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

He now published his refutations of Calvinism, first, “Four Discourses, shewing, I. That the Apostle’s words, Romans the ninth, have no relation to any personal Election or Reprobation. II. That the Election mentioned in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Gentiles is only that of the Gentiles to be God’s Church and People. III. That these two assertions of Dr. John Edwards, viz. 1. That God’s foreknowledge of future contingencies depends on his decree, and that he foreknows them, because he decreed them: 2. That God did from all eternity decree the commission of all the sins in the world: are false, blasphemous, and render God the author of sin. IV. Being a Vindication of my Annotations from the Doctor’s cavils. To which is added, as an appendix, a short answer to the Doctor’s discourse concerning the fixed term of human life,” London, 1710, 8vo. And secondly, “A Discourse concerning, 1. The true import of the words Election and Reprobation; and the things signified by them in the Holy Scriptures. 2. The Extent of Christ’s 'Redemption. 3. The Grace of God: where it is inquired, whether it be vouchsafed sufficiently to those who improve it not, and irresistibly to those who do improve it; and whether men be wholly passive in the work of their regeneration? 4. The Liberty of the Will in a State of Trial and Probation. 5. The Perseverance or Defectibility of the Saints: with some reflections on the state of the Heathens, the Providence and Prescience of God,” London, 1710, 8vo.

Some extracts from the preface to this work will shew by what process Dr. Whitby was led to those changes of opinion, which ended at last in a denial of all he had written on many other important points. It is a curious process, and not, we are afraid, peculiar to him only. In this Preface he observes, “That what moved him narrowly to search into the” principal of the Caivinistical Doctrines, especially that of the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity, was the strange consequences which attended it. After some years study he met with one who seemed to be a Deist; and telling him, that there were arguments sufficient to prove the truth of the Christian Faith and of the Holy Scriptures, the other scornfully replied, ‘Yes, and you will prove your doctrine of the imputation of original sin from the same Scripture;’ intimating that he thought that doctrine, if contained in it, sufficient to invalidate the truth and authority of the Scripture. The objection of this Deistical person our author reduces into this form: the truth of the Holy Scripture can no otherwise be proved to any one who doubts it, but by reducing him to SDme absurdity, or the denial of some avowed principle of reason; but the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity, so as to render them obnoxious to God’s wrath and eternal damnation, seems as contrary to the common reason of mankind as any thing can be, and so contains as strong an argument against the truth of Scripture, if it be contained in it, as any that can be offered for it. Upon this account our author searched farther into the places usually alledged to confirm that doctrine, and upon inquiry found them fairly capable of other interpretations. One doubt remained still, whether antiquity did not give suffrage to this doctrine; and though Vossius roundly asserts this, yet our author upon inquiry found, that all the passages, which he had collected, were either impertinent or at least insufficient to prove his point. And having made a collection of these matters, our author finished a treatise of ‘Original Sin’ in Latin about twenty years before, though he did not think proper to publish it. He tells us likewise, that he discoursed another time with a physician, who was of opinion, that there was some cause to doubt of the truth of Scripture, because it seems plainly to deliver the doctrine of ‘ absolute Election and Reprobation’ in the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; which doctrine is attended with more absurdities than can be charged on them who question the truth of the Scriptures, and seems as repugnant to the common notions which mankind have received of the divine justice, goodness, and sincerity, as even the saying, that God considering man * in massa perdita,‘ as lost in Adam, may delude him with false miracles, seems repugnant to his truth. And reading in Mr. Dodweli that bold stroke, that St. Paul being bred a Pharisee, spake in that chapter ’ ex mente Pbarisaeorum,‘ according to the doctrine of the Pharisees concerning fate, which they borrowed from the stoics; this gave our author occasion to set himself to make the best and exactest search he could into the sense of the Apostle in that chapter; and the best help he had to attain to the sense of that chapter, which he has given in his ’ Paraphrase,' he received from a manuscript of Dr. Simon Patrick, bishop of Ely. Thence he went on to examine all that was urged in favour of tnese doctrines from the Scriptures* It was no small confirmation to him of the places usually produced, and which he rescued from the adversaries of the doctrine he contends for; first, that he found, that he still sailed with the stream of antiquity, seeing only St, Austin with his two boatswains Prosper and Fulgentius tugging hard against it, and often driven back into it by the strong current of Scripture, reason, and common sense: secondly, that he observed, that the heretics of old used many of the same texts of Scripture to the same purposes as the Decretalists do at present. And thirdly, that the Valentinians, Marcionites, Basilidians, Manichees, Priscil*­lianists, and other heretics were condemned by the ancient champions of the church upon the same accounts, and from the same Scriptures and reasons, which he now uses against the Decretalists."

Having proceeded thus far, with the reputation of an orthodox Arminian, and an able opponent of Calvinism, he had one step farther to go. When he wrote his Commentary on the New Testament, the study of fifteen years bestowed on that work had discovered nothing to him to shake his belief in the doctrine of the Trinity; but what fifteen years could not do, as many days were sufficient to eflect in the present fluctuating state of his opinions; for immediately on the appearance of Dr. Clarke’s “Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” Whitby became a decided Arian, and published, but in Latin, a treatise to prove, “that the controversies raised about the Trinity could not be certainly determined from fathers, councils, or catholic tradition;” and a discourse, shewing, that the exposition which the ante-Nicene fathers have given of the texts alleged against the Rev. Mr. Clarke by a learned layman (Mr. Nelson), are more agreeable to the interpretation of Dr. Clarke than to the interpretations of that learned layman.“On this subject he had a short controversy with Dr. Waterland. In these sentiments Dr. Whitby remained to the last; as may be seen by the following extract from the preface to his” Last Thoughts.“” An exact scrutiny into things doth often produce conviction, that those things which we once judged to be right, were, after a more diligent inquiry into truth, found to be otherwise; and truly,“says Dr. Whitby,” I am not ashamed to say, this is my case; for when I wrote my Commentaries on the New Testament, I went on (too hastily, I own,) in the common beaten road of other reputed orthodox divines; conceiving, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in one complex notion, were one and the same God, by virtue of the same individual essence communicated from the Father. This confused notion, I am now fully convinced, by the arguments I have offered here, and in the second part of my reply to Dr. Waterland, to be a thing impossible, and full of gross absurdities and contradictions."

After having thus determined, that the majority of his brethren were helievers in “gross absurdities and contradictions,” we are not surprised to find him publishing some pamphlets in defence of Hoadly, in the Bangorian controversy. His last work, but which he did not live to see published, was that just mentioned, under the title of “The last Thoughts of Dr. Whitby, containing his correction of several passages in his Commentary on the New Testament. To which are added five Discourses,” published by his express order; and with an account of his life, drawn up by Dr. Sykes, principally from the 'Athenae OxoniensesV* It is in this work that he retracts all he had written in support of the doctrine of the Trinity; and appeals “to the searcher of hearts,” and calls God to witness, <c whether he had hastily or rashly departed from the common opinion," &c.

Mr. White is known to the learned world by a very elegant publication “The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne, in the county of Southampton. In a series of letters to the hon. Daines Barrington and Thomas Pennant, esq.” 1789, 4to. Mr. White’s idea of parochial history was, that it should consist of natural productions and occurrences, as well as antiquities. He has accordingly directed his attention to the former, and from a long series of obr servations made and repeated with care and skill, has enlarged our knowledge of natural history, and may be considered as no unequal successor of Ray and Derham. At the same time he has not neglected the antiquities of his favourite village, and in his history of the priory of Selborne has proved himself a very able antiquary. What renders the book more valuable than works of this kind generally are, is that it consists principally, if not entirely, of original matter, or information derived from records to which the public have no access. In 1713 a new edition of this work was published in a splendid form, with considerable additions, and the above brief memoir of the author’s life.

, an amiable and ingenious poet, untimely snatched from the world, was the second son of John and Mary White, and was born at Nottingham, March 21, 1785. From his third until his fifth year he learned to read at the school of a Mrs. Garrington, who had the good sense to perceive his extraordinary capacity, and spoke of what it promised with confidence. At a very early age his love oi reading was decidedly manifested, and was a passion to which every thing else gave way. When about six years old, he was placed under the rev. John Blanchard, who kept at that time the best school in Nottingham, and here he learned writing, arithmetic, and French. When he was about eleven, he one day wrote a separate theme for every boy in the class, which consisted of about twelve or fourteen. The master said he had never known them write so well upon any subject before, and could not refrain from expressing his astonishment at young White’s. It was considered as a great thing for him to be at so good a school, yet there were some circumstances which rendered it less advantageous to him than it might have been. Mrs. White had not yet overcome her husband’s intention of breeding him up to his own business (that of a butcher), and by an arrangement which took up too much of his time, one whole day in the week, and his leisure hours on the others, were employed in carrying the butcher’s basket. Some differences at length arose between his father and Mr. Blanchard, in consequence of which Henry was removed. It is remarkable that one of the ushers, when he came to receive the money due for tuition, represented to Mrs. White, either from stupidity or malice, what an incorrigible son she had, and that it was impossible to make the lad do any thing. This unfavourable impression, however, was soon removed by a Mr. Shipley, under whose care he was next placed, and who having discovered that he was a boy of quick perception, and very admirable talents, came with joy to relieve the anxiety and painful suspicions of his family. But while his school-masters were complaining that they could make nothing of him, he discovered what nature had made him, and wrote satires upon them. These pieces were never shewn to any, except his most particular friends, who say that they were pointed and severe, and it appears that he afterwards destroyed them.

Although assiduous in the study of his profession, he began now to be ambitious of an university education, that he might fit himself for the church. This did not proceed from any dislike to his profession, but a deafness, to which he had always been subject, and which appeared to grow progressively worse, and threatened to preclude all possibility of advancement. Another reason is assigned by his biographer, that his opinions, which had at one time inclined to Deism, had now taken a strong devotional turn. He had about this time written several poems in some of the literary journals, which were much admired by men of acknowledged taste, and their encouragement induced him to prepare a little volume of them for the press. It was his hope that this publication might either by the success of its sale, or the notice which it might excite, afford the means to prosecute his studies at college. It appeared accordingly in 1803.

The success of this volume appears to have been by no means adequate to its merits, and the author met with many other impediments and disappointments before his object was attained. At length Mr. Dashwood, a clergyman then residing at Nottingham, obtained for him an introduction to Mr. Simeon, of King’s college, Cambridge; and with this he was induced to go to Cambridge, his masters having previously consented to give up the remainder of his time. Mr. Simeon, from the recommendation which he received, and from the conversation he had with him, promised to procure for him a sizar’s place at St. John’s college, and, with the additional aid of a friend, to supply him with 30l. annually. His brother, Neville White, promised twenty and his mother, it was hoped, would be able to allow fifteen or twenty more. With this, it was thought, he could go through college.

Some notice of a young man, so extraordinary for genius and piety, could not be omitted in a work of this kind; yet with the best materials in our hands (his life by Mr. Southey) we found it impossible to give any abridgment that would, or indeed ought to be satisfactory. The present imperfect sketch, however, will not be wholly useless, if it detect but one reader ignorant of such a publication as “The Remains of Henry Kirke White.” We can otherwise have no occasion to recommend what has got such hold of the public mind, that after five or six large editions, there is still an encreasing demand. It is perhaps the most interesting biographical, epistolary, and poetical collection that has appeared for many years, and while it excites the warmest emotions of pity and sympathy, is equally calculated to convey instruction of the highest order.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth, bishop W T hite was deprived of his dignity, generally because he retained his attachment to the popish religion, but more particularly for his open contempt of the queen and the queen’s authority, on two remarkable occasions. The first was, when appointed to preach queen Mary’s funeral sermon, or oration. His text was, “Wherefore I praised the dead, which are already dead, more than the living which are yet alive,” Eccles. iv. 2. In this sermon, after exhausting his powers of oratory in celebrating his saint of a mistress, whose knees he affirmed were hard with kneeling, he burst into a flood of tears Then, recovering himself, he said, “She has left a sister to succeed her, a lady of great worth also, whom we are now bound to obey, for melior est canis vivus leone mortuo (better is a live dog than a dead lion), and I hope so shall reign well and prosperously over us, but I must still say with my text, laudavi mortuos magis quam viventes (I praised the dead more than the living), for certain it is Maria optimam partem elegit (Mary hath chosen tfce better part).” It is easy to suppose that queen Elizabeth would not be much pleased with these complimentary innuendos. The other offence was of a more serious nature, for at the public disputation in Westminster Abbey, with some of the reformers in 1558, he even threatened the queen with excommunication. He was therefore committed to the tower in 1559, after he had appeared in public, though deprived, in his pontifical vestments. His health afterwards declining, he was released, and permitted to retire to his sister’s house at South Warnborough, where he died Jan. 11, 1560, and was interred, agreeably to his will, in Winchester cathedral.

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

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

About 1624, Mr. White, with some of his friends, projected the new colony of Massachusetts in New England, and, after surmounting many difficulties, succeeded in obtaining a patent. The object was to provide a settlement or asylum for those who could not conform to the church discipline and ceremonies. He himself appears to have been inclined to the same disaffection, and is said to have been in 1630 prosecuted by archbishop Laud in the high commission court for preaching against Arminianism and the ceremonies. But as no account exisjs of the issue of this trial, or of his having been at all a sufferer upon this account, it is more probable, or at least as probable, that Wood is right, who tells us that he conformed as well after, as before, the advancement of Laud. Afterwards indeed he was a sufferer during the rage of civil war; for a party of horse in the neighbourhood of Dorchester, under the command of prince Rupert, plundered his house, and carried away his library. On this occasion he made his escape to London, and was made minister of the Savoy. In 1640 he was appointed one of the learned divines to assist in a committee of religion, appointed by the House of Lords; and in 1643 was chosen one of the Westminster assembly of divines. In 1645 he was appointed to succeed the ejected Dr. Featley as rector of Lambeth, and the doctor’s library was committed to his care, until his own should be returned which was carried away by prince Rupert’s soldiers. In 1647 he was offered the wardenship of New college, but refused it, and as soon as he could, returned to his people at Dorchester, for whom he had the greatest affection, and where he had passed the happiest of his days, being a man of great zeal, activity, and learning, and, as Wood allows, a “most moderate puritan.” Fuller says, “he was a constant preacher, and by his wisdom and ministerial labours, Dorchester was much enriched with knowledge, piety, and industry.” He died there suddenly, July 21, 1648, in the seventy-second year of his age. His works are but few, 1. “A commentary upon the first three chapters of Genesis,” 1656, fol. 2. “A way to the tree of life, discovered in sundry directions for the profitable reading of the Scriptures,” &c. 1647, 8vo. 3. “A digression concerning the morality of the Fourth commandment,” printed with the preceding. He published also a few sermons.

