.” This probably led to the degree of doctor of laws, which the university of Edinburgh conferred upon Mr. Ward the same year. On the establishment of the British museum in 1753, Dr. Ward was elected one of the trustees, in which office he was singularly useful by his assiduous attendance, advice, and assistance in the formation of that establishment, and the construction of rules for rendering it a public benefit, which it is, however, now in a much higher degree than in Dr. Ward’s time.

As to his private character, Dr. Birch says that his piety was sincere and unaffected, and his profession as a Christian was that of a protestant dissenter, with a moderation and candour which recommended him to the esteem of those members of the established church who had the pleasure of his acquaintance or friendship. His modesty was equal to his learning, and his readiness to contribute to any work of literature was as distinguished as his abilities to do it. Dr. Lardner and Dr. Benson may be mentioned as acknowledging his assistance in their theological pursuits.

In 1624 he was rector of Much-Munden, in Hertfordshire. He is said also to have been chaplain extraordinary to the king, and to have served in convocation. As he was an enemy to Arminianism, and in other respects bore the character of a puritan, he was nominated one of the committee for religion wlfich sat in the Jerusalem chamber in 1640, and also one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them, which refusal soon brought on the severe persecution which he suffered. On the breaking out of the rebellion he added to his other offences against the usurping powers, that unpardonable one of joining with the other heads of houses in sending the college plate to the king. He was likewise in the convocation-house when all the members of the university there assembled, many of them men in years, were kept prisoners in the public schools in exceeding cold weather, till midnight, without food or fire, because they would not join in what the republican party required. After this, Dr. Ward was deprived of his mastership and professorship, and plundered and imprisoned both in his own and in St. John’s college. During his confinement in St. John’s he contracted a disease which is said to have put an end to his life, about six weeks after his enlargement; but there seems some mistake in the accounts of his death, which appears to have taken place Sept. 7, 1643, when he was in great want. He was buried in the chapel of Sidney-Sussex college. Of this house he had been an excellent governor, and an exact disciplinarian, and it flourished greatly under his administration. Four new fellowships were founded in his time, all the scholarships augmented, and a chapel and a new range of buildings erected. Dr. Ward was a man of great learning as well as piety, of both which are many proofs in his correspondence with archbishop Usher, appended to the life of that celebrated prelate. Fuller, in his quaint way, says he was “a Moses (not only for slowness of speech) but otherwise meekness of nature. Indeed, when in my private thoughts I have beheld him and doctor Collins (disputable whether more different or more eminent in their endowments) I could not but remember the running of Peter and John to the place where Christ was buried. In which race John came first, as the youngest and swiftest, but Peter first entered into the grave. Dr. Collins had much the speed of him in quicknesse of parts, but let me say (nor doth the relation of a pupil misguide me) the other pierced the deeper into underground and profound points of divinity.”

, an English prelate, famous chiefly for his skill in mathematics and astronomy, was the son of John Ward an attorney, and born at Buntingford, in Hertfordshire. Wood says he was baptised the 16th of April, 1617; but Dr. Pope places his birth in 1618. He was taught grammar-learning and arithmetic in the school at Buntingford; and thence removed to Sidney college in Cambridge, into which he was admitted in 1632. Dr. Samuel Ward, the master of that college, was greatly taken with his ingenuity and good nature; and shewed him particular favour, partly perhaps from his being of the same surname, though there was no affinity at all between them. Here he applied himself with great vigour to his studies, and particularly to mathematics, his initiation into which, Pope thus relates: “In the college library Mr. Ward found by chance some books that treated of the mathematics, and they being woolly new to him, he inquired all the college over for a guide to instruct him in that way; but all his search was in vain; these books were Greek, I mean unintelligible, to all the fellows of the college. Nevertheless he took courage, and attempted them himself, proprio Marte, without any confederates or assistance, or intelligence in that country, and that with so good success, that in a short time he not only discovered those Indies, but conquered several kingdoms therein, and brought thence a great part of their treasure, which he shewed publicly to the whole university not long after.”

Soon after his arrival at Oxford, he took the engagement, or oath, to be faithful to the commonwealth of England, as it was then established, without a king or house of lords: for, though he had refused the covenant while the king was supposed to be in any condition of succeeding, yet, now these hopes were at an end, and the government, together with the king, was overturned, he thought that no good purpose could be answered by obstinately holding out any longer against the powers that were. In the mean time his first object was to bring the astronomy- lectures, Which had long been neglected and disused, into repute again; and for this purpose he read them very constantly, never missing one reading-day all the while he held the lecture.

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.

The “books concerning religion” which Dodd ascribes to him, are, 1. “Monomachia; or, a duel between Dr. Tenison, pastor of St. Martin’s, London, and a catholic soldier.” 2. “Speculum Ecclesiasticum.” 3. “The Tree of Life,” taken from a large copper cut. 4. “Errata’s of the Protestant Bible,” 1688, 4to. 5. “The controversy of ordination truly stated,” Lond. 1719, 8vo, which occasioned several treatises on both sides upon that subject; especially that of Le Courayer. 6. “A confutation of Dr. Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine articles,” a ms. in the English college at Doway. 7. " England’s Reformation, in several cantos, in the Hudibrastic style, 7 ' 4to, printed at Hamburgh, but reprinted at London in 1716, 8vo, and afterwards in 2 vols. 12 mo. This is a malicious and scurrilous history of the changes in religion, from Henry VIHth’s being divorced from Catherine of Arragon, to Oates’s plot in the reign of Charles II.; and is accompanied with many extracts from acts of parliament, state papers, and public records of all sorts. The imitation of Hudibras is tolerably successful, and there is a considerable share of humour, wit, and liveliness, but not enough to atone for the many misrepresentations of fact, and the malignant tendency of the whole.

, an eminent antiquary, was descended from the ancient family of De Ware, or De Warr in Yorkshire, the only remains of which are, or lately were, in Ireland. His grandfather, Christopher Ware, was an early convert to the protestant religion in the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and that principally by the arguments and persuasion of Fox, the celebrated martyrologist. His father James, who was liberally educated, was introduced to the court of queen Elizabeth, where he soon because noticed by the ministers of state, and in 1588 was sent to Ireland as secretary to sir William Fitz-Wiiliams, the lord deputy. He had not filled this office long before he was made clerk of the common pleas in the exchequer, and afterwards obtained the reversion of the patent place of auditor general, a valuable appointment, which remained nearly a century in his family, except for a short time during the usurpation; and his income having enabled him to make considerable purchases in the county and city of Dublin, &c. his family may be considered as now removed finally to Ireland. While on a visit ui E;i^l md, James I. bestowed on him the honour of knighthood, and as a particular mark of favour, gave his eldest son the reversion of the office of auditor general. He also sat in the Irish parliament which began May 1613, for the borough of Mallow in the county of Cork. He died suddenly, while walking the street in Dublin, in 1632. By his lady, Mary, sister of sir Ambrose Briden, of Maidstone in Kent, he had five sons and five daughters. His eldest son, the subject of this article, was born in Castlestreet, Dublin, Nov. 26, 1594, and discovering early a love of literature, his father gave him a good classical education as preparatory to his academical studies. In 1610, when sixteen years of age, he was entered a fellow commoner in Trinity college, Dublin, under the immediate tuition of Dr. Anthony Martin, afterwards bishop of Meath, and provost of the college; but his private tutor and chamber-fellow was Dr. Joshua Hoyle, an Oxford scholar, and afterwards professor of divinity. Here Mr. Ware applied to his studies with such success, that he was admitted to his degree of M. A. much sooner than usual.

In 1639, notwithstanding the hurry of public business, he published “De Scriptoribus Hiberniae, lib. duo,” Dublin, 4to. It is unnecessary to say much of this outline of the history of Irish writers, as it has since been so ably translated, enlarged, and improved by Mr. Harris, forming nearly a half of his second folio. In the same year, sir James was returned a member of parliament for the university of Dublin: of his conduct here, we shall only notice that when a ferment was raised in both houses against the earl of Stratford, sir James exerted his utmost zeal in his defence. When the Irish rebellion broke out in 1641, he closely attended the business of the council, and we see his name to many orders, proclamations, and other acts of state against the rebels. He engaged also with others of the privy-council, in securities for the repayment of considerable sums advanced by the citizens of Dublin, for the support of the English forces sent to quell the rebellion. The marquis of Ormond, lieutenant-general of these forces, reposed great trust in sir James, and advised with him on all important occasions. In 1642, when Charles I. wished for the assistance of these troops against his rebellious subjects at home, he determined on a cessation with the rebels for one year, and in this the marquis of Ormond, sir James Ware, and others of the privy council concurred, rather, however, as a measure of necessity than prudence. This news was very acceptable at the king’s court, then held at Oxford, but the measure was condemned by the parliament. While the treaty of peace with the Irish rebels was pending, the marquis of Ormond, having occasion to send some person* in whom he could confide to the king at Oxford, to inform his majesty of the posture of his affairs in Ireland, and to know his pleasure in relation to those particulars of the treaty which remained to be adjusted, fixed upon lord Edward Brabazon, sir Henry Tichborne, and sir James Ware, as persons acceptable to the king, and not inclined to favour either the popish or parliamentary interest. They arrived at Oxford in the end of 1644, and, while here, such time as sir James could spare from the business on which he was sent, was employed by him in the libraries, or in the company of the men of learning. The university complimented him with the honorary degree of doctor of laws.

By his wife, sir James Ware had ten children, of whom only two sons and two daughters arrived at maturity. Of the latter, Mary was married to sir Edward Crofton, bart. and Rqse to lord Lambert, afterwards earl of Cavan. His eldest son James succeeded him in his estate and office, and married the daughter of Dixie Hickman, of Kew, in the county of Surrey, esq. and sister to Thomas lord Windsor, who was afterwards created earl of Plymouth. By a general entail raised on this marriage, the estate of the family afterwards came to an only daughter, Mary, who took for her second husband sir John St, Leger, knt. one of the barons of his majesty’s court of exchequer in Ireland, in whom the estate vested. Sir James Ware’s youngest son Robert was in his youth troubled with epilepsy, and afforded no hopes to his father, which induced him to consent to the general entail before mentioned; but this son afterwards recovering a vigorous state of health, sir James had little pleasure in reflecting on what he had done, and to make Robert every amends in his power, laid up 1000l. for every remaining year of his life, which was not above six or seven. Robert married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Henry Piers, of Tristernagh, in the county of Westmeath^ bart. and from this marriage one only son, Henry, survived. Henry married Mary, the daughter of Peter Egerton, of Shaw, in Lancashire, esq. by whom he had two sons, and a daughter Elizabeth, married to Walter Harris, esq. editor of sir James Ware’s works.

Of Robert Ware some farther notice must be taken, as he was a writer of considerable note in his day. He had by those writings appeared so averse to the Roman catholic interest of Ireland in the reign of Charles II. that, fearing the resentment of that party, which he had reason to believe would be severe enough, and being advised by the earl of Clarendon, then lord lieutenant, he removed with his family into England on the same day that lord Tyrcon* nel landed in Ireland to take upon him the government, which he continued until the revolution. Mr. Ware died March 1696, after publishing, I. “The Examinations of Faithful Commin and Thomas Heath,” &c. Dublin, 1671, 4to. 2. “The Conversion of Philip Corwine, a Franciscan Friari to the protestant religion^ in 1569,” ibid. 1681, 4to. 3. “The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, in the life and death of George Brown, sometime archbishop of Dublin,” ibid. 1681, 4to. This stands the first in the English edition of sir James Ware’s Works, Dublin, 1705, fol. and is also reprinted in the “Phoenix,” vol. I. 4. “Foxes and Firebrands or a specimen of the danger and harmony of popery and separation wherein is proved from undeniable matter of fact and reason, that separation from the Church of England is, in the judgment of papists, and by sad experience, found the most compendious way to introduce popery, and to ruin the protestant religion, in two parts,” London, 1680, 4to, Dublin, 1682, 8vo. The first part, with the examinations of Commin and Heath, was published by Dr. John Nalson in 1678, 8vq, and the second part was added by Mr. Robert Ware. 5. “The hunting of the Romish Fox, and the quenching of sectarian firebrands; being a specimen of popery and separation,” Dublin, 1683, 8vo. 6. “Foxes and Firebrands, the third part,” Loud. 1689, 8vo. 7. “Pope Joan; or an account that there was such a she-pope, proved from Romish authors before Luther,” &c. ibid. 1689, 4to. Mr. Ware left also an unfinished and imperfect ms. on the history and antiquities of the city and university of Dublin.

, an eminent English prelate, archbishop of Canterbury, and lord high chancellor, the son of Robert Warham, was born of a genteel family at Okely, in Hampshire. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted a fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1475. There he took the degree of doctor of laws, and, according to Wood, left the college in 1488. In the same year he appears to have been collated to a rectorship by the bishop of Ely, and soon afterwards became an advocate in the court of arches, and principal or moderator of the civil law school in St. Edward’s parish, Oxford. In 1493 he was sent by Henry VII. with sir Edward Poynings, on an embassy to Philip duke of Burgundy, to persuade him to deliver up Perkin Warbeck, who had assumed the title of Richard duke of York, second son of king Edward IV. representing that he had escaped the cruelty of his uncle king Richard III. and was supported in this imposture by Margaret, duchess dowager of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. as she had before given encouragement to Lambert Simuel, the pretended earl of Warwick, out of the implacable hatred which she had conceived against Henry VII. Upon this remonstrance the ambassadors were assured by the duke’s council (himself being then in his minority) that “the archduke, for the love of king Henry, would in no sort aid or assist the pretended duke, but in all things preserve the amity he had with the king; but for the duchess dowager, she was absolute in the lands of her dowry, and that he could not hinder her from disposing of her own.” This answer, being founded on an assertion not true, namely, that the duchess dowager was absolute in the lands of her dowry, produced a very sharp reply from the English ambassadors; and when they returned home Henry VII. was by no means pleased with their success. They, however, told him plainly that the duchess dowager had a great party in the archduke’s council, and that the archduke did covertly support Perkin. The king for some time resented this, but the matter appears to have been accommodated in a treaty of commerce concluded in February 1496, by certain commissioners, one of whom, on the part of England, was Dr. Warham.

Warham now, according to lord Bacon, began much to gain upon the king’s opinion, and having executed his office of master of the rolls, as well as his other employments, with great ability, and with much reputation, he was in 1502 made keeper of the great seal of England, and on the first of January following lord high chancellor. In the beginning of 1503 he was advanced to the see of London. In the preceding year the king’s eldest son Arthur prince of Wales was married to Catherine of Arragon, but died soon after, and Henry’s avarice rendering him unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, he proposed that she should marry his younger son Henry, now prince of Wales. But there being great reason to believe that the marriage between prince Arthur and Catherine had been really consummated, Warham remonstrated, in very strong terms, against this preposterous measure, and told the king, that he thought it was neither honourable, nor well-pleasing to God. In this, however, he was opposed by Fox bishop of Winchester, who insisted that the pope’s dispensation could remove all impediments, either sacred or civil. This marriage, it is well-known, afterwards took place, and was the cause of some of the most important events in English history.

In March 1503-4, bishop Warham was translated to the see of Canterbury, in which he was installed with great solemnity, Edward duke of Buckingham officiating as his steward on that occasion. He was likewise, on May 28, 1506, unanimously elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, being then, and ever after, a great friend and benefactor to that university, and to learning in general. In 1509, Henry VII. died, and was succeeded by his son Henry VIII. from whose promising abilities great expectations were formed. Archbishop Warham’s high rank in the church, and the important office he held in the state, as lord chancellor, naturally caused him to preside at the council-board of the young king, and his rank and talents certainly gave him great authority there. One of the first matters of importance, in the new reign, was the marriage of the king, which, from his tender age, and his aversion to it r had not yet taken place, and it was now necessary that his majesty should decide to break it off, or conclude it. Warham still continued to oppose it, and Fox, as before, contended for it; and it, accordingly, was performed June 3, 1509; and on the 24th of the same month, the king and queen were crowned at Westminster by archbishop W r arham. In the years 1511 and 1512, we find our prelate zealously persecuting those who were termed heretics; and although the inttances of his interference with the opinions of the reformation are neither many, nor bear the atrocious features of a Bonner or a Gardiner, they form no small blemish in his character.

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.

He was the warm friend and generous patron of Erasmus, to whom, besides many letters, he sent his portrait, which Dr. Knight suppose* to have been a copy of that at Lambeth by Holbein; Erasmus, in return, sent him his own. He also dedicated his edition of St. Jerome to the archbishop, and in other parts of his works, bestows the highest encomiums on him. He calls him his only M*aeeenas, and says that his generosity and liberality extended not to bim only, but to all men of letters. Erasmus gives us a very pleasing account of Warham’s private life. “That,” says he, “which enabled him to go through such various cares and employments, was, that no part of his time, nor no degree of his attention, was taken up with hunting, or gaming, in idle or trifling conversation, or in luxury or voluptuousness. Instead of any diversions or amusements of this kind, he delighted in the reading of some good and pleasing author, or in the conversation of some learned man. And although he sometimes had prelates, dukes, and earls as his guests, he never spent more than an hour at dinner. The entertainment which he provided for his friends was liberal and splendid, and suitable to the dignity of his rank; but he never touched any dainties of the kind himself. He seldom tasted wine; and when he had attained the age of seventy years, drank nothing, for the most part, but a little small beer. But notwithstanding his great temperance and abstemiousness, he added to the cheerfulness and festivity of every entertainment at which he was present, by the pleasantness of his countenance, and the vivacity and agreeableness of his conversation. The same sobriety was seen in him after dinner as before. He abstained from suppers altogether: unless he happened to have any very familiar friends with him, of which number I was; when he would, indeed, sit down to table, but then could scarcely be said to eat any thing. If that did not happen to be the case, he employed mr time by others usually appropriated to suppers, in study or devotion. But as he was remarkably agreeable and facetious in his discourse, but without biting or buffoonery, so he delighted much in jesting freely with his frit-lids But scurrility, defamation, or slander, he abhorred, and avoided as he would a snake. In this manner did this great man make his days sufficiently long', of the shortness of which many complain.”!

, Lucasian professor of mathematics in the university of Cambridge, was descended from an ancient family at Mitton, in the parish of Fittes, Shropshire, being the eldest son of John Waring of that place. He was born in 1734, and after being educated at the free school at Shrewsbury, under Mr. Kotchkis, was sent on one of Millington’s exhibitions to Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he applied himself with such assiduity to the study of mathematics, that in 1757, when he proceeded bachelor of arts, he was the senior wrangler, or most distinguished graduate of the year. This honour, for the securing of which he probably postponed his first degree to the late period of his twenty-third year, led to his election, only two years afterwards, to the office of Lucasian professor. The appointment of a young man, scarcely twenty-five years of age, and still only a bachelor of arts, to a chair which had been honoured by the names of Newton, Saunderson, and Barrow, gave great offence to the senior members of the university, by whom the talents and pretensions of the new professor were severely arraigned. The first chapter of his “Miscellanea Analytica,” which Mr. Waring circulated in vindication of his scientific character, gave rise to a controversy of some duration. Dr. Powell, master of St. John’s, commenced the attack by a pamphlet of “Observations” upon this specimen of the professor’s qualifications for his office. Wariug was defended in a very able reply, for which he was indebted to Mr. Wilson, then an under-graduate of Peter House, afterwards sir John Wilson, a judge of the common pleas, and a magistrate justly beloved and revered for his amiable temper, learning, honesty, and independent spirit. In 1760, Dr. Powell wrote a defence of his “Observations,” and here the controversy ended. Mr. Waring’s deficiency of academical honours was supplied in the same year by the degree of M. A. conferred upon him by royal mandate, and he remained in the undisturbed possession of his office. Two years afterwards, his work, a part of which had excited so warm a dispute, was published from the university press, in quarto, under the title of “Miscellanea Analytica de Æquationibus Algebraicis et Curvarum Proprietatibus,” with a dedication to the duke of Newcastle. It appears from the title-page, that Waring was by this time elected a fellow of his college. The book itself, so intricate and abstruse are its subjects, is understood to have been little studied even by expert mathematicians. Indeed, speaking of this and his other works, in a subsequent publication, he says himself, “I never could hear of any reader in England out of Cambridge, who took the pains to read and understand what I have written.”

, a very voluminous writer, was born in 1703, but where we are not told. He was of Jesus college, Cambridge, according to Mr. Cole, but we do not find his name among the graduates of that university. In 1730 he became vicar of Ronde, in Wiltshire; in 1746 rector of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, and in 1758 rector of Barnes, in Surrey. He also styles himself chaplain to the lord chancellor, and LL. D.; the latter title probably obtained from some northern university. He died Oct. 3, 1768, aged sixty-five. Dr. Warner was a laborious man, and having deservedly attained the character of a judicious and useful writer, as well as a popular preacher, he was frequently engaged in compilations for the booksellers, which, however, he executed in a very superior manner, and gave many proofs of diligent research and judgment, both in his reflections and in the use he made of his materials. The following we believe to be a complete, or nearly complete list of his publications 1. “A Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor, January 30, 1748.” 2. “A Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor, on September 2,” 1749. 3. “A system of Divinity and Morality, containing a series of discourses on the principal and most important points of natural and revealed Religion; compiled from the works of the most eminent divines of the Church of England,” 1750, 5 vols. J2mo. This was reprinted in 1756, 4 vols. 8vo. 4. “A scheme for a Fund for the better Maintenance of the Widows and Children of the clergy,” 1753, 8vo. For this scheme, when carried into execution, he received the thanks of the London clergy, assembled in Sion college, May 21, 1765, and published another pamphlet, hereafter to be mentioned. 5. “An illustration of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England,” &c. 1754, folio. In this year he took the degree of LL. D. probably, as we have already suggested, at some northern university. 6. “Bolingbroke, or a dialogue on the origin and authority of Revelation,” 1755, 8vo. 7. “A free and necessary enquiry whether the Church of England in her Liturgy, and many of her learned divines in their writings, have not, by some unwary expressions relating to Transubstantiation and the real presence, given so great an advantage to papists and deists as may prove fatal to true religion, unless some remedy be speedily supplied; with remarks on the power of priestly absolution,” 1755, 8vo. 8. In 1756 he published the first volume of his “Ecclesiastical History to the Eighteenth Century,” folio; the second volume in 1757. This is the most valuable of all his works, and has frequently been quoted with approbation. 9. “Memoirs of the Life of sir Thomas More, lord high chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. 1758,” 8vo. This is dedicated to sir Rcbert Henley, afterwards lord chancellor Northington, who is complimented for the favours he had conferred on him on his receiving the seals; probably for the rectory of Barnes, with which he held Queenhithe and Trinity the Less. 10. “Remarks on the History of Fingal and other poems of Ossian, translated by Mr. Macpherson, in a letter to the right hon. the lord L (Lyttelton),” 1762,

8vo. 11. “The History of Ireland, vol*. 1.” 1763, 4to. He published no more of this, being discouraged by a disappointment in his expectations of some parliamentary assistance. Yet in one of those newspaper notices, which Dr. Warner did not disdain, he speaks of the encouragement which he met with when he went to Ireland in 1761 in search of materials for this work. He tells us of “the liberty granted him by the provost and fellows of the university to peruse the books and Mss. in the college library, as also those in the library of St. Sepulchre, founded by the late primate Marsh; and of his free access to the collections of Mr. Harris, which were purchased by the parliament, &c. that he was likewise complimented with the liberty of searching the records of the privy council, and other offices, &c.” 12. “A letter to the fellows of Sion college, and to all the clergy within the bills of mortality, and in the county of Middlesex, humbly proposing their forming themselves into a Society for the Maintenance of the Widows and Orphans of such Clergymen. To which is added, a sketch of some Rules and Orders suitable to that purpose,” 1765, 8vo. 13. “The History of the Rehellion and Civil War in Ireland,” 1767, 4to. 14. “A full and plain account of the Gout, whence will be clearly seen the folly or the baseness of all pretenders to the cure of it, in which every thing material by the best writers on that subject is taken notice of, and accompanied with some new and important instructions for its relief, which the author’s experience in the gout above thirty years hath induced him to impart.” This was the most unfortunate of all his publications, for soon after imparting his cure for the gout he died of the disorder, and destroyed the credit of his system.

In 1633 he attended the king on his coronation in Scotland, and the same year was collated by him to the deanery of Lichfield. In 1637 the king advanced him to the bishopric of Rochester, and notwithstanding the small revenue attached to this see, Dr. Warner resigned his deanery and his prebend, besides a donative of 200l. per annum in Kent, probably Barham, or Bishops-bourne, of which, it is said, he was parson. In 1640 he assisted the king with 1500l. on the Scotch invasion of England, and gave his attendance, when there was only one prelate besides himself in the council at York. The same year he had the courage to oppose the praemunire in the House of Peers, and asserted the rights of the bishops sitting in parliament. With equal zeal he joined in the declaration made by some others of his brethren, May 14, 1641, to maintain and defend, as far as lawfully they might, with their life, power, and estate, the true reformed protestant religion, expressed in the doctrine of the Church of England, against all popery and popish innovation within this realm; and maintain and defend his majesty’s royal person, honour, and estate; also the power and privilege of parliaments, the lawful rights and liberties of the subjects, and endeavour to preserve the union and peace between the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

All this opposition to the changes then proposed soon appeared to be fruitless, and in August of the same year he was impeached with twelve other bishops, for acting in the convocation of 1640, making then canons and constitutions, and granting his majesty a benevolence. On this occasion his brethren unanimously relied on bishop Warner’s talents for their defence, which he undertook with spirit, but their total subversion being determined, nothing availed. He continued, however, inflexible in his adherence to the cause of his sovereign, at whose command, not long before his death, the bishop wrote a treatise against the ordinance of the sale of church lands, which was printed in 1646 and 1648, 4to, under the title “Church Lands not to be sold,” &c. After the death of Charles I. likewise, our prelate published several sermons against that illegal act. And having maintained his consistency so far as to refuse to pay any tax or loan to the parliament, his estate, ecclesiastical and temporal, was sequestered, his books seized, and by a singular refinement in robbery, all bonds due to him from any person whatever were released. He would probably also have been imprisoned, had he not escaped into Wales, where he led for three years a wandering and insecure life, but wherever he had opportunity, constantly performed the duties of his episcopal function, which he also did wherever he might happen to be, tiU the restoration.