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

“When I had related the particulars of the case to Dr. G. in the Concert Room, he, with more rancour than discretion or humanity, urged the necessity of my meeting you at his house the next day, and requiring an apology for what you had written to your supposed friend on this subject. I at first objected to this proposal, and endeavoured to convince Dr. G. that as the affair in question was so trifling in itself, and had nothing to do with the charges he had brought against you, it was most prudent and most generous to let it drop. This remonstrance, however, and some others, appearing to have no weight with him, I considered that if I should persist in declining to confront you, the matter would not rest there, but might be represented to my disadvantage, and that I might by an interview prevent its being a town-talk, and likewise soften Dr. G's unprovoked and wanton acrimony: all which I attempted when I received your apology, with what you call fairness and moderation. I now declare that the apology, and the manner in which it was offered, was handsome and liberal on your part; that it ‘referred solely to your having made an unwarrantable discovery of my name to Mr. Badcock— to the account you gave him of my application to you for the sermon—and of the sum which you said I had offered you.’

“Though I cannot forbear to resent the having been dragged into public notice by means of a controversy which has so manifestly a mischievous tendency in every view of it, yet you are at liberty to make any use of this letter (written in haste to gratify your excessive impatience) which may serve to expose malevolence and justify your conduct.” About the same year, 1790, in which these transactions occurred, the professor vacated his fellowship by marriage, and accepted of a college living, the rectory of Melton, in Suffolk, on which he resided during a considerable part of the year. In 1800, appeared his “Diatessaron, sive integra historia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Grsece,” &c. 8vo. This was founded on the “Harmony” of archbishop Newcome, and is elegantly printed on a type cast originally under the direction of the professor. In 1801, he published his “Ægyptiaca or Observations on certain. Antiquities of Egypt. In two parts I. The History of Pompey’s Pillar elucidated. 2. Abdollatif’s Account of the Antiquities of Egypt> written in Arabic, A. D. 1206. Translated into English, and illustrated with Notes.” 4to. This is perhaps, as to research and learning, the most profound of his works on the subject of antiquity.

Dr. White’s next publication was an edition of the Greek Testament, “Novum Testamentum, Greece. Lectiones variantes, Griesbachii judicio, iis quas Textus receptus exhibet, anteponendas vel eequiparandas, adjecit Josephus White,” &c. 2 vols. cr. 8vo, 1808. This edition is particularly valuable for the ready and intelligible view it affords, first, of all the texts which in Griesbach’s opinion ought either certainly or probably to be removed from the received text; secondly, of those various readings which the same editor judged either preferable or equal to those of the received text; thirdly, of those additions which, ou the authority of manuscripts Griesbach considers as fit to be admitted into the text. From this Dr. White observes that it may be seen at once by every one how very little, after all the labours of learned men, and the collation of so many manuscripts, is liable to just objection in the received text. As a kind of sequel, and printed in the same form, he published in 1811, “C risers Griesbachianse in. Novum Testamentum Synopsis,” partly with a view to familiarize the results of Griesbach’s laborious work, by removing from them the obscurity of abbreviations, but principally, as he says himself, to demonstrate, by a short and easy proof, how safe and pure the text of the New Testament is, in the received editions, in all things that affect our faith or duty, and how few alterations it either requires or will admit, on any sound principles of criticism.

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

, an English historian, was born at Basingstoke, in Hampshire, of the great part of which place his ancestors had been proprietors. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1557. In the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign he obtained leave of absence for a set time, but his attachment to the Roman catholic religion being discovered, his fellowship was declared void, in 1564. He had gone abroad, and after Remaining some time at Louvain, settled at Padua, where he studied the canon and civil law, and received his doctor’s decree in both those faculties. Afterwards, being invited to Douay, he was made regius professor, and taught civil and canon law nearly twenty years. The universityappointed him their chancellor, or rector magnificus, not only on account of his own merit, but in consequence of the particular recommendation of the pope. At length he was created count palatine, a title conferred by the emperor upon lawyers that have distinguished themselves in their profession. He had married two wives, by both of whom he had fortunes, and when the last died, being desirous of entering into the church, he obtained a dispensation from the pope for that purpose. He was now ordained priest, and made a canon of St. Peter’s church, in Douay. He died in 1612, and was buried in St. James’s hurch, the cemetery of most of the English catholics.

, an eminent engraver, was born in London in 1645, and became the disciple of David Loggan, for whom he drew and engraved many architectural views. He applied himself mostly to the drawing of portraits, in black lead upon vellum; and his success in taking likenesses procured him much applause. His drawings are said to have been much superior to his prints. He drew the portraits of sir Godfrey Kneller and his brother, and sir Godfrey thought so well of them, that he painted White’s portrait in return. White’s portrait of sir Godfrey is in Sandrart’s Lives of the painters. In 1674, which is two years before Burghers was employed on the “Oxford Almanack,” White produced the first of that series. For the generality of his portraits for books, which are, however, generally disfigured by the broad borders that were then the fashion, he received at the rate of four pounds each, with the occasional addition of ten shillings; thirty pounds, which was paid hirn by Mr. Sowters of Exeter for a portrait of the king of Sweden (which was probably of much larger dimensions), has been spoken of as an extraordinary price. So great, however, is,the number of his engravings, that in the course of forty years he saved from four to five thousand pounds; and yet, say his biographers, by some misfortune or sudden extravagance, he died in indigent circumstances at his house in Bloomsbury in 1704.

Of his own works he made no regular collection, but when he had done a plate, rolled up two or three proofs, and flung them into a closet, where they were found in heaps. Many of these proofs may now be found in the collections of those curious persons who take Granger for their guide. The plates which he had by him were, after his decease, sold to a printseller in the Poultry, who in a few years, according to lord Orford and Mr. Strutt, enriched himself by the purchase. The number of his portraits, of which Vertue has collected the names, are two hundred and seventy - five, of which two are scraped in mezzotinto, and all the rest engraved in lines. Some few of Robert White’s plates are finished by his son George, who chiefly practised in mezzotinto, but engraved a few plates in lines, of which the principal one is a large portrait of “James Gardiner,” bishop of Lincoln.

He is said to have been educated at Reading, but probably only in the elements of writing and arithmetic, as at the age of twelve he was apprenticed to a tradesman or merchant of London. His apprenticeship- lasted ten years during which he behaved so well that his master, at his death, left him an hundred pounds. With this, and the patrimony bequeathed by his father, who died in 1523, he commenced business on his own account, and in a few years rose to wealth and honours, and became distinguished by acts of munificence. In 1542 he gave to the corporation of Coventry 1000l. which, with 400l. of their own, was laid out ifi the purchase of lands, from/ the rents of which provision was made for twelve poor men, and a sum raised to be lent to industrious young men of Coventry. This estate in 1705 yielded 930l. yearly. He gave also to the mayor and corporation of Bristol, by deed, the sum of 2000l. and the same to the town of Leicester, to purchase estates, and raise a fund from which sums of money might be lent to industrious tradesmen,- not only of those but of other places specified, which were to receive the benefits of the fund in rotation, and by the same the poor were to be relieved in times of scarcity. These funds are now in a most prosperous state, and judiciously administered.

Sir Thomas White was sheriff of London in 1546, and lord mayor in 1553, when he was knighted by queen Mary for his services, in preserving the peace of the city during the rebellion of sir Thomas Wyatt. Of the rest of his history, or personal character, sentiments, and pursuits, no particulars have been recovered, except what may be inferred from his many and wise acts of liberality. He must have been no common man who showed the first example of devoting the profits of trade to the advancement of learning. He died at Oxford, Feb. 11, 1566, in the seventysecond year of his age, and was buried in the chapel of his college.

He was twice married; first to a lady whose name was Avisia or Avis, but whose family is unknown. She died in 1557 without issue, and was buried, with great pomp and ceremony, in the parish church of St. Mary Aldermanbury. His second wife was Joan, one of the daughters and coheiresses of John Lake of London, gent, the widow of sir Ralph Warren, knight, twice lord mayor of London, by whom she had children. She survived sir Thomas, and died in 1573, and was buried by her first husband in the church of St. Bennet Sherehog, London. There is a portrait of him in the town-hall of Leicester, habited as lord mayor of London, with a gold chain, and collar of S S. a black cap, pointed beard, his gloves in his right hand, and on the little finger of his left, a ring. There are similar portraits in the town-hall at Salisbury, at Reading, Merchant Taylors’, and St. John’s college.

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

St. Bernard’s college was founded by archbishop Chichele for scholars of the Cistertian order who might wish to study in Oxford, but had no place belonging to their order in which they could associate together, and be relieved from the inconveniencies of separation in halls and inns, where they could not keep up their peculiar customs and statutes. On representing this to the king, Henry VI. he granted letters patent, dated March 20, 1437, giving the archbishop leave to erect a college to the honour of the Virgin Mary and St. Bernard in Northgate-street, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, on ground containing about five acres, which he held of the king in capite. According to Wood, quoted by Stevens, it was built much in the same manner as All Souls college, but the part they inhabited was only the front, and the south-side of the first court, as the hall, &c. was not built till 1502, nor the chapel completed and consecrated until 1530. Their whole premises at the dissolution were estimated at only two acres, and to be worth, if let to farm, only twenty-shillings yearly, but as the change of owners was compulsory, we are not to wonder at this under-valuation. It was granted by Henry VIII. to Christ-church, from whence it came to sir Thomas White, who obtained from Christ-church a grant of the premises, May 25, by paying twenty shillings yearly for it, and they covenanted with him that he should chuse his first president from the canons or students of Christ-church, and that afterwards the fellows of St. John’s should chuse a president from their own number, or from Christ-churcb, to be admitted and established by the dean and chapter, or in their absence by the chancellor or vice-chancellor of Oxford; and they farther wished to covenant that the dean and chapter should be visitors of the new college. With some reluctance, and by the persuasion of his friend. Alexander Belsire, canon of Christ-church, and first president, Sir Thomas was induced to consent to these terms, but the last article respecting the visitor must have been withdrawn, as he appointed sir William Cordall, master of the Rolls, visitor for life; and the right of visitation was afterwards conferred on the bishops of Winchester.

About this time he enlarged the bounds of the college by the purchase of about four acres, which were inclosed by a wall, by the benefaction of Edward Sprot, LL.B. sometime fellow, who died Aug. 25, 1612. This is commemorated by an inscription over the president’s garden-­door, “Edvardus Sprot hujus Coll. Socius, hunc murum suis impensis struxit, 1613.” It has already been noticed that the founder left by will 3000l. for the purchase of more lands. On the 17th December 1565, the college was admitted a member of the university, and the society declared partakers of all the privileges enjoyed by other colleges or societies. In 1576, the college purchased the ground before the gate from sir Christopher Brome, knt. lord of Northgate hundred, and enclosed it by a dwarf wall and row of elms, some of which are still standing.

, founder of Sion college, London, the.son of John White, was born in Temple parish, in the city of Bristol. His family was a branch of the Whites of Bedfordshire. He was entered of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, about 1566, took his degrees in arts, was ordained, and became a noted and frequent preacher. He afterwards settled in London, where he had the living of St. Gregory’s, near St. Paul’s, and in 1575 was made vicar of St. Dunstan’s, Fleet-street, where his pulpit services were much admired. In 1584 he was licensed to proceed in divinity, and commenced doctor in that faculty. In 1588 he had the prebend of Mora/ in the church of St. Paul, conferred upon him, and in 1590 was made treasurer of the church of Sarum by the queen’s letters. In 1591 he was made canon of Christ Church, and in 1593, canon of Windsor. He died March 1, 1623-4, according to Reading, but Wood says 1622-3; and was buried in the chancel of St. DunStan’s church. In his will he ordered a grave-stone to be placed over his remains, with a short inscription, but this was either neglected, or has been destroyed. As soon as an account of his death arrived at Oxford, the heads of the university, in honour of his memory as a benefactor, appointed Mr. Price, trie first reader of the moral philosophy lecture, to deliver an oration, which, with several encomiastic verses by other members of the university, was printed under the title of “Schola Moralis Philosophise Oxon. in funere Whiti pullata,” Oxon. 1624, 4to.

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

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

As to call in question the natural immortality of the human soul was understood to imply atheism, White’s treatise had certainly a tendency to weaken the arguments for that immortality, by weakening the common proofs of the soul’s consciousness in a future state; but there was nothing else in his work which could justly be construed as being of an atheistical nature. It does not appear that the bill against atheism and profaneness ever passed, or that the Commons proceeded farther in their censures of White and Hobbes. White was also obnoxious to the politicians of the time on another account. “To understand this,” says archdeacon Blackburne, “it will be necessary to observe, that White was a disciple of sir Kenelm Digby, not only in philosophy, but also in politics. The knight has been accused, and upon very authentic evidence, of intriguing with Cromwell, to the prejudice of the exiled Stuarts. Whether White was in the depth of the secret or not, it is probable that he knew something of the transaction, and that Digby might set him to work with his pen, in favour of Cromwell’s government. Be this as it might, White wrote a book, about that time, intituled,” The Grounds of Obedience and Government;" wherein he held, ‘That the people, by the evil management, or insufficiency of their governor, are remitted to the force of nature to provide for themselves, and not bound by any promise made to their governor; that the magistrate, by his miscarriages, abdicateth himself from being a magistrate, proveth a brigand or robber, instead of a defender; that if he be innocent, and wrongfully deposed, and totally dispossessed, it were better for the common good to stay as they are, than to venture the restoring him, because of the public hazard.’

Dodd has given a catalogue of forty-eij*ht publications by White, and endeavours to vindicate his character with considerable impartiality. He says, White was “a kind of enterprizer in the search of truth, and sometimes waded too deep; which, with the attempt of distinguishing between the schoolmen’s superstructures, and strict fundamentals, laid him open to be censured by those that were less inquisitive. It must be owned he sometimes lost himself, by treading in unbeaten paths, and adhered too stiffly to dangerous singularities. This created him adversaries from all quarters. Besides Protestants, who engaged with him. upon several controversial matters, he had several quarrels, both with the clergy and religious of his own communion, who attacked his works with great fury. His book of the” Middle State of Souls’.' gave great scandal, (though I find mention made of it by the learned Mabillon, as a master-piece in its kind). This performance was so represented by his adversaries, as if it rendered prayers for the dead an insignificant service: and the representation was so prejudicial to many of the clergy, that they were neglected in the usual distributions bestowed for the benefit of the faithful deceased. Another work, which drew a persecution upon him, was entitled, “Institutiones Sacrae,” &c. from whence the university of Douay drew twenty-two propositions, and condemned them, under respective censures, Nov. 3, 1660, chiefly at the instigations of Dr. George Leyburn, president of the English college, and John Warner, professor of divinity in the same house. He was again censured for his political scheme, exhibited in his book styled “Obedience and Government;” wherein he is said to assert an universal passive obedience to any species of government which has obtained an establishment; and, as his adversaries insinuated, was designed to flatter Cromwell in his usurpation, and incline him to favour the Catholics, upon the hopes of their being influenced by such principles. These, and several other writings, having given great offence, and the see of Rome being made acquainted with their pernicious tendency (especially when he had attacked the pope’s personal infallibility), they were laid before the inquisition, and censured by a decree of that court, May 14, 1655, and Sept. 7, 1657. Mean time, a body of clergymen, educated in the English college at Douay, signed a public disclaim of his principles. Mr. White had several things to allege against these proceedings. It appeared to him, that neither the court of inquisition, nor any other inferior court, though assembled by his holiness’s orders, were invested with sufficient power to issue out decrees that were binding over the universal church: he exposed, at the same time, the methods and ignorance of the cardinals and divines who were sometimes employed in censuring books; and hinted, how unlikely it was that his holiness either would or could delegate his power to such kind of inferior courts. As to his brethren who had disclaimed his doctrine, he takes notice that they were persons entirely under Dr. Leyburn’s direction, who was his grand adversary, and was continually labouring to discredit his writings. Afterwards, when prejudices were removed, and passion had sufficiently vented itself on both sides, they both came to temper; and Mr. White submitted himself and his writings to the catholic church, and, namely, to the see of Rome. Yet, notwithstanding this submission, a great many, who had conceived almost an irreconcileable idea both of his person and writings, could scarce endure to hear him named. They represented him to be as obstinate as Luther, who, at first, humbled himself to the pope, only to gain time to spread his pestiferous opinions: they would have it, that his design was, visibly, to establish a new heresy. Nay, they pryed into his morals and conduct in private life; miscarriages, in that way, being commonly the forerunners of heresy. But those that were not hurried away with passion and prejudice judged more favourably of him. They owned his rashness, and that he had propagated several singularities, that had given scandal, were erroneous, and carried on with too much violence and disrespect to superior powers: yet that all this was done without any intention of breaking out of the pale of, the church, or opposing the supremacy of the see of Rome. Some, who have calmly reflected upon these matters, have been pleased to observe the wise conduct of the see of Rome upon the occasion, which was far different from that of Mr. White’s adversaries; who, transported with zeal for religion, and, it is to be feared, sometimes with less commendable views, made every thing appear with a formidable aspect: whereas the see of Rome, governed by milder counsels, proceeded with their usual caution, and only barely censured some of his works, wherein Mr. White had the fate of a great many other pious and learned authors, when they happened to advance propositions any way prejudicial to religion. Whatsoever opinion the see of Rome might have of Mr. White’s case, tney judged it a piece of wisdom to let it die gradually. They were well assured, that though he had wit and learning sufficient to have raised a great disturbance in the church, yet he wanted interest to make any considerable party; and they had the charity to think he wanted a will. It is true, several eminent clergymen, who had been his scholars, and were great admirers of his virtue and learning, were unwilling to have his character sacrificed, and his merits lie under oppression, by unreasonable oppositions; and therefore they supported him in some particular controversies he had with doctor Leyburn and others: which was misrepresented by some, as a combination in favour of the novelties he was charged with in point of doctrine. But, adds Dodd, time and recollection have placed things in a true light."

, founder of the Calvinistic methodists, was born at Gloucester, where his father kept the Bell inn, Dec. 16, 1714. He was the youngest of a family of six sons and a daughter; and his father dying when he was only about two years old, the care of his education devolved on his mother, who brought him up with great tenderness. Being placed at school, he made considerable progress in classical learning; and his eloquence began to appear when he was about fourteen or fifteen, in the speeches which he delivered at the annual school visitations. During this period, he resided with his mother; and as her circumstances were not so easy as before, he sometimes assisted her in the business of the inn. By some means, however, he was encouraged to go to Oxford at the age of eighteen, where he entered of Pembroke college. He had not been here long, before he became acquainted with the Wesleys, and joined the society they had formed, which procured them the name of Methodists. Like them, Whitefield, who had been of a serious turn in his early days, began now to live by rule, and to improve every moment of his time. He received the communion every Sunday, visited the sick and the prisoners in jail, and read to the poor; and he shared in the obloquy which this conduct brought upon his brethren.

On the last day of December he set sail, and arrived at the parsonage-house at Savannah May 7, 1738, where he remained until August. In our article of Wesley we noticed how very unsuccessful he had been in this employment from a variety of causes, but principally of a personal nature. Whitefield met with a very different reception, and appears to have deserved it. When he began to look about him, he found every thing bore the aspect of an infant colony, and was likely to continue so, from the very nature of its constitution. “The people,” he says, “were denied the use both of rum and slaves. The lands were allotted them, according to a particular plan, whether good or bad; and the female heirs prohibited from inheriting. So that, in reality, to place people there, on such a footing, was little better than to tie their legs and bid them walk,” &c. As some melioration of their condition, he projected an Orphan-house, for which he determined to raise contributions in England, and accordingly embarked in September, and after a boisterous passage, landed at Limerick in Ireland. There he was received kindly by bishop Burscough, who engaged him to preach in the cathedral; and at Dublin, where he also preached, he was courteously received by Dr. Delany, bishop Rundle, and archbishop Bolton. In the beginning of December he arrived at London, where the trustees of the colony of Georgia expressed their satisfaction at the accounts sent to them of his conduct, and presented him to the living of Savannah (though he insisted upon having no salary), and granted him five hundred acres of land for his intended Orphan-house, to collect money for which, together with taking priest’s orders, were the chief motives of his returning to England so soon.

In the beginning of January 1739 he was ordained priest at Christ-church, Oxford, by bishop Benson, and on the following Sunday resumed his preaching in London; and now the vast crowds which attended, first suggested to him the thought of preaching in the open air. When he mentioned this to some of his friends, they judged it was mere madness, nor did he begin the practice until he went to Bristol in February, and finding the churches denied to him, he preached on a hill at Kingswood to the colliers, and after he had repeated this three or four times, his congregation is said to have amounted to near twenty thousand. That any human voice could be heard by such a number is grossly improbable, but that in time he was enabled to civilize the greater part of these poor colliers has never been denied. “The first discovery,” he tells us, “of their being affected, was to see the white gutters made by their tears, which plentifully fell down their black cheeks, as they came out of their coal-pits,” After this he preached often in the open air in the vicinity of London, particularly in Moorfields and on Kennington common, and made excursions into various parts of the country, where he received contributions for his Orphan-house in Georgia. In August he embarked again for America, and landed in Pennsylvania in October. Afterwards he went through that province, the Jerseys, New York, and back again to Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, preaching every where to immense congregations, and in the beginning of Jan. 1740 arrived at Savannah, where he founded, and in a great measure established, his Orphan-house, by the name of Bethesda. He then took another extensive tour through America, and returned to England in March 1741.

Soon after his return he had become acquainted with Lady Huntingdon, who hearing of his arrival invited him, to her house at Chelsea. He went, and having preached twice, the countess wrote to him that several of the nobility desired to hear him In a few days the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and others of the same rank, attended, and having heard him once, desired they might hear him again. “I therefore preached again,” says he, “in the evening, and went home, never more surprised at any incident in xny life. All behaved quite well, and were in some degree affected. The earl of Chesterfield thanked me, and said,” Sir, I will not tell you what I shall tell others, how I approve of you,‘ or words to this purpose. At last lord Bolingbroke came to hear, sat like an archbishop, and was pleased to say, ’ I had done great justice to the Divine Attributes in my discourse'." Those who know the characters of Bolingbroke and Chesterfield will probably think less of these compliments than Mr. Whitefield appears to have done.

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

, an eminent divine of the sixteenth century, was of the family of Whiteheads of Tuderiey in Hampshire, and was educated at Oxford, but whether at All Souls or Brasenose colleges, Wood has not deter* mined. He was chaplain to queen Anne Boleyn. Wood says, he was “a great light of learning, and a most heavenly professor of divinity.” Archbishop Cranmer says that “he was endowed with good knowledge, special honesty, fervent zeal, and politic wisdom,”' for which, in 1552, he nominated him as the fittest person for the archbishopric of Armagh. This nomination, however, did not succeed. lit the beginning of the tyrannic reign of queen Mary, he retired, with/many pf his countrymen, to Francfort, where he was chosen pastor to the English congregation of exiles, and when differences arose respecting church discipline, endeavoured to compose them by the moderation of his opinions. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he “returned to England, and was one of the committee appointed to review king Edward’s liturgy; and in 1559 was also appointed one of the public disputants against the popish bishops* In this he appeared to so much advantage, that the queen is said to have offered him the archbishopric of Canterbury, but this he declined, as well as the mastership of the Savoy, excusing himself to the queen by saying that he could live plentifully by the preaching of the gospel without any preferment. He was accordingly a frequent preacher, and in various places where preaching was most wanted. He remained a single man, which much pleased the queen, who had a great antipathy against the married clergy. Lord Bacon informs us that when Whitehead was one day at court, the queen said,” I like thee better, Whitehead, because thou livest unmarried.“” In troth, madam,“he replied,” I like you the worse for the same cause.“Maddox, in his examination of Neal’s History of the Puritans, thinks that” Whitehead ought to be added to the number of those eminent pious men, who approved of the constitution, and died members of the church of England;“but it appears from Strype’s life of Grindal, that he was deprived in 1564 for objecting to the habits; how long he remained under censure we are not told. He died in 1571, but where buried, Wood was not able to discover. The only works attributed to his pen are,” Lections and Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistles“and in a” Brief Discourse of the Troubles begun at Francfort,“1575, 4to, are several of his discourses, and answers to the objections of Dr. Home concerning matters of discipline and worship. In Parkhurst’s” Epigram. Juvenil." are some addressed to Whitehead; and from the same authority we learn that he had been preceptor to Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk.

, an eminent person among the Quakers, was born at Snnbigg in the parish of Orton, Westmoreland, about 1636, and received his education at the free school of Blencoe in Cumberland. After leaving school he was for a time engaged in the instruction of youth, but before he had attained the age of eighteen, the journal of his life exhibits him travelling in different parts of England, propagating with zeal, as well as success, the principles of the Quakers, then recently become known as a distinct religious denomination. Of the Quakers and their tenets, he had obtained some information a considerable time before an opportunity occurred for his being at any of their meetings. At the first which he attended, it happened that there was a young person present, who feeling deep distress of mind, went out of the meeting, and seated on the ground, unaware or regardless of being observed, cried out “Lord, make me clean; O Lord, make me clean!” an ejaculation which, he says, affected him more than any preaching he had ever heard. Continuing to attend the meetings of the Quakers, he became united with them in profession, and, as has been mentioned, a promnlgator of their doctrine. His first journey was southward, and his first imprisonment, for to one in, this character imprisonment may be mentioned as then almost an event in course, was in the city of Norwich. Another imprisonment of fourteen or fifteen months followed not long after at Edinondsbury, attended with circumstances of much hardship. From this he was released by virtue of an order from the Protector; but was soon again apprehended while preaching at Nayiand in Suffolk, and by two justices sentenced to be whipped, under pretence of his being a* vagabond; which was executed with severity, but neither the pain nor the ignominy of the punishment damped the fervency of the sufferer; and as persecution commonly defeats its own object, so in this case the report of the treatment he had met with spreading in the country, the resort to hear his preaching was increased.

He was twice married, but appears to have left no issue. During the latter and considerably the greater part of his life he resided in or near the metropolis. Besides various publications, chiefly controversial, he left behind him some memoirs of his life, which were printed in 1725, in one volume 8vo.

, an English poet and satirist, the youngest son of Edmund Whitehead, a taylor, was born at his father’s house, in Castle-yard, Holborn, Feb. 6, 1709—10, St. Paul’s day, O. S. to which circumstance he is said to owe his name. As he was intended for trade, he received no other education than what a school at Hitchin, in Hertfordshire, afforded; and, at the usual age, was placed as an apprentice to a mercer or woollen-draper in London. Here he had for his associate the late Mr. Lowth, of Paternoster-row, long the intimate friend, and afterwards the executor, of the celebrated tragedian, James Q,uin. Whitehead and Lowth were both of a lively disposition, and fond of amusement: Lowth had attached himself to the theatre, and by his means Whitehead became acquainted with some of the theatrical personages of that day; and among others, with Fleetwood, the manager. Lowth, however, continued in business, while Whitehead was encouraged to enter himself of the Temple, and study the law.