He married the widow of Dr. Robert Abbot, bishop of Salisbury, and had issue by her one daughter, his heiress, who by her husband, Thomas Lee, of London, had a son, John, to whom and his sons bishop Warner bequeathed so considerable an estate as surprised those who knew the extent of his charities, and the small income arising from his bishopric. Nor will that surprise be much diminished by the fact, that when young he had 16,Oooz. left him by a relation, who was his god-mother, for if we take into account what he suffered by the usurpation, and what he gave to his distressed brethren during that period, it will yet appear surprising that he was enabled to exert his charity and munificence to such a vast amount as appears was the case. To account for this, some have accused him of parsimony, but for this there is no proof, and the greater part of what he gave was given at various periods in his life-time; but others have with more probability supposed that he lived on the profits, small as they were, of his bishopric, while the produce of his estates was accumulating. Be this as it may, we have the following items of nearly twenty thousand pounds, which he expended or bequeathed to the following objects:

Bromley college above-mentioned was founded by him for the residence and maintenance of twenty widows of loyal and orthodox clergymen. By his will he empowered his executors, sir Orlando Bridgman, and sir Philip Warwick, to raise a sum of money adequate to the purposes of such a building, out of his personal estate, and charged his manor of Swayton with the annual payment of 450l. viz. 50l. per ann. for the chaplain, and 20l. each for the widows. The founder had expressed a desire that this building should be erected as near to Rochester as conveniently might be; but as no healthy or convenient spot could be obtained near that town, the present site was chosen at the north end of the town of Bromley, under the sanction of an act of parliament passed in 1670; and by other subsequent benefactions the institution has been brought to its present useful state. Another of bishop Warner’s foundations was that of four scholarships in Baliol college, Oxford, for four young men of Scotland, to be chosen from time to time by the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Rochester. Each was to have 2Ql. yearly until M. A. when they were to return to their own country in holy orders, “that there may never be wanting in Scotland some who shall support the ecclesiastical establishment of England.” Owing to some demur on the part of this college, these scholars were first placed in Gloucester hall (now Worcester college), and there was a design to have made that a college for their use; but, in the mastership of Dr. Thomas Good, in 1672, they were removed to Baliol.

, who merits notice for his regard to the science of botany, and the respect and honour he ever shewed to the lovers of it, was the son of John Warner, a banker, who is somewhere mentioned by Addison or Steele, as having always worn black leather garters buckled under the knee, a custom most religiously observed by our author, who in no other instance affected singularity. He was born in 1711, educated at Wadham college, Oxford, and being bred to the law, had chambers in Lincoln’s Inn, but possessing a genteel fortune, he principally resided in an ancient family seat with an extensive- garden belonging to it, on Woodford Green, in Essex. Here he maintained a botanical garden, was very successful in the cultivatioii of rare exotics, and was not unacquainted with indigenous plants. The herborizations of the company of apothecaries were, once in the season, usually directed to the environs of Woodford, where, after the researches of the day, at the table of Mr. Warner, the products of Flora were displayed. The result of the investigations made in that neighbourhood was printed for private distribution by Mr. Warner, under the title “Plantae Woodfordienses; or a catalogue of the more perfect plants growing spontaneously about Woodford in Essex,” Lond. 1771, 8vo. As none of the graminaceous or cryptogamous tribes are introduced, the list does not exceed 518 species. The order is alphabetical, by the names from Ray’s Synopsis; after which follow the specific character at length, from Hudson’s “Flora Anglica,” the Linnsean class and order, and the English name, place, and time of flowering.

William Warner was a native of Oxfordshire, and born, as Mr. Ellis is inclined to think, about 1558, which supposes him to have published his first work at the age of twenty-five. He was educated at Oxford, but spent his time in the flowery paihs of poetry, history, and romance, in preference to the dry pursuits of logic and philosophy, and departed without a degree to the metropolis, where he sioon became distinguished among the minor poets. It is said, that in the latter part of his life, he was retained in the service of Henry Carey, lord Hunsdon, to whom he dedicates his poem. Mr. Ritson adds to this account, that by his dedications to Henry and George, successive barons of Hunsdon, he appears to have been patronized by, or in some manner connected with, that family.

In the fourth edition of Percy’s Ballads, we find the following extract from the parish register of Am well, in Hertfordshire, communicated by Mr. Hoole, although first given by Scott, in his poem of “Amwell,” edit. 1776. “1608—1609 Master William Warner, a man of goodyeares and of honest reputation; by his profession an atturnye of the Comnon Pleas; author of Albion’s England, diynge suddenly in the night in his bedde, without any form'er complaynt or sicknesse, on Thursday-night beeinge the ninth day of March, was buried the Saturday following, and lyeth in the church at the corner, under the stone of Walter Ffader,”

Warner was a writer of prose. His work was entitled “Syrinx, or a seauenfold Historic, handled with varietie of pleasant and profitable, both comical and tragical argument,” printed in 1597. Warton calls it a novel, or rather a suite of stories, much in the style of the adventures of Heliodorus’s Ethiopic romance. He appears also to have translated Plautus’s “Mencechmi,” published in 1595. Ritson informs us, that by an entry in the Stationers’ ­book,' v on the 17th of October, 1586, “The Wardens, upon serche of Roger Ward’s house, dyd find there in printing, a book in verse, intytled” England’s Albion, beinge in English, and not aucthorised to be printed, which he had been forbidden to prynte, aswell by the L. archb. of Canterburye, as also by the said wardens at his own house;“and forasmuch as he had done this” contrary to the late decrees of the, hon. court of Starre-chamber, the said wardens seised three heaps of the said * England’s Albion'.“Why this work was prohibited, except for the indelicacies already noticed, is not very apparent. We know that bishop Hall’s satires incurred the displeasure of the guardians of the press at no long distance from this time. Mr. Headley, who has extracted many beauties from Warner, says, that his tales, though often tedious, and not unfrequently indelicate, abound with all the unaffected incident and artless ease of the best old ballads, without their cant and puerility. The pastoral pieces that occur are superior to all the eclogues in our language, those of Collins only excepted. He also quotes Drayton’s lines on Warner, which the reader will find in his piece of V Poets and Poesy.”

In March 1743, in his. sixteenth year, he was admitted a commoner of Trinity-college, and soon after was elected a scholar. How much he was ever attached to that college, his writings, and a residence of forty-seven years, with very few intervals, sufficiently shew. In 1745, he is said to have published “four Pastoral Eclogues;” but this appears to be a mistake. About this time, however, he sent one or two articles to Dodsley’s Museum to which his brother was likewise a contributor; but his first detached publication was “The Pleasures of Melancholy,” of which the first copy differs considerably, particularly in the introductory part, from that published in his collection of poems. On the appearance of Mason’s “Isis,” reflecting on the loyalty of Oxford, which a foolish riot among some students had brought into question, Mr. Warton, encouraged by Dr. Huddesford, the president of Trinity, published in 1749, “The Triumph of Isis,” in which he retaliated on the sons of Cam in no very courtly strains. The poem, however, discovered certain beauties, which pointed him out as a youth of great promise. It is remarkable, that although he omitted this piece in an edition of his poems printed in 1777, he restored it in that of 1779. This is said to have been done at Mason’s suggestion, who was candid enough to own that it greatly excelled his own elegy, both in poetical imagery and correct flow of versification; but Mason appears to have forgot that his personal share in the contest was but trifling, and that it contained a libel on the university of Cambridge.

In 1750, our author contributed a few small pieces to the “Student, or Oxford and Cambridge Miscellany,” then published by Newbery. Among these was the “Progress of Discontent,” which had been written in 174-6, and was founded on a copy of Latin verses, a weekly exercise much applauded by Dr. Huddesford, and, at his desire, paraphrased into English verse: In this state his brother, Dr. Warton, preferred it to any imitation of Swift he had ever seen. His talents were now generally acknowledged, and in 1747 and 1748, he held the office of poet laureate, conferred upon him according to an ancient practice in the Common- room of Trinity-college. The duty of this office was to celebrate a lady chosen by the same authority, as the lady-patroness; and Warton performed this task, on an appointed day, crowned with a wreath of laurel. The verses, which Mr. Mant says are still to be seen in the Common-room, are written in an elegant and flowing style, but he has not thought them worthy of transcription.

In 1750, he took his master’s degree; and in 1751, succeeded to a fellowship. In this last year, he published his excellent satire entitled “Newmarket;” “An Ode to Music performed at the Theatre;” and verses “on the death of Frederic prince of Wales,” which he inserted in the Oxford collection, under the fictitious name of John Whetham; a practice not uncommon. In 1753, appeared at Edinburgh “The Union, or Select Scots and English Poems.” Mr. Warton was the editor of this small volume, in which he inserted his “Triumph of Isis,” and other pieces, particularly the “Ode on the approach of Summer,” and the “Pastoral in the manner of Spenser,” which is said to be written by a gentleman formerly of the university of Aberdeen. Why he should make use of such a deception, cannot now be discovered.

In 1760 he published, but without his name, “A description of the City, College, and Cathedral of Winchester,” 12mo. From his own copy, in the possession of the present editor, he appears to have been preparing a new edition about 1771, which was perhaps prevented by a “History of Winchester‘ 7 published soon after in two vomony with which he charges his wea- let us pass the chronicles of the seven pon, which he takes care shall be ju- champions, Morte Arlhur, sir Tristram, diciously two-edged, lest it fail of slash- the Blatant Beast, the Questyn Beast, ing. friend as well as foe. * Although which is afterwards more particularly (saith our observer) Spenser formed his described, wiih a bed-roll of quotations, Faerie Queene upon the fanciful plan no less delectable than erudite, most of Ariosto.’ Poor Spenser Wretched appositely collected, to give not only Ariosto And oh most mighty War- a dignity, but also a magnitude to this ton - Let this suffice, for reply to all important tome that purchasers may he here advances of falsehood against be well supply'd for their disbursement Ariosto, which that poem totally con- of pence, either in their meditative fufronts such falsehood, that were it irrigations, or at the Cloacmian offertruth, is insipid and immaterial; and tory.” lumes, a more showy work, but far more inaccurate. In the same year (1760) he published a piece of exquisite humour, entitled “A Companion to the Guide, and a Guide to the Companion, being a complete Supplement to all the accounts of Oxford hitherto published.” This passed through three editions in a very short time, but for some years has been ranked among scarce books *. A more scarce work, however, is his “Inscriptionum Romanarum Metricarmn Delectus,” 4 to, which ought to have been noticed under the year 1758. The design of this collection was to present the reader with some of the best Roman epigrams and inscriptions, taken from the “Elegantiae antiquorum marmorum,” from Mazochius, Smetius, Gruterus, and other learned men. It contains likewise a few modern epigrams, one by Dr. Jortin, and five'by himself, on the model of the antique, the whole illustrated with various readings and notes.

About 1760 he wrote for the “Biographia Britannica,” the life of sir Thomas Pope, which he republished in 1772, 8vo, and again in 1780, with very considerable additions and improvements; and in 1761 he published the “Life and Literary Remains of Dr. Batburst.” In the same year, and in 1762, he contributed to the Oxford collections, verses on the royal marriage, and on the birth of the prince of Wales, and an ode entitled the “Complaint of Cherwell,” under the name of John Chichester, brother to the earl of Donegal f. His next publication was the “Oxford Sausage, or select pieces written by the most celebrated wits of the university of Oxford.” The preface and several of the poems are undoubtedly his, and the latter are authenticated by his adding them afterwards to his avowed productions. In 1766 he superintended an edition from the Clarendon press of “Cephalus’ Anthology,” to which he prefixed a very curious and learned preface. In this he announced his edition of “Theocritus,” which made its appearance in 1770, 2 vols. 4to, a most correct and splendid work, that carried his fame to the continent.

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.

Such is Mr. Mant’s account, who adds (in p. cxxvi) that Warton “judiciously preferred the plan on which he has proceeded to that proposed by Pope, Gray, and Mason.” Jt appears, however, that Warton had made considerable progress on hisown plan before he knew any thing of Gray’s, and that when he heard of the latter, and perhaps at the same time of its being relinquished, he thought proper, which he might then do without indelicacy, to apply to Gray, through the medium of Dr. Hurd, requesting that he would communicate any fragments, or sketches of his design. Mr. Gray, in answer to this application, sent the following letter:

“Our friend, Dr. Hurd, having long ago desired me in your name to communicate any fragments, or sketches of a design I once had to give a history of English poetry, you may well think me rude or negligent, when you see me hesitating for so many months before I comply with your request, and yet (believe me) few of your friends have been better pleased than I to find this subject (Surely neither unentertaining, nor unuseful) had fallen into hands so likely to do it justice; few have felt a higher esteem for your talents, your taste and industry; in truth, the only cause of my delay has been a sort of diffidence, that would not let me send you any thing so short, so slight, and so imperfect as the few materials I had begun to collect, or the observations I had made on them. A sketch of the division and arrangement of the subject, however, 1 venture to transcribe, and would wish to know whether it corresponds in any thing with your own plan, for I am told your first volume is already in the press. ”Introduction. On the poetry of the Galic (or Celtic) nations, as far back as it can be traced.

<; P. I. On the school of Provence, which rose about the year 1100, and was soon followed by the French and Italians; their heroic poesy, or romances in verse, allegories, fabliaux, Syrvientes, comedies, farces, canzoni, sonnets, balades, madrigals, sestines, &c. Of their imitators, the French, and of the first Italian school (commonly call'd the Sicilian] about the year 1200, brought to perfection by Dante, Petrarch, Boccace, and others. "State of poetry in England, from the Conquest (1066) or rather from Henry IPs time (1154) to the reign of Edward III. (1327).

"Although I have not followed this plan, yet it is of great service to me, and throws much light on many of my periods by giving connected views and details. I begin with such an introduction, or general dissertation, as you had intended; viz. on the Northern poetry, with its introduction into England by the Danes and Saxons, and its duration. I then begin my History at the Conquest, which I write chronologically in sections; and continue, as matter successively offers itself, in a, series of regular annals, down to and beyond the restoration. I think with you, that dramatic poetry is detached from the idea of my work, that it requires a separate consideration, and will -swell the size of my book beyond all bounds. One of my sections, a very large one, is entirely on Chaucer, and exactly fills your title of Part Second. In the course of my annals I consider collaterally the poetry of different nations as influencing our own. What I have at present finished ends with the section on Chaucer, and will almost make my first volume; for I design two volumes in quarto. This first volume will soon be in the press. I should have said before, that, although I proceed chronologically, yet I often stand still to give some general view, as perhaps of a particular species of poetry, &c. and even anticipate sometimes for this purpose. These views often form one section; yet are interwoven into the tenor of the work without inter­* This letter concludes with request- question who if was that had the power

ing the favour of some attention to a or right to communicate it." How it

"There seem* no reason to doubt, of its along with Warion’s answer, genuineness, though there may be to rupting my historical series. In this respect, some of my sections have the effect of your parts, or divisions *.

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 last publication was an edition of the “Juvenile Poems of Milton,” with notes, the object of which was “to explain his author’s allusions, to illustrate, or to vindicate his beauties, to point out his imitations, both of others and of Himself, to elucidate his obsolete diction, and by the adduction and juxtaposition of parallels gleaned both from his poetry and prose, to ascertain his favourite words, and to shew the peculiarities of his phraseology.” The first edition of this work appeared in 1785, and the second in 1791, a short time after his death* It appears that he had prepared the alterations and additions for the press some time before. It was indeed ready for the press in 1789, and probably begun about that time, but was not completed until after his death, when the task of correcting the sheets devolved upon his brother. His intention was to extend his plan to a second volume, containing the “Paradise Regained,” and “Sampson Agonistes;” and he left notes on both. He had the proof sheets of the first edition printed only on one side, which he carefully bound. They are still extant, and demonstrate what pains he took in avoiding errors, and altering expressions which appeared on a second review to be weak or improper. The second edition of Milton was enriched by Dr. Charles Burney*s learned remarks on the Greek verses, and by some observations on the other poems by Warburton, which were

Mr. Warton’s personal character has been drawn at great length by Mr. Mant, and seems to have no defects but what are incident to men who have passed their days in retirement from polished life. A few peculiarities are recorded which might perhaps have been omitted without injury to the portrait. Some of them seem to be given upon doubtful authority, and others are not, strictly speaking, characteristic, because not habitual, or if habitual, are too insignificant for notice. It has been said, however, that Mr. Warton was a lover of low company, a more serio.us charge, if it could be substantiated. But what low company means is not always verp obvious. It is not asserted that Warton disgraced his character by a constant Association with such; and that he should have occasionally amused himself with the manners and conversation of humble tradesmen, mechanics, or peasants, was surely no great crime in one whose researches imposed in some degree, the necessity of studying mankind in all ranks, and who, in the illustration of our ancient poets, had evidently profited by becoming acquainted with the conversation of the modern vulgar.

In literary company he is said to have been rather silent, but this, his surviving friends can recollect, was only where the company consisted of a majority of strangers; and a man who has a reputation to guard will not lightly enter into conversation before he knows something of those with whom he is to converse. In the company of his friends, among whom he could reckon the learned, the polite, and the gay, no man was more communicative, more social in his habits and conversation, or descended more frequently from the grave interchange of sentiment to a mere play of wit,

Instances of Warton’s tenderness of heart, affectionate regard for children, and general humanity, have been accumulated by all who knew him. Nor is this wonderful. for he knew nothing of one quality which ever keeps the heart shut. He had no avarice, no ambition to acquire the superiority which wealth is supposed 1 to confer. For many years he lived on his maintenance from college, and from the profits of a small living, with the occasional fruits of his labour as a teacher or as a writer. It cannot be doubted that as he had been tutor to the son of the prime-minister (lord North), and to the sons of other persons of rank, he might reasonably have expected higher preferment. But it happens with preferment more generally than the world suspects, that what is not asked is not given. Warton had a mind above servile submission, yet he would have asked where asking is a matter of course, had not his contented indolence, or perhaps the dread of a refusal, induced him to sit down with the emoluments which cost neither trouble nor anxiety. What he got by his writings could not be much. However excellent in themselves, they were not calculated for quick and extensive sale, and it is said he sold the copy-right of his “History of Poetry,” for less than four hundred pounds.

As a contributor to the literature of his country, few men stand higher than Warton. He was the first who taught the true method of acquiring a taste for the excellencies of our ancient poets, and of rescuing their writings from obscurity and oblivion. In this respect he is the father of the school of commentators, and if some have, in certain instances, excelled their master, they ought to recollect to whom they are indebted for directing them to the paths of research. Of Warton it may be said, as of Addison, “He is now despised by some who perhaps would never have seen his defects, but by the lights which he afforded them.” His erudition was extensive, and his industry must have been at one time incessant. The references in his History of Poetry only, indicate a course of various reading, collation, and transcription, to which the common life of man seems insufficient. He was one of those scholars who have happily rescued the study of antiquities from the reproaches of the frivolous or indolent." Amidst the most rugged tracks of ancient lore, he produces cultivated spots, flowery paths, and gay prospects. Many of the digressions that have been censured in his history, appear to have been contrived for this purpose; and the relief which his own mind demanded, he thought would not be unacceptable to his fellow-travellers.

To the industry which he employed in all his literary undertakings, there can be no doubt he was indebted for much of that placid temper and contentment which distinguished him as a resident member of the university. The miseries of indolence are known only to those who have no regular pursuit, nothing in view, however easy or arduous, nothing by which time may be shortened by occupation, and occupation rendered easy by habit. To all this waste of time and talent Warton was a stranger. During the long vacation, indeed, he generally resided with his brother at Winchester, but even this was a change of place rather than of occupation. There he found libraries, scholars, and critics, and could still indulge his delight in the “cloysters pale,” “the tapered choir,” and “sequester'd isles of the deep dome;” and there, as well as at home, he continued his researches, and enjoyed solitude or society in such proportions as suited his immediate inclination.

Yet as he pursued an untried path, and was the founder of his own studies, it cannot be a matter of great surprise, if he failed in conducting them with due method. To this it was owing that the emendations and additions to his first and second volumes are so numerous, as to have been made the ground of a serious charge against his diligence and accuracy. But had he lived to complete the work, he could have no doubt offered such excuses as must have been readily accepted by every reflecting mind. If we admit the magnitude of the undertaking, which evidently exceeded his own idea when he fondly hoped that it might have been finished in two or three volumes; if we consider the vast number of books he had to consult for matters apparently trifling, but really important; that he had the duties of a clergyman and tutor to perform while engaged on this work, and above all, that his friends were assisting him, often too late, with additional illustrations or references, it will not appear highly censurable that he dismissed his volumes capable of improvement. From his own copy of the first volume of his history, and of his edition of Milton, both now before us, it appears that he corrected with fastidious cure, and was extremely anxious to render his style what we now find it, perspicuous, vigorous, and occasionally ornamented. His corrections are often written in an indistinct hand; and this perhaps occasioned fresh errors, which he had not an opportunity to correct; but with all its faults, this history will ever remain a monument of learning, taste, and judgment, such as few men in any nation have been able to produce.

The “Triumph of Isis” was written in his twenty-first year, and exhibiis the same beauties and faults which are to be found in his more mature productions. Among these last, is a redundancy of epithet which is more frequently a proof of labour than of taste. The “Pleasures of Melancholy” appears to be & more genuine specimen of early talent. He was only in his seventeenth year, when his mind was so richly stored with striking and elegant imagery­In general he seems to have taken Milton for his model, and throughout his poems we find expressions borrowed with as much freedom from Milton, as he has proved that Milton borrowed from others. One piece only, “Newmarket,” is an imitation of Pope, and is certainly one of the finest satires in our language. In this he has not only adopted the versification of Pope, and emulated his wit and point, but many of his lines are parodies on what he recollected in Pope’s Satires. This freedom of borrowing, however, seems so generally allowed, that it can form no higher objection against Warton than against Pope, Gray, and others of acknowledged eminence. We cannot be surprized that the memory of such a student as Warton should be familiar with the choicest language of poetry, and that he should often adopt it unconscious of its being the property of another. The frequent use of alliteration is a more striking defect; but perhaps these are strictures which ought not to interfere with the general merit of Warton as a poet of original genius. His descriptive pieces, had he written nothing else, would have proved his claim to that title. Nothing can be more natural, just, or delightful than his pictures of rural life. The “First of April” and the “Approach of Summer” have seldom been rivalled, and cannot perhaps be exceeded. The only objection which some critics have started is, that his descriptions are not varied by reflection. He gives an exquisite landscape, but does not always express the feelings it creates. His brother, speaking of Thomson, observes that the unexpected insertion of reflections “imparts to us the same pleasure that we feel, when, in wandering through a wilderness or grove, we suddenly behold in the turning of the walk a statue of some Virtue or Muse.” Yet in Warton’s descriptive poetry, it is no small merit to have produced so much effect, and so many exquisite pictures without this aid.

In September 1740, being superannuated according to the laws of the school, tie was removed from Winchester, and having no opportunity of a vacancy at New-college, he went to Oriel. Here he applied to his studies, not only with diligence, but with that true taste for what is valuable, which rendered the finer discriminations of criticism habitual to his mind. During his leisure hours he composed several of his poems, among which his biographer enumerates “The Enthusiast, or the Lover of Nature,” “The Dying Indian,” and a prose satire entitled “Ranelagu-house.” He appears likewise to have sketched an allegorical work of a more elaborate kind, which he did not find time or inclination to compU te. On taking his bachelor’s degree in 1744, he was ordained to his father’s curacy at Basingstoke, and officiated in that church till February 1746; he next removed to the duty of Chelsea, whence, in order to complete his recovery from the smallpox, he went to Chobham.

“The public,” he says, “has been so much accustomed of late to didactic poetry alone, and essays on moral subjects, that any work, where the imagination is much indulged, will perhaps not be relished or regarded. The author, therefore, of these pieces is in some pain, lest certain austere critics should think them too fanciful or descriptive. But as he is convinced that the fashion of moralizing in verse has been carried too far, and as he looks upon invention and imagination to be the chief faculties of a poet, so he will be happy if the following Odes may be looked upon as an attempt to bring back poetry into its right channel.” In 1749 he published his “Ode to Mr. West.”

In 1751, his patron the duke of Bolton invited him to be his companion on a tour to the south of France. For this, Mr. Wooll informs us, he had two motives, “the society of a man of learning and taste, and the accommodation of a Protestant clergyman, who, immediately on the death of his duchess, then in a confirmed dropsy, could marry him to the lady with whom he lived, and who was universally known and distinguished by the name of Polly Peachum.” Whichever of these motives predominated in the duke’s mind, it is much to be regretted that our author so far forgot what was due to his character and profession as to accept the offer. But if any circumstance, besides the consciousness of doing wrong, could embitter the remembrance of this solitary blemish in his public life, it was, that, after all, the only hopes which could justify his compliance were very ungraciously disappointed. For some reason or other, he was obliged to leave his patron, and come to England before the duchess died, and when that event took place, and he solicited permission to return to the duke, he had the mortification to learn that the ceremony had been performed by Mr. Devisme, chaplain to the embassy at Turin.

During 1753 he was invited to assist in the “Adventurer,” which was begun by Hawkesworth in 1752. The invitation came from his friend Dr. Johnson, who informed him that the literary partners wished to assign to him the province of criticism. His contributions to the Adventurer amount to twenty-four papers. Of these a few are of the humourous cast, but the greater part consist of elegant criticism, not that of cold sagacity, but warm from the heart, and powerfully addressed to the finer feelings as well as to the judgment. His critical papers on Lear have never been exceeded for just taste and discrimination. His disposition lay in selecting and illustrating those beauties of ancient and modern poetry, which, like the beauties of nature, strike and please many who are yet incapable of describing or analysing them. No. 101, on the blemishes in the Paradise Lost, is an example of the delicacy and impartiality with which writings of established fame ought to be examined. His observations on the Odyssey, in Nos. 75, 80, and 83, are original and judicious, but it may be doubted whether they have detached many scholars from the accustomed preference given to the Iliad. If any objection may be made to Dr. Warton’s critical papers, it is that his Greek occurs too frequently in a work intended for domestic instruction. His style is always pure and perspicuous, but sometimes it may be discovered without any other information, that “he kept company with Dr. son.” The first part of No. 139, if found detached, might have been attributed to that writer. It has all his manner, not merely “the contortions of the sybil,” but somewhat of the “inspiration.”