In 1739, Whitehead published his more celebrated poem, entitled “Manners;” a satire not only upon the administration, but upon all the venerable forms of the constitution, under the assumption of a universal depravity of manners. Pope had at this time taken liberties which, in the opinion of some politicians, ought to be repressed. la his second dialogue of “Serenteen Hundred and Thirtyeight,” he gave offence to one of the Foxes, among others; which Fox, in a reply to Lyttelton, took an opportunity of repaying, by reproaching him with the friendship of a lampooner, who scattered his ink without fear or decency, and against whom he hoped the resentment of the legislature would quickly be discharged. Pope, however, was formidable, and had many powerful friends. With all his prejudices, he was the first poet of the age, and an honour to his country. But Paul Whitehead was less entitled to respect: he was formidable rather by his calumny than his talents, and might be prosecuted with effect.

No farther steps were taken against the author of “Man-r ners;” the whole process, indeed, was supposed to be intended rather to intimidate Pope than to punish Whitehead; and it answered that purpose: Pope became cautious, “willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,” and Whitehead for some years remained quiet. The noise, however, which this prosecution occasioned, and its failure as to the main object, induced Whitehead’s enemies to try whether he might not be assailed in another way, and rendered the subject of odium, if not of punishment. In this pursuit the authors of some of the ministerial journals published a letter from a Cambridge student who had been expelled for atheism, in which it was intimated that Whitehead belonged to a club of young men who assembled to encourage one another in shaking off what they termed the prejudices of education. But Whitehead did not suffer this to disturb the retirement so necessary in his present circumstances, and as the accusation had no connection with his politics or his poetry, he was content to sacrifice his character with respect to religion, which he did not value, in support of the cause he had espoused. That he was an infidel seems generally acknowledged by all his biographers; and when he joined the club at Mednam Abbey, it mustbe confessed that his practices did not disgrace his profession.

at Deal, with a family where I often truth or justice, has something 80

Except a small pamphlet on the disputes, in 1768, between the four managers of Covent- garden theatre, the “Epistle to Dr. Thomson” was the last of our author’s detached publications. The lesser pieces to be found in his works, were occasional trirles written for the theatres or public gardens. He was now in easy, if not affluent circumstances. By the interest of lord Le Despenser, he got the place of deputy- treasurer of the chamber, worth 800l. and held it to his death. On this acquisition, he purchased a cottage on Twickenham common, and from a design of his friend Isaac Ware, the architect, at a small expence improved it into an elegant villa. Here, according to sir John Hawkins, he was visited by very few of the inhabitants of that classical spot, but his house was open to all his London acquaintance Hogarth, Lambert, and Hayman, painters; Isaac Ware, Beard, and Havard, &c. In such company principally, he passed the remainder of his days, suffering the memory of his poetry and politics to. decay gradually. His death happened at his lodgings in Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, Dec. So, 1774. For some time previous to this event he lingered under a severe illness, during which he employed himself in burning all his manuscripts. Among these were the originals of many occasional pieces of poetry, written for the amusement of his friends, some of which had prohably been published without his name, and cannot now be distinguished. His Works were published in an elegant quarto volume (in 1777) by Capt. Edward Thompson, who prefixed memoirs of his life, in which however there is very little that had not been published in the Annual Register of 1775. The character Thompson gives of him is an overstrained panegyric, inconsistent in itself, and more so when compared with some facts which he had not the sense to conceal, nor the virtue to censure.

will want nothing else to excite abhorrence; but Churchill has taken too many liberties with truth to be believed without corroborating evidence. Besides, we are to consider what part of Whitehead’s conduct excited this indignation. Paul’s great and unpardonable crime, in Churchill’s eyes, was his accepting a place under government, and laying aside a pen, which, in conjunction with Churchill’s, might have created wonders in the political world. Churchill could not dislike him because he was an infidel and a man of pleasure. In point of morals, there was surely not much difference in the misfortune of being born a Whitehead or a Churchill.

How very erroneous Whitehead’s life had been, is too evident from his having shared in those scenes of blasphemy and debauchery which were performed at Medmenham, or Mednam Abbey, a house on the banks of the Thames, near Marlow in Buckinghamshire. His noble patron (then sir Francis Dashwood), sir Thomas Stapleton, John Wilkes, Whitehead, and others, combined at this place in a scheme of impious and sensual indulgence, unparalleled in the annals of infamy; and perhaps there cannot be a more striking proof of want of shame, as well as of virtue, than the circumstance which occasioned the discovery of this refined brothel . Wilkes was the first person to disclose the shocking secret, and that merely out of a pique against one of the members who had promoted the prosecution against him for writing the “Essay on Woman.” In the same note, to one of Churchill’s poems, in which he published the transactions of this profligate cabal, he was not ashamed to insert his own name as a partner in the guilt.

His poems were appended to the last edition of Dr. Johnson’s collection, yet it may be doubted whether any partiality can assign him a very high rank even among versifiers. He was a professed imitator of Pope, in his satires, and may be entitled to all the praise which successful imitation deserves. His lines are in general harmonious and correct, and sometimes vigorous, but he owed his popularity chiefly to the personal calumnies so liberally thrown out against men of rank, in the defamation of whom a very active and extensive party was strongly interested. Like Churchill’s, therefore, his works were forgotten when the contending parties were removed or reconciled. But he had not the energetic and original genius of Churchill, nor can we find many passages in which the spirit of genuine poetry is discoverable. Of his character as a poet, he was himself very careless, considering it perhaps as only the temporary instrument of his advancement to ease and independence. No persuasions could induce him to collect his works, and they would probably* never have been collected, had not the frequent mention of his name in conjunction with those of his political patrons, and the active services of his pen, created a something like permanent reputation, and a desire to collect the various documents by which the history of factions may be illustrated.

, another English poet, of a more estimable character, was born at Cambridge in the beginning of 1715. His father was a baker in St. Botolph’s parish, and at one time must have been a man of some property or some interest, as he bestowed a liberal education on his eldest son, John, wtio after entering into the church, held the living of Pershore in the diocese of Worcester. He would probably have been enabled to extend the same care to William, his second son, had he not died when the boy was at school, and left his widow involved in debts contracted by extravagance or folly. A few acres of land, near Grantchester, on which he expended considerable sums of money, without, it would appear, expecting much return, is yet known by the name of White head’s Folly* William received the first rudiments of education at some common school at Cambridge, and at the age of fourteen was removed to Winchester, having obtained a nomination into that college by the interest of Mr. Bromley, afterwards lord MonttorC. Of his behaviour while at school his biographer, Mr. Mason, received the following account from Dr. Balguy. " He was always of a delicate turn, and though obliged to go to the hills with the other boys, spent his time there in reading either plays or poetry; and was also particularly fond of the Atalantis, and all other books of private history or character. He very early exhibited his taste for poetry; for while other boys were contented with shewing up twelve or fourteen lines, he would till half a sheet, but always with English verse. This Dr. Burton, the master, at first discouraged; but, after some time, he was so much charmed, that he spoke of them with rapture. When he was sixteen he wrote a whole comedy. In the winter of the year 1732, he is said to have acted a female part in the Andria, under Dr. Burton’s direction. Of this there are some doubts; but it is certain that he acted Marcia, in the tragedy of Cato, with much applause. In the year 1733, the earl of Peterborough, having Mr. Pope at his house near Southampton, carried him to Winchester to shew him the college, school, &c. The earl gave ten guineas to be disposed of in prizes amongst the boys, and Mr. Pope set them a subject to write upon, viz. Peterborough. Prizes of a guinea each were given to six of the boys, of whom Whitehead was one. The remaining sum was laid out for other boys in subscriptions to Pine’s Horace, then about to be published. He never excelled in writing epigrams, nor did he make any considerable figure in Latin verse, though he understood the classics very well, and had a good memory. He was, however, employed to translate into Latin the first epistle of the Essay on Man; and the translation is still extant in his own hand. Dobson’s success in translating Prior’s Solomon had put this project into Mr. Pope’s head, and he set various persons to work upon it.

“His school friendships were usually contracted either with noblemen, or gentlemen of large fortune, such as lord Drumlanrig, sir Charles Douglas, sir Robert Burdett, Mr. Try on, and Mr. Mundy of Leicestershire. The choice of those persons was imputed by some of his schoolfellows to vanity, by others to prudence; but might it not be owing to his delicacy, as this would make him easily disgusted with the coarser manners of ordinary boys? He was schooltutor to Mr. Wallop, afterwards lord Lymington, son to the late earl of Portsmouth, and father to the present earl. He enjoyed, for some little time, a lucrative place in the college, that of preposter of the hall. At the election in September, 1735, he was treated with singular injustice; for, through the force of superior interest, he was placed so low on the roll, that it was scarce possible for him to succeed to New-college. Being now superannuated, he left Winchester of course, deriving no other advantage from the college than a good education: this, however, he had ingenuity enough to acknowledge, with gratitude, in a poem prefixed to the second edition of Dr. Lowth’s Life of William of Wickham.”

William, third earl of Jersey, was at this time making inquiries after a proper person to be private tutor to his second son, the late earl, and Whitehead was recommended by Mr. commissioner Graves as a person qualified for this important charge. Mr. Whitehead accepted the offer, as his fellowship would not necessarily be vacated by it, and in the summer of 1745, removed to the earl’s house in town, where he was received upon the most liberal footing. A young friend of the family, afterwards general Stephens, was also put under his care, as a companion to the young nobleman in his studies, and a spur to his emulation. Placed thus in a situation where he could spare some hours from the instruction of his pupils, he became a frequenter of the theatre, which had been his favourite amusement long before he had an opportunity of witnessing the superiority of the London performers. Immediately on his coming to to.vvb, he had written a little ballad farce, entitled, “The Edinburgh Ball,” in which the young Pretender is held up to ridicule. This, however, was never performed or printed. He then began a regular tragedy, “The Roman Father,” which was produced on the stage in 1750. He appears to have viewed the difficulties of a first attempt with a wary eye, and had the precaution to make himself known to the public by the “Lines addressed to Dr. Hoadly.” Those to Mr. Garrick, on his becoming joint patentee of Drury-lane theatre, would probably improve his interest with one whose excessive tenderness of reputation was among the few blemishes in his character.

It is not necessary to expatiate on the merits of the Roman Father, which still retains its place on the stage, and has been the choice of many new performers who wished to impress the audience with a favourable opinion of their powers, and of some old ones who are less afraid of modern than of antient tragedy, of declamation than of passion. Mr. Mason has bestowed a critical discussion upon it, but evidently with a view to throw out reflections on “Irene,” which Johnson never highly valued, and on Garrick, whom he accused of a tyrannical use of the pruning-knife. To this, however, he confesses that Whitehead submitted with the humblest deference, nor was it a deference which dishonoured either his pride or his taste. He avowedly wrote for stage- effect, and who could so properly judge of that as Garrick

The next production of our author was the “Hymn to the Nymph of the Bristol Spring,' 7 in 1751,” written in the manner of those classical addresses to heathen divinities of which the hymns of Homer and Callimachus are the archetypes.“This must be allowed to be a very favourable specimen of his powers in blank verse, and has much of poetical fancy and ornament.” The Sweepers,“a ludicrous attempt in blank verse, would, in Mr. Mason’s opinion, have received more applause than it has hitherto done, had the taste of the generality of readers been founded more on their own feelings than on mere prescription and authority. It appears to us, however, to be defective in plan: there is an effort at humour in the commencement, of which the effect is painfully interrupted by the miseries of a female sweeper taken into keeping, and passing to ruin through the various stages of prostitution. About this time, if we mistake not, for Mr. Mason has not given the precise date, he wrote the beautiful stanzas on” Friendship,“which that gentleman thinks one of his best and most finished compositions. What gives it a peculiar charm is, that it comes from the heart, and appeals with success to the experience of every man who has imagined what friendship should be, or known what it is. The celebrated Gray, according to Mr. Mason’s account,” disapproved the general sentiment which it conveyed, for he said it would furnish the unfeeling and capricious with apologies for their defects; and that it ought to be entitled A Satire on Friendship.“Mr. Mason repeated this opinion to the author, who, in consequence, made a considerable addition to the concluding part of the piece.” Still, however, as the exceptionable stanzas remained, which contained an apology for what Mr. Gray thought no apology ought to be made, he continued unsatisfied, and persisted in saying, that it had a bad tendency, and the more so, because the sentiments which he thought objectionable were so poetically and finely expressed."

The subject of this poem is not indirectly connected, with the verses which he wrote about this time (1751) to the rev. Mr. Wright, who had blamed him for leading what some of his friends thought a dependent life, and for not taking orders, or entering upon a regular profession. For this there was certainly some plea. He had resigned his fellowship in 1746, about a year after he became one of lord Jersey’s family, and with that, every prospect of Advantage from his college. He had now remained five years in this family, and had attained the age of thirty-six, without any support but what depended on the liberality of his employer, or the sale of his poems. It was not therefore very unreasonable in his friend to suggest, that he had attained the age at which men in general have determined their course of life, and that his present situation must be one of two things, either dependent or precarious.

In the verses just mentioned, Whitehead endeavours to vindicate his conduct, and probably will be found to vindicate it like one too much enamoured of present ease to look forward to probable disappointment. He is content with dependence, because he has made it easy to himself; his present condition is quiet and contentment, and what can his future be more thus ingeniously shifting the subject from a question of dependence or independence, to that of ambition and bustle. But although this will not apply generally, such was his temper or his treatment that it proved a sufficient apology in his own case. Throughout a long life, he never had cause to repent of the confidence he placed in his noble friends, who continued to heap favours upon him in the most delicate manner, and without receiving, as far as we know, any of those humiliating or disgraceful returns which degrade genius and endanger virtue.

About this time, lord Jersey determined that his son should complete his education abroad, and the late lord Harcourt having the same intentions concerning his eldest son lord viscount Nuneham, a young nobleman of nearly the same age, Mr. Whitehead was appointed governor to both, and gladly embraced so favourable an opportunity of enlarging his views by foreign travel. Leipsic was the place where they were destined to pass the winter of 1754, in order to attend the lectures of professor Mascow on the Droit publique. They set off in June, and resided the rest of the summer at Rheims, that they might habituate themselves to the French language, and then passed seven months at Leipsic, with little satisfaction or advantage, for they found the once celebrated Mascow in a state of dotage, without being quite incapacitated from reading his former lectures.

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

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

About two or three years after his return from Ireland he left Congleton, and entered into business for himself at Derby, where he soon got into great employment, and distinguished himself very much by several ingenious pieces of mechanism, both in his own regular line of business and in various other respects, as in the construction of curious thermometers, barometers, and other philosophical instruments, as well as in ingenious contrivances for water-works, and the erection of various larger machines being- consulted in almost all the undertakings in Derbyshire, and in the neighbouring counties, where the aid of superior skill, in mechanics, pneumatics, and hydraulics, was requisite.

In this manner his time was fully and usefully employed in the country, till, in 1775, when the act passed for the better regulation of the gold coin, he was appointed stamper of the money-weights; an office conferred upon him altogether unexpectedly and without solicitation. Upon this occasion he removed to London, where be spent the remainder of his days in the constant habits of cultivating some useful parts of philosophy and mechanism. And here too his house became the constant resort of the ingenious and scientific at large, of whatever nation or rank, and this to such a degree as very often to impede him in the regular prosecution of his own speculations. In 1778 Mr. Whitehurst published his “Inquiry into the original State and Formation of the Earth;” of which a second edition appeared in 1786, considerably enlarged and improved; and a third in 1792. This was the labour of many years; and the numerous investigations necessary to its completion were in themselves also of so untoward a nature as at times, though he was naturally of a strong constitution, not a little to prejudice his health. When he first entered upon this species of research it was not altogether with a view to investigate the formation of the earth, but in part to obtain such a competent knowledge of subterraneous geography as might become subservient to the purposes of human life, by leading mankind to the discovery of many valuable substances which lie concealed in the lower regions of the earth.

In 1787 he published “An Attempt toward obtaining invariable Measures of Length, Capacity, and Weight, from the Mensuration of Time,” His plan is, to obtain a measure of the greatest length that conveniency will permit, from two pendulums whose vibrations are in the ratio of 2 to 1, and whose lengths coincide nearly with the English standard in whole numbers. The numbers which he has chosen shew much ingenuity. On a supposition that the length of a seconds pendulum, in the latitude of London, is 39-i inches, the length of one vibrating 42 times in a minute must be 80 inches; and of another vibrating 84 times in a minute must be 20 inches; and their difference, 60 inches, or 5 feet, is his standard measure. By the experiments, however, the difference between the lengths of the two pendulum rods was found to be only 59.892 inches, instead of 60, owing to the error in the assumed length of the seconds pendulum, 39^ inches being greater than the truth, which ought to be 3) very nearly. By this expement Mr. Whitehurst obtained a fact, as accurately as may he in a thing of this nature, viz. the difference between the lengths of two pendulum rods whose vibrations are known; a datum from whence may be obtained, by calculation, the true lengths of pendulums, the spaces through which heavy bodies fall in a given time, and many other particulars relating to the doctrine of gravitation, the figure of the earth, &c. &c. The work concludes with several directions, shewing how the measure of length may be applied to determine the measures of capacity and weight; and with some tables of the comparative weights and measures of different nations; the uses of which, in philosophical and mercantile affairs, are self-evident.

Though Mr. Whitehurst for several years felt himself gradually declining, yet his ever-active mind remitted not of its accustomed exertions. Even in his last illness, before being confined entirely to his chamber, he was proceeding at intervals to complete a treatise on chimneys, ventilation, and the construction of garden-stoves, announced to the public in 1782; and containing, 1. some account of the properties of the air, and the laws of fluids; 2. their application and use in a variety of cases relative to the construction of chimneys, and the removal of such defects as occasion old chimneys to smoke; 3. modes of ventilating elegant rooms, without any visible appearance or deformity, calculated for the preservation of pictures, prints, furniture, and fine cieliugs, from the pernicious effects of stagnant air, smoke of candles, &c. 4. methods of ventilating counting-houses and workshops, wherein many people, candles, or lamps, are employed likewise hospitals, jails, stables, &.c. 5. a philosophical inquiry into the construction of garden-stoves, employed in the culture of exotic plants; 6. a description of some other devices, tending to promote the health and comfort of human life. The manuscripts and drawings, since his death, have been in the hands of several of his friends, and were published by Dr. Willan in 1794.

Mr. Whitehurst had been at times subject to slight attacks of the gout; and he had for several years felt himself gradually declining. By an attack of that disease in his stomach, after a struggle of two or three months, it put an end to his laborious and useful life, on the 18th of February 1788, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, at his house in Bolt-court, Fleet-street, being the same house where another eminent self-taught philosopher, Mr. James Ferguson, had immediately before him lived and died. He was interred in St. Andrew’s burying- ground in Gray’s-inn-lahe, where Mrs. Whitehurst had been interredin Nov. 1784. In Jan. 1745 he married this lady, Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. George Gretton, rector of Trusley and Daubery, in Derbyshire; a woman ever mentioned with pleasure by those who knew her best, as among the first of female characters. Her talents and education were very respectable; which enabled her to be useful in correcting some parts of his writings. He had only one child by her, and that died dn the birth.

However respectable Mr. Whitehurst may have been in mechanics, and those parts of natural science which he more immediately cultivated, he was of still higher account with his acquaintance and friends on the score of his moral qualities. To say nothing of the uprightness and punctuality of his dealings in all transactions relative to business; few men have been known to possess more benevolent affections than he, or, being possessed of such, to direct them more judiciously to their proper ends. He was a philanthropist in the truest sense of that word. Every thing tending to the good of his kind, he was on all occasions, and particularly in cases of distress, zealous to forward, considering nothing foreign to him as a man that relates to man. Though well known to many of the great, he never once stooped to flattery, being a great enemy to every deviation from truth.

In person fee was somewhat above the middle stature, rather thin than otherwise, and of a countenance expressive at once of penetration aod mildness. His fine grey locks, unpolluted by art, gave a venerable air to his whole appearance. In dress he was plain, in diet temperate, in his general intercourse with mankind, easy and obliging. In company he was cheerful or grave alike, according to the dictates of the occasion; with now and then a peculiar species of humour about him, delivered with such gravity of manner and utterance, that those who knew him but slightly were apt to und-erstand him as serious when he was merely playful. Where any desire of information on subjects in which he was conversant, was expressed, he omitted no opportunity of imparting it. But he never affected, after the manner of some, to know what he did not know; nor, such was his modesty, made he any the least display of what he did know. Considering all useful learning to lie in a narrow compass, and having little relish for the ornamental, he was not greatly given to reading; but from his youth up be observed much, and reflected much; his apprehension was quick, and his judgment clear and discriminating. Unbiassed from education by any earlyadopted systems, he had immediate recourse to nature herself; he attentively studied her, and, by a patience and assiduity indefatigable, attained to a consequence in science not rashly to be hoped for, without regular initiation, by minds of less native energy than his own. He had many friends, and from the great purity and simplicity of his’" manners, few or no enemies; unless it were allowable to call those enemies, who, without detracting from his merit openly, might yet, from a jealousy of his superior knowledge, be disposed to lessen it in private. In short, while the virtues of this excellent man are worthy of 1 being held up as a pattern of imitation to mankind in general; those in particular, who pride themselves in their learning and science, may see confirmed in him, what among other observations they may have overlooked in an old author, that lowly meekness, joined to great endowments, shall compass many fair respects, and, instead of aversion or scorn, be ever waited on with love and veneration.

, a learned English lawyer, was descended of a good family near Oakingham, in Berkshire, and born in London, November the 28th, 1570. He was educated in Merchant Taylors’ school, elected scholar of St. John’s college, in Oxford, in 1588, and July 1, 1594, took the degree of bachelor of civil law. He afterwards settled in the Middle Temple, became summer-reader of that house in the 17th year of king James I. a knight, member of parliament for Woodstock in 1620, chief justice of Chester, and at length one of the justices of the king’s bench. Kitig Charles I. said of him, that he was “a stout, wise, and learned man, and one who knew what belongs to uphold magistrates and magistracy in their dignity.” In Trinity term 1632, he fell ill of a cold, which so increased upon him that he was advised to go in the country; on which he took leave of his brethren the judges and serjeants, saying, “God be with you, I shall never see you again;” and this without the least disturbance or trouble of his thoughts; and soen after he came into the country he died, June 22. “On his death,” says his son, “the king lost as good a subject, his country as good a patriot, the people as just a 'judge, as ever lived. Ail honest men lamented the loss ui huri: no man in his age left behind him a more honoured memory. His reason was clear and strong, and his learning deep and general. He had the Latin tongue so perfect, that sitting judge of assize at Oxford, when some foreigners, persons of quality, being there, and coming to the court to see the manner of our proceedings in matters of justice, this judge caused them to sit down, and briefly repeated the heads of his charge to the grand jury in good and elegant Latin, and thereby informed the strangers and the scholars of the ability of our judges, and the course of our proceedings in matters of law and justice. He understood the Greek very well, and the Hebrew, and was versed in the Jewish histories, and exactly knowing in the history of his own country, and in the pedigrees of most persons of honour and quality in the kingdom, and was much conversant in the studies of antiquity and heraldry. He was not excelled by, any in the knowledge of his own profession of the common law of England^ wherein his knowledge of the civil law (whereof he was a graduate in Oxford) was a help to him. His learned arguments both at the bar and bench will confirm ­this truth.” He was interred at Fawley near High Wyr comb in Bucks, where a monument was erected to him by his son. There are extant of his: 1. Several speeches in parliament, particularly one in a book entitled “The Sovereign’s Prerogative and the Subject’s Privileges discussed, &c. in the 3d and 4th year of king Charles I. London, 1657, in fol. 2. Lectures or readings in the Middle Temple hall, August the 2d, 1619, and on the statute on 21 Henry VIII. c. 13. in the Ashmolean library at Oxford. 3. Of the antiquity, use, and ceremony of lawful combats in England, formerly in the library of Ralph Sheldon, of Beoly, esq. and since printed with other pieces by him, among Hearne’s” Curious Discourses."

, son of the preceding, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Edward Bulstrode, of Hugeley, or Hedgley Buistrode, in Buckinghamshire, esq. was born August 6, 1605, in Fleet-street, London, at the house of sir George Crooke, serjeant-at-law, his mother’s uncle. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, and in 1620 went to St. John’s college, Oxford, of which Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was then president. Laud was his father’s contemporary and intimate friend, and shewed him particular kindness; and Whitelocke afterwards made an acknowledgment of it, in refusing, when that prelate was brought to trial for his life, to be one of the commissioners appointed to draw up a charge against him. He left the university before he had taken a degree, and went to the Middle Temple, where, by the help of his father, he became eminent for his skill in the common law as well as in other studies. We find him also one of the chief managers of the royal masque which was exhibited by the inns of court in February 1633,^ before Charles I. and his queen, and their court, at Whitehall.

Of the previous conduct and principles of Whitelocke, we are only told that he was often consulted by Hampden when he came to be prosecuted for refusing the payment of ship-money; and that at the beginning of the commotions in Scotland, when solicited in behalf of the covenanters, his advice was, not to foment these differences, far less to encourage a foreign nation against thrir natural prince. About the beginning of the first session of the long parliament, a debate arose respecting writs of habeas corpus, upon which Mr. Selden and other members, who had been committed for their freedom of speech in the parliament of 1628, demanded to be bailed, and had been refused. This svas so far aggravated by some, that they moved that Selden and the rest might have reparation out of the estates of those judges who then sat on tht king’s bench; but when they named, as the obnoxious judges, Hyde, Jones, and Whitelocke, our young member stood up in defence of his father, and vindicated him with great spirit. Except in the case of Strafford, a considerable degree of moderation at first marked his conduct. During the debates in the House of Commons on the question, whether the power of the nSilitia was in the king or in the parliament, he gave it as his opinion that it was not either in the king or parliament separately, but in both conjointly; and when 'it was afterwards debated, whether an army should not be raised for the defence of parliament, he represented in a very strong manner the miseri s of a civil war. As to the origin of the present state of affairs, he says, “It is strange to note how we have insensibly slid into this beginning of a civil war, by one unexpected accident after another, as waves of the sea, which have brought us thus far; and we scarce know how, but from paper combats, by declarations, remonstrances, protestations, notes, messages, answers, and replies, we are now come to the question of raising forces, and naming a general, and officers of an army.” After many other remarks of a similar kind, he added, “Yet I am not for a tame resignation of our religion, lives, and liberties, into the hands of our adversaries, who seek to devour us. Nor do I think it inconsistent with your great wisdom, to prepare for a just and necessary defence of them.” Still he recommended them to consider, whether it was not too soon to take up arms; and advised them to try if means might not be found to accommodate matters with the king before they proceeded to extremities. It must have been his opinion that such means could not Ue found, for as soon as the war commenced, Whitelocke adhered closely to the parliamentary party, and accepted the office of deputy-lieutenant of the counties of Bucks and Oxford, in 1642. Having also a company of horse under his command, he dispersed the commissioners. o,f array at Wellington, and then marching to Oxford, it was proposed to fortify that city and appoint him governor but this was prevented by lord Say, for which that nobleman was much censured by the parliamentary party. We find Whitelocke again among the forces which opposed the king at Brentford, and being now at open war with his sovereign, his seat at Fawley-court was plundered by a party of royalists. In January 1643, he was appointed one of ttie commissioners to treat of peace with the king at Oxford, and there seems no reason to doubt that he was not only active, but sincere in his efforts to accomplish thjs purpose. Why they were not more successful mus be sought ift the conduct of those who employed him, Against which he seems to have ventured to remonstrate Adhering, however, still to the cause he had espoused, he was one of the laymen appoiated to sit in the Westminster assembly of divines and there, as well as in parliament, was the strenuous opponent of those who were for asserting the divine right of presbytery.