About this time he appears to have meditated a history of the revival of literature. His first intention was to publish select epistles of Politian, Erasmus, Grotius, and others, with notes; but after some correspondence with his brother, who was to assist in the undertaking, it was laid aside, a circumstance much to be lamented, as few men were more extensively acquainted with literary history, or could have detailed it in a more pleasing form. At a subsequent period, he again sketched a plan of nearly the same kind, which was likewise abandoned. Collins some time before this had published proposals for the history of the revival of learning, with a life of Leo the tenth, but probably no part was executed, or could indeed be reasonably expected from one of his unhappy state of mind.

Amidst all these honours and employments, he now found leisure to complete the first volume of his celebrated “Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope,” which he dedicated to Dr. Young, but did not subscribe his name. Dodsley likewise, although the real publisher, thought proper to employ his deputy Mrs. Cooper, on this occasion. The following passage from one of Dodsley’s letters, published by Mr. Wooll, will probably throw some light on his motive. “Your Essay is published, the price 5$. bound, I gave Mrs. Cooper directions about advertising, and have sent it to her this afternoon, to desire she will look after its being inserted in the evening papers. I have a pleasure in telling you that it is lik'd in general, and particularly by such as you would wish should like it. But you have surely not kept your secret; Johnson mentioned it to Me., Hitch as yours. Dr. Birch mentioned it to Garrick as yours, and Dr. Akenside mentioned it as yours to me; and many whom I cannot now think on have asked for it as yours or your brother’s, I have sold many of them iii my own shop, and have dispersed and pushed it as much as I can and have said more than I could have said if my name had been to it.”—The objections made to this admirable piece of criticism xvere, in the mean time, powerful enough to damp the ardour of the essayist, who left his work in an imperfect state for the long space of twentysix years.

During his retirement at Wickham, he was induced by a liberal offer from the booksellers of London, and more, probably, by his love for the task, to superintend a new edition of “Pope’s Works;” which he completed in 1797 in nine volumes octavo. That this was the most complete and best illustrated edition of Pope, was generally allowed, but it had to contend with objections, some of which were not urged with the respect due to the veteran critic who had done so much to reform and refine the taste of his age. It was proper to object that he had introduced one or two pieces which ought never to have been published, but it was not so proper or necessary to object that he had given us his essay cut down into notes. Besides that this was unavoidable, they who made the objection had not been very careful to compare the new with the old matter; they would have found upon a fair examination that his original illustrations were very numerous, and that no discovery respecting Pope’s character or writings made since the edition of Warburton, was left untouched.

The personal character of Dr. Warton continues to be the theme of praise with all who knew him. Without affectation of superior philosophy, he possessed an independent spirit; and amidst what would have been to others very bitter disappointments, he was never known to express the language of discontent or envy. As a husband and parent, he displayed the tenderest feelings mixed with that prudence which implies sense as well as affection. His manners partook of what has been termed the old court: his address was polite, and even elegant, but occasionally it had somewhat of measure and stateliness. Having left the university after a short residence, he mixed early with the world, sought and enjoyed the society of the fair sex, and tempered his studious habits with the tender and polite attentions necessary in promiscuous intercourse. In this respect there was a visible difference between him and his brother, whose manners were more careless and unpolished. In the more solid qualities of the heart, in true benevolence, kindness, hospitality, they approached more closely. Yet though their inclinations and pursuits were congenial, and each assisted the other in his undertakings, it may be questioned whether at any time they could have exchanged occupations. With equal stores of literature, with equal refinement of taste, it may be questioned whether the author of the Essay on Pope could have pursued the History of English poetry, or whether the historian of poetry could have written the papers we find in the Adventurer.

In conversation, Dr. Warton’s talents appeared to great advantage. He was mirthful, argumentative, or communicative of observation and anecdote, as he found his company lean to the one or the other. His memory was more richly stored with literary history than perhaps any man of his time, and his range was very extensive. He knew French and Italian literature most intimately; and when conversing on more common topics, his extempore sallies and opinions bore evidence of the same delicate taste and candour which appear in his writings.

In this work our author produced no new doctrine. The severe arrangement of poets in his dedication to Young, which announced the principles he intended to apply to Pope, and to the whole body of English poetry, was evidently taken from Philips, the nephew of Milton. In the preface to the Theatrum of this writer, it is asserted, that “wit, ingenuity, and learning in verse, even elegancy itself, though that comes nearest, are one thing true native poetry is another in which there is a certain air and spirit, which, perhaps, the most learned and judicious in other arts do not perfectly apprehend; much less is it attainable by any art or study.” On this text the whole

That Dr. Warton advanced no novel opinions is proved from Phillips’s Preface; and Phillips, there is reason to suppose, may have been indebted to his uncle Milton for an idea of poetry so superior to what was entertained in his day. It has already been noticed, that the opinions of the two Wartons, “the learried brothers” as they have been justly styled, were congenial on most topics of literature; but, perhaps, in nothing more than their ideas of poetry, which both endeavoured to exemplify in their own productions, although with different effect. Dr. Warton was certainly in point of invention, powers of description, and variety, greatly inferior to the laureate. The “Enthusiast,” the “Dying Indian,” the “Revenge of America,” and one or two of his Odes, are not deficient in spirit and enthusiasm but the rest are more remarkable for a correct and faultless elegance than for any striking attribute of poetry. His “Odes,” which were coeval with those of Collins, must have suffered greatly by comparison. So different is taste from execution, and so strikingly are we reminded of one of his assertions, that “in no polished nation, after criticism has been much studied, and the rules of writing established, has any very extraordinary work appeared.” But while we are reminded of this by his own productions, it may yet be doubted whether what may be true when applied to an individual who has lived a life of criticism, will be equally true of a nation. Even among our living poets, we may find more than one who have given proofs that extraordinary poetry may yet be produced, and that the rules of writing are not so fixed, nor criticism so studied, as to impede the progress of real genius. All that can be concluded respecting Dr. Warton is, that if his genius had been equal to his taste, if he could have produced what he appreciates with such exquisite skill in others, he would have undoubtedly been in poetry what he was in erudition and criticism. As an instructor and divine, Mr. Wooll’s opinion of him may be adopted with safety. “His professional exertions united the qualities of criticism and instruction. When the higher classes read under him the Greek tragedians, orators, or poets, they received the benefit, not only of direct and appropriate information, but of a pure, elegant lecture on classical taste. The spirit with which he commented on the prosopopoeia of Œdipus, or Electra, the genuine elegance and accuracy with which he developed the animated rules and doctrines of his favourite Longinus, the insinuating but guarded praise he bestowed, the well-judged and proportionate encouragement he uniformly held out to the first dawning of genius, and the anxious assiduity with which he pointed out the paths to literary eminence, can never, I am confident, be forgotten by those who have hung with steadfast attention on his precepts, and enjoyed the advantage of his superior guidance. Zealous in his adherence to the church-establishment, and exemplary in his attention to its ordinances and duties, he was at the same time a decided enemy to bigotry and intolerance. His style of preaching was unaffectedly earnest, and impressive; and the dignified solemnity with which he read the liturgy (particularly the communion-service), was remarkably awful. He had the most happy art of arresting the attention of youth on religious subjects. Every Wiccamical reader will recollect his inimitable commentaries on Grotius on the Sunday-evenings, and his discourse annually delivered in the school on Good Friday the impressions made by them cannot be forgotten.”

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.

Mr. Wase was afterwards made fellow of King’s-college, and went out bachelor of arts. In 1650 he published an English translation in verse of the “Electra” of Sophocles. For something offensive in the preface of this translation, or some other accusation bythe parliamentary party, which is not quite clear, (Walker says he delivered a feigned letter from the king to Dr. Collins) he was ejected from his fellowship, and obliged to leave the kingdom. He was afterwards taken at sea, and imprisoned at Gravesend, from which he contrived to escape, and served in the Spanish army against the French. He was taken prisoner in an engagement, but released soon after, and came to England, where he was appointed tutor to William lord Herbert, eldest son to the earl of Pembroke and Montgomery. To this nobleman he dedicated “Gratii Falisci Cynegeticon, a poem on hunting by Gratius, &c.” Lond. 1654, 8vo. This translation, and his comment on that elegant poem, are sufficient proof of his abilities. Waller addressed a copy of verses to him on his performance.

In 1655 he proceeded M. A. and was schoolmaster of Dedham near Colchester in Essex, and about the same time married. He was afterwards made master of the freeschool of Tunbridge in Kent, probably about 1660. While here he published his “Dictionarium Minus; a compendious Dictionary English-Latin, and Latin- English,” Lond. 1662, 4to. In 1671 he was elected superior beadle of law in the university of Oxford, and printer or architypographus to the same university. The same year he published “Cicero against Cataline, in four invective orations; containing the whole manner of discovering that notorious conspiracy,” Lond. 8vo. This was followed by “The History of France under the ministry of cardinal Mazarine, written in Latin by Benjamin Priolo,” Lond. 8vo. In 1678 he published at Oxford, “Considerations concerning free-schools as settled in JJngland,” 8vo; and in 1687, “Christopheri Wasii Senarius, sive de legibus et licentia veterum poetarum,” Oxon. 4to. He wrote also “Structurae Nonianse,” and appears to have been concerned in an edition of sir John Spelman’s life of king Alfred. Hearne says he translated it into Latin, and published it at Oxford in a thin folio, with a commentary by Obadiah Walker, master of University-college. He died Aug. 29, 1690, and appears to have been a man of great parts, and a very considerable sufferer for his loyalty. Hearne, at p. 20 of his discourse, prefixed to the eighth volume of Leland’s Itinerary, stiles him “that eminent philologer,” and makes honourable mention of a son of his of the same name, who was fellow of Corpus Christicollege, Oxford. He died, B. D. 1711, and was buried at Corpus, where 1 is an inscription to his memory.

, commander in chief of the armies, and first president of the United States of America, was born Feb. 11, 1732, in the parish of Washington, Virginia. He was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire, of which a branch had been established in Virginia about the middle of the seventeenth century. No remarkable circumstances have transpired of his education or his early youth; and we should not indeed expect any marks of that disorderly prematureness of talent, which is so often fallacious, in a character whose distinguishing praise was to be regular and natural. His classical instruction was probably small, such as the private tutor of a Virginian country gentleman could at that period have imparted; and if his opportunities of information had been more favourable, the time was too short to profit by them. Before he was twenty he was appointed a major in the Colonial militia, and he had very early occasion to display those political and military talents, of which the exertions on a greater theatre have since made his name so famous throughout the world.

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.

Much has been said by the American biographers of Washington, concerning his magnanimity during the ravages of a civil war, in which he acted so conspicuous a part; but, on the other hand, two instances have been mentioned in which he is thought to have been deficient in this great quality of a hero. Granting (it has been said) that duty required him to execute, as a spy, the accomplished major Andre, true magnanimity would have prevented him from insultingly erecting, in the view of that unfortunate officer, the gallows on which he was to be hung, several days before his execution. And when earl Cornwallis was overpowered by numbers, and obliged at York-town to surrender to the united armies of America and France, a magnanimous conqueror would not have claimed, contrary to the usage of civilized war, the sword from the hands of that gallant nobleman. On these two occasions, and on some others, the conduct of Washington agreed so ill with his general character, that he has been supposed to be influenced by the leaders of the French army. Cue thing is certain, that he was so little pleased either with his own conduct on particular occasions, or with the general principle of the American revolution, that he never could be forced to talk on the subject. An Italian nobleman, who visited him after the peace, had often attempted, in vain, to turn the conversation to the events of the war. At length he thought he had found a favourable opportunity of effecting his purpose; they were riding together over the scene of an action where Washington’s conduct had been the subject of no small animadversion.

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.

Throughout the whole course of his second presidency, the danger of America was great and imminent almost beyond example. The spirit of change indeed, at that period, shook all nations. But in other countries it had to encounter ancient and solidly established power. It had to tear up by the roots long habits of attachment in some nations for their government, of awe in others, of acquiescence and submission in all. But in America the government was new and weak. The people had scarce time to recover from the ideas and feelings of a recent civil war. In other countries the volcanic force must be of power to blow up the mountains, and to convulse the continents that held it down, before it could escape from the deep caverns in which it was imprisoned: in America it was covered only by the ashes of a late convulsion, or at most by a little thin soil, the produce of a few years’ quiet.

, a heraldic and miscellaneous writer, was born in 1619. He had a learned education, and resided some time at Oxford, for the sake of the Bodleian Library there; but was not a member of that university. Soon after the passing of the second charter of the Royal Society, he was proposed on the 22d July, 1668, candidate for election into it; and chosen the 29th of the same month being admitted the 5th August. He afterwards entered into holy orders, by the persuasion of Dr. Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1668. He was twice married: to his first wife he had Mary, daughter and heiress of Robert Smith, alias Carrington, by Magdalen his wife, daughter of Robert Hervey, esq. comptroller of the custom-house to James the First; secondly to Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Richard Bateman of Hartington in Derbyshire, and London, esq. by Christiana, his first wife, daughter of William Stone, of London, esq. who died, leaving him one son, and two daughters; the daughters only survived him. He died 30th May, 1670, aged fifty-one, at his house at Mile-end-green, and was interred June 2d, at Greenford in Middlesex, where he had an estate. He was author of the following works, some of which are much sought after at present: 1. “An Apology for Learning and Learned Men,” 1653, 8vo. 2. “Two Contemplations of Magnanimity and Acquaintance with God,” 1653, 8vo. 3. “A Discourse of the Piety, Policy, and Charity of Elder Times, and Christians,” 1655, 12mo. 4. “A Defence of Arms and Armory,” 1660, 8vo; with a frontispiece of his quarterings. 5. “Fortescutus illustratus; or, a Commentary on sir John Fortescue, lord chancellour to Henry VI. his book, De Laudibus legum AngUsfe,*' 1663, fol. with a fine portrait of Waterhouse, by Loggan, and of sir John Fortescue, by Faithorne. 6.” The Gentleman’s Monitor," 1665, 8vo, with a portrait by Horlocks.

, a learned English divine, and able assertor of the doctrine of the Trinity, was born Feb. 34, 1683, at Waseley, or Walesiy, in the Lindsey division of Lincolnshire, of which parish his father, the rev. Henry Waterland, was rector. He received his early education partly at Flixborough, of which also his father was rector, under his curate Mr. Sykes, and partly under his father, until he was fit to be sent to the free-school at Lincoln, then in great reputation. His uncommon diligence and talents recommended him to the notice of Mr. Samuel Garmstone and Mr. Antony Read, the two successive masters of that school, at whose request, besides the ordinary exercises, he frequently performed others, which were so excellent as to be handed about for the honour of the school. In 1699, he went to Cambridge, and on March 30, was admitted of Magdalen college, under the tuition of Mr. Samuel Barker. In December 1702 he obtained a scholarship, and proceeding A. B. in Lent term following, was elected fellow in Feb. 1703-4. He then took pupils, and was esteemed a good teacher. In 1706 he commenced A.M. In February 1713, on the death of Dr. Gabriel Quadrin, master of the college, the earl of Suffolk and Binden, in whose family the right is vested, conferred the mastership upon Mr. Waterland, who having taken holy orders, was also presented by that nobleman to the rectory of Ellingham in Norfolk. But this made little or no addition to his finances, as he gave almost the whole revenue of it to his curate, his own residence being necessary at college, where he still continued to take pupils, and for their advantage wrote his “Advice to a young student, with a method of study for the first four years,” which went through several editions.

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. Waterland had another controversy with Mr. Jackson before mentioned, on account of Dr. Clarke’s “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God,” Dr. Waterland undertaking to show the weakness of the argument a priori, which Clarke had thought proper to employ on this occasion. In the <c Second defence of his Queries,“Dr. Wateriand had dropt some hints against this kind of argument, but did not at that time enter into the subject; nor were his objections published until 1734, when the substance of what he had written upon the subject, in some letters to a gentleman, was given to the public by Mr. (afterwards bishop) Law, partly in his notes on King’s” Origin of Evil“and partly in his” Inquiry into the ideas of Space,“&c. to which is added” A Dissertation on the argument a priori by a learned hand," i.e. Wateriand. In this dissertation he endeavoured to prove, first, that the argumentum a priori is very loose and precarious, depending on little else than an improper use of equivocal terms or phrases: secondly, that, moreover, when fully understood, it is palpably wrong and absurd; thirdly, that the several pleas or excuses invented for it are fallacious, and of no real weight; and he concludes with a brief intimation of the hurtful tendency of insisting so much upon this pretended argument, both with regard to religion and science. The publication of these sentiments served to renew the controversy between Mr. Law, himself, and Mr. Jackson.

Dr. Water land married, about 1719, a lady of good family and fortune, who survived him; but he left no child. He was a man free from ambition; all his preferments were bestowed without any application on his part direct or indirect, and he might have reached to higher, had he desired them, by the recommendation of archbishop Potter. The bishopric of Llandaff was once offered to him, but he declined it.

Dr. Waterland was one of the ablest defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity in his day, not perhaps always the most temperate, for he appears to have occasionally lost his temper amidst the rude attacks of some of his antagonists, but in general he adhered closely to his argument, and avoided personalities. As Arianism was the chief object of his aversion, it was some times retorted that he too had departed from the* creed of his church by inclining towards Arminianism. His character was drawn at great length by the rev. Jeremiah Seed, in a funeral sermon, preached Jan. 4, 1740-1, the Sunday after his interment. “His head,” says Mr. Seed, “was an immense library, where the treasures of learning were ranged in such exact order, that, whatever himself or his friends wanted, he could have immediate recourse to, without any embarrassment. A prodigious expence of reading, without a confusion of ideas, is almost the peculiar characteristic of his writings. His works, particularly those upon our Saviour’s Divinity, and the Importance of the doctrine, and the Eucharist, into which he has digested the learning of all preceding ages, will, we may venture to say, be transmitted to, and stand the examination of, all succeeding ones. He has so thoroughly exhausted every subject that he wrote a set treatise upon, that it is impossible to hit upon any thing which is not in his writings, or to express that more justly and clearly, which is there.”

His abilities soon became too conspicuous to be overlooked by that eminent soldier and politician, lord Clive, who singled him out as an engineer qualified for great and noble enterprises. Accordingly he accompanied his lordship to Bengal fojr the purpose of carrying such plans into execution which might be thought necessary for the preservation of the British acquisitions in that quarter; or to assist his lordship in any further operations he might think requisite for the interest of his country.

By long and hard service in a unfavourable climate, he found his health much impaired, two or three years before he left India; and therefore, in 1785, he put affairs in a train of settlement, in order to return to England, to try the effects of his native air. In the spring of 1786, he embarked on board the Deptford Indiaman; but the flux and a bilious complaint with which he had sometimes been afflicted, so much reduced him by the time he reached St. Helena, that he was not able to prosecute his voyage in that ship. This island is remarkable for the salubrity of its air, of which the colonel soon found the benefit but the importunity of his friends, or his own impatienceto see England, got the better of his prudence, for as soon as he began to gather strength, he took his passage in the Asia; the consequence was a relapse, which weakened him to such a degree by the time he arrived at Dover, that he lingered but a short time, and at that place departed this life on September 17, 1786. He was buried in a vault made in the body of the church at Dover, on the 22d of the same month, in a private manner. His death mHy be accounted a national loss. No English engineer, since Mr. Benjamin Robins, F. R. S. possessed equal abilities. The same climate proved fatal to both: Mr. Robins died at Madras in the company’s service; and it may be said of the colonel, that after he had quitted it, he lived but just long enough to bring his bones to England.

Mr. Watson’s other publications were, 1. “A Discourse preached at Halifax church, July 28, 1751, 8vo, entitled Moderation, or a candid disposition towards those that differ from us, recommended and enforced,” 8vo. This passed through a second edition. 2. “An Apology for his conduct yearly, on the 30th of January,” 8vo. To this is annexed, a sermon preached at Ripponden chapel, on Jan. 30, 1755, entitled “Kings should obey the Laws.” 3. “A Letter to the Clergy of the Church, known by the name of Unitas Fratrum, or Moravians, concerning a remarkable book of hymns used in their congregations, pointing out several inconsistencies and absurdities in the said book,” 1756, 8vo. 4. “Some account of a Roman station lately discovered on the borders of Yorkshire.” 5. “A mistaken passage in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History explained.” 6. “Druidical remains in or near the parish of Halifax, &c.” These three last are printed in the Archæologia. He had also made collections for the antiquities of Chester and of a part of Lancashire. The late Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, who married his niece, says, Mr. Watson was one of the hardest students he ever knew. His great excellence was a knowledge of antiquities, t>ut “he was by no means destitute of poetical fancy; had written, some good songs, and was possessed of a most copious collection of bon-mots, facetious stories, and humorous compositions of every kind, both in verse and prose, written out with uncommon accuracy and neatness.” From the same authority we learn that Mr. Watson had once a hudibrasric controversy with Dr. Byrom of Manchester.

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 .

“Mr. Gibbon takes the earliest opportunity of presenting his compliments and thanks to Dr. Watson, and of expressing his sense of the liberal treatment which he has received from so candid an adversary. Mr. Gibbon entirely coincides in opinion with Dr. Watson, that as their different sentiments, on a very important period of history, are now submitted to the public, they both may employ their time in a manner much more useful, as well as agreeable, than they could possibly do by exhibiting a single combat in the amphitheatre of controversy. Mr. Gibbon is therefore determined to resist the temptation of justifying, in a professed reply, any passages of his history, which might perhaps be easily cleared from censure and misapprehension; but he still reserves to himself the privilege of inserting iq a future edition some occasional remarks and explanations of his meaning. If any calls of pleasure or business should bring Dr. Watson to town, Mr. Gibbon would think himself happy in being permitted to solicit the honour of his acquaintance.”

So extraordinary a letter surely requires no comment. In 1781, he published a volume of “Chemical Essays,” addressed to his pupil the duke of Rutland, which was received with such deserved approbation, as to induce the author to give to the world, at ditferent times, four additional volumes of equal merit with the first. It has been stated, that when bishop Watson obtained the professorship of chemistry, without much previous knowledge of that science, he deemed it his duty to acquire it; and accordingly studied it with so much industry, as materially to injure his health: with what success, his publications on that branch of philosophy demonstrate. When he was appointed to that professorship, he gave public lectures, which were attended by numerous audiences; and his “Chemical Essays” prove that his reputation was not undeserved. They have passed already through several editions, and are accounted a valuable manual to those who pursue that branch of science. “The subjects of these Essays,” to use the author’s own words, “have been chosen, not so much with a view of giving a system of Chemistry to the world, as with the humble design of conveying, in a popular way, a general kind of knowledge to persons not much versed in chemical inquiries.” He accordingly apologizes to chemists, for having explained common matters with, what will appear to them, a disgusting minuteness; and for passing over in silence some of the most interesting questions, such as those respecting the analysis of air and fire, &c. The learned author also apologizes to divines; whose forgiveness he solicits, for having stolen a few hours from the studies of his profession, and employed them in the cultivation of natural philosophy; pleading, in his defence, the example of some of the greatest characters that ever adorned either the University of Cambridge, or the Church of England. In the preface to the last of these volumes, he introduces the following observations: “When I was elected professor of divinity in 1771, I determined to abandon for ever the study of chemistry, and I did abandon it for several years but the veteris vestigia jtamm& still continued to delight me, and at length seduced me from my purpose. When I was made a bishop in 1782, I again determined to quit my favourite pursuit: the volume which I now offer to the public is a sad proof of the imbecility of my resolution. I have on this day, however, offered a sacrifice to other people’s notions, I confess, rather than to my own opinion of episcopal decorum. I have destroyed all my chemical manuscripts. A prospect of returning health might have persuaded me to pursue this delightful science; but I have now certainly done with it for ever at least I have taken the most effectual step I could to wean myself from an attachment to it: for with the holy zeal of the idolaters of old, who had been addicted to curious arts I have burned my books.”

In 1785, this learned prelate was editor of a “Collection of Theological Tracts, selected from various authors, for the use of the younger Students in the University,” 6 vols. 8vo. This compilation, comprising pieces on the most interesting subjects in sacred literature by different writers, was intended to form a library of divinity for every candidate for holy orders. Some objections, however, have been made to it on the score of its not being entirely confined to the writings of members of the Church of England, or at least that it did not exclude some of dubious principles. In the same year he published “The Wisdom and Goodness of God, in having made both Rich and Poor, a Sermon,” 4to; and a second edition in 1793.

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.”

, an elegant historian, was born at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, about 1730. He was the son of an apothecary of that place, who was also a brewer. Having gone through the usual course of languages and philosophy at the school and university of St. Andrew’s, and also entered on the study of divinity, a desire of being acquainted with a larger circle of literati, and of improving himself in every branch of knowledge, carried him, first, to the university of Glasgow, and afterwards to that of Edinburgh. The period of theological studies at the universities of Scotland is four years; but during that time young men of ingenious minds raid sufficient leisure to earry on and advance the pursuits of general knowledge. Few men studied more 'constantly than Mr. Watson. It was a rule with him to study eight hours every day; and this law he observed during the whole course of his life*. An acquaintance with the polite writers of England, after the union of the two kingdoms, became general in Scotland; and in Watson’s younger years, an emulation began to prevail of writing pure and elegant English. Mr. Watson applied himself with great industry to the principles of philosophical or universal grammar; and by a combination of these, with the authority of the best English writers, formed a course of lectures on style or language. He proceeded to the study of rhetoric or eloquence; the principles of which he endeavoured to trace to the nature of the human mind. On these subjects he delivered a course of lectures at Edinburgh, similar to what Dr. Adam Smith had delifered in the same city previous to his removal to Glasgow in 1751. To this he was encouraged by lord Kames, who judged very favourably of his literary taste and acquirements; and the scheme was equally successful in Watson’s as in Smith’s hands.

At this time he had become a preacher; and a vacancy having happened in one of the churches of St. Andrew’s, he offered himself a candidate for that living, but was dis^­appointed, yet he succeeded in what proved more advantageous. Mr. Henry Rymer, who then taught logic at St. Salvador’s college, was in a very infirm state of health, and entertaining thoughts of retiring. Mr. Watson purchased, for no great sum of money, what, in familiar phraseology, may be termed the good-will of Mr. Rymer’s place; and with the consent of the other masters of St. Salvador’s, was appointed professor of logic. He obtained also a patent from the crown, constituting him professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres. The study of logic in St. Andrew’s, as in most other places, was at this time confined to syllogisms, modes, and figures. Mr. Watson, whose mind had been opened by conversation, and by reading the writings of the literati who had begun to flourish in the Scotch capital, prepared, and read to his students, a course of metaphysics and logic on the most enlightened plan; in which he analyzed the powers of the mind, aod entered deeply into the nature of truth or knowledge. Oil the death of principal Tullidelph, Dr. Watson, through the interest of the earl of Kinnoul, was appointed his successor, in which station he lived only a few years, dying in 1780. He is chiefly known in the literary world by his “History of Philip II.” a very interesting portion of history, and in which the English, under queen Elizabeth, had a considerable share. He wrote also the history of Philip III. but lived only to complete four books; the last two were written, and the whole published in 4to, 1783 (afterwards reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo), by Dr. William Thomson, at the desire of the guardians of Dr. Watson’s children, whom he had by his wife, who was daughter to Mr. Shaw, professor of divinity in St. Mary’s-college, St. Andrew’s.

, a Roman catholic prelate in the reign of queen Mary, was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge, of which he was elected fellow, and in 1553 master. In November of the same year the queen gave him the deanery of Durham, vacant by the deprivation of Robert Home. He had previously to this been for some time chaplain to Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and was equally hostile to the reformed religion. In April 1554, he was incorporated D. D. at Oxford, and in August 1557, was consecrated bishop of Lincoln. In this see he remained until the accession of queen Elizabeth, when he was deprived on account of denying the queen’s supremacy; and remaining inflexible in his adherence to popery, he suffered confinement in or near London until 1580, when he was removed to Wisbech-castle, together with the abbot Feckenham, and several others. He died there Sept. 25, 1582, and was interred in the church-yard of Wisbech. He held several conferences with those of the reformed religion, and particularly was one of those appointed to confer with, or rather sit in judgment on Cranmer, Ridley f and Latimer, previously to their execution at Oxford. For some time he w,gs confined in Grindal’s house, and that prelate wished to converse calmly with him on the points in dispute at that time, but he answered that he would not enter into conference with any man. Watson is represented as of a sour and morose temper. Of his works we have heard only of, 1. “Two Sermons before queen Mary, on the real presence and sacrifice of the mass,” Lond. 1554, 8vo. 2. “Wholesome and Catholic doctrine concerning the seven Sacraments, in thirty Sermons,” ibid. 1558, 4to. Dodd mentions as his. antagonists or answerers, “A Sermon against Thomas Watson’s two Sermons, by which he would prove the real presence,” ibid. 1569, 4to, by Robert Crowley; and “Questio in Thomam Watsonium Episc. Lincoln, aliosque, super quibusdam articulis de bulla papali contra reginam Eliz.” Francfort, 1621.

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"

Of Watson, the sonnetteer, we have very little personal history. He was a native of London, and educated at Oxford, where he applied all his studies to poetry and romance, in which he obtained an honourable name. An ample account of his various productions, valuable rarities in the poetico-commercial world, may be seen in our authorities. He is supposed to have outlived his namesake, the prelate, and died in 1591 or 1592.

, 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.

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.”

Besides these valuable discoveries, the historian of electricity informs us that Mr. Watson first observed the different colour of the spark, as drawn from different bodies; that electricity suffered no refraction in passing through glass; that the power of electricity was not affected by the presence or absence of fire, since the sparks were equally strong from a freezing mixture, as from red-hot iron; that flame and smoke were conductors of electricity; and that the stroke was, as the points of contact of the non-electrics on the outside of the glass. This investigation led to the coating of phials, in order to increase the power of accumulation; and qualified him eminently to be the principal actor in those famous experiments, which were made on the Thames, and at Shooter’s Hill, in 1747 and 1748; in one of which the electrical circuit was extended four miles, in order to prove the velocity of electricity; the result of which convinced the attendants that it was instantaneous.

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!

Mr. Watson’s first papers on the subject of electricity were addressed, in three letters, to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the royal society, dated in March, April, and October, 1745, and were published in the Philosophical Transactions, under the title of ' Experiments and observations tending to illustrate the nature and properties of electricity.“These were followed in the beginning of the next year (1746) by” Farther Experiments, &c.“and these by” A sequel to the Experiments," &c. These tracts were collected, and separately published in octavo, and reached to a third or fourth edition. They were of so interesting a nature that they gave him the lead, as it were, in this branch of philosophy; and were not only the means of raising him to a high degree of estimation at home, but of extending his fame throughout all Europe. His house became the resort of the most ingenious and illustrious experimental philosophers that England could boast. Several of the nobility attended on these occasions; and his present majesty George III. when prince of Wales, honoured him with his presence. In fact there needs no greater confirmation of his merit, at that early time, as an electrician, than the public testimony conferred upon him by the royal society, which, in 1745, presented him with sir Godfrey Copley’s medal, for his discoveries in electricity.

Jn 1768 Dr. Watson published “An account of a series of Experiments, instituted with a view of ascertaining the most successful method of inoculating the Small-pox,” 8vo. These experiments were designed to prove whether there was any specific virtue in preparing medicines; whether the disease was more favourable when the matter was taken from the natural or the artificial pock; and whether the crude lymph, or the highly concocted matter, produced different effects. The result was, what succeeding and ample experience confirmed, that after due abstinence from animal food, and heating liquors, it is of small importance what kind of variolous matter is used; and that no preparatory specifics are to be regarded. Dr. Watson also published various papers in “The London Medical Observations,” and other similar works, of which it is unnecessary to give a detailed account, as they are well known to medical practitioners.

Sir William Watson had a natural activity both of mind and body that never allowed him to be indolent in the slightest degree. He was a most exact oeconomist of his time, and throughout life a very early riser, being up usually in summer at six o‘clock, and frequently sooner; thus securing to himself daily two or three uninterrupted hours for study. In his younger days, these early hours were frequently given up to the purposes of simpling; but, in riper years, they were devoted to study. He read much and carefully; and his ardent and unremitting desire to be acquainted with the progress or’ all those sciences which were his objects, joined to a vigorous and retentive memory, enabled him to treasure up a vast stock of knowledge. What he thus acquired he freely dispensed. His mode of conveying information was clear, forcible, and energetic. His attention, however, was by no means confined to the subjects of his own profession, or those of philosophy at large. He was a careful observer of men, and of the manners of the age; and the extraordinary endowment of his memory had furnished him with a great variety of interesting and entertaining anecdotes concerning the characters and circumstances of his time. On all subjects, his liberal and communicative disposition, and his courteous behaviour, encouraged inquiry; and those who sought for information from him, seldom departed without it. In his epistolary correspondence he was copious and precise; and such as enjoyed the privilege and pleasure of it experienced in his punctuality another qualification which greatly enhanced its value. It appears by the character his biographer has given of him, of which the preceding is a part, that he was not less estimable in private than in public life.

At the end of this time, he was invited by sir John Hartopp, to reside in his family, at Stoke Newington, near London, as tutor to his son. Here he remained about four or five years, and on his birth-day that completed his twenty-fourth year, in 1698, preached his first sermon, and was chosen assistant to Dr. Chauncy, minister of the congregation in Mark- lane. About three years after, he was appointed to succeed Dr. Chauncy but had scarce entered on this charge when he was so interrupted by illness, as to render an assistant necessary; and after an interval of health he was again seized by a fever which left a weakness that never wholly abated, and, in a great measure checked the usefulness of his public labours.

The passage thus elegantly alluded to is as follows “Our next observation shall be made upon that remarkably kind providence which brought the doctor into sir Thomas Abney’s family, and continued him there till his death, a period of no less than thirty-six years. In the midst of his sacred labours for the glory of God, and good of his generation, he is seized with a most violent and threatening fever, which leaves him oppressed with great weakness, and puts a stop at least to his public services for four years. In this distressing season, doubly so to his active and pious spirit, he is invited to sir Thomas Abney’s family, nor ever removes from it till he had finished his days. Here he enjoyed the uninterrupted demonstrations of the truest friendship. Here, without any care of his own, he had every thing which could contribute to the enjoyment of life, and favour the unwearied pursuits of his studies. Here he dwelt in a family, which for piety, order, harmony, and every virtue, was an house of God. Here he had the privilege of a country recess, the fragrant bower, the spreading lawn, the flowery garden, and other advantages, to sooth his mind and aid his restoration to health; to yield him, whenever he chose them, most grateful intervals from his laborious studies, and enable him to return to them with redoubled vigour and delight. Had it not been for this most happy event, he might, as to outward view, have feebly, it may be painfully, dragged on through many more years of languor, and inability for public service, and even for profitable study, or perhaps might have sunk into his grave under the overwhelming load of infirmities in the midst of his days; and thus the church and world would have been deprived of those many excellent sermons and works, which he drew up and published during his long residence in this family. In a few years after his coming thither, sir Thomas Abney dies: but his amiable consort survives, who shews the doctor the same respect and friendship as before, and most happily for him, and great numbers besides, for, as her riches were great, her generosity and munificence were in full proportion: her thread of life was drawn out to a great age, even beyond that of the doctor’s, and thus this excellent man, through her kindness, and that of her daughter,-the present (1780) Mrs. Elizabeth Abney, who in a like degree esteemed and honoured him, enjoyed all the benefits and felicities he experienced at his first entrance into this family, till his days were numbered and finished, and, like a shock of corn in its season, he ascended into the regions of perfect and immortal life and joy.”

In this retreat, he wrote the whole or nearly the whole of those works which have immortalized his name as a divine, poet, and philosopher. He occasionally preached, and in the pulpit, says Dr. Johnson, though his low stature, which very little exceeded five feet, graced him with no advantages of appearance, yet the gravity and propriety of his utterance made his discourses very efficacious. Such was his flow of thoughts, and such his promptitude of language, that in the latter part of his life he did not precompose his cursory sermons; but having adjusted the heads, and sketched out some particulars, trusted for success to his extemporary powers.

Dr. Johnson’s character of him, in that admirable life he wrote for the English poets, may be received with confidence. Few men have left such purity of character, or such monuments of laborious piety. He has provided instruction for all ages, from those who are lisping their first lessons, to the enlightened readers of Malbranche and Locke he has left neither corporeal nor spiritual nature unexamined; he has taught the art of reasoning, and the science of the stars. His character, therefore, must be formed from the multiplicity and diversity of his attainments, rather than from any single performance, for it would not be safe to claim for him the highest rank in any single denomination of literary dignity; yet perhaps there was nothing in which he would not have excelled, if he had not divided his powers to different pursuits.

, the illustrious founder of Magdalen college, Oxford, was the eldest son of Richard Patten, or Harbour, of Waynflete in Lincolnshire, by Margery, daughter of sir William Brereton, knight; and had for his brother John Patten, dean of Chichester, but the precise time of his birth is no where ascertained. According to the custom of his day, he took the surname of Waynflete from his native place. He was educated at Winchester school, and studied afterwards at Oxford, but in what college is uncertain. The historian of Winchester is inclined to prefer New college, which is most consistent with the progress of education at Wykeham’s school. Wood acknowledges that although his name does not occur among the fellows of New college, nor among those of Merton, where Holinshed places him, unless he was a chaplain or postmaster, yet “the general vogue is for the college of William of Wykehasn.” Wherever he studied, his proficiency in the literature of the times, and in philosophy and divinity, in which last he took the degree of bachelor, is said to have been great, and the fame he acquired as schoolmaster at Winchester, with the classical library he formed, is a proof that he surpassed in such learning as was then attainable.

Waynflete resigned the office of chancellor in the month of July 1460, about which time he accompanied the king to Northampton, and was with him a few days before the fatal battle near that place, in which the royal army was defeated. Waynflete’s attachment to Henry’s cause had been uniform and decided, yet his high character and talents appear to have protected him. Edward IV. treated him not only with respect, but with some degree of magnanimity, as he twice issued a special pardon in his favour, and condescended to visit his newly-founded college at Oxford, a favour which to Waynflete, embarked in a work which required royal patronage, must have been highly gratifying. The remainder of his life appears to have been free from political interference or danger, and he lived to see the quiet union of the houses of York and Lancaster, in the marriage of Henry VII. with Elizabeth of York. Besides his other preferments, he is said to have been chancellor of the university of Oxford; but his name no where occurs in Wood’s copious and accurate account of the persons who filled that office.

indolence or inactivity, and a great bought for about 100J. by T. Osborne,

, a pious prelate, the son of a clergyman at Bromham in Wiltshire, was born there in 1581, and was entered first of University-college, Oxford, in 1598; but became the same year a scholar of Corpus-college. Here he took his degrees in arts r entered into holy orders, and was made minister of Steeple Aston in Wiltshire, where he also kept a grammar-school, as he afterwards did at Bath. In 1621 he was inducted to the rectory of St. Peter and St. Paul in Bath, being then bachelor in divinity. In 1624 he proceeded D. D. On the accession of Charles I. he was made one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1629 baptised his majesty’s first child, which died immediately after. He was consecrated bishop of Limerick, in Ireland, in December 1634. Before his death he was confined by the rebels in Limerick castle, where he died in the latter end of 1641, and was permitted by them to be buried in St. Munchin’s church-yard in Limerick. “He was a person of a strict life and conversation,” and esteemed the best preacher at the court of king Charles; and his published compositions are in a more pure and elegant style than those of most of his contemporaries. His principal work ishis “Practice of Quietness, directing a Christian to live quietly in this troublesome world.” We have not discovered when this was first published, but it had reached a third edition in 1631, and was afterwards often reprinted. The best edition is that of 1705, cr. 8vo, with his portrait and an engraved title-page. It is a work which gives a high idea of the author’s placid temper and pious resignation, amidst the confusions he lived to witness. His other publications are, 1. “A brief exposition of the principles of the Christian religion,” Loud. 1612, 8vo. 2. <c Arraignment of an unruly tongue, wherein the faults of an evil tongue are opened, the danger discovered, and remedies prescribed, &c.“ibid. 1619, 12mo. 3.” Agur’s prayer, or the Christian choice, &c.“ibid. 1621, 12mo. 4.” Catalogue protestantium: or the Protestant’s Calendar; containing a survey of the protestant religion long before Luther’s days,“ibid. 1624, 4to. 5.” Lessons and exercises out of Cicero ad Atticum," 1627, 4to. He published also some other books for grammar-schools, a Latin and English edition of two of Terence’s comedies; and several sermons, which appeared from 1609 to 1619.

In 1733 Mr. Bowyer printed for him “A vindication of Eustace Budgeli,” probably in the affair of Dr. TindalPs will; and in that year he began “The Weekly Miscellany,” a periodical paper, under the name of “Richard Hooker, esq. of the Inner Temple,” but it was not much relished, nor of long continuance. In 1740 he was editor of a pamphlet concerning the woollen manufactory, the materials for which were furnished by one of the trade, and above 8000 of them were sold. During the remainder of his life, at least until 1757, he published a number of temporary pamphlets, and occasional sermons, with so little advantage to himself, that in the last mentioned year we find him soliciting the archbishops and bishops for charity. This was not altogether unsuccessful, although it does not appear to have satisfied his wants. In 1741 he had resigned his rectory and curacy for the vicarages of Ware and Thundridge, which, he informs us, were not very productive. His last publication was “A plain narrative of facts, or the author’s case fairly and candidly stated.” This he survived but a few months, dying Dec. 4, 1758.

Dr. Webster does not appear to have been entitled to much more respect than he received. He was undoubtedly a man of learning and acuteness, but so eager for profit and promotion, as seldom to regard the means by which they were acquired. One instance may suffice to give an idea of his character in this respect. In his “Plain narrative of Facts,” he informs us that he wrote a pamphlet (on the woollen trade) which had such great reputation all over the kingdom, that, without knowing who was the author of it, it was said that “he deserved to have his statue set up in every trading town in England.” Yet, when the demand for this pamphlet subsided, he actually published an answer to it, under the title of “The Draper’s Reply,” of which two or three editions were sold!

, 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.

He appears to have soon acquired a name at the bar, and to have formed valuable connections, particularly with lord Bute and lord Mansfield, for in 1763 he was made king’s counsel, and at the same time became a bencher of Lincoin’s Inn. He also obtained a seat in parliament, and soon had an opportunity of greatly improving his finances as well as his fame, by being the successful advocate for lord Clive. During his first years of sitting in parliament, he supported some of the measures of what were then termed the popular party; but had either seen his error, or his interest in another point of view, for in January 1771 he accepted the office of solicitor general, and from that time became a strenuous advocate for the administration who conducted the American war. In July 1778 he was appointed attorney-general, art office which even his enemies allow that he held with great mildness and moderation. It often happened to this distinguished lawyer, that his single advice had great influence with the party to which he belonged, and it is said that his opinion only was the means of saving the metropolis from total destruction by the mob of 1780. When his majesty held a privycouncil to determine on the means of putting a stop to these outrages, Mr. Wedderburn was ordered by the king to deliver his official opinion. He stated in the. most precise terms, that any such assemblage of depredators might be dispersed by military force, without waiting for forms, or reading the riot act. tf Is that yCur declaration of the Jaw, as attorney-general?“said the king; Mr. Wedderburn answering distinctly in the affirmative;” Then let it so be done," rejoined the king; and the attorney-general drew up the order immediately, by which the riots were suppressed in a few hours, and the metropolis saved.

, an ingenious improver of the English pottery manufacture, was born in July 1730, and was the younger son of a potter, whose property consisting chiefly of a small entailed estate, that descended to the eldest son, Josiah was left, at an early period of life, to lay the foundation of his own fortune. This he did most substantially by applying his attention to the pottery business, which, it is not too much to say, he brought to the highest perfection, and established a manufacture that has opened a new scene of extensive commerce, before unknown to this or any other country. His many discoveries of new species of earthen wares and porcelains, his studied forms and chaste style of decorations, and the correctness and judgment with which all his works were executed under his own eye, and by artists for the most part of his own forming, have turned the current in this branch of commerce; for, before his time, England imported the finer earthen wares; but for more than twenty years past, she has exported them to a very great annual amount, the whole of which is drawn from the earth, and from the industry of the inhabitants; while the national taste has been improved, and its reputation raised in foreign countries.

It was about 1760 that he began his improvements in the Staffordshire potteries, and not only improved the composition, forms, and colours of the old wares, but likewise invented, in 1763, a new species of ware, for which he obtained a patent, and which being honoured by her majesty’s approbation and patronage, received the name of queen’s ware. Continuing his experimental researches, Mr. Wedgwood afterwards invented several other species of earthen-ware and porcelain, of which the principal are: 1. A terra cotta; resembling porphyry, granite, Egyptian pebble, and other beautiful stones of the siliceous or crystalline order. 2. Basaltes, or black ware; a black porcelain biscuit of nearly the same properties with the natural stone, receiving a high polish, resisting all the acids, and bearing without injury a very strong fire. 3. White porcelain biscuit; of a smooth wax-like appearance, of similar properties with the preceding. 4. Jasper; a white porcelain of exquisite beauty, possessing the general properties of basaltes; together with the singular one of receiving through its whole substance, from the admixture of metallic calces, the same colours which those calces give to glass or enamels in fusion; a property possessed by no porcelain of ancient or 1 modern composition. 5. Bamboo, or cane-coloured biscuit porcelain, of the same nature as the white porcelain biscuit. And 6. A porcelain biscuit remarkable for great hardness, little inferior to that of agate; a property which, together with its resistance to the strongest acids, and its impenetrability to every known liquid, renders it well adapted for the formation of mortars, and many different kinds of chemical vessels. The above six distinct species of ware, together with the queen’s ware first noticed, have increased by the industry and ingenuity of different manufacturers, and particularly by Mr. Wedgwood and his son, into an almost endless variety of forms for ornament and use. These, variously painted and embellished, constitute nearly the whole of the present fine earthen-wares and porcelains of English manufacture.

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.

, 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 learned English divine, of whom we are sorry our materials are so scanty, was admitted a scholar at Westminster school in 1680, and was thence elected to Christ-church, Oxford, in 1686, where he proceeded M.A. in 1693, and B. and D. D, in 1704. He was a tutor in his college, and among others had under his care, the celebrated antiquary Browne Willis, who presented him to the rectory of Blechley in Buckinghamshire, where his nephew, Edward Wells, was his curate. Dr. Wells also obtained the rectory of Cottesbach in Leicestershire in 1717, and died in August 1727. Among Dr. Wells’s useful publications are, l.'“An historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, illustrated xvith maps and chronological tables,” 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “The young gentleman’s course of Mathematics,” 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “An historical Geography of the New Testament,” 8vo. 4. “Arithmetic and Geometry,” 3 vols. 8vo. 5. “A paraphrase, with annotations on all the books of the Old and New Testament,” 6 vols. 4to. 6. “An help for the right understanding of the several divine laws and covenants,” 8vo. 7. “Controversial Treatises against the Dissenters.” 8. “An Exposition of 'the Church Catechism.” 9. “Prayers on common occasions,” a sequel to the preceding. 10. “Harmonia Grammaticalis or a view of the agreement between the Latin and Greek tongues, as to the declining of words,” &c. 11. “A Letter to a friend concerning the great sin of taking God’s name in vain.” 12. “Elementa Arithmetics numerosoe et speciosae.” He published also some other tracts on subjects of practical religion, particularly specified in our authority; and was the editor of a good edition of “Dionysius’s Geography,” Gr. and Lat. Oxford, 1706. He was esteemed one of the most accurate geographers of his time.

, 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.

, an eminent, but unfortunate statesman, of an ancient family, the son of sir William Wentworth of Yorkshire, was born April 13, 1593, in Chancery-lane, London, at the house of his maternal grandfather, a barrister of Lincoln’s-inn. Being the eldest of twelve children, and destined to inherit the honours and estate of the family, he was early initiated in those accomplishments which suited his rank; and completed his literary education at St. John’s college, Cambridge; but of the plan or progress of his early studies, no particulars have been preserved. His proficiency at the university seems, however, to have impressed his friends with a favourable opinion of his talents, and at a future period of his life, we find him patronising the cause of his university with much earnestness, and receiving their acknowledgments of his favours. Having occasion to represent some misconduct of a church dignitary who had been educated at Oxford, he could not help adding that such a divine was never produced at Cambridge. Notwithstanding this, somewhat illiberal, sentiment, it was not from his own university that he was destined to receive a tutor, when he commenced his travels. That office fell upon Mr. John Greenwood, fellow of University college, Oxford, of whom he long after spoke in the highest terms, and while he could retain him in his family, uniformly consulted him in all matters of importance. With this gentleman he spent upwards of a year in France.

The characteristic ardour of Wentworth’s affections began to be very early remarked; and as he was devoted to the interests of his friends, he proved no less decided in the prosecution of his enemies. Habituated to the indulgencies of a plentiful fortune, and unaccustomed to opposition, he was choleric in the extreme, and the sudden violence of his resentment was apt to transport him beyond all bounds of discretion. Yet this defect was in a great measure atoned for by the manliness and candour with which it was acknowledged. When his friends, who perceived how detrimental it must prove to his future welfare, frequently admonished him of it, their remonstrances were always taken in good part. He endeavoured, by watching still more anxiously his infirmity, to convince them of his earnest desire to amend: and his attachment was increased towards those who advised him with sincerity and freedom. Sir George Radcliffe, the most intimate of his friends, informs us, that he never gained more upon his trust and affection than when he told him of his weaknesses. On his return from abroad Wentworth appeared at court, and was knighted by king James, and about the same time married Margaret Clifford, the eldest daughter of the earl of Cumherland. In the following year (1614) he succeeded, by the death of his father, to a baronetcy, and an estate of 6000l. a year. His time was now occupied with the pleasures and cares which naturally attend a country gentleman of distinction, but he seems to have quickly attracted the notice of his county and of government; for he had not above a year enjoyed his inheritance when he was sworn into the commission of the peace, and nominated by sir John Savile to succeed him as custos rotulorum, or keeper of the archives, for the West Riding of Yorkshire, an office bestowed only on gentlemen of the first consideration. The resignation of Savile, although apparently voluntary, proceeded from some violent quarrels with his neighbours, the result of his restless and turbulent disposition; and even Wentworth soon became the object of his decided enmity. Having found means to interest in his favour the duke of Buckingham, who at that period governed the councils of king James, Savile meditated a restoration to his former office. At his instance the duke wrote to Wentworth, informing him that the king, having again taken sir John Savile into his favour, had resolved to employ him in his service; and requesting that he would freely return the office of custos rotulorum to the man who had voluntarily consigned it to his hands. Wentworth, instead of complying, exposed the misrepresentations of his antagonist; shewed that his resignation had been wnaog from him by necessity, and indicated his intention of coming to London to make good his assertion. The duke, though very regardless of giving offence in the pursuit of his purposes, did not, however, judge this a sufficient occasion to risk the displeasure of the Yorkshire gentlemen. He therefore replied with much seeming cordiality, assuring Wentworth that his former letter proceeded entirely from misinformation, and that the king had only consented to dispense with his service from the idea that he himself desired an opportunity to resign. This incident is chiefly remarkable as it laid the first foundation of that animosity with Buckingham which was the cause of many questionable circumstances in the conduct of Wentworth. The duke was not of a disposition to forget even the slightest opposition to his will; and Wentworth was not a man to be in*­jured with impunity.