Many of the presbyterian clergy who had lately complained of the exorbitant power exercised by the bishops, having now gained the ascendant, were desirous of shewing the nation what it gained by the change, and the assembly of divines petitioned the House of Commons that “in every presbytery, or presbyterian congregation, the pastor, or ruling elders might have the power of excommunication, and the power of suspending such as they should judge ignorant or scandalous persons from the sacrament.” But Whitelocke, among others, zealously opposed this, and concluded one of his speeches with saying, “The best excommunication is, for pastors, elders, and people, to excommunicate sin out of their own hearis and conversations; to suspend themselves from all works of iniquity; this is a power, which put in execution, through the assistance of the Spirit of God, will prevent all disputes about excommunication and suspension from the sacrament.”

In the same year (1645) the House of Commons ordered, that all the books and manuscripts of the lord keeper Littleton (whose estate had been sequestered) should be bestowed upon Mr. Whitelocke; and the speaker was directed to issue his warrant for that purpose. In his “Memorials” Whitelocke says, “he undertook this business, as he had done others of the like kind, to preserve those books and manuscripts from being sold, which the sequestrators would have done; but he saved them, to have the present use of them; and resolving, if God gave them an happy accommodation, to restore them to the owner, or to some of his family. 17 On other occasions, Whitelocke shewed his regard to the interests of literature, particularly in preventing the king’s library and collection of medals from being sold or embezzled.” Being informed,“-he says,” of a design in some to have them sold and transported beyond sea, which I thought would be a dishonour and damage to our nation, and to all scholars therein; and fearing that in other hands they might be more subject to embezzling, and being willing to preserve them for public use, I did accept of the trouble of being library keeper at St. James’s, and therein was encouraged and much per* suaded to it by Mr. Selden, who swore that if I did not undertake the charge of them, all those rare monuments of antiquity, those choice books and manuscripts, would be lost; and there were not the like of them, except only in the Vatican, in any other library in Christendom. "He was also very serviceable in preserving the herald’s office, and in promoting the ordinance for settling and regulating the same. And while general Fairfax was engaged in the siege of Oxford, he sent for Whitelocke, who was admitted into the council of war, and used all his interest to procure honourable terms for the garrison, and to preserve the colleges and libraries from being plundered.

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

In vSept. 1651 Whitelocke was appointed, with three other members of parliament, to go out of town to meet Cromwell, then on his way to London, and congratulate him upon his victory at Worcester. Shortly after Whitelocke was. present at a; meeting at the speaker’s house, where several members of parliament, and principal officers of the army were assembled, by Cromwell’s desire, to consider about settling the affairs of the kingdom (See Cromwell, p. 57), and soon after he had a private conference in the Park with the usurper, who seemed to pay much regard to his advice, but, not finding him so pliable as he could wish, contrived to get him out of the way by an ap< parently honourable employment, and therefore procured him to be sent ambassador to Christina, queen of Sweden. This appointment was preceded by some singular circumstances very characteristic of the times. Whoever has looked into Whitelocke' s “Memorials” will perceive the language of religion and devotion very frequently introduced. That in this he was sincere, we have no reason to doubt,“' but it would appear that he had not come up exactly to the standard of piety established under the usurped government. When the council of state reported to the parliament that they had fixed upon Whitelocke as a fit person for the Swedish embassy, a debate arose in the house, and one of the members objected,” that they knew not whether he were a godty man or not,“adding, that” though he might be otherwise qualified, yet, if he were not a godly man, it was not fit to send him ambassador.“To this another member, who was known not to be inferior in godliness to the objector, shrewdly answered,” that godJiness was now in fashion, and taken up in form and words for advantage sake, more than in substance for the truth’s sake; that it was difficult to judge of the trees of godliness or ungodliness, otherwise than by the fruit; that those who knew Whitelocke, and his conversation, were satisfied thathe lived in practice as well as in a profession of godliness; and that it was more becoming a godly man to look into his own heart, and to censure himself, than to take upon him the attribute of God alone, to know the heart of another, and to judge him.“After this curious debate, it was voted,” that the lord commissioner Whitelocke be sent ambassador extraordinary to the queen of Sweden."

After his return home he received the thanks of the parliament, and had also 2000l. ordered him for the expenses of his embassy, but according to his own account these favours were not bestowed with a very good grace. He says in the conclusion of the journal of the embassy, “The sum of all was, that, for a most difficult and dangerous work, faith/ully and successfully performed bj Whitelocke, he had little thanks, and no recompense, from those who did employ him; but not long after was rewarded by them with an injury: they put him out of his office of commissioner of the great seal, because he would not betray the rights of the people, and, contrary to his own knowledge, and the knowledge of those who imposed it, execute an ordinance of the Protector and his council, as if it had been a law. But in a succeeding parliament, upon the motion of his noble friend the lord Bmghill, Whitelocke had his arrears of disbursement paid him, and some recompense of his faithful service allowed unto him.” it was indeed not until 1657 that the 2000l. above-mentioned was paid, with the addition of 500l. which is probably what he means by “some recompense.” The ordinance to which he alludes, was one framed by Cromwell, after the dissolution of his little parliament, for what he pretended was “the better regulating and limiting the jurisdiction of t4*e high court of Chancery.” Whitelocke, finding his opposition to this in vain, resigned the great seal in June 1655. In Jan. 1656, he was chosen speaker of the House of Common^ pro lemporc, during the indisposition of sir Thomas Widdrington, who had been appointed to that office. During the remainder of Oliver Cromwell’s protectorate, Whitelocke Appears to have been in and out of favour with him, as he more or less supported his measures. The last instance of Oliver’s favour to him, was his signing a warrant for a patent to make him a viscount, but Whitelocke did not think it convenient to accept of this honour, although he had received his writ of summons as one of the lords of the “other house,” by the title of Bulstrode lord Whitelocke. M,^ Jc j:&&&&<<

Richard, the new protector, made him one of the keepers of the great seal, but this ceased when the council of officers had determined to displace Richard, on which occasion Whitelocke became one of their council of state. Puring this confusion, he was accused of holding a correspondence with sir Edward Hyde, and other friends of Charles II. which he positively denied, and by joining in the votes for renouncing the pretended title of Charles Stuart, and the whole line of king James, and of every other person as a single person pretending to the government of these realms, as well as by other measures, he endeavoured to prove his attachment to the republican cause. In the rest of his conduct he seems, even by his own account, to have been irresolute, and inconsistent, or if consistent in any thing, it was in so yielding to circuraf^ances as not to appear very obnoxious to either party. As he had, however, attached himself so long to the enemies of the king, the utmost he could expect was to be allowed to sink into obscurity. Yet it was by a small majority only that he was included in the act of pardon and oblivion which passed after the restoration. When he had obtained this, he was admitted into the presence of Charles II. who received him very graciously, and dismissed him in these extraordinary words; “Mr. Whitelocke, go into the country; don't trouble yourself any more about state affairs; and take care of your wife and your sixteen children.” This must have mortified a man who had acted so conspicuous a part in state affairs. He took his majesty’s advice, however, and spent the remaining fifteen years of hi$ life at Chilton-park in Wiltshire, and died there January 28, 1676. He was interred in the church of Fawley in Buckinghamshire.

The editor of his “Memorials” give* him this character. “He not only served the state in several stations and plaices of the highest trust and importance botn at *Wn‘e and in foreign countries, and acquitted himself with success and reputation answerable to each respective character; but likewise conversed with books, and made himself a large provision from his studies and contemplation. Like that noble Roman, Portius Cato, as described by Nepos, he was `Reipublicae peritus, et jurisconsultus, et’nfttgnus iniperator, et probabilis orator, cupidissimus titerafttuf:' a statesman and learned in the law, a great commander, an eminent speaker in parliament, and an exquisite scholar. He had all along so much business, one would not imagine he ever had leisure for books yet who considers his studies might believe he had been always shut up with his friend Selden, and the dust of action never fallen on his gown. His relation to the public was such throughout all the revolutions, that few mysteries of state could be to him any secret. Nor was the felicity of his pen less considerable than his knowledge of affairs, or did less service to the cause he espoused. So we find the words apt and proper for the occasion; the style clear, easy, and wichout the least force or affectation of any kind, as is shewn in his speeches, his narratives, his descriptions, and in every place where the subject deserves the least care or consideration.” Lord Clarendon has left this testimony in favour of Whitelocke: whom, numbering among his early friends in life, he calls, a man of eminent parts and great learning out of his profession, and in his profession of signal reputation. “And though,” says the noble historian, “he did afterwards bow his knee to Baal, and so swerved from his allegiance, it was with less rancour and malice than other men. He never led, but followed; and was rather carried away with the torrent than swam with the stream; and failed through those infirmities, which less than a general defection and a prosperous rebellion could never have discovered.” Lord Clarendon has elsewhere described him, as “from the beginning concurring with the parliament, without any inclinations to their persons or principles and,” says he, “he had the same reasons afterwards not to separate from them. All his estate was in their quarters and he had a nature, that could not bear or submit to be undone ‘though to his friends, who were commissioners for the king, he used his old openness, and professed his detestation of all the proceedings of his party, yet could not leave them.’”

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James, and one of the most intrepid supporters of the constitution of the church, of England, was descended of the ancient family of Whitgift in Yorkshire. His grandfather was John Whitgift, gent, whose son was Henry, a merchant of Great Grimsby in Lincolnshire. Another of his sons was Robert Whitgi ft, who was abbot de Wellow or Welhove juxta Grimsby in the said county, a monastery of Black Canons dedicated to the honour of St. Augustin. He was a man memorable, not only for the education of our John Whitgift, but also for his saying concerning the Romish religion. He declared in the hearing of his nephew, that “they and their religion could not long continue, because,” said he, “I have read the whole Scripture over and over, and could never find therein that our religion was founded by God.” And as a proof of this opinion, the abbot alleged that saying of our Saviour, “Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Henry, the father of our archbishop, had six sons, of whom he was the eldest, and one daughter, by Anne Dy newel, a young gentlewoman of a good family at Great Grimsby. The names of the other five sons were William, George, Philip, Richard, and Jeffrey; and that of the daughter Anne.

Soon after this, as he was recovering from a severe fit of sickness, happened the remarkable visitation of his university by cardinal Pole, in order to discover and expel the heretics, or those inclined to the doctrines of the reformation. To avoid the storm, Whitgift thought of going Abroad, and joining the other English exiles; but Dr. Perne, master of his college, although at that time a professed papist, had such an esteem for him, that he undertook to screen him from the commissioners, and thus he was induced to remain; nor was he deceived in his confidence in Dr. Perne’s friendship, who being then vicechancellor, effectually protected him from all inquiry, not withstanding the very strict severity of the visitation. In 1560 Mr. Whitgift entered into holy orders, and preached his first sermon at St. Mary’s with great and general approbation. The same year he was appointed chaplain to Cox, bishop of Ely, who gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire. In 1563 he proceeded bachelor of divinity, and Matthew Button, then fellow of Trinity-college, being appointed regius professor of divinity, the same year Whitgift succeeded him as lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. The subject of his lectures was the book of Revelations and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, which he expounded throughout. These lectures were prepared by him for the press; and sir George Paule intimates, that they were likely in his time to be published; but whatever was the reason, they have never appeared. Strype tells us, that he saw this manuscript of Dr. Whitgift' s own hand -writing, in the possession of Dr. William Payne, minister of Whitechapel London; and that after his death it was intended to be purchased by Dr. John More, lord bishop of Ely. This manuscript contained likewise his thesis, when he afterwards kept his act for doctor of divinity, on this subject, that “the Pope is Antichrist.”

At the same time he held conferences with several of the puritans, and by that means brought some to a compliance; but when others appealed from the ecclesiastical commission to the council, he resolutely asserted his jurisdiction., and vindicated his proceedings, even in some cases agahist the opinion of lard BuHeigh, who was his chief friend there. But as archbishop Whitgiit’s conduct has been grossly misrepresented by the puritan historians and by their successors, who are still greater enemies to the church, it may be necessary to enter more io detail on his correspondence with Burleigh, &c. at this time. Some ministers of Ely being suspended for refusing to answer the examination above mentioned, applied to the council, who wrote a letter to the archbishop in their favour, May 2.6, 1583. To this he sent an answer, in the conclusion of which, so well was he persuaded in his own mind of the propriety of his conduct, he told the council, “that rather than grant them liberty to preach, he would chuse to die, or live in prison all the days of his life, rather than be an occasion thereof, or ever consent unto it.” Lord Burleigh, thinking these ministers hardly used in the ecclesiastical commission, advised them not to answer to the articles, except their consciences might suffer them; he at the same time informed the archbishop that he had given such advice, and intimated his dislike of the twenty-four articles, and their proceedings in consequence of them, in several letters. To these the archbishop answered separately, in substance as follows: In a letter dated June 14, from Croydon, he declares himself content to be sacrificed in so good a cause; and that the laws were with him, whatever sir Francis Knollys (who, he said, had little skill) said to the contrary. This alludes to a paper written by sir Francis, treasurer to the queen’s household, in defence of the recusants, and sent to the archbishop. Burleigh, in a second letter, dated July 1, expressing himself in stronger terms against these proceedings, concludes with saying that the articles were branched out into so many circumstances, that he thought the inquisitors of Spain used not so many questions to trap others; and that this critical sifting of ministers was not to reform, hut to insnare: but, however, upon his request, he would leave them to his authority, nor “thrust his sickle into another man’s harvest.”

To this the archbishop sent an answer, dated July 3, to the following purport That, as touching the twenty-four articles, which his lordship seemed so much to dislike, as written in a Romish style, and smelling of the Romish inquisition, he marvelled at his lordship’s speeches, seeing it was the ordinary course in other courts, as in the starchamber, the courts of the marches, and other places; and that the objection of encouraging the papists by these courses, had neither probability nor likelihood. That as to his lordship’s speech for the two ministers, viz. that they were peaceable, observed the book, denied the things wherewith they were charged, and desired to, be tried, the archbishop demanded, now they were to be tried, why they did refuse it qui male egit odit lucem? That the articles he administered unto them were framed by the most learned in the laws, and who, he dared to say, hated both the Romish doctrine and Romish inquisition; and that he ministered them to the intent only that he might truly understand whether they were such manner of men, or no, as they pretended to be, especially, seeing by public fame they were noted of the contrary, and one of them presented by the sworn men of his parish for his disorders, as he was informed by his official there. That time would not serve him to write much; that he referred the rest to the report of the bearer, trusting his lordship would consider of things as they were, and not as they seeded to be, or as some wonld have them; that he thought it high time to put those to silence who were and had been the instruments of such great discontentment as was pretended; that conscience was no more excuse for them than it was for the papists or anabaptists, in whose steps they walked. He knew, he said, that he was especially sought, and many threatening wordscame to his ears to terrify him from proceeding; that the bishop of Chester (Chaderton) had wrote to him of late, and that in his letter a little paper was inclosed, the copy whereof he sent to his lordship; “You know (said the archbishop) whom he knoweth; but it moves me not; he can do no more than God will permit him. It is strange to understand what devices have beert used to move me to be at some men’s becks;” the particularities of all which he would one day declare to his lordship, and added, that he was content to be sacrificed in so good a cause, “which I will never betray nor give over, God, her majesty, all the laws, my own conscience and duty, being with me.” He concludes with beseeching Burleigh not to be discomfited, but continue; the cause was good, and the complaints being general, were vain, and without cause, as would appear when they descended to particularities.

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

Archbishop Whitgift did not survive this conference long. He was not well in December before, but troubled with jaundice, which, together with his age, made him unftt to wait upon the king and court abroad the last summer. But soon after the conference at Hampton-court, going, in his barge to Fulham in tempestuous weather, he caught cold; yet the next Sunday, being the first Sunday in Lent, he went to Whitehall, where the king held a long discourse with him and the bishop of London, about the affairs of the church. His grace going thence to the council-chamber to dinner, after long fasting, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, and his speech was taken away. He was then carried to the lord treasurer’s chamber, and thence, after a while, conveyed to Lambeth. On Tuesday he was visited by the king, who, out of a sense of the importance of his services at this particular juncture, told him, “that he would pray to God for his life; and that if he could obtain it, he should think it one of the greatest temporal blessings that could he given him in tins kingdom.” The archbishop would have said something to the king, but his speech failed him, so that he uttered only imperfect words. But so much of his speech was heard, repeating earnestly with his eyes and hands lifted up, “Pro Eeclesia Dei I” Being still desirous to have spoken his mind to the king, he made two or three attempts to write to him; but was too far gone, and the next day, being February the 29th, he died. “Whether grief,” says Strype, “was the cause of his death, or grief and fear for the good estate of the church under a new king and parliament approaching, mingling itself with his present disease, might hasten his death, I know not,” But Camden says, “Whilst the king began to contend about the liturgy received, and judged some things fit to be altered, archbishop Whitgift died with grief.” “Yet surely,” says Strype, “by what we have heard before related in the king’s management of the conference, and the letter he wrote himself to the archbishop, he had a better satisfaction of the king’s mind. To which I may add, that there was a `Directory,‘ drawn up by the Puritans, prepared to be offered to the next parliament, which, in all probability, would have created a great deal of disturbance in the house, having many favourers there; which paper the aged archbishop was privy to, and apprehensive of. And therefore, according to another of our historians, upon his death-bed, he should use these words, c Et nunc, Domine, exaltata est Anima mea, quod in eo tempore succubui, quando mallem episcopatfts mei Deo reddere rationem, quam inter homines exercere; i. e And now, O Lord, my soul is lifted up, that I die in a time, wherein I had rather give up to God ati account of my bishoprick, than any longer to exercise it among men.’”

He was interred in the parish church of Croydon, where a monument was erected, with an inscription to his memory. He is described as being in person of a middle stature, a grave countenance, and brown complexion, black hair and eyes. He wore his beard neither long nor thick. He was small-boned, and of good agility, being straight and weli shaped in all his limbs, to the light habit of his body, which began somewhat to spread and fill out towards his latter years. His learning seems to have been confined to the Latin language, as Hugh Broughton often objected to him, nor does he appear to have been much skilled in the deeper points of theology; but he was an admired and diligent preacher, and took delight in exercising his talent that way; it was, however, in ecclesiastical government that his/brte lay, in the administration of which he was both indefatigable and intrepid. It is by his conduct in this that his character has been estimated by posterity, and has been variously estimated according to the writer’s regard for, or aversion to, the constitution of the church of England.

Notwithstanding his opposition to the habits, when in 1564 the order issued for wearing them, he thought proper to comply, and being afterwards reproached for this by one who was with him at Geneva, he quoted a saying of Calvin’s, “that for external matters of order, they might not neglect their ministry, for so should they, for tithing of mint, neglect the greater things of the law.” It had been well for the church had this maxim more generally prevailed. Whittingham did essential service to government in the rebellion of 1569, but rendered himself very obnoxious at court, by a zealous preface, written by him, to Christopher Goodman’s book, which denied women the right of government. He was probably in other respects obnoxious, generally as a nonconformist, which at last excited a dispute between him and Dr. Sandys, archbishop of York. In 1577 the archbishop made his primary visitation throughout the whole of his province, and began with Durham, where a charge, consisting of thirty- five articles, was brought against Whittingbam, the principal of which was his being ordained only at Geneva. Whittingham, refused to answer the charge, but denied in the first place the archbishop’s power to visit the church of Durham. On this Sandys proceeded to excommunication. Whittingbam then appealed to the queen, who directed a eowimission to the archbishop, Henry earl of Huntington, lord president of the north, and Dr. Hutton, dean of York, to hear and determine the validity of his ordination, and to inquire into the other misdemeanours contained in the articles; but, this commission ended only in some countenance being given to Whitaker by the earl and by Dr. Hutton, the latter of whom went so far as to say, that “Mr. Whittinghgm wasordained in a better sort than even the archbishop himself.” Sandys then obtained another opmmission directed to himself, the bishop of Durham, and 10rd president, the chancellor of the diocese, and some others. This was dated May 14, 1578, and maybe seen in Rymer’s Feedera, vok XV. Here, as Whittingham had Bothing to produce but a certinqate or call from the church of Geneva, it was objected to, but the lord president said that “it would be ill taken by all the godly and learned, both at home and abroad, that we allow of popish massing priests in our ministry, and disallow of ministers leade in the reformed church.” It does not appear that any thing was determined, and Whittingham’s death put an end to the question. He died June 10, 1579, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and his remains were interred in the cathedral of Durham, with a monumental inscription, which was afterwards destroyed by another set of innovators. He appears to have been a man of talents for business, as well as learning, and there was a design at one time of advancing him at court. He published little except some few translations from foreign authors to promote the cause of the reformation, and he wrote ome prefaces.

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

About this time the pope (Urban) sent notice to king Edward, that he intended to cite him to his court at Avignon, to answer for his default in not performing the homage which king John acknowledged to the see of Rome; and for refusing to pay the tribute of 700 marks a-year, which that prince granted to the pope. The king laid this before the parliament, and was encouraged to resist the claim. One of the monks having endeavoured to vindicate it, Wickliffe replied; and proved that the resignation of the crown, and promise of a tribute made by king John, ought not to prejudice the kingdom, or oblige the present king, as it was done without consent of parliament. This introduced him to the court, and particularly to the duke of Lancaster, who took him under his patronage. At this time he styled himself peculiaris regis clericus, or the king’s own clerk or chaplain, but continued to profess himself an obedient son of the Roman church. Shortly after he was presented, by the favour of the duke of Lancaster, to the living of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, but in the diocese of Lincoln, and it was here that he advanced in his writings and sermons, those opinions which entitle him to the rank of reformer. But as he did not in the most open manner avow these seaiiments until he lost this living, his enemies then and since have taken occasion to impute them to a motive of revenge against the court of Rome which deprived him. This, however, is not strictly the truth, as he seems to have uttered and maintained some of his reforming opinions before he was turned out of the rectorship. This is evident from a tract entitled “Of the last age of the Church,” published in 1356, fourteen years before, in which he censures the popish exactions and usurpations.

It must be allowed, however, that his boldness increased with his sufferings. In 1372 he took his degree as doctor of divinity, and read lectures with great applause, in which he more strongly opposed the follies and superstitions of the friars, exposed their corruptions, and detected their practices without fear or reserve. The conduct of the court of Rome in disposing of ecclesiastical benefices and dignities to Italians, Frenchmen, and other aliens, became so notorious and oppressive, that in 1374, the king issued out a commission for taking an exact survey of all the dignities and benefices throughout his dominions, which were in the hands of aliens. The number and value of them appeared enormous, and he determined to send seven ambassadors to require of the pope that he would not interfere with the reservation of benefices. He had tried a similar embassy the yea before, which procured only an evasive concession. On the present occasion Wickliffe was the second person nominated, and, with the other ambassadors, was met at Bruges by the pope’s nuncio, two bishops and a provost. This treaty continued two years, when it was concluded that the pope should desist from making use of reservations of benefices. But the very next year, the treaty was broken, and a long bill-was brought into parliament against the papal usurpations, as the cause of all the plagues, injuries, famine, and poverty of the realm. They remonstrated that the tax paid to the pope amounted to five times as much as the tax paid to the king; and that God had given his sheep to the pope to be pastured, not fleeced. Such language encouraged Wickliffe, who boldly exposed the pride, avarice, ambition, and tyranny of the pope, in his public lectures and private conversation; and the monks complained to the pope that Wickliffe opposed the papal powers, and defended the royal supremacy; on which account, in 1376 they drew up nineteen articles against him, extracted from his public lectures ard sermons, of which some notice will be taken hereafter. It may be sufficient to add in this place, that they tended to oppose the rights which the popes had assumed, and to justify the regal,' in opposition to the papal pretensions of an ecclesiastical liberty, or an exemption of the persons of the clergy, and the goods of the church from the civil power, in advancing such opinions, he had the people on his side, and another powerful protector appeared for him in Henry Percy, earl-marshal. This alarmed the court of Rome, and Gregory XL issued several bulls against Wickliffe, all dated May 22, 1377. One was directed to the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, whom he delegated to examine into the matter of the complaint; another was dispatched to the king himself, and a third to the university of Oxford. In the first, addressed to the two prelates, he tells them, “he was informed that Wickliffe had rashly proceeded to that detestable degree of madness, as not to be afraid to assert, and publicly preach, such propositions, as were erroneous and false, contrary to the faith, and threatening to subvert and weaken the estate of the whole church.” He therefore required them to cause Wickliffe to be apprehended and imprisoned by his authority; and to get his confession concerning his propositions and conclusions, which they were to transmit to Rome; as also whatever he should say or write, by way of introduction or proof. But, if Wickliffe could not be apprehended, they were directed to publish a citation for his personal appearance before the pope within three months. The pope requested the king to grant his patronage and assistance to the bishops in the prosecution of Wickliffe. In the bull to the university, he says, the heretical pravity of Wickliffe tended “to subvert the state of the whole church, and even the civil government.” And he orders them to deliver him up in safe custody to the delegates.

About this time, the fatigued he underwent in his attendance on the delegates, threw him into a dangerous illness on his return to Oxford. The mendicant friars took this opportunity to send a deputation to him, representing the great injuries he had done to them by his sermons and writings, and, as he was at the point of death; exhorting him to recant. Wickliffe, however, recovering his spirits at this unintended acknowledgment of the success of his writings, raised himself on his pillow, and replied, “I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars.” On his recovery he embraced every opportunity in his lectures, sermons, or writings, of exposing the Romish courts and detecting the vices of the clergy, both religious and secular; and his efforts were supported by certain proceedings of the parliament, which in 1380 rendered foreign ecclesiastics incapable of holding any benefices in England; and at the same time petitioned the king to expel all foreign monks, lest they should instil notions into the people repugnant to the welfare of the state.

But what gave most uneasiness to his enemies, was his having undertaken to translate the Holy Scriptures into English. These had never been translated, except by Richard Fitz-ralph, archbishop of Armagh, and John de Trevisa, a Cornish-man, who both lived in the reign of Edward III. Mr. Lewis is of opinion that Wickliffe began his translation about 1379 or 1380. But it is more probable that it was his chief employment for the last ten years at least of his life, and he had the assistance of some of his followers. He translated from Latin into the vulgar tongue, the twenty-five canonical books of the Bible, which he reckoned in the following order, and we transcribe as a specimen of the style and spelling of his language. “1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Levitici. 4. Numeri. 5. Deuteronomi. 6. Josue. 7. ludicum, that encloseth the story of Ruth, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ben the 4 Bokes of Kyngand tweie Bokes of Paralipomenon. 14. Is Esdre, that comprehendeth Neemy. 15. Is Hester. 16. Is Job. 17. Psalter. 18. 19. 20, ben the 3 Bokes of Solomon. 21.22.23. 24, ben the four great prophets. 25. Is a Boke of 12 small Prophets, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdie, Jonas, Michee, Nahum, Abacuc, Sophonie, Aggie, Zacharie, and Malachie.” He adds, “That whatever boke is in the Olde Testament without these 25 aforesaid, shal be set among Apocrypha, that is, withouten autoritie of belive. Therefore as holie chirch redith Judith and Tobit, and the Bokes of Machabeis but receiveth not thos amonge holi scriptures; so the chirch redith these 2 Bokes Ecclesiastici, and Sapieme to edifying of the people, not to confirme the autoritie of techyng of holi chirch. And that therefore he translated not the 3 ne 4 Boke of Esdree that ben Apocrypha.” The books of the New Testament he reckons in this order. “The 4 Gospellers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; 12 Epistles of Poule; 7 small Epistles; the Dedes of Apostles, and the Apocalyps, which ben fulli of autoritie of byleve.” Mr. Lewis observes, he translated word for word, without always observing the idioms or proprieties of the several languages; by which means this translation in some places is not very intelligible to those who do not understand Latin. The reason why he made his version from the Vulgate was, not that he thought it the original, or of the same authority with the Hebrew and Greek text, but because he did not understand those languages well enough to translate from them.