These appearances, however, were delusive, and Wentworth either did not know Buckingham, or was blinded by his own ambition. Within a few days he received his majesty’s order to resign the office of custos rotulorum to his old antagonist sir John Savile, accompanied with circumstances which he felt as an insult. Yet we are told that he did not allow his passion to silence the voice of discretion, but took precautions that his quarrel with Buckingham should not prejudice him with the king, whom he might hope hereafter to serve in a superior capacity; and his intimacy with sir Richard Weston, chancellor of the Exchequer, furnished him with the means of executing these intentions. He particularly solicits his friend, at some favourable opportunity, to represent to his majesty the estimation in which he was held by the late king, his ardent attachment to his present sovereign, his unfeigned grief at the apprehension of his displeasure, and his eager desire to shew his affection and zeal by future services. To those friends who were acquainted with all this, it seemed strange and incomprehensible, when they saw Wentworth, not many months afterwards, boldly stand forward as the assertor of the popular rights, and resist the crown in its most favourite exertions of power. But this measure, says his late biographer, whom we principally follow, though to them it might bear the aspect of imprudence and temerity, was dictated by a profound appreciation of the intervening circumstances. Whatever may be in this, it is certain that when the king endeavoured to raise a loan without the aid of parliament, Wentworth, whether, as his biographer says, animated by patriotism, or led by a skilful ambition, refused to pay the demanded contribution; and having, before the privy council, persisted in justifying his conduct, he was first thrown into prison, and afterwards, as a mitigated punishment, sent to Dartford, in Kent, with a prohibition logo above two miles from the town. This confinement did not last long, for on the calling of a new parliament in 1628, he was released, and re-elected for the county of York.

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.”

Such were the sentiments which Wentworth was soon to abandon for the support of and a share in the measures of the court. Jt has already been seen that Wentworth, though violent, was not inflexible, and the ministers calculated right when they supposed he might be detached from his party. Possessed of an uncommon influence with that party, which had been evinced by their ready acquiescence in his suggestions, he had formerly shewn a willingness to engage in the service of the court, and had repaid its neglect by a bold, keen, and successful opposition. These and other considerations in favour of Wentworth were strengthened by the good offices of his friend Weston, who had lately been promoted to the office of lord high treasurer, and who now repaid his former confidence by a zealous patronage. But it was not by empty overtures, or some flattering professions of Buckingham, that Wenbworth, often deceived, and repeatedly insulted, was to be won from a party that yielded him honour by its esteem, and authority by its support. To an immediate place in the peerage, with the title of baron, was added the assurance of speedy promotion to a higher rank, and to the presidency of the council of York.

That his genius was better adapted to his present than his former situation, and that, in fact, he had hitherto been only acting a part ^ soon appeared from his conduct as president of the council of York. The council of York, or of the North, was peculiarly suited to the genius of an absolute monarchy. The same forms of administering justice' had prevailed in the four northern counties, as in other parts of England, till the thirty-first year of Henry VIII.; when an insurrection, attended with much bloodshed and disorder, induced that monarch to grant a commission of oyer and terminer to the archbishop of York, with some lawyers and gentlemen of that county, for the purpose of investigating the grounds of those outrages, and bringing the malefactors to punishment according to the laws of the land. The good effects of the commission in restoring tranquillity, caused its duration to be prolonged; and, on the re-appearance of commotions in those quarters, it was, in succeeding times, frequently renewed. An abuse gradually arose out of a simple expedient. Elizabeth, and after her, James, found it convenient to alter the tenour of the commission, to increase the sphere of its jurisdiction, and to augment its circumscribed legal authority by certain discretionary powers. And to such an ascendancy was this court raised, by the enlarged instructions granted to Wentworth, that the council of York now engrossed the whole jurisdiction of the four northern counties, and embraced the powers of the courts of common law, the chancery, and even the exorbitant authority of the star-chamber. Convinced that the monarch would in vain aspire to an independent supremacy, without imparting his unlimited powers to his subordinate officers, Wentworth still felt his extensive authority too circumscribed, and twice applied for an enlargement of its boundaries. His commission, says Clarendon, “placed the northern counties entirely beyond the protection of the common law; it included fifty-eight instructions, of which scarcely one did not exceed or directly violate the common law; and by its natural operation, it had almost overwhelmed the country under the sea of arbitrary power, and involved the people in a labyrinth of distemper, oppression, and poverty.” It is allowed also that the office had a bad effect on his temper, which, although naturally warm, had been long corrected by a sound and vigorous judgment; but now his passions often burst forth with a violence, neither demanded by the importance of the occasion, nor consistent with the former moderation of his character. In 1631 he was appointed lord-deputy of Ireland; and the following year, after burying his second wife and marrying a third, he went over to his new government, invested with more ample powers than had been granted to his predecessors. This, however, did not prevent him from soliciting a farther extension of those powers; and which accordingly he obtained. He found the revenue of Ireland under great anticipations, and loaded with a debt of 106,000l. This occasioned the army to be both ill clothed and ill paid, and the excesses of the soldiers were great. He set himself, however, in a short time, to remedy these inconveniences; and having procured the continuance of the voluntary contribution of the nobility, gentry, and freeholders, he was very punctual in the payment of the soldiers, which put a stop to many of their'disorders; and he was very successful in restoring military discipline. In July 1634, he assembled a parliament at Dublin, which granted six subsidies, payable out of lands and goods, each subsidy consisting of about 45, Ooo/. to be raised in four years; the greatest sum ever known to be granted to the crown in that kingdom. The disposal of this money being entirely left to lord Wentworth, he judiciously employed it in paying the army, in reducing the incumbrances upon the public, and in all branches of government. These services greatly recommended lord Wentworth to the king, who testified his satisfaction in what he had done; but it has been complained that his government was not equally acceptable to the people. He had greater abilities than policy, and by a haQghty behaviour irritated some of the most considerable persons in the kingdom.

The apprehensions of the king soon brought their dreaded adversary into their power. When he compared the management of an Irish parliament by Strafford, with his own abortive attempts in England, Charles, without duly weighing the difference of circumstances, was led to expect from this minister’s assistance, an issue no longer possible. Strafford hesitated to incur certain dangers in so hopeless a struggle. To the royal summons for his attendance in parliament, he replied by an earnest request that he might be permitted to retire to his government in Ireland, or to some other place whjere he might promote the service of his majesty; and not deliver himself into the hands of his enraged enemies. But to these representations Charles refused to listen; and, with too much confidence in a firmness which had so often failed him, he encouraged his minister by a solemn promise, that “not a hair of his head should be touched by the parliament.”

Strafford at length prepared to obey these repeated mandates; and having discovered a traitorous correspondence, in which his enemy Savile and some other lords had invited the Scots to invade England, he resolved to anticipate and confound his adversaries by an accusation of these popular leaders. But no sooner were the Commons informed that he had taken his seat among the peers, than they ordered their doors to be shut; and after they had continued several hours in deliberation, Pyrn appeared at the bar of the House of Lords; and in the name of the Commons of England, impeached the earl of Strafford of high treason. This charge was accompanied by a desire that he should be sequestered from parliament, and forthwith committed to prison; a request which, after a short deliberation, was granted. A committee of thirteen was chosen by the lower House, to prepare a charge against him. The articles of impeachment, produced at his trial, were twentyeight in number, and regarded his conduct, as president of the council of York, as lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and as counsellor or commander in England. It would be impossible to detail all the circumstances of his trial, which was conducted with great solemnity; but though four months were employed by the managers in framing the accusation, and all Strafford’s answers were extemporary, it appears from comparison, not only that he was free from the crime of treason, of which there is not the least appearance, but that his conduct, making allowance for human infirmities, exposed to such severe scrutiny, was innocent, and even laudable. The masterly and eloquent speech he made on his trial has always been admired as one of the first compositions of the kind in that age. “Certainly,” say Whitlocke, who was chairman of the impeaching committee, “never any man acted such a part, on such a theatre, with more wisdom, constancy, and eloquence, with greater reason, judgment, and temper, and with a better grace in all his words and actions, than did this great and excellent person; and he moved the hearts of all his auditors, some few excepted, to remorse and pity.” But his fate was determined upon. His enemies resolved to hasten it, at the expence of justice, by adopting a proceeding, which overstepped the established forms and maxims of law, and against which innocence could form no protection. Dreading the decision of the lords, if the charges and evidence were to be weighed by the received rules, they resolved to proceed by a bill of attainder: and to enact that Strafford was guilty of high treason, and had incurred its punishment. The commons endeavoured to veil the infamy of this proceeding, by an attempt, not less infamous, and still more absurd, to satisfy the legal rules of evidence. The advice of Strafford about the employment of the Irish army, and which, by a forced interpretation, was construed into a design to subdue England by that force, had hitherto been attested by the solitary evidence of sir Henry Vane; but an attempt was now made to maintain the charge by two witnesses, as the laws of treason required. The younger Vane, on inspecting some of jiis father’s papers, discovered a minute, as it appeared, of the consultation at which the words imputed to Strafford were alleged to have been spoken; and this minute was recognised by the elder Vane, as taken down by him at the time, in his quality of secretary. In reporting this discovery to the House, Pym maintained, in a solemn argument, that the written evidence of sir Henry Vane, at the period of the transaction, and his oral evidence at present, ought to be considered as equivalent to the testimony of two witnesses; and this extravagant position was actually sanctioned by the House, and adopted as a ground of their proceedings.

Strafford, hearing of the king’s irresolution and anxiety, wrote a letter, in which he entreated his majesty, for the sake of public peace, to put an end to his unfortunate, however innocent life, and to quiet the tumultuous people by granting them the request for which they were so importunate. The magnanimity of this letter made little impression on the courtiers who surrounded the king; they now urged, that the full consent of Strafford to his own death absolved his majesty from every scruple of conscience; and after much anxiety and doubt, the king granted a commission to four noblemen to give the royal assent, in his name, to the bill, a measure ultimately as pernicious to Charles as it was now to Strafford, for with it was coupled his assent to the bill which rendered, this parliament perpetual. But so much was his majesty at this time under the presence of terror, or regard for Strafford, that he did not perceive that this last billwas of fatal consequence to himself. In fact, in comparison with the bill f attainder, this concession, made no figure in his eyes. A circumstance, says Hume, which, if it lessen our idea of his resolution or penetration, serves to prove the integrity of his heart, and the goodness of his disposition. It is indeed certain, that strong compunction for his consent to Strafford’s execution attended this, unfortunate prince during the remainder of his life; and even at his own fatal end, the memory ojf this guilt, with great sorrow and remorse, recurred upon him.

His latest biographer remarks, that the day of Stratford’s execution tnrew a brighter lustre over his name, than his most memorable transactions. As he.passed along to Towel Hill, on which the scaffold was erected, the populace, who eagerly thronged to the spectacle, beheld his noble deportment with admiration. His tall and stately figure, the grave, cigmfied symmetry of his features, corresponded with the general impression of his character: and the mildness-, which had taken place of the usual severity of his forehead, expressed repentance enlivened by hope, and fortitude tempered by resignation. In his address to the people from the scaffold, he assured them that he submilled to his sentence with perfect resignation; that freely and from his heart he forgave all the world. “I speak,” said he, “in the presence of Almighty God, before whom I stand: there is not a displeasing thought that ariseth iw me to any man.” He declared that, however his actions might have been misinterpreted, his intentions had always b^en upright: that he loved parliaments, that he was devoted to the constitution and to the church of England: that he ever considered the interests of the king and people as inseparably united; and that, living or dying, the prosperity of his country was his fondest wish. But he expressed his fears, “that the omen was bad for the intended reformation of the state, that it commenced with the shedding of innocent blood.” Having bid a last adieu to his brother and friends who attended him, and having sent a blessing to his nearer relations who were absent, “And now/' said he,” I have nigh done! -One stroke will make my wife a widow, and my dear children fatherless, deprive my poor servants of their indulgent master, and separate me from my affectionate brother and all my friends. But let God be to you and them all in all. 11 Going to disrobe, and prepare himself for the block, “I thank God,” said he, “that I am no wise afraid of death, nor am daunted with any terrors but do as cheerfully lay down my head at this time, as ever I did when going to repose.” He then stretched oat his hands as a signal to the executioner; and at one blow his head was severed from his body.

His execution took place May 12, 1641, in the fortyninth year of his age. Though his death, says Hume, wa loudly demanded as a satisfaction to justice, and an atonement for the many violations of the constitution, it may be safely affirmed, that the sentence by which he fell was an enormity greater than the worst of those which his implacable enemies prosecuted with so much cruel industry. The people in their rage had totally mistaken the proper object of their resentment. All the necessities, or, more properly speaking, the difficulties with which the king had been induced to use violent expedients for raising supply, were the result of measures previous to Stafford’s favour: and if they arose from ill conduct, he at least was entirely innocent. Even those violent expedients themselves which occasioned the complaint that the constitution was subverted, had been, all of them, conducted, so far as appeared, without his counsel or assistance. And whatever his private advice might be, this salutary maxim he failed not, often, and publicly, to inculcate in the king’s presence, that, if any inevitable necessity ever obliged the sovereign to violate the laws, this license ought to be practised with extreme reserve, and as soon as possible a just atonement be made to the constitution for any injury that it might sustain from such dangerous precedents. The first parliament after the Restoration reversed the bill of attainder; and even a few weeks after Stafford’s execution, this very parliament remitted to his children the more severe consequences of his sentence, as if conscious of the violence with which the prosecution had been conducted.

Stratford’s general character may be collected from the preceding sketch; but is more fully illustrated in his “Letters,” published in 1739, 2 vols. folio; and in an interesting sequel, published lately by Dr. Whitaker, in the “Life and Correspondence of Sir George Radcliffe,” 1810, 4to. A few particulars yet remain, gleaned by Dr. Birch from various authorities. Lord Strafford was extremely temperate in his diet, drinking, and recreations; but naturally very choleric, an infirmity which he endeavoured to controul, though upon sudden occasions it broke through all restraints. He was sincere and zealous in his friendships. Whitelocke assures us, that, “for natural parts and abilities, and for improvement of knowledge by experience in the greatest affairs, for wisdom, faithfulness, and gallantry of mind, he left few behind him, that might be ranked equal with him.” Lord Clarendon acknowledges, indeed, that the earl, in his government of Ireland, had been compelled, by reason of state, to exercise many acts of power, and had indulged some to his own appetite and passion; and as he was a man of too high and severe a deportment, and too great a contemner of ceremony, to have many friends at court, so he could not but have enemies enough. But he was a man, continues that noble historian, of great parts and extraordinary endowments of nature, not unadorned with some addition of art and learning, though that again was more improved and illustrated by the other; for he had a readiness of conception, and sharpness of expression, which made his learning thought more than in truth it was. He was, no doubt, of great observation, and a piercing judgment, both in things and persons; but his too great skill in persons made him judge the worse of things; for it was his misfortune to live in i time wherein very few wise men were equally employed with him, and scarce any but the lord Coventry (whose trust was more confined) whose faculties and abilities were equal to his. So that, upon the matter, hr relied wholly upon himself; and discerning many defects in most men, he too much neglected what they s.id or did. Of all his passions pride was most predominant; whkh a moderate exercise of ill fortune might have corrected and reformed, and which the hand of heaven strangeU punished by bringing his destriK tion upon him by two things that he most despised, the people, and sir Harry Vane. In a word, the epitaph, which Plutarch records, that Sylla wrote for himself, may not unfitly be applied to him, “that no man did ever exceed him, eitner in doing goo<l to his friends, or in doing misch ef to his enemies;” for his acts of both kinds were most notorious.

, the supposed author of a law work of great reputation and authority, was born in 1567, in Oxfordshire, of the family of the Wentworths, of Northamptonshire. He was entered of University college, Oxford, in 1584, and after remaining three years there> removed to Lincoln’s Tnn, studied law, and was admitted to the bar. In September 1607 he was elected recorder of Oxford, and in 1611 was Lent reader at Lincoln’s Inn. He also sat in several parliaments in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. for the city of Oxford. Wood says that in parliament he shewed himself “a troublesome and factious person,” and was more than once imprisoned. According to the same writer, he behaved so turbulently at Oxford, that he was discommoned with disgrace, but was afterwards restored. His restless spirit, however, returning, his friends advised him to retire, which he did to Henley. Some time after he went to London, and died in or near Lincoln’s Inn, in Sept. 1627. Such is Wood’s account. The work attributed to him is entitled “The office and duty of Executors,” &c. which, according to Wood> was published in 1612, 8vo, and has been often reprinted; the last edition in 1774, revised, with additions by the late serjeant Wilson. But there seems reason to doubt whether Wentworth was the original writer, for it has been ascribed by several authors to judge Dodderidge.

, an English divine, of whom some account may be acceptable, preparatory to that of his more celebrated son, was the son of a nonconformist minister, ejected in 1662. He was born about 1662. He was educated in nonconformist sentiments, which he soon relinquished, owing to the violent prejudices of some of his sect in favour of the murder of Charles I. He spent some time at a private academy, and at the age of sixteen walked to Oxford, and entered himself of Exeter college, as a servitor. He had at this time no mure than two pounds sixteen shillings, nor any prospect of 'future supply but from his own exertions. But by industry, and probably by assisting his fellow students, he supported himself until he took his bachelor’s degree, without any preferment or assistance from ^his friends, except five shillings. He now came to London, having increased his little stock to 10l. 15s. Here he was ordained deacon, and obtained a curacy, which he held one year, when he was appointed chaplain of the Fleet. In this situation he remained but a year, and returned to London, where he again served a curacy for two years, during which time he married and had a son. He now wrote several pieces which brought him into notice and esteem, and a small living was given him in the country, that, if we mistake not, of South Ormesby, in the county of Lincoln. He was strongly solicited by the friends of James II. to support the measures of the court in favour of popery, with promises of preferment if he would comply with the king’s desire. But he absolutely refused to read the king’s declaration; and though surrounded with courtiers, soldiers, and informers, he preached a bold and pointed discourse against it, from Daniel iii. 17, 18. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” When the revolution took place he wrote a work in defence of it, dedicated to queen Mary, who, in consequence of it, gave him the living of Epworth, in Lincolnshire, about 1693; and in 1723 he was presented to the living of Wroote, in the same county, in addition to Epworth, which last he held upwards of forty years.

As he had received much applause, and even promotion for his poetical efforts, we are not to wonder that he exercised this talent rather frequently, producing “The Life of Christ, an heroic poem,” 1693, folio, dedicated to the queen, and reprinted with large additions and corrections in 1697; “The History of the Old and New Testament attempted in verse, and adorned with three hundred and thirty sculptures, engraved by J. Sturt,” 1704) 3 vols. 12mo, addressed to queen Anne in a poetical dedication; “Maggots, or Poems on several subjects,” 1685, 8vo; and “Elegies on Q. Mary and Abp. Tillotson,” 1695, folio. His poetry, which is far from excellent, has been censured by Garth and others, but all concur in the excellence of his private character. His last moments, says Dr. Whitehead, were as conspicuous for resignation and Christian fortitude, as his life had been for zeal and diligence. He died April 30, 1735, leaving a numerous family of children, among whom were his sons Samuel, John, and Charles, and a daughter Mehetabel, a young lady of considerable literary talents and poetical fancy, who was unfortunately married to a Mr. Wright, a low man, who broke her heart. Some of her poems are printed in the sixth volume of the " Poetical Calendar.

In his sixth year John almost miraculously escaped the flames which consumed his father’s house, a circumstance which was alluded to afterwards in an engraving made of him, with the inscription “Is not this a brand plucked out of the burning?” After receiving the first rudiments of education from his mother, who also carefully instilled into her children the principles of religion, he was, in 1714, placed at the Charter-house, and became distinguished for his diligence and progress in learning. In his seventeenth year he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he pursued his siudies with great advantage; his natural temper, however, was gay and sprightly, and he betrayed a consid. rahle turn for wit and humour He amused himself occasionally with writing verses, mostly imitations or translations from the Latin. When he conceived the purpose of entering into holy orders, he appears to have been sensibly struck with the importance of the office, and became more serious than usual, and applied himself with great diligence to the study of divinity; and as the character of his future life was in a great measure formed by his early studies, it may not be superfluous to mention that two of his most favourite books were Thomas a Kempisand bishop Taylor’s “Holy Living and Dying;” and, although he differed from the latter on some points, it was from reading him that he adopted his opinion of universal redemption, which he afterwards uniformly maintained. He now began to alter the whole form of his conversation, and endeavoured to reduce the bishop’s advice on purity of intention, aad holiness of heart, into practice. After his father had removed some scruples from his mind respecting the damnatory clause in the Athanasian creed, he prepared himself for ordination, and received deacon’s orders Sept. 19, 1725, from Dr. Potter, then bishop of Oxford. And such was his general good character for learning and diligence, that on March 17, 1726, he was elected fellow of Lincolncollege, though not without encountering some ridicule on account of his particularly serious turn. In April he left Oxford, and resided the whole summer at Epworth and Wroote, where he frequently filled his father’s pulpit.

In the month of August T?27, he left Oxford to become his father’s curate at Wroote, where he found time to pursue the above plan of study. In July 1728 he returned to Oxford with a view to obtain priest’s orders, and was accordingly ordained Sept, 22, by Dr. Potter. He immediately set out for Lincolnshire, and did not again visit Oxford tillJune 1729, where he found that his brother Charles, Mr. -Morgan, and one or two more, had just formed a little society, chiefly to assist each other in their studies, and to consult on the best method of employing their time to advantage. He joined them every evening until his return to Wroote, where he remained until Dr. Morley, rector of his college, induced him to quit his curacy and reside at Oxford, where he might get pupils, or a curacy near the city. His presence, however, being required by the statute, was Mr. Wesley’s principal inducement for leaving the situation, however humble, which he enjoyed under his father.

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.

In order to form the numerous societies of which the Methodists consist, Mr. Wesley’s labours as a preacher are without precedent. During the fifty years which compose his itinerant life, he travelled about 4500 miles every year, one year with another, which amount, in the above space of time, to 225,000 miles. It had been impossible for him to perform this almost incredible degree of labour, without great punctuality and care in the management of his time. He had stated hours for every purpose, and his only relaxation was a change of employment. For fifty-two years, or upwards, he generally delivered two, frequently three or four, sermons in a day. But calculating at two sermons a day, and allowing, as one of his biographers has done, fifty annually for extraordinary occasions, the N whole number during this period will be 40,560. To these may be added, an infinite number of exhortations to the societies after preaching, and in other occasional meetings at which he assisted.

At first it has been supposed that Mr. Wesley’s intention was to revive a religious spirit with the aid of regular clergymen; but he soon found it impossible to find a number sufficient for the extensive design he had formed. He therefore, although at first with some reluctance, employed laymen to preach, who soon became numerous enough to carry on his purpose. Ordination he long hesitated to grant, but at length the importunities of his coadjutors overcame his scruples, and he consented to give orders in imitation of the church of England, which, we believe, is now the practice with his successors. There were, however, but few things in which he gave way during what may be termed his reign. His most elaborate and impartial biographer, Dr. Whitehead, allows, that “During the time that Mr. Wesley, strictly and properly speaking, governed the societies; his power was absolute. There were np rights, no privileges, no offices of power or influence, but what were created or sanctioned by him; nor could any persons hold them except during his pleasure. The whole system of methodism, like a great and complicated machine, was formed under his direction, and his will gave motion to all its parts, and turned it this way or that, as he thought proper.” To Mr. Wesley’s other labours we may add his many controversial tracts against the bishops Lavington and Warburton, Drs. Middleton, Free, and Taylor, Hall, Toplady, &c. and his other works, on various subjects of divinity, ecclesiastical history, sermons, biography, &c. which were printed together in 1774, in 32 vols. 8vo, These and his other labours he continued to almost the last of a very long life. He died at his house near the chapel in the City-road, March 2, 1791, in the eighty, eighth year of his age.

His public, and much of his private character, have been appreciated according to the views of the parties who were interested in his success. He was unquestionably a good scholar, and as a writer was entitled to considerable reputation. His talents for the pulpit have also been praised, and it is certain they were successfully employed. He is said to have succeeded best in his studied compositions, but his many engagements seldom afforded him time for such. He has been praised for his placability, but some of those in controversy with him reluctantly subscribe to this. That he was extremely charitable and disinterested has never been denied. He died comparatively poor, after having had in a principal degree the management of the whole funds of the society. He lived upon little himself, and his allowance to his preachers was very moderate. On the past or future effects of the vast society he formed, we shall not hazard an opinion. That he originally did good, great good, to the lower classes, is incontestable. He certainly contributed to meliorate that important part of society, and to produce a moral effect that had never before been so evident, or so extensive. In his system, however, his great machine, we see too much of human policy acting on the imperfections of human nature, to admire it much.

John Wesley has had no successor. Even at the time of his decease dissentions existed and an interval of six: years produced an actual separation of the society. The liberties of their church, and the rights of the people, formed the grounds of dispute. On pretence of giving due support to the plan of itinerancy, some leading ministers had endeavoured to obtain an exorbitant degree of power over the community and junior preachers; and they managed the conference in a way which tended to secure this power. Disgusted at these arbitrary proceedings, a Mr. Kilham, and other members of the sect, applied to the general assembly for a redress of grievances, and for an admission of the laity to a proper share in the general government of the society. Repeated applications and remonstrances being wholly fruitless, and Mr. Kilham being expelled from the fraternity by the ruling party, about 5000 discontented members seceded from the connection in 1797, and formed independent arrangements on a popular basis. Dr. Whitehead allows that at present (1796) the preachers of the old society “claim unlimited powers, both to make laws and execute them, by themselves or their deputies, without any intermediate authority existing to act as a check in favour of the people. But what is still much worse than all the rest, is, that the present system of government among the methodists, requires such arts of human policy and chicanery to carry it on, as, in my opinion, are totally inconsistent with the openness of gospel simplicity. It is happy that the great body of the preachers do not enter into the spirit of it, and indeed know little about it: being content with doing their duty on the circuits to which they are appointed, and promoting the spiritual welfare of the people.” This bad form of government, however, has probably been changed, as we understand that the society is now harmonious and increasing.

, 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.

, a very estimable writer, was the son of Dr. West, the editor of “Pindar” in 1^697, who died in 1716, and his mother was sister to sir Richard Temple, afterwards lord Cobham. His father, purposing to educate him for the church, sent him first to Eton, and afterwards to Oxford; but he was seduced to a more airy mode of life by a commission in a troop of horse, procured him by his uncle. He continued some time in the army, but probably never lost the love, or neglected the pursuit of learning; and afterwards, finding himself more inclined to civil employment, he laid down his commission, and engaged in business under lord Townshend, then secretary of state, with whom he attended the king to Hanover. His adherence to lord Townshend ended in nothing but a nominatioin (May 1729) to be clerk-extraordinary of the Privy. Council, which produced no immediate profit; for it only placed him in a state of expectation and ri^ht of succession, and it was very long before a vacancy admitted him to profit.

Of his poetical works, his version of Pindar, although it discovers many imperfections, appears to be the product of great labour and great abilities. His “Institution of the Garter” is written with sufficient knowledge of the manners that prevailed in the age to which it is referred, and with great elegance of diction; but, for want of a process of events, neither knowledge nor elegance preserve the reader from weariness. His “Imitations of Spenser” are very successfully performed, both with respect to the metre, the language, and the fiction; and being engaged at once by the excellence of the sentiments, and the artifice of the copy, the mind has two amusements together. But such compositions, says Johnson, are not to be reckoned among the great atchievements of intellect, because their effect is local and temporary they appeal not to reason or passion, but to memory, and pre-suppose an accidental or artificial state of mind. An imitation of Spenser is nothing to a reader, however acute, by whom Spenser has never been perused. Works of this Idnd may deserve praise, as proofs of great industry, and great nicety of observation; but the highest praise, the praise of genius, they cannot claim. The noblest beauties of art ar x e those of which the effect is co-extended with rational nature, or at least with the whole circle of polished life; what is less than this can be only pretty, the plaything of fashion, and the amusement of a day.

, a native of Ely, was educated in Jesus-college, in Cambridge, where he was scholar and fellow some time; but, appearing in public, was, first, assistant to Dr. Nicolas Felton, at St. Mary-le-bow, London, and then presented to this church; and soon after to St. Bartholomew’s, London; made archdeacon of St. Alban’s; and at length advanced to the see of Bristol, as one of those persons whom his majesty found best qualified for so great a place, for soundness of judgment and unblameableness of conversation, for which he had before preferred Dr. Prideaux to the see of Worcester, Dr. Winniff to Lincoln, Dr. Brownrig to Exeter, and Dr. King to London. He was offered the same see in 1616, as a maintenance, but he then refused it; but, having now gotten some wealth, he accepted it, that he might adorn it with hospitality out of his own estate. He was much reverenced and respected by the earl of Holland, and other noblemen, before the troubles came on; but was as much contemned, when the bishops grew out of favour; being disturbed in his devotion, wronged of his dues, and looked upon now as a formalist, though he was esteemed not long before one of the most devout and powerful preachers in the kingdom; but this we may suppose not to be done by the parliament’s authority; because we find an order of theirs, dated May 13, 1643, commanding his tenants, as bishop of Bristol, to pay him the rents, and suffer him to pass safely with his family to Bristol, being himself of great age, and a person of great learning and merit. He was afterwards ejected, and died June 25, 1644. He preached the first Latin sermon at the erection of Sion-college; and, though he printed nothing in his life-time, yet two little volumes of his sermons were published after his death, entitled, ;< England’s Face with Israel’s Glass;“containing eight sermons upon Psalm cvi. 19, 20, &c. and” The white robe or Surplice vindicated, in several Sermons;" the first printed in 1646, the other in 1660. He was buried in Bristol cathedral near Dr. Paul Bush, the first bishop, and has a stone with an epitaph over him.

, bishop of Exeter, was born at Farnborough, in Berkshire, in 1665, and educated at Eton, where he was admitted into King’s college, Cambridge, in 1682. There he took his degrees of B. A. in 1686, and of M. A, in 1690, and was elected a fellow both of his college, and of Eton. He was for some time an assistant, and then under-master of Eton school. He was afterwards vicar of Maple-Durham, in Oxfordshire, and collated to a stall in Ely in 1715. He was also archdeacon of Cornwall. Having been at school and college with sir Robert Walpole, and, as some say, his tutor at one or other, he was supposed to have owed his farther preferment to that minister, and his conduct did honour to his patronage. He was consecrated bishop of Exeter, Dec. 28, 1724, and dying Jan. 16, 1741-2, aged seventy-seven, was buried in his own cathedral. Bishop Sherlock published, in 1749, 2 volumes of Ms sermons, several of which the author had himself prepared for the press. “The style of these discourses,” says the editor, “is strong and expressive; but the best Greek and Roman writers were so familiar to the author, that it leads him frequently into their manner of construction and expression, which will require, sometimes, the attention of the English reader.”

In 1730 Wetstein published, in 4to, “Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Grseci editionem accuratissimam e vetustissimis Codd. Mss. denuo procurandam.” Before the publication of these- “Prolegomena,” some divines, from a dread of having the present text unsettled, had procured a decree from the senate of Basil, that Mr. Wetstein’s “undertaking was both trifling and unnecessary, and also dangerous;” they added too, but it does not appear upon what foundation, that his “New Testament savoured of Socinianism.” They now proceeded farther, and, by various means procured his being prohibited from officiating as a minister. Upon this, he went into Holland, being invited by the booksellers Wetsteins, who were his relations; and had not been long at Amsterdam before the remonstrants, or Arminians, named him to succeed Le Clerc, now superannuated and incapable, in the professorship of philosophy and history. But though they were perfectly satisfied of his innocence, yet they thought it necessary that he should clear himself in form before they admitted him and for this purpose he went to Basil, made a public apology, got the decree against him reversed, and returned to Amsterdam in May 1733. Here he went ardently on with his edition of the New Testament, sparing nothing to bring it to perfection, neither labour, nor expence, nor even journeys; for he came over a second time to England in 1746, when Mr. Gloster Ridley accommodated him with his manuscript of the Syriac version of the New Testament. At last he published it; the first volume in 1751, the second in 1752, folio. The text he left entirely as he found it; the various readings, of whwch he had collected more than any one before him, or all of them ^together, he placed under the text. Under these various readings he subjoined a critical commentary, containing observations which he had collected from an infinite number of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, writers. At the end of his New Testament he published two epistles of Clemens Romanus, with a Latin version and preface, in which he endeavours to establish their genuineness. These epistles were never published before, nor even known to the learned, but were discovered by him in a Syriac manuscript of the New Testament.

, mentioned above as one of the tutors to John James Wetstein, was born September 1, 1647, at Basil, and was grandson of John Rodolphus Wetstein, burgomaster of that city, a man of great merit, who rendered important services to his country at the peace of Munster, in the Imperial court, and in his native place. John Rodolphus, the subject of this article, succeeded his father as professor of Greek, and afterwards of divinity, and died at Basil April 21, 1711, leaving two sons, one of whom, Rodolphus, was professor of divinity at Basil, and the other, John Henry, a bookseller at Amsterdam. He had published, in 1673, with notes, Origen’s “Dialogue against the Marcionites,” with the “Exhortation to Martyrdom,” and the letter to Africanus concerning the “History of-Susanna,” which he first took from the Greek Mss. We have several other valuable discourses or dissertations of his. Henry Wetstein, one of his brothers, also well acquainted with Greek and Latin, settled in Holland, where he followed the business of a bookseller, became a celebrated printer, and died April 4, 1726. His descendants long remained in Holland.

, was eld* est son of Philip lord Wharton, who distinguished himself on the side of the parliament during the civil wars, by his second wife, Jane, daughter and heiress of Arthur Goodwyn, of Upper Winchendon, in Buckinghamshire, esq. He was born about 1640, and sat in several parliaments during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. in which he appeared in opposition to the court. In 1688, he is supposed to have drawn up the first sketch of the invitation of the prince of Orange to come to England, which, being approved and subscribed by several peers and commoners, was carried over to Holland by the earl, afterwards duke, of Shrewsbury: and joined that prince at Exeter soon after his landing at Torbay. On the advancement of William and Mary to the throne, Mr. Wharton was made comptroller of the household, and sworn of the privy-council Feb. 20, 1689. On the death of his father, he succeeded to the title of lord Wharton, and in April 1697 was made chief justice in Eyre ' on this side of the Trent, and lord* lieutenant of Oxfordshire. In the beginning of 1701, upon the debate in the House of Peers about the address relative to the partition-treaty, his lordship moved an addition to it, to this purpose, that as the French king had broke that treaty, they should advise his majesty to treat no more with bin), or rely on his word without further security. And this, though much opposed by all who were against engaging in a new war, was agreed to by the majority of the House.

In 1706, he was appointed one of the commissioners for the union with Scotland; which being concluded, he was one of the most zealous advocates for passing the bill enacting it; and in December the same year, he was created earl of Wharton in the county of Westmorland. Upon the meeting of the parliament in Oct. 1707, the earl supported the petition of the merchants against the conduct of the admiralty, which produced an address to the queen on that subject. In the latter end of 1708, his lordship was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, where he arrived April 2, 1709, and opened a session of parliament there, with a speech reminding them of the inequality with respect to numbers, between the protestants and papists of that kingdom, and of the necessity of considering, whether any new bills were wanting to inforce or explain those good laws already in being, for preventing the growth of popery and of inculcating and preserving a good understanding amongst all protestants there. He shewed likewise his tenderness for the dissenters, in the speech which he made to both Houses at the close of the session Aug. 30, in which he told them, that he did not question, but that they understood too well the true interest of the protestant religion in that kingdom, not to endeavour to make all such protestants as easy as they could, who were willing to. contribute what they could to defend the whole against the common enemy; and that it was not the law then past to “prevent the growth of popery,” nor any other law that the wit of man could frame, which would secure them from popery, while they continued divided among themselves; it being demonstrable, that, unless there be a firm friendship and confidence amongst the protestants of Ireland, it was impossible for them either to be happy, or to be safe. And he concluded with declaring to them the queen’s fixed resolution, that as her majesty would always maintain and support the church, as by law established, so it was her royal will and intention, that dissenters should not be persecuted or molested in the exercise of their religion. His lordship’s conduct was such, as lord lieutenant of Ireland, that the Irish House of Peers, in their address to the queen, returned their thanks to her majesty for sending a person of “so great wisdom and experience” to be their chief governor. His lordship returned thither on May 7. 1710, but in Oct. following, delivered up his commission of lord lieutenant, which was given to the duke of Ormond.

* The following curious account forgotten or forgiven by Swift, laid the

mended Swift at his own very earnest prefer or countenance those fellows

The earl continued in a vigorous opposition to the measures of the court during the last four years of queen Anne’s reign, and particularly against the schism bill; and in June 1713, moved the address in the House of Lords, that her majesty should use her most pressing instances with the duke of Lorrain, and with all the princes and states in amity and correspondence with her majesty, that they would not receive the Pretender, or suffer him to continue within their dominions. In Sept. 1714, soon after the arrival of king George I. in England, his lordship was made lord privy seal, and in the beginning of January following, was created marquis of Wharton and Malmsbury in England, and earl of Rathfarnham and marquis of Catherlough, in Ireland. But he did not long enjoy these distinctions, as he died at his house in Dover-street, April 12, 1715, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.

Dr. Percy attributes to the raarquis, the famous Irish ballad of “Lilliburlero,” which is said to have had a more powerful effect than the Philippics of Demosthenes or Cicero, and contributed not a little towards tho revolution in 1688. He is also said to have been the author of a pretended letter of Machiavel to Zenobius Buondelmontius, in vindication of himself and his writings, printed at the end of the English translation of MachiaveTs works, 1680, fol.

In 1716 he indulged his desire of travelling and finishing his education abroad; and, as he was designed to be brought up in the strictest Whig principles, Geneva was judged a proper place for his residence. He took the route of Holland, and visited several courts of Germany, that of Hanover in particular. Being arrived at Geneva, he conceived so great a disgust to the austere and dogmatical precepts of his governor, that he soon decamped, and set out for Lyons, where he arrived in Oct. 1716. His lordship somewhere or other had picked up a bear’s cub, of which he was very fond, and carried it about with him. But, when he determined to abandon his tutor, he left the cub behind him, with the following address to him: “Being no longer able to bear with your ill usage, I think proper to be gone from you; however, that you may not want company, I have left you the bear, as the most suitahle companion in the world that could he picked out for you.”

While thus employed abroad, his duchess, who had been neglected by him, died in England, April 14, 1726, and left no issue behind her. Soon after this, he fell vio-r lently in love with madam Obyrne, then one of the maids of honour to the queen of Spain. She was daughter of an Irish colonel in that service, who being dead, her mother lived upon a pension the king allowed her; so that this lady’s fortune consisted chiefly in her personal accomplishments. Many arguments were used, by their friends on both sides, to dissuade them from the marriage. The queen of Spain, when the duke asked her consent, represented to him, in the most lively terms, that the consequence of the match would be misery to them both; and absolutely refused her consent. Having now no hopes of obtaining her, he fell into a deep melancholy, which brought on a lingering fever. This circumstance reached her majesty’s ear: she was moved with his distress, and sent him word to endeavour the recovery of his health; and, as soon as he was ahle to appear abroad, she would speak to him in a more favourable manner than at their last interview. The duke, upon receiving this news, ima-> gined it the best way to take advantage of the kind disposition her majesty was then in; and summoning to his assistance his little remaining strength, threw himself at her majesty’s feet, and begged of her either to give him M. Obyrne, or order him not to live. The queen consented,' but told him he would soon repent it. After the solemnization of his marriage, he passed some time at Rome; where he accepted of a blue ribband, affected to appear with the title of duke of Northumberland, and for a while enjoyed the confidence of the exiled prince. But, as he could not always keep himself within the bounds of Italian gravity, and having no employment to amuse his active temper, he soon ran into his Usual excesses; which giving offence, it was thought proper for him to remove from that city for the present, lest he should at last fall into actual disgrace.

Accordingly, he quitted Rome, and went by sea to Barcelona; and then resolved upon a new scene of life, which few expected he would ever have engaged in. He wrote a letter to the king of Spain, acquainting him, that he would assist at the siege of Gibraltar as a volunteer. The king thanked him for the honour, and accepted his service: but he soon grew weary of this, and set his heart on Rome. In consequence of this resolution, he wrote a letter to the chevalier de St. George, full of respect and submission, expressing a desire of visiting his court; but the chevalier returned for answer, that he thought it more advisable for his grace to draw near England. The duke seemed resolved to follow his advice, set out for France in company with his duchess, and, attended by two or three servants, arrived at Paris in May 1728. Here he made little stay, but proceeded to Rouen, in his way, as some imagined, for England; but he stopped, and took up his residence at Rouen, without reflecting the least on the business that brought him to France. He was so far from making any concession to the government, in order to make his peace, that he did not give himself the least trouble about his personal estate, or any other concern in England. The duke had about 600l. in his possession when he arrived at Rouen, where more of his servants joined him from Spain. A bill of indictment was about this time preferred against him in England for high treason. The chevalier soon after sent him 2000l. for his support, of which he was no sooner in possession than he squandered it away. Asa long journey did not well suit with his grace’s finances, he went for Orleans; thence fell down the river Loire to Nantz, in Britany; and there he stopt some time, till he got a remittance from Paris, which was dispersed almost as soon as received. At Nantz some of his ragged servants rejoined him, and he took shipping with them for Bilboa, as if he had been carrying recruits to the Spanish regiments. PYorn Biiboa he wrote a humorous letter to a friend at Paris, giving a whimsical account of his voyage, and his manner of passing his time. The queen of Spain took the duchess to attend her person.

In Jan. 1731, the duke declined so fast, being in his quarters at Lerida, that he had not the use of his limbs so as to move without assistance; but, as he was free from pain, did not lose all his gaiety. He continued in this ill state of health for two months, when he gained a little strength, and found benefit from a certain mineral water in the mountains of Catalonia; but he was too much exhausted to recover. He relapsed the May following at Tarragona, whither he removed with his regiment: and, going to the above-mentioned waters, he fell into one of those faintingfits, to which he had been for some time subject, in a small village; and was utterly destitute of all the necessaries of life, till some charitable fathers of a Bernardine convent offered him what assistance their house afforded. The duke accepted their kind proposal; upon which they removed tmn to their convent, and administered all the relief in their power. Under this hospitable roof, after languishing a week, the duke of Wharton died May 31, 1731, without one friend or acquaintance to close his eyes. His funeral was performed in the same manner which the fathers observed to those of their own fraternity. Dying without issue, his titles became extinct. His widow survived to a very advanced age, and died in Feb 1777, and was buried in St. Pancras church-yard.

Women and fools must like him or he dies;

, an English divine, of most uncommon abilities, was born Nov. 9, 1664, at Worstead in Norfolk; of which parish his father Edmund, who survived him, was vicar. He was educated under his father; and made such a progress in the Greek and Latin tongues, that, from his first entrance into the university, he was thought an extraordinary young man. On Feb. 17, 1679—80, he was admitted into 'Caius-college, Cambridge, of which his father had been fellow, under the tuition of John, afterwards sir John Ellys, one of the senior fellows. Here he prosecuted his studies with the greatest vigour, and was instructed in the mathematics by Mr. (afterwards sir) Isaac Newton, then fellow of Trinity-college and Lucasian professor, amongst a select company, to whom that great man read lectures in his own private chamber. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1683-4, and resided in the college till 1686, was a scholar on the foundation of his great uncle Stockys, but, observing no probability of a vacancy among the fellowships, he left it, and was recommended by Dr. Barker, afterwards chaplain to archbishop Tillotson, to Dr. Cave, whom he assisted in compiling his “Historia Literaria.” Of the nature of that assistance, and the manner in which he conducted himself, we shall have occasion to speak afterwards. In 1687 he was ordained deacon; and the same year proceeded master of arts by proxy; which favour was indulged him on account of being then dangerously ill of the small-pox at Islington. About this time the reputation he had acquired recommended him to the notice of Dr. Tenison, vicar of St. Martin’s in the Fields, London, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who employed him to prepare for the press a manuscript on “The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome,” written in Latin by Placette of Hamburgh. This Wharton translated into English and epitomized. Tenison also recommended him to lord Arundel of Trerice, as tutor for his son. Soon after being presented to archbishop Sancroft, his grace put into his hands, in April 1788, the manuscript of archbishop Usher’s dogmatical history of the Holy Scriptures, which he published, in 4to, under the title, “J. Usserii, &c. Hist. Dogmatica controversial inter orthodoxos et pon-r tificios de scripturis, &c.” to which he added an “auctarium,” or supplement. He also published before and about this time several treatises against popery, among which are, 1. “The Speculum Ecclesiasticum considered, inits false reasonings and quotations,” Lond. 1687, 4to. The “Speculum Ecclesiasticum” was a production of Thomas. Ward, whom we have noticed already. 2. “A treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of Faith, writ by Reginald Pecock, bishop of Chichester, before the reformation, about 1450,” Lond* 1688, 4to. This, to which Mr. Wharton prefixed a preface on the same subject, is the only production of that learned prelate which has been pub-, lished. 3. “A treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, wherein its rise and progress are historically considered, 7 * ibid. 1688, 4to. In this he proves that the celibacy of the clergy was not enjoined either by Christ or his apostles; that it has nothing excellent in itself; that the imposition of it is unjust, and that, in point of fact, it was never universally imposed or practised in the ancient church. 5. A, translation of Dellon’s” History of the Inquisition of Goa. n 6. About the same time he translated some homilies of St. Macarius, the prologue and epilogue of Euronius to his “Apologetic Treatise” (formerly transcribed by him out of a manuscript of Dr. Tenison) with a treatise of “PseudoDorotheus,” found by Mr. Dodwell jn the Bodleian library, out of Greek into Latin, and the famous Bull “in Ccena Domini” out of Latin into English annexing a short preface containing some reflections- upon the Bull, and animadversions on the account of the proceedings of the parliament of Paris. 7. He gave his assistance likewise to a new edition of Dr. Thomas James’s “Corruption of the Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates of the Church of Rome for the maintenance of Popery;” and at the request of Mr. Watts he revised the version of “Philalethe & Philirene,” fitting it for the press. 8. “A brief declaration of the Lord’s Supper, written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of London, during his imprisonment. Witfo some other determinations and disputations concerning the same argument, by the same author. To which is annexed an extract of several passages to the same purpose out of a book entitled * Diallecticon,' written by Dr. John Poynet, bishop of Winton in the reigns of Edward VI. and queen Mary,” 1688, 4to. 9. “The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in some observations upon the Life of Ignatius Loyola,” 1688, 4to.

In 1692 he published, in 8vo, “A Defence of Pluralities,” in which the subject is handled with great ingenuity; and the same year was printed, in two volumes folio, his “Anglia Sacra, sive Collectio Historiarum, partim antiquitus, partim recenter, scriptarum, de Archiepiscopis &, Episcopis Anglise, a prima Fidei Christianas susceptione ad annum MDXL.” He has been generally commended for having done great service to the ecclesiastical history of this kingdom by this work yet bishop Burnet, in his “Reflections” on Atterbury’s book of “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges, of an English Convocation,” tells us, that “he had in his hands a whole treatise, which contained only the faults of ten leaves of one of the volumes of the ‘ Anglia Sacra.’ They are, indeed,” adds he, “so many, and so gross.^ that often the faults are as many as the lines: sometimes they are two for one.” This may be perhaps asserting too much, but unquestionably the errors in transcription, from haste, or from employing improper amanuenses, are so considerable as to render it necessary to peruse it with great caution, otherwise it is a truly valuable collection. There is a copy of it in the Bodleian? library, among Mr. Gough’s books, with an immense addition of ms notes by bishop Kennet. Jn 1693, Wharton published, in 4to, “Bedae Venerabilis Opera queedam Theologica, nunc primum edita; nee non Historica antea semel edita:” and the same year, under the name of Anthony Harmer, “A Specimen of some errors and defects in the History of the Reformation of the Church of England, written by Gilbert Burnet, D. D.” 8vo. In the answer to this, addressed by way of letter to Dr. Lloyd bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, Dr. Burnet observes, that “he had not seen any one thing relating to his history which had pleased him so much as this specimen. It is plain,” says he, “that here is a writer, who has considered those times and that matter with much application; and that he is a master of this subject. He has the art of writing skilfully; and how much soever he may be wanting in a Christian temper, and in the decency that one who owns himself of our communion owed to the station I hold in it, yet in other respects he seems to be a very valuable man; so valuable, that I cannot, without a very sensible regret, see such parts and such industry like to be soured and spoiled with so ill a temper.” And afterwards, in his “Reflections’ 1 upon Atterbury’s book just mentioned, he speaks of the specimen in these words” Some years ago, a rude attack was made upon me under the disguised name of Anthony Harmer. His true name is well enough known, as also who was his patron: but I answered that specimen with the firmness that became me; and I charged the writer home to publish the rest of his “Reflections.” He had intimated, that he gave then but the sample, and that he had great store yet in reserve. I told him upon that, I would expect to see him make that good, and bring out all he had to say; otherwise, they must pass for slander and detraction. He did not think fit to write any more upon that, though he was as much solicited to it by some as he was provoked to it by myself.“In 1695 he published, in folio,” The History of the Troubles and Trials of Archbishop Laud;“the second part or volume of which was published after his death by his father, the Rev. Edmund Wharton, in 1700. This is one of the most useful collections of facts illustrative of the times in which Laud lived, that we are in possession of. He published also a new edition of Becatelli’s Life of Cardinal Pole, in Latin, with the confest between the ambassadors of England and France at the council of Constance. He published in 8vo,” Historia deEpiseopis & Decanis Londinensilxus, nee non de Episcopis & Decanis Assavensibus, a prima sedis utriusque fundatione ad annum MDXL.“Besides these works he left several pieces behind him, about which he had taken great pains: and two volumes of his” Sermons“have been printed in 8vo since his death. Among his Mss, are several English historians not yet published, which he had transcribed and collated with the originals, and prepared for the press; viz. 1.” Benedictus Abbas de Gestis Henrici secundi Regis Angliae, A. D. U70.“2.” Chronicon Nicolai Tribettt (vulgo de Trebeth) Dominicani, ab ann. 1136 ad ann, 1307.“3?” Chronicon Petri Ickham, Compilatio de Gestis Britonum & Anglorum.“4.” Stephani Birchington Monachi Cantuariensis Historia de regibus Angliae post conquestum.“5.” Liber nonus de miraculis Anglorum.“In some of these are contained vast collections out of the ancient and modem records relating to church affairs. Among his manuscripts was likewise” An Account of the Mss. in Lambeth Library“in which, besides giving a most exact catalogue of them, he had under every book transcribed all those treatises contained in them which were not yet published. Among the printed books, towards a new and more correct edition of which Wharton had considerably contributed, were the following: 1.” Historia Matt. Parkeri Archiepiscopi Cantuar. de antiquitate Britaonicae Ecclesiae,“&c. enlarged with notes, collections, and additions, partly made by Parker himself, and partly by others, and several by Wharton; together with the Life of the said Archbishop, as also that of St. Austin of Canterbury, written by George Acworth. 2.” Franciscus Godwinus de Praesulibus Angliae," with some notes. 3. Florentius Wigorniensis and Matthew of Westminster, both with many notes, corrections, and additions. He had likewise made notes on several of his own books already published by him; which it is probable were designed for additions to those books whenever they should receive a new impression. All these, which were purchased by archbishop Tenison, are now in the Lambeth Library.

"I should not presume to give your grace this trouble but that lately I met with an accident that gave me some disturbance. At Mr. Gery’s I chanced to see Mr, Wharton’s book (copy) of the Historia Literaria, wherein I found several notes blotted out, and two or three added, since I saw the book last, which was about a year before he died. The notes that he added are highly injurious to me, and afford one of the most unaccountable instances of unfair and disingenuous dealing that perhaps ever passed among men of letters. I hope therefore that your grace will not be offended if, in as few words as the thing is capable of, I set things in their true light.