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

His works are very voluminous, yet he seems not to have engaged in any great work. They are, more properly speaking, tracts, some of which were written in Latin, and some in English; some were on school-questions; others on subjects of more general knowledge; but the greatest part on divinity. Mr. Gilpin has given a list of the more remarkable. Bale has a more particular account. Some are preserved in Trinity and Corpus colleges, Cambridge, a few in Trinity college, Dublin, in the Bodleian, and in the British museum. Mr. Baber, in his late edition of the New Testament, has given the fullest and most accurate account of these. The following list comprises all that have been printed 1. “Trialogus,” a dialogue in Latin, between Truth, Falsehood, and Wisdom,“printed somewhere in Germany, about 1525, 4to, pp. 175. This is very scarce, having been mostly destroyed by the Romanists , but a new edition of it was printed at Frankfort, 1733, 4to. 2.” Wicklif’s Wicket, or, a learned and godly treatise of the Sacrament,“Norimberg, 1546, 8vo, and Oxford, 1612, 4to. 3.” The pathway to perfect knowledge, or Wickliffe’s Prologue to the Bible,“published by Robert Crowley, 1550, 12mo. 4.” The dore of the Holy Scripture,“1540, 8vo. 5.” De Christianorum villicatione,“in English, published in 1582, under the name of R. Wimbledon. 6.” A Complaint of John Wickliffe, exhibited to the king and parliament.“7.” A Treatise of John Wickliffe against the order of Friars.“These two were published together at Oxford in 1608, 4to, by Dr. James, from two ms copies, one in Bene't college, Cambridge, the other in the Bodleian library. 8.” Why poor Priests have no Benefices,“published by Mr. Lewis in his life of Wickliffe, Who has also published there, his Determination, Confessions, and large extracts from his works remaining in ms. together with his New Testament. His opinions are also particularly detailed in Dr, Thomas James’s” Apologie for John Wickliffe, shewing his conformitie with the pew Church of England;" collected chiefly out of his ms works in the Bodleian library, and printed at Oxford, 1608, 4to, now very scarce.

, famous for his embassies and his writings, was a Hollander, and born in 1598; but it is not certain at what place, though some have mentioned Amsterdam. He left his country very young, and went and settled in France, where he applied himself diligently to political studies, and sought to advance himself by political services. Having made himself known to the elector of Brandenburg, this prince appointed him his resident at the court of France, about 1626 and he preserved this post two- and-thirty years, that is, till 1658. Then he fell into disgrace with cardinal Mazarin, who never had much esteem for him, and particularly disliked his attachment to the house of Conde. The cardinal accused him of having sent secret intelligence to Holland and other places; and he was ordered to leave the court and the kingdom: but, before he set out, he was seized and sent to the Bastille. M. le Teilier wrote at the same time tp the elector of Brandenburg, to justify the action; which he did by assuring him that his minister was an intelligencer in the pay of several princes. The year after, however (1659), he was set at liberty, and escorted by a guard to Calais; whence he passed over to England, and thence to Holland. There De Witt, the pensionary, received him affectionately, and protected him powerfully: he had indeed been the victim of De Witt, with whom he had carried on a secret correspondence, which was discovered by intercepted letters. He reconciled himself afterwards to France, and heartily espoused its interests; whether out of spite to the prince of Orange, or from some other motive; and the count d'Estrades reposed the utmost confidence in him. JFor the present, the duke of Brunswic-Liwienburg made him his resident at the Hague; and he was appointed, besides this, secretary-interpreter of the States General for foreign dispatches.

Mr. Noble, from whose “Memoirs of Cromwell” we have borrowed the above account, says that sir Thomas published in 1660 “Analecta Eborensia, or some remains of the ancient city of York,” &c. but this is a mistake. He only left a ms. account, under the title of <r Analecta Eboracentia or some remains of the ancient city of York, collected by a citizen of York.“Mr. Gough informs us that the above ms. was in the hands of Thomas Fairfax of Menston, eq, Sir Thomas began his researches in Charles I's time, and after the restoration ohWed to print this work, and dedicate it to the city of York, who seem to have refused it on account of the indifference he shewed to their interests when he represented them in Cromwell’s parliament. Upon this he is said to have expressly forbid his descendants to publish it. Besides the Menston ms. there was another copy at Durham, in the Shaftoe family, one of whom married a daughter of the author Mr. Drake had the use of one among the city records, and another from sir Richard Smyth of St. Edmund’s Bury, which he thinks was prepared by the author himself for the press, and might have passed through different hands on the death of lord Fairfax, and dispersion of his effects. Another copy, or perhaps one of those just mentioned, is among Mr. Gough’s topographical treasures in the Bodleian library. There are some of sir Thomas’s public speeches in Rushworth’s” Collections," and others, according to Wood, were printed separately.

, a voluminous German writer who has been complimented with the title of the Voltaire of Germany, was born in 1733, at Biberach. Of his life no authentic account has, as far as we know, reached this country, but the following few particulars, gleaned from various sources, may perhaps be genuine, His father was a clergyman, who gave him a good education, and his attachment to the Muses discovered itself very early. At the age of fourteen, he wrote a poem on the destruction of Jerusalem, Two years after he was sent to Erfurt to study the sciences, where he became enamoured of Sophia de Gusterman, afterwards known by the name of Madame de la Roche. The youthful lovers swore eternal fidelity to each other, but Wieland’s father thought proper to interrupt the connection, and sent his son to Tubingen to study law. For this he probably had little inclination, and employed most of his thoughts and time on poetry, producing at the age of eighteen an “Art of Love” in the manner of Ovid, and a poem “On the nature of things,” in which we are told he combined the philosophy of Plato and Leibnitz. After this he appears to have devoted himself entirely to study and writing, and acquired considerable reputation as a poet of taste and fancy. For some time he appears to have resided in Swisserland, and in 1760 he returned to his native place, where he was appointed to the office of director of the chancery, and during his leisure hours wrote some of those works which completely established him in the opinion of his countrymen, as one or the greatest geniuses of the age, and honours were liberally bestowed upon him. The elector of Mentz made him professor of philosophy and polite literature at Erfurt, and he was soon after appointed tutor to the two young princes of Saxe Weimar; he was also aulic counsellor to the duke, who gave him a pension; and counsellor of government to the elector of Mentz. In 1765 he married a lady at Augsburgh, of whom he speaks so highly that we may conclude ke had overcome or moderated his attachment to the object of his first love. In 1808 Bonaparte sent him the cross of the legion of honour, and after the battle of Jena, partook of a repast with Wieland, and, we are gravely told, “conversed with him at great length on the folly and horrors of war and on various projects for the establishment of a perpetual peace!” Wieland’s latter days were employed in translating Cicero’s Letters. A paralysis of the abdominal viscera was the prelude to his death, which took place at Weimar, in January 1813, in the eighty-first year of his age.

Wieland was the author of a prodigious number of works (of which there is an edition extending to forty-two volumes, quarto), both in prose and verse, poems of all kinds, and philosophical essays, dialogues, tales, &c. Of these, the “Oberon,” (by Mr. Sotheby’s elegant translation) the “Agathon,” and some others, are not unknown, although they have never been very popular, in this country. In what estimation he is held in his own, may appear from one of the many panegyrics which German critics have pronounced on his merit: “No modern poet has written so much, or united so much deep sense with so much wit, such facility and sweetness. It may be truly said of him, that he has gone through the wide domain of human occupations, and knows all that happens in heaven and in earth. A blooming imagination and a creative wit; a deep, thinking, philosophical mind; fine and just sense, and a thorough acquaintance with both the moderns and ancients, are discernible in all his various writings. Re knows how to make the most abstract metaphysical ideas sensible, by the magic of his eloquence; he can make himself of all times and all countries; he observes the customs of every country, and knows how to join truth with miracles, sensible with spirited imagery, and romance with the most profound morality. In the `Agathon' he seems a Grecian; and in the `Fairy Tales’ a knight-errant; who wanders amidst fairies, vizards, and monsters. All his tales abound in portraits, comparisons, and parallels, taken from old and modern times, full of good sense and truth. The understanding, the heart, and the fancy, are equally satisfied. His verse is easy; there is not a word too much, or an idle false thought. He is as excellent in comical portraits as in the delineations of manners. The knowledge of Epicurus, the muses of frolic and satire, of romance and fairy land; the solidity of Locke, and the deep sense of Plato; Grecian eloquence, and Oriental luxuriance, what excites admiration in the writings of the best masters, are united in his immortal works.” Such is the opinion of his countrymen; to which, however, it is our duty to add, that in many of his works the freethinkingsystem is predominant, and that the moral tendency of others is very doubtful.

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

His mode of life, however, though exemplary in the highest degree, in point of conduct, is not one of those that furnish many or striking events; and we cannot better hold forth that example to the imitation of others, than in the following artless narrative of one of his old servants.

One of his very amiable qualities was to consider himself as a citizen of the world, and mankind in general as his brethren and friends; consequently, he endeavoured to do them all the good in his power. I think I may also safely say, the great rule of his life and conduct was to be a true disciple and follower of all the beneficent actions of our Saviour, and to interweave his examples into his daily exercise and practice. He used to rise early, and was a very great oeconomist of his time; labouring to keep a most exact account of all his domestic concerns, and every thing that belonged to his receipts and expenditure. Even his numerous gifts and charities, I believe,were daily committed to paper, and all looked over in the evening, and balanced, noting every error and deficiency; and if he did not perceive he had done one or more acts of charity and beneficence, he thought he had lost a dayl He was the most dutiful and affectionate son, the most kind nephew, cousin, or relation to all who stood in any degree of “kindred. To servants, workmen, and tenants, the most gentle and beneficent; and to his poor neighbours an affectionate father, paying for schooling for their children, and even erecting schools, which is, perhaps, too well known to require mentioning. When travelling, he would inquire at the inns, who was in sickness or necessity in the place, leaving money for their relief. He frequently released debtors from prison, and had great charity to beggars. He frequently sent medical assistance to the sick, and gave large sums to hospitals; when abroad, he gave large sums also to poor convents, and to the necessitous of all countries and religions. He was always ready to assist every increase or improvement of learning, witness the very large and laborious share he took in assisting the collation of the Hebrew text of the Bible, by opening many of the foreign libraries in Europe, through his interest and labour, and employing professors to collate at his own expence. His humanity to the brute creation was very great, and his tenderness even to insects. He preserved a reverential respect for the place of his nativity, for the places where he had received his education, and for those who hail been companions of his youth; likewise fortne memory of those who had been in any way instrumental in forming his morals and perfecting his learning; and this was preserved even to their friends and posterity.”

, a tailor, who, from an extraordinary love of study, became a professor of the Oriental languages, was born in the city of Norwich about 1684, where he was educated at a grammar-school till he was almost qualified for the university; but his friends, wanting fortune and interest to maintain him there, bound him apprentice to a tailor, with whom he served seven years, and afterwards worked seven years more as a journeyman. About the end of the last seven years, he was seized with a fever and ague, which continued with him two or three years, and at last reduced him so low as to disable him from working at his trade. In this situation he amused himself with some old books of controversial divinity, in which he found great stress laid on the Hebrew original of several texts of scripture; and, though he had almost lost the learning he had obtained at school, his strong desire of knowledge excited him to attempt to make himself master of that language. He was at first obliged to make use of an English Hebrew grammar and lexicon; but, by degrees, recovered the knowledge of the Latin tongue, which he had learned at school. On the recovery of his health, he divided his time between his business and his studies, xvhich last employed the greatest part of his nights. Thus, self-taught, and assisted only by his great genius, he, "by dint of continual application, added to the knowledge of the Hebrew that of all or most of the oriental Ianguages, but still laboured in obscurity, till at length he was accidentally discovered. The worthy Dr. Prideaux, dean of Norwich, being offered some Arabic manuscripts in parchment, by a bookseller of that city, thinking, perhaps, that the price demanded for them was too great, declined buying them; but, soon after, Mr. Wild hearing of them, purchased them; and the dean, on calling at the shop and inquiring for the manuscripts, was informed of their being sold. Chagrined at this disappointment, he asked of the bookseller the name and profession of the person who had bought them; and, being told he was a tailor, he bad him instantly to run and fetch them, if they were riot cut in pieces to make measures: but he was soon relieved from his fears by Mr. Wild’s appearance with the manuscripts, though, on the dean’s inquiring whether he would part with them, he answered in the negative. The dean then asked hastily what he did with them: he replied, that he read them. He was desired to read them, which he did. He was then bid to render a passage or two into English, which he readily performed, and with great exactness. Amazed at this, the dean, partly at his own expence, and partly by a subscription raised among persons whose inclinations led them to this kind of knowledge, sent him to Oxford; where, though he was never a member of the university, he was by the dean’s interest admitted into the Bodleian library, and employed for some, years in translating or making extracts out of Oriental manuscripts, and thus bad adieu to his needle. This appears to have been some time before 1718. At Oxford, he was known by the name of the Arabian tailor. He constantly attended the library all the hours it was open, and, when it was shut, employed most of his leisure-time in teaching the Oriental languages to young gentlemen, at the moderate price of half a guinea a lesson, except for the Arabic, for which he had a guinea, and his subscriptions for teaching amounted to no more than 20 or 30l. a year. Unhappily for him, the branch of learning in which he excelled was cultivated but by few; and the reverend Mr. Gagnier, a Frenchman, skilled in the Oriental tongues, was in possession of all the favours the university could Bestow in this way, being recommended by the heads of colleges to instruct young gentlemen, and employed by the professors of these languages to read public lectures in their absence.

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

, a lawyer, and a very prominent character during the usurpation, was the eldest son of a lawyer, as his father is said to have been serjeant George Wilde of Droitwich, in Worcestershire. He was of Baliol college, Oxford, and in 1610, when he took his degree of M. A. was a student in the Inner Temple. Of this society he became Lent reader 6 Car. I. afterwards a serjeant at law, one of the commissioners of the great seal in 1643, and