"Page 282, there is this note Ab hoc loco omnia nigfo plumbo non notata ejusdem sunta uthoris (sc. H. W.) cujus ilia qua hue usque notata sunt; et mcissim qua linea decussata notantur, juncta utriusque nostrum opera sunt cor$­scripta. This note, if taken in its latitude, as it is obvious to understand it, is so extravagantly untrue, that he might with equal justice challenge the entire work, as in effect he has done the greatest part. Mr. Wharton was with me but seven or eight months (and those winter months) after I had resumed what I had long thrown aside; a time much too short for a work of that bigness, if he had claimed the whole. The four first specula 1 had drawn up, and still have by me under the hand of my then amanuensis some years before Mr. Wharton ever saw an university: to which I added several things afterwards, mostly extracted out of the English lives which I had published long before I ever heard of Mr. Wharton’s name. Nay, there are some passages, and those pretty large, hookt by Mr. Wharton within the compasse of his note, which I particularly remember I drew up several months after he left me, having then got some books which 1 had not before. And for all the rest (more than in the sense wherein things are acknowledged in this paper) I am as sure they were of my own doing, as I am sure of my right hand.

"The whole foundation of any pretence at all was no more than this. Mr. Wharton lived with me as an amanuensis at that time I resumed my design of the Hist. Liter. Besides his writing, as I dictated to him, I employed him to transcribe several things, particularly the titles of the fathers’ works, as they stand before their several editions, adding myself what short notes I thought fit to any of them and sometimes, though not very often> where the opinion of an author concerning an ecclesiastical writer was large, I set him down to draw it into a few lines, but still under my own direction and alteration. This, for instance, was the case of Origen’s works, and of what he pleasantly calls, p. 81, Dissertationem de Origenis operibus proprio martt compositarn, which was no more than thus. J sett him to collect the writings of Origen mentioned in Huetius’s Origeniana adding, what I thought fitt to them, as also the heads of his Dogmata, as they stand in the several sections of Huet’s book, and which accordingly, p. 82, I have acknowledged to have been extracted thence. la Cyprian I set him to take out his works as they are placed according to order of time in the Oxford edition, and to reduce the titles of the last Paris edition to them. In St. Augustine, I sent him to look over three or four volumes, (which were all could then be had) of the New Benedictine edition, and observe what alterations they had made from former editions, and they are mentioned up and down in the account of St. Augustin’s works. In St. Chrysostom, I employed him to transcribe the titles of his works as they stand before the several volumes qf sir H. Savil, and to recluce those of Fr. Ducseus to them, which accordingly are sett down column-wise, p. 255, &c. In reading to me out of bishop Usher’s Bibliotheca Theologica, concerning Chrysostom, (and the like concerning some others), I ordered him to copy out several passages which you have in the bishop’s own words from p. 270, and so on. In Theodoret, I directed him to coliect'his works as they are reckoned up in Garnerius’s dissertation De Vit. et Libns Theodoriti, which I refer to p. 319. Thus I sent him to your grace’s library, St. Martin’s, to collate a new edition of Zonures with the former, and he brought me an account of what was in the new; as also to the library at Lambeth, to run over three or four volumes of Lambecius. His extracts Ihave still by me somewhere, but in my own words and way I made use of.

"These are the chief and most (if not all) that he did, and this he did as my amanuensis, as maintained, employed, and directed by me, and are no more than what (if I had kept no amanuensis) I could easily have had done by the hand of any friend: and shall this be thought sufficient to ground a claim to any part of an author’s book? It would be a wofull case with writers, who are forced to make use of amanuenses, if the transcribing a few passages for the author’s use, or the making a short abridgment of a passage or two, shall he foundation enough to set up a title for copartnership in the work. I hope after so many volumes of church antiquity, published by me long before I saw Mr. Wharton’s face, the, world will not have so mean an opinion of me, as to think that I needed either to be beholden to a young man of twenty-one years, and who by his own confession had never looked into the fathers till he came to me; or that I was so lazy as to sit still, and employ another to do my work; a thing as far from my temper, as light from darkness, and from which all that know my course of studying will sufficiently acquit me. I might add that there is so plain a difference between his style and mine (whether for good or bad it matters not) that it would not be hard for any that would attend to it, to make a near guess which is which, though indeed in the' progress of the work he was ever and anon offering to thrust in his own words- and phrases, so that I was forced very often to reprimand him, and sometimes positively to over-rule him, whereof I then once and again complained to several friends, some whereof are still alive to justify it. This I then thought was only the effect of the heat and forwardness of his temper; and perhaps it was no more. Though, comparing it with what has happened since, it looks oddly. What Mr.Wharton did towards the real benefit of the works proprio marte, as he speaks, viz. transcribing Greek fragments out of Mss. translating them, and the like, is readily acknowledged in their places up and down the book, and more particularly in the Prolegomena, Sect. 3, p. 7, in expressions more comprehensive, than what he did really deserve. My lord, I am ashamed to mention these things, but that necessity enforces it.

"P. 743, ad ann. 1280, there is this note, Omnia de hinc ndfinern usque a me scripta sunt, a Cavo postmodum concinnala. I believe nobody that reads this note but would make this conclusion, that from thence to the end of the sa3culum, and the beginning of the appendix was written by Mr. Wharton, and afterwards only lickt over and revised by me. This obliges me to let your grace into the knowledge how Mr. Wharton came to be concerned in the appendix. When I was come to the year 1280, I fell sick at Windsor, and not knowing whether I might recover, and being unwilling that so much pains as I had taken should be wholly lost, I delivered my papers to Mr. Wharton, and what materials I had prepared for the two following siecula, and desired him out of them, and the Chartophylax, to draw up some kind of continuation agreeable to the rest, adding to it what he could meet with in my books. This I did as a pro tempore provision in case of the worst, designing, if I recovered, to finish it afterwards. Accordingly he parted from me, and went to my house at Islington, where he was maintained for three months at my charge, and his salary duly paid him. At my return he shewed me what he had done, without taking any further notice. Six months after, when the book was in the press, and about twenty sheets printed, he came to me, and in a peremptory manner demanded that the latter part of the book might be published in his name. I was much surprised, and represented to him the unreasonableness of such a demand; that what was done, was done in my service, by my direction, at my cost, and upon my bottom; and that I had thought of taking it in pieces and doing it over again, with some other considerations which I have now forgot. However, because I did not much stand upon it, so the book might be useful to the ends designed, who bad the credit of this or that part of it, and he being a young man, if it might be a means to let him into public notice (upon which account he seemed to insist upon it) I was content he should have the last two ssecula by way of appendix. Whereto he afterwards added several things, making use of the scattered notes I had prepared, and what was before in the Chartophylax, without taking any notice whose they were, nor did I much expect it, or desire he should. And because there were two or three sheets from ann. 1280 to the end of that soeculum, which he said he had done, 1 cut out these leaves (and for any thing I know, they may be among his papers at this hour) and did it entirely over again, wherein there was not one word of Mr. Wharton’s made use of, more than what will necessarily fall in, where two persons make use of the same books in prosecution of the same design. I further told him (for now I began to perceive his humour and what he aimed at) that to the end there might be no, farther dispute about this matter hereafter, if there was any other part to which he could make out a claim, I would strike it out and do it over again, and that I all along designed to own in the preface what real help he had contributed, shewing that part of the Prolegomena wherein I had done it; with which he was satisfied, and never afterwards spoke of it to me, or that I know of to any one else, though he lived more than seven years after.

“Thus, my lord, I have truly and sincerely laid the whole case before you; and I thought myself obliged to do it in order to the doing myself right. For I should have been unpardonably wanting to myself had I suffered myself to be undeservedly transmitted to posterity as one that had published another man’s labours under my own name, a thing from which I was ever most averse, and have commonly erred on the other hand. I know not into whose hands Mr. Wharton’s booke may hereafter fall, or what use may be made of these notes; if therefore your grace shall think fitt to lett these two or three notes stand as they are, I humbly beg the favour and justice, that this paper may be fastened into Mr. Wharton’s book, that so impartial persons may be rightly informed in the state of things. I want not an opportunity at this time of publicly doing myself right, but since the notes are ke*pt private under your grace’s custody, I did not thinke h'tt to make my defence any more public than by this address to your grace. If, when I am dead, any use shall be made of these notes ta my prejudice, I hope this paper will in some measure plead for me, or that some friend will stand up to do me right; however that, there’s a time coming when God will bring forth my righteousness as the Hght, and my integrity as noon-day. Mr. Wharton was one for whose worth I ever had ajust value, and if I have exceeded in any thing it has been upon all occasions in over-lavish commendations of him. But he was subject to one weakness (which all his friends that intimately knew him, could not but take notice of) viz a vanity of magnifying his own performances, and an overweening conceit of himself, join‘d with an unsalable thirst after fame, which ’tis like his reduced age might have corrected, as I remember I once told one of your grace’s predecessors, who was his great patron, when he was pleased to ask my opinion of him. With pardon, humbly begg'd, for the trouble of this tedious account, I am, my lord, &e. &c.”

This letter seems to confirm what Burnet had asserted of Wharton’s temper, and which, indeed, will be found confirmed by other passages in our authorities. But Wharton, upon the whole, is certainly a man to be venerated for his uncommon zeal as an ecclesiastical antiquary, and his incessant labours. Perhaps no man ever applied so diligently, or produced so much in the short space allotted to him, for he was little more than thirty years old. He probably began his researches early, and it is certain that he was a mere youth when Cave employed him, and conceived that high opinion of his talents which he so liberally expressed in the preface to his “Historia Literaria.” The second edition of this work, it must not be forgot, has many additions from Wharton’s Mss. at Lambeth, which have improperly been ascribed to Tenison. Mr. Wharton had some property, and by his will ordered the greatest part of it “to be disposed of to a religious use in the parish of Worstead, in which he was born.” His executors were his father, the rev. Edmund Wharton, the rev. Dr. Thorp, one of the prebendaries of Canterbury, and Mr. Charles Battely. His biographer informs us that “he never undertook any matter of moment without first imploring the divine assistance and blessing thereupon,” and that “in all his journeys, which his learned designs engaged him in, he was ever wont so to order his affairs, as not to omit being present at the monthly sacrament wherever he came.” To such a man some irregularities of temper and displays of conceit may be forgiven.

, an eminent English physician, was descended from an ancient and genteel family of that name in Yorkshire. He was educated in Pembroke college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Trinity college, Oxford, being then tutor to John Scrope, the natural and only son of Emanuel earl of Sunderland. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars he retired to London, where he practised physic under Dr. John Bathurst, a noted physician of that city. After the garrison at Oxford had surrendered to the parliament in 1646, he returned to Trinity college, and as a member of it was actually created doctor of physic May 8, 1647, by virtue of the letters of general Fairfax to the university, which said that “he was sometime a student in that university, and afterwards improved his time in London in the study of all parts of physic.” He then retired to London, and was admitted a candidate of the college of physicians the same year, and fellow in 1650, and for five or six years was chosen censor of the college, he being then a person of great esteem and practice in the city, and one of the lecturers in Gresham college. In 1656 he published at London, in 8vo, his “Adenographia, seu Descriptio Glandular.um totius Corporis,” which was reprinted at Amsterdam, 1659, in 8vo. In this he has given a more accurate description of the glands of the whole body, than had ever been done before; and as former authors had ascribed to them very mean uses (as supporting the divisions by vessels, or imbibing the superfluous humidities of the body) he assigns them more noble uses, as the preparation and depuration of the succus nutritius, with several other uses belonging to different glands, c. Amongst other things, he was the first who discovered the ductus in the glandulac maxillares, by which the saliva is conveyed into the mouth; and he has given an excellent account of morbid glands and their differences, and particularly of strumae and scrophulae, how new glands are often generated, as likewise of the several diseases of the glands of the mesentery, pancreas, &c. Wood tells us that he died at his house in Aldersgate-street in October 1673, and was buried in the church of St. Botolph without Aldersgate; though others say that he died November the 15th, and was buried in Basingshaw church, in a vault. But 3Vlr. Richard Smith, in his Obituary, published by Peck, observes, that he died on Friday November the 14th, at midnight, at his house in Aldersgate-street, and was buried on the 20th in the ruins of the church of St. Michael Basishaw, where he formerly had lived.

Mr. Whately died May 10, 1639, aged fifty-six, and was interred in Banbury church-yard, where is a monument to his memory, with a Latin and English inscription. His works consist of a considerable number of sermons, printed separately, one of which, “The BrideBush, or Wedding-Sermon,” 1617, 4to, brought upon him some censure: in this he maintained, that adultery, or desertion, on the side of either of the married persons, dissolved and annihilated the marriage. For a doctrine so contrary to the laws, and pernicious in itself, he was summoned before the high commission-court, where he acknowledged his error, and was dismissed. Among his. other publications, are, 1. “A pithy, short, and methodical way of opening the Ten Commandments,” Lond. 1622, 8vo, 2. “The Oil of Gladness,” 1637, 8vo. 3. “The poor man’s Advocate,” 1637, 8vo. 4. which seems his greatest work, “Prototypes, or the primarie Precedent out of the book of Genesis,” 1640, fol. with a fine portrait, published by Edward Leigh, esq. To this is prefixed a life of him by the Rev. Henry Scudder.

, the author of an excellent illustration of the Book of Common Prayer, was born Feb. 6, 1686, in Paternoster-rosv, London. His father was a reputable tradesman, and his mother, whose maiden name was White, was a lineal descendant of Ralph, brother to sir Thomas White, founder of St. John’s college, Oxford, where Mr. Wheatley afterwards claimed a fellowship. On Jan. 9, 1699, he was entered at Merchant Taylors school, where for some time he was placed under the care of Dr. Matthew Shorting. In 1706 he was entered a commoner of St. John’s, Oxford, and in the following year was admitted to a fellowship as of founder’s kin. At St. John’s his tutor was Dr. Knight, afterwards vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, London, and of whom it was Mr. Wheatley’s pride to boast, that “he continued his pupil to his dying day.” He used to add; “to this great and good man, under God, I must heartily profess, that, if I have made any knowledge, or have made any progress, it is owing; and, if I have not, upon myself only be all the shame.” This was the friend to whom, with doctors Waterland and Berriman, he submitted his sermons on the Creeds, and from whom he acknowledged having received very useful and instructive hints, when he came to prepare them for the press.

, a late elegant artist, was born in London in 1747; the only regular instruction which he received was at a drawing-school. He acquired his knowledge of painting without a master; but he had the advantage of seeing much of what was then practised in the art, by the friendship and instructions of Mortimer, whom he assisted in painting the ceiling at Brocket Hall, Hertfordshire, the seat of lord Melbourne. He also associated much with young men who were or had been under the tuition of the most eminent artists of that period. His inclination appeared to lead him equally to figures and to landscape; but the profit likely to be derived from the former, caused him to make that his particular pursuit. In the early part of his life, he had considerable employment in painting some whole-length portraits. After practising several years in London, he was induced to remove to Ireland, and was much employed in Dublin, where he painted a large picture representing the Irish House of Commons assembled, in which portraits of many of the most remarkable political characters were introduced. From Dublin he returned to London, where he painted a picture of the riots in 1780, from which Heath engraved a very excellent print for Boydell. This picture was unfortunately burnt in the house of Mr. Heath, who then resided in Lislestreet, Leicester-square, it being too large to be moved. Mr. Wheatley continued to paint portraits, but he was chiefly engaged in painting rural and domestic scenes, for which he appeared to have a peculiar talent, and his works of that kind became very popular, although ia his females he adopted too much of the French costume. At an early period of life, he was attacked by the gout, which gradually deprived him of the use of his limbs, and of which he died, June 28, 1801, at fifty-four years of age.

After sir George Wheler entered into the church, he published, in 1689, “An Account of the Churches and Places of Assembly of the primitive Christians, from the Churches of Tyre, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, described by Eusebius; and ocular observations upon several very antient edifices of churches yet extant in those parts; with a seasonable application.” We have also a third piece of his, entitled, “The Protestant Monastery, or Christian Oeconomics,” which contains directions for the religious conduct of a family, and shews him to have been a remarkably pious and devout man.

, is an author of whom very little is known. From the circumstance of his being a kinsman to serjeant Fleetwood, recorder of London, it is probable that he was of a good family. It appears that he first tried his fortune at court, where he consumed his patrimony in fruitless expectation of preferment. Being now destitute of subsistence, he commenced soldier, and served abroad, though in what capacity is unknown. Such, however, was his gallant behaviour, that his services were rewarded with additional pay. He returned from the wars with honour, but with little profit; and his prospect of advancement was so small, that he determined to turn farmer, but being unsuccessful in that undertaking, was under the necessity of applying to the generosity of his friends. This he found to be “a broken reed, and worse than common beggary of charity from strangers. Now craft accosted him in his sleep, and tempted him with the proposals of several professions; but for the knavery or slavery of them, he rejected all: his munificence constrained him to love money, and his magnanimity to hate all the ways of getting it.” At last he resolved to seek his fortune at sea, and accordingly embarked with sir Humphrey Gilbert in the expedition to Newfoundland, which was rendered unsuccessful by an engagement with the Spanish fleet. From this period, Mr. Whetstone seems to have depended entirely on his pen for subsistence. Where or when he died has not been ascertained. He is entitled to some notice as a writer whose works are in request as literary curiosities, but of little intrinsic value. Mr. Steevens pronounced him “the most quaint and contemptible writer, both in prose and verse, he ever met with.” He wrote, 1. “The Rock of Regard,” a poem in four parts. 2. “The Life of George Gascoigne,” 1577, 4to. A reprint of this may be seen in the late edition of the “English Poets,” 1810, 21 vols. 8vo. The only original copy known of late years, was purchased by Mr. Maione for forty guineas! 3. “Promus and Cassandra,” a comedy, 1578, 4to, on this play Shakspeare founded his “Measure for Measure.” 4. “Heptameron of civil discourses,” 1582, 4to. 5. “The remembrance of the life and death of Thomas, late earl of Sussex,” 1583, 4to. 6. “A mirrour of true honour, &c. in the life and death, &c, of Francis earl of Bedford,” &c. 1,585, 4to. 7. “The English mirror, wherein all estates may behold the conquest of error,” 1586. This contains much of the state history of the times. 8. “Censure of a dutiful subject of certain noted speech and behaviour of those fourteen noted traytors at the place of execution on the 20th and 21st of Sept.” no date. 9. A poem “on the life and death of sir Philip Sidney” by him, and supposed unique, a very few leaves only, was lately sold at Messrs. King and Lochee’s to Mr. Harding for 261. 5s. An account of some of these curiosities may be seen in our authorities.

, 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.”

But his character is drawn most at length by Tillotson in his funeral sermon. “I shall not,” says Tillotson, “insist upon his exemplary piety and devotion towards God, of which his whole life was one continued testimony. Nor will I praise his profound learning, for which he was justly had in so great reputation. The moral improvements of his mind, a god-like temper and disposition' (as he was wont to call it), he chiefly valued and aspired after; that universal charity and goodness, which he did continually preach and practise. His conversation was exceeding kind and affable, grave and winning, prudent and profitable. He was slow to declare his judgment, and modest in delivering it. Never passionate, never peremptory; so Car from imposing upon others, that he was rather apt to yield. And though he had a most profound and well-poised judgment, yet he was of all men I ever knew the most patient to hear others differ from him, and the most easy to be convinced, when good reason was offered; and, which is seldom seen, more apt to be favourable to another man’s reason than his own. Studious and inquisitive men commonly at such an age (at forty or fifty at the utmost) have fixed and settled their judgments in most points, and as it were made their last understanding; supposing that they have thought, or read, or heard what can be said on all sides of things; and after that they grow positive and impatient of contradiction, thinking it a disparagement to them to alter their judgment. But our deceased friend was so wise, as to be willing to learn to the last, knowing that no man can grow wiser without some change of his mind, without gaining some knowledge which he had not, or correcting some error which he had before. He had attained so perfect a mastery of his passions, that for the latter and greatest part of his life he was hardly ever seen to be transported with anger; and as he was extremely careful not to provoke any man, so not to be provoked by any, using to say `If I provoke a man, he is the worse for my company; and if I suffer myself to be provoked by hira, I shall be the worse for his.‘ He very seldom reproved any person in company otherwise than by silence, or some sign of uneasiness, or some very soft and gentle word; which yet from the respect men generally bore to him did often prove effectual. For he unr derstood human nature very well, and how to apply himself to it in the most easy and effectual ways. He was a great encourager and kind director of young divines, and one of the most candid hearers of sermons, I think, that ever was; so that though all men did mightily reverence his judgment, yet no man had reason to fear his censure. He never spake of himself, nor ill of others, making good that saying of Pansa in Tully, ’ Netninem alterius, qui suae confideret virtuti, invidere,' that no man is apt to envy the worth and virtues of another, that hath any of his own to trust to. In a word, he had all those virtues, and in a high degree, which an excellent temper, great condescension, long care and watchfulness over himself, together with the assistance of God’s grace (which he continually implored and mightily relied upon) are apt to produce. Particularly he excelled in the virtues of conversation, humanity, and gentleness, and humility, a prudent and peaceable and reconciling temper.” Tillotson likewise informs us that as he had a plentiful estate, so he was of a very charitable disposition; which yet was not so - well known to many, because in the disposal of his charity he very much affected secrecy. He frequently bestowed his alms on poor house-keepers, disabled by age or sickness to support themselves, thinking those to bethe most proper objects of it. He was rather frugal in expence upon himself, that so he might have wherewithal to relieve the necessities of others. And he was not only charitable in his life, but in a very bountiful manner at his death, bequeathing in pious and charitable legacies to the value of a thousand pounds: to the library of the university of Cambridge fifty pounds, and of King’s college one hundred pounds, and of Emanuel college twenty pounds; to which college he had been a considerable benefactor before, having founded three several scholarships there to the value of a thousand pounds, out of a chanty with the disposal whereof he was intrusted, and which not without great difficulty and pains he at last received. To the poor of the several places, where his estate lay, and where he had been minister, he gave above one hundre4 pounds. Among those, who had been his servants, or were so at his death, he disposed in annuities and legacies in money to tlje value of above three hundred pounds. To other charitable uses, and among his poor relations, above three hundred pounds. To every one of his tenants he left a legacy according to the proportion of the estate they held by way of remembrance of him; and to one of them, who was gone much behind, he remitted in his will seventy pounds. And as became his great goodness, he was ever a remarkably kind landlord, forgiving his tenants, and always making abatements to them for hard years or any other accidental losses that happened to them. He made likewise a wise provision in his will to prevent lawsuits among the legatees, by appointing two or three persons of the greatest prudence and authority among his relations final arbitrators of all differences that should arise.

The fate of his “Sermons,*' which have been so much admired, was somewhat singular. They were first ushered into the world by one who could not be supposed very eager to propagate the doctrines of Christianity, the celebrated earl of Shaftesbury, author of the” Characteristics,' 7 &c. In 1698 his lordship published “Select Sermons of Dr. Whichcote, in two parts,” 8vo. He employed on this occasion the rev. William Stephens, rector of Sutton, in Surrey, to revise, and probably superintend the press; but the long preface is unquestionably from his lordship. In addition to every other proof we may add the evidence of the late Mr. Harris of Salisbury, who informed a friend that his mother, lady Betty Harris, (who was sister to the earl of Shaftesbury) mentioned her having written the preface from her brother’s dictation, he being at that time too ill to write himself. That his lordship should become the voluntary editor and recommender of the sermons of any divine, has been accounted for by one of Dr. Whichcote’s biographers in this way: that his lordship found in these sermons some countenance given to his own peculiar sentiments concerning religion, as sufficiently practicable by our natural strength or goodness, exclusive of future rewards or punishments. To this purpose lord Shaftesbury has selected some passages of the sermons, and adds, “Thus speaks our excellent divine and truly Christian philosopher, whom for his appearing thus in defence of natural goodness, we may call the preacher of good nature. This is what he insists on everywhere, and to, make this evident is in a manner the scope of all his discourses. And in conclusion it is hoped, that what has been here suggested, may be sufficient to justify the printing of these sermons.” Whatever may be in this, it is rather singular that the same collection was republished at Edinburgh in 1742, 12mo, with a recommendatory epistle by a presby* terian divine, the rev. Dr. William Wish art, principal of the college of Edinburgh.

In x 1693 he became master of arts, and fellow of the college; and soon after set up for a tutor; when, such was his reputation for learning and good manners, that archbishop Tillotson sent him his nephew for a pupil. But his health did not permit him to go on in that way; and therefore, resigning his pupils to Mr. Laughton, he became chaplain (for he had taken orders) to Dr. Moore, bishop of Norwich. During the time of his being chaplain to bishop Moore, which was from 1694 to 1698, he published his first work, entitled “A new Theory of the Earth, from its original to the consummation of all things; wherein the Creation of the World in six days, the universal deluge, and the general conflagration, as laid down in the Holy Scriptures, are shewn to be perfectly agreeable to Reason and Philosophy,” 1696, 8vo. Whision relates, that this book was shewed in manuscript to Dr. Bent-ley, to sir Christopher Wren, and especially to sir Isaac Newton, on whose principles it depended and though Mr. John Keill soon after wrote against it, and demonstrated that it could not stand the test of mathematics and sound philosophy, yet it brought no small reputation to the author. Thus Locke, mentioning it in a letter to Mr. Molyneux, dated Feb. 22, 1696, says, “I have not -heard any one of my acquaintance speak of it but with great commendations, as I think it deserves 'and truly I think it is more to be admired, that he has laid dow(i an hypothesis, whereby he has explained so many wonderful and before inexplicable things in the great changes of this globe, than that some of them should not easily go down with some men; when the whole was entirely new to all. -,He is one of those sort of writers, that I always fancy should be most esteemed and encouraged: I am always for the builders, who bring some addition to our knowledge, or at least some nevr things to our thoughts.” This work of Whiston has gone through six editions; but no considerable additions, as he informs us, were made to it after the third.

In 1698, bishop Moore gave him the living of Lowestoft cum Kessingland, by the sea-side, in Suffolk; upon which he quitted his place of chaplain, and was succeeded by Mr. (afterwards the celebrated Dr.) Clarke, who was then about four-and-twenty years of age. He went to reside upon his living, and applied himself most earnestly and conscientiously to the duties of the station. He kept a curate, yet preached twice a Sunday himself; and, all the summer season at least, read a catechetic lecture at the chapel in the evening, chiefly for the instruction of the adult. He has recorded an instance or two, which shew how zealous he was for the promotion of piety and good manners. The parish-officers applied to him once for his hand to a licence, in order to set up a new alehouse; to whom he answered, “If they would bring him a paper to sign, for the pulling an alehouse down, he would certainly sign it; but would never sign one for setting an alehouse up.”

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.

At the end of the same year he published his “Historical Preface;” setting forth the several pteps and reasons of his departing from the commonly-received notions of the Trinity; and, in 1711, his 4 vols. of “.Primitive Christianity revived,” in 8vo. The first volume contains “The” Epistles of Ignatius, both larger and smaller, in Greek and English;“the third,” An Essay on those Apostolical Constitutions;“the fourth,” An account of the Primitive Faith, concerning the Trinity and Incarnation.“In March 1711, soon after the publication of his” Historical Preface,“he was attacked in the convocation, of whose proceedings, as well as those of the university, against him, he published distinct accounts, in two appendixes to that preface, when it was reprinted with additions, and prefixed to his volumes of” Primitive Christianity revived.“After his expulsion from Cambridge he went to London; where he had conferences with Clarke, Hoadly, and other learned men, who endeavoured to moderate his zeal, but he proved the superior tenderness of his conscience, by assuring them that he would not suffer his zeal to be tainted or corrupted, as he imagined it would be, with the least mixture of prudence or worldly wisdom. He tells us of those eminent persons, that, with regard to his account of the primitive faith about the Trinity and incarnation, they were not much dissatisfied with it; and that, though they were far less convinced of the authority and genuineness of the” Apostolical Constitutions," yet they wer& willing enough to receive them, as being much better and more authentic than what were already in the church.

Whiston was now settled with his family in London; and though it does not appear that he had any certain means of subsisting, yet he continued to write books, and to propagate his primitive Christianity, with as much cheerfulness and vigour as if he had been in the most flourishing circumstances. During March 1711-12, prince Eugene of Savoy was in England; and because Whiston believed himself to have discovered, in his “Essay on the Revelation of St. John,” that some of the prophecies there had been fulfilled by that general’s victory over the Turks in 1697, or by the succeeding peace of Carlowitz in 1698, he printed a short dedication, and fixing it to the cover of a copy of that essay, presented it to the prince. The prince has been said to have replied, that “he did not know he had the honour of having been known to St: John;” however, he thought proper to take so much notice of Whiston' s well-meant endeavours, a to send him a present of fifteen guineas. The dedication runs thus:

In 1715, 1716, 1717, a society for promoting primitive Christianity met weekly at his house in Cross-street, Hatton-garden, composed of about ten or twelve persons; to which society Christians of all persuasions were equally admitted. Sir Peter King, Dr. Hare, Dr. Hoadly, and Dr. Clarke, were particularly invited; but none of them, he says, ever came. In 1719, he published “A Letter of Thanks to Robinson, bishop of London, for his late Letter to his Clergy against the use of new Forms of Doxology.” The common forms having been changed by Whiston, and indeed by Dr. Clarke, was the occasion of Robinson’s admonitory letter to his clergy: and this admonitory letter tempted Whiston to do a thing, he says, which he never did before or since; that is, to expose him in the way of banter or ridicule, and to cut him with great sharpness. Upon the publication of this a Letter of Thanks“to the bishop of London, Dr. Sacheverell attempted to shut him out of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, which was then his parish* church; and Whiston published an account of it. He relates, that Mr. Wilson, a lawyer, who did not love Sacheverell, would willingly have prosecuted him for the insult) and promised to do it without any costs to him; but Whiston replied,” if I should give my consent, I should shew myself to be as foolish and as passionate as Sacheverell himself/ 7 In the same year, 1719, he published a letter to the earl of Nottingham, “concerning the eternity of the Son of God, and his Holy Spirit;” and, in the second and following editions, a defence of it; for lord Nottingham had published “an Answer” in 1721, for which he wa highly complimented by addresses from both the universities, and from the London clergy. In 1720 he was proposed by sir Hans Sloane and Dr. Halley to the royal society as a member, for he was publishing something or other in the' way of philosophy; but was refused admittance by sir Isaac Newton, the president. He tells us he had enjoyed a large portion of sir Isaac’s favour for twenty years together; but lost it at last by contradicting him when he was old. “Sir Isaac,” adds he, “was of the most fearful, cautious, and suspicious temper, that I ever knew; and, had he been alive when I wrote against his Chronology, and so thoroughly confuted it that nobody has ever since ventured to vindicate it, I should not have thought proper to publish my confutation; because I knew his temper so well, that I should have expected it would have killed him,: as Dr. Bentiey, bishop Stillingfleet’s chaplain, told me that he believed Mr. Locke’s thorough confutation of the bishop’s metaphysics about the Trinity hastened his end also.”

In 1721 a large subscription was made for the support of his family, but principally, his son says, to reimburse him the expences he had been at in attempting to discover the longitude, on which he had expended above Soo/. This subscription amounted to 470l. and was, he tells us, by far the greatest sum that ever was put into his hands by his friends. It was upon contributions of this nature that he seems chiefly to have depended; for, though he drew profits from reading lectures upon philosophy, astronomy, and even divinity; and also from his publications, which were numerous; and from the small estate above mentioned, yet these, of themselves, would have been very insufficient; nor, when joined with the benevolence and charity of those who loved and esteemed him for his learning, integrity, and piety, did they prevent him from being frequently in great distress. He spent the remainder of his long life in the way he was now in; that is, in talking and acting against Athanasianism, and for primitive Christianity, and in writing and publishing books from time to time. In 1722 he published “An Essay towards restoring the true Text of the Old Testament, and for vindicating the citations thence made in the New Testament;” in 1724, “The literal Accomplishment of Scripture-Prophecies,” in answer to Mr. Collinses book upon the “Grounds and reasons of the Christian Religion;” in 1726, “Of the thundering Legion, or of the miraculous deliverance of Marcus Antoninus and his army on the prayers of the Christians,” occasioned by Mr. Moyle’s works, then lately published; in 1727, “A collection of authentic Records belonging to the Old and New Testament,” translated into English; in 1730, “Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Samuel Clarke;” in 1732, “A Vindication of the Testimony of Phlegon, or an account of the great Darkness and Earthquake at our Saviour’s Passion, described by Phlegon,” in answer to a dissertation of Dr. Sykes upon that eclipse and earthquake; in 1736, “Athanasian Forgeries, Impositions, and Interpolations;” the same year, “The Primitive Eucharist revived,” against bishop Hoadly’s “Plain account of the Lord’s Supper;” in 17S7, “The Astronomical Year, or an account of the many remarkable celestial phenomena, of the great year 1736,” particularly of the comet, which was foretold by sir Isaac Newton, and came accordingly; the same year, “The genuine works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, in English, as translated from the original Greek according to Havercamp’s accurate edition: illustrated with new plans and descriptions of Solomon’s, Zorobahel’s, Herod’s, and Ezekiel’s, temples, and with correct maps of Judea and Jerusalem; together with proper notes, observations, contents, parallel texts of scripture, five complete indexes, and the true chronology of the several histories adjusted in the margin: to which are prefixed eight dissertations, viz. 1. The testimonies of Josephus vindicated; 2. The copy of the Old Testament, made use of by Josephus, proved to be that which was Collected by Neheimah; 3. Concerning God’s command to Abraham to offer up his son Isaac for a sacrifice; 4. A large inquiry into the true chronology of Josephus. 5. An extract out of Josephus’s exhortation to the Greeks concerning Hades, and the resurrection of the dead; 6. Proofs that this exhortation is genuine; 7. A demonstration that Tacitus, the Roman historian, took his history of the Jews out of Josephus; 8 A dissertation of Cellarius against Hardouin, in Vindication of Josephus’s history of the family of Herod, from coins; with an account of the Jewish coins, weights, and measures,” in folio, and since reprinted in 8vo. This is reckoned the most useful of all Whiston’s learned labours, and accordingly has met with the greatest encouragement. In 1739 he put in his claim to the mathematical professorship at Cambridge, then vacant by the death of Saunderson, in a letter to Dr. Ashton, the master of Jesus college, who, his son avers, never produced it to the heads who were the electors, and consequently no regard was paid to it. In 174.5, he published his “Primitive NewTestament, in English;” in 1748, his “Sacred History of the Old and New Testament, from the creation of the world till the days of Constarrtine the Great, reduced into Annals;”and the same year, “Memoirs of his own Life and writings,” which are curious as a faithful picture of an ingenuous, enthusiastic, and somewhat disordered mind. He continued long a member of the Church- of England, and regularly frequented its service, although he disapproved of many things in it; but at last forsook it, and went over to the baptists. This happened when he was at the house of Samuel Barker, esq. at Lyndon, in Rutland, who had married his daughter; and there it was that he dates the following memorandum: “I continued in the communion of the Church of England till Trinity Sunday, 1747: for, though I still resolved to go out of the church if Mr. Belgrave continued to read the Athanasian Creed, so did he by omitting it, both on Easter-day and Whitsunday this year, prevent my leaving the public worship till TrinitySunday, while he knew I should go out of the church if he begaq to read it. Yet did he read it that day, to my great surprise; upon which I was obliged to go out, and go to the baptist-meeting at Morcot, two miles off, as I intend to go hereafter, while I am here at Lyndon, till some better opportunity presents of setting up a more prijnitive congregation myself.”

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!”

Mr. Whiston died after a week’s illness, Aug. 22, 1752, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, and was buried afe Lyndon in Rutlandshire. Of his character little more need be added. He enjoyed a certain degree of celebrity during a very long life, but that he produced rrwch influence on the state of public opinion may be doubted. He was not well calculated to form, or to support, a sect already formed; his absurdities were too many and too glaring, and he received no applause, even from the Arians of his day, that was not mixed with compassion. Still his profound erudition, and his disinterested attachment to Arianism, supported by an ostensible love of truth, were likely to attract the notice of young men, who, in the ardour of free inquiry, did not immediately perceive the pernicious tendency of their new opinions. That these were sometimes eagerly imbibed was a grateful compliment to his vanity; and that they were as readily renounced, provoked the most pointed invective, which he scrupled not to use with intemperate indulgence, whenever his cause declined by the secession of his proselytes. Having himself renounced secular emoluments, as incompatible with his idea of primitive Christianity, he considered them as the only barrier to the general reception of his tenets. And he therefore upbraided those who afterwards relinquished them, as yielding only to the bias of interest: too confident to suspect a possible fallacy in his opinions, or a detection of s his own misrepresentations of the Holy Scriptures. Nor was his mind, ample and strong as it certainly often appeared to be, uninfluenced by the most consummate vanity. He flattered himself, that he was one of those luminaries, by whose etherial light we are happily assisted in the pursuit of reason and the divine truths. But it would he uncandid to deny, that he exhausted a long life in scholastic labour and self-denial, in elaborate investigations of abstruse doctrinal positions, which he inculcated with indefatigable diligence, in inflexible integrity, and a resolute contempt of wealth acquired at the expence of conscience. His moral character was blameless, but not amiable. His severe manners and systems are more readily admired than imitated; while we must yet lament his want of orthodoxy, and his pertinacious scepticism.

“He was much esteemed by the-late queen Caroline, who generously made him a present of 50l. every year from the time she became queen, which pension his late majesty continued to him so long as he lived. The queen usually sent for him once in the summer, whilst she was out of town, to spend a day or two with her. At Richmond it happened she who loved his free conversation, asked him what people in general said of her. He replied, that they justly esteemed her as a lady of great abilities, a patron of learned men, and a kind friend to the poor. * But,‘ says she, < no one is without faults, pray what are mine’ Mr. W. begged to be excused speaking on that subject; but she insisting, he said, her majesty did not behave with proper reverence at church. She replied, the king would talk with her. He said a Greater than kings was there only to be regarded. She acknowledged it, and confessed her fault. < Pray,‘ says she, * tell me what is my next?’ He replied, < When I hear your majesty has amended of that fault, I will tell you of your next;' and so it ended.” This last anecdote Whiston often repeated.

, a learned English divine, and able antiquary, was born at Manchester, about 1735. He went early to Oxford, where he was elected fellow of Corpus Chrisii college, and where he discovered, in a very short tune, those fine originalities, those peculiarities of rniiui, which afterwards so strongly marked him as an author and as a man. He took the degree of' M. A. 1759; and proceeded B. D. 1767. His uncommon vigour of intellect at once displayed itself among hisacquaintance but, whilst his animated conversation drew many around him, a few were repelled from the circle by his impatience of contradiction (a failing which frequently accompanies powers like his), and by the consciousness, his biographer thinks, of their own inferiority. The character of his gepjus, however, was soon decided in literary composition. In 1771, Mr. W. published the first volume of his “History of Manchester,*' in quarto; a work which, for acute* ness of research, bold imagination, independent sentiment, and correct information, has scarcely its parallel in the literature of the country. Nor does its composition less merit our applause, whether we have respect to the arrangement of the materials, the style, or the language. In some passages there is” supreme elegance;“in others a magnificence of thought, a force of expression, a glow of diction, truly astonishing. The introduction of Christianity into this island, in particular, is uncommonly beautiful. With regard to the general subject of the” Manchester,“he was the first writer who could so light up the region of antiquarianism as to dissipate its obscurity, even to the eyes pf ordinary spectators; his” Manchester“being perhaps the book in which the truth of our island history has been test elucidatedr It is rather singular that this work was in the order of merit, as well as time, the first of Mr.Wbitaker’s publications. In proportion as he advanced in life, his imagination seems, by a strange inversion of what is characteristic of our nature, to have gained an ascendancy pver his judgment; and we shall perceive more of fancy and passion, of conjecture and hypothesis, in some of his subsequent productions, than of just opinion, or deliberate investigation. Mr. Whitaker’s” Genuine History of the Britons asserted,“an octavo volume, published in 1772, may be considered as a sequel to the” Manchester.“It contains a complete refutation of” the unhappy Macpherson,“whose” Introduction to the History of Great Britain and Ireland" is full of palpable mistakes and misrepresentations.

In 1773 we find Mr. Whi taker the morning preacher of Berkeley chapel, London; to which office he had been appointed in November, by a Mr. Hughes; but in less than two months he was removed from that situation. This gave occasion to “The Case between Mr. W. and Mr. Hughes, relative to the Morning Preachership of Berkeley Chapel;” in which Mr. W. declares himself “unalterably determined to carry the matter into Westminster-hall.” But the fervour of his resentment threw him off his guard; and he expressed himself so indiscreetly, that his Case was considered as a libel by the Court of King’s Bench. During his residence in London, he had an opportunity of conversing with several of our most celebrated writers; among whom were Dr. Johnson, and Gibbon, the historian of the Roman Empire. It does not appear, indeed, that Johnson was much attached to Whitaker. Both strong in understanding, equally tenacious of opinion, and equally impassioned in conversation, it is not probable that they should amicably coalesce on all occasions. In the Ossianic controversy they were decidedly hostile. With Gibbon Mr.Whitaker was well acquainted; and the ms. of the first volume of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” was sub r rnitted to his inspection. But he was greatly surprised when, as he read the same volume in print, that chapter which has been so obnoxious to the Christian world, was then first introduced to his notice! That chapter Gibbon had suppressed in tjie ms. overawed by Mr. Whitaker’s high character, and afraid of his censure. And, in fact, that the deist should have shrunk from his indignant eye, may well be conceived, when we see his Christian principle and his manly spirit in the rejection of a living of considerable value, which was at this time offered him by an Unitarian patron. Of his integrity, however, some recompense was now at hand: and about 1778, he succeeded as fellow of Corpus Christi college, to the rectory of RuanLanyhorne, one of the most valuable livings in the gift of that College; and into Cornwall he went, to reside upon his rectory. There, it might have been expected that retirement and leisure would greatly favour the pursuits of literature; and that, though “the converser” (to use an expression of Mr. Whitaker’s) had disappeared, the author would break forth with new energies. But Ruan-Lany-r home was, for several years, no tranquil seat of the muses. That pleasant seclusion was now the scene of unavoidable contest. Mr. W. had proposed a tithe-composition with his par shiontTs, by no means unreasonable. This they refused to pay: but he was steady to his purpose. A rupture ensued between the parties; the tithes were demanded in kind; disputes arose upon disputes; animosities were kindled; and litigations took place. That Mr. Whitaker was finally victorious, afforded pleasure to the friends of the rector, and to the friends of justice and truth; yet it was long before harmony was restored to Ruan-Lanyhorne. That his literary schemes had been so sadly interrupted, was the subject of general regret. But the conscientious pastor looked with a deeper concern to the spiritual welfare of his parishioners. He saw with sorrow their aversion to his preaching; their indifference to his instructions; their repugnance“to his authority; and” he laboured more abundantly;“till, after a few years, he had the satisfaction to perceive a visible alteration in the behaviour of the principal parishioners; and a mutual good understanding was established between the pastor and his flock. His cordial, his familiar manner, indeed, was always pleasing to those whom prejudice had not armed against him; and, in proportion as they became acquainted with his kind disposition, the transitoriness of his resentments, and, after injuries, his promptness to forgive, and anxious wish to be forgiven; they endeavoured more and more to cultivate his friendship, and at length loved and revered him as their father. Kothing can more fully display the warmth of his affections, his zeal as a minister of Christ, or his impassioned style of eloquence, than those” Sermons“upon death, judgment, heaven, and hell, which he published in 1783, after having preached them to his parishioners, we doubt not, with a voice and manner calculated to penetrate the conscience. That he should have published so little in the line of his profession, is perhaps to be regretted. His” Origin of Arianism,“however, is a large volume, full of erudition and ingenious argumentation. We have read no other work of Mr. W. in divinity, except” The Real Origin of Government“(expanded into a v considerable treatise, from a sermon which he had preached before bishop Buller, at his lordship’s primary visitation), and” The Introduction to FlindelPs Bible.“This has been much admired as a masterly piece of eloquence. In the mean time the antiquary was not at rest. His” Mary, queen of Scots,“published in 1787, in three octavo volumes; his” Course of Hannibal over the Alps“his” Ancient Cathedral of Cornwall;“and his” Supplement to Polwhele’s Antiquities of Cornwall;“furnish good evidence of an imagination continually occupied in pursuits which kindled up its brightest flame; though not always of that judgment, discretion, or candour, which (if human characters had been ever perfect) we should have expected from a Whitaker. But not even here were his antiquarian stores exhausted.” The Life of St Neot,“”The History of Oxford,“and” The History of London," were works all at once projected, and no sooner projected than executed in imagination, and more than half executed in reality.

In criticism, (where writing anonymously he would probably have written with the less restraint) we find him for the most part candid and good-natured, not sparing of censure, yet lavish of applause; and affording, in numerous instances, the most agreeable proofs of genuine benevolence. Even in the instance of Gibbon, where he has been thought severe beyond all former example, we have a large mixture of sweet with the bitter. It was his critique on Gibbon which contributed principally to the reputation of the “English Review;” in which Mr. W. was the author of many valuable articles. To his pen. also the “British Critic,” and “The Antijacobiu Review,*' were indebted for various pieces of criticism. But the strength of his principles is no where more apparent than in those articles where he comes forward, armed with the panoply of truth, in defence of our civil and ecclesiastical Constitution. He was also a poet. That he contributed some fine pieces of poetry to” The Cornwall and Devon Poets,“is well known. These were published in two small octavo volumes. He occasionally displayed his powers in the several departments of the Historian, the Theologist, the Critic, the Politician, and the Poet. Versatility like Whitaker’s is, in truth, of rare occurrence. But still more rare is the splendor of original genius, exhibited in walks so various. Not that Mr. W. was equally happy in them all. His characteristic traits as a writer were, acute discernment, and a Velocity of ideas which acquired new force in composition, and a power of combining images in a manner peculiarly striking, and of flinging on every topic of discussion the strongest illustration. With little scruple, therefore, we hazard an opinion, that though hi* chief excellence be recognized in antiquarian research, he would have risen to higher eminence as a poet, had he cultivated in early youth the favour of the Muses. Be this, however, as it may; there are none who will deny him the praise of a” great“literary character. That he was” good“as well as great, would sufficiently appear in the recollection of any period of his life; whether we saw him abandoning preferment from principle, and heard him” reasoning of righteousness and judgment to come,“until a Gibbon trembled; or whether, among his parishioners, we witnessed his unaffected earnestness of preaching, his humility in conversing with the poorest cottagers, his sincerity in assisting them with advice, his tenderness in offering them consolation, and his charity in relieving -their distresses. It is true, to the same warmth of temper, together with a sense of good intentions, we must attribute an irritability at times destructive of social comfort; and an impetuousness that brooked not opposition, and bore down all before it. This precipitation was in part also to be traced to his ignorance of the world; to his simplicity in believing others like himself precisely what they seemed to be; and, oo the detection of his error, his anger at dissimulation or hypocrisy. But his general good humour, his hospitality, and his convivial pleasantry, were surely enough to atone for those sudden bursts of passion, those flashes, which betrayed his human frailty, but still argued genius. And they who knew how” fearfully and wonderfully he was made," could bear from a Whitaker what they would certainly have resented in another. We should add, that in his family Mr. Whitaker was uniformly regular; nor did he suffer, at any time, his literary cares to trench on his domestic duties.

, one of the most eminent divines of the sixteenth century, was born at Holme, in the parish of Burnley in Lancashire, in 1547, and was the descendant of an ancient family. His mother was Elizabeth Nowell, sister to the celebrated Dean of St. Paul’s, who married Thomas Whitaker, gentleman, in 1530, and sur* vived her marriage the wonderful period of seventy-six years. He acquired the elements of grammar at Burnley, where Mr. William Hargrave was at that time master, to whom in his declining years he was a kind benefactor. He was sent for, in his thirteenth year, by Dean Nowell, who maintained him in his own house, and placed him at St. Paul’s school, where he made snch rapid and satisfactory progress that, at the age of eighteen, his pious kinsman sent him to Trinity college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. afterwards Dr. Robert West. His progress here being equally admired, he was first chosen scholar and then fellow. He soon procured high esteem and great fame by his learned disputations and other exercises, which afforded a proof both of his talents and application. It was his practice, and that of several other eminent persons of his time, to stand while employed in study. In 1569 he published the Prayers of the Church of England in Greek, a small volume printed by Reynold Wolf; a circumstance which requires to be mentioned, because most of his biographers assert that he was first known by his translation of Nowell’s catechism; but that translation was not printed till 1573, four years after this version of the Prayers. He had about this time suffered long and severely by a quartan ague; and as he could not live without some literary employment, he made choice of this. The book contains the morning and evening prayers, the litany, the catechism, the collects, and, to fill a vacant page or two, the prayer after receiving the holy communion, accompanied with the Latin version, (the work, as is supposed, of Walter Haddon,) which had been published by the queen’s authority a fewyears before. It is dedicated, in a prefatory address in Latin, to his uncle and patron, the dean of St. Paul’s; from whom he had received, from his childhood, innumerable favours; to whom therefore, he says, of right belonged whatsoever he could perform; and he intreats him to protect his labours, and expresses a hope, that, if he is indulgent in this his first attempt, he may one day produce something not unworthy of his acceptance. The translation achieved under such circumstances, when the author, a bachelor of arts, had barely entered his twenty- first year, must have raised great hopes, which his future progress and celebrity did not disappoint.

In 1589, an assembly was held at his college, by the celebrated puritan Cartwright and others, for the purpose of promoting a purer form of discipline in the church. Whitaker, as appears by a letter to Whitgift, was by no means a favourer of Cartwright' s opinions, many of which he thought intemperate and intemperateiy expressed; but when, in consequence of this meeting, some imperfections in the “Book of Discipline” were corrected, altered, and amended, he had no objection to join in subscribing the Book thus amended. The year following, he was charged with holding or forming a presbytery in his college, and with other accasations, which he appears to have repelled with success, although the particulars are not upon record. Some have doubted whether he was a puritan, or ought to be classed with those whto were hostile to the forms of the church. But upon the whole, although far more moderate than many of his contemporaries, he not only associated with, but countenanced the objections of some of the leaders of the puritans to certain points of church discipline and government. Beheld many meetings in the university with Fulke, Chaderton, Dod, and others; but the purpose of these was only to expound the scriptures. In 1595, however, there were some warm disputes about points of Christian doctrine; and when these began at Cambridge Dr. Whitaker had no inconsiderable share. Deeply rooted, says Mr. archdeacon Churton, in the principles of Calvinism, he is yet to be commended for his candour in acknowledging, at the very time when the predestinarian dispute ran high, that “these points were not concluded and defined by public authority in our church.”

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.”

His most important publication was his “Paraphrase and commentary on the New Testament,” which appeared in 1703, 2 vols. fol. and was the fruit of fifteen years study. He published afterwards the following pieces as a sequel to, or connected with his commentary: “Additional annotations to the New Testament;” with seven discourses; and an Appendix, entitled “Examen variantium Lectionuni Johannis Millii in Novum Testamentum;” or, “An Examination of the various readings in Dr. Mill’s New Testament;” “The necessity and usefulness of the Christian IleveJation, by reason of the corruptions of the principles of natural religion among Jews and Heathens,” London, 1705, 8vo; “Reflections on some assertions and opinions of Mr. Dodweli, contained in a hook entitled ' An Epistolary discourse proving from the Scripture and first fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal. Shewing the falsehood and the pernicious consequences of them. To which is added an answer to a pamphlet, entitled, some passages in Dr. Whitby’s paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament contrary to Scripture and the received Doctrine of the Church of England,” London, 1707, 8vo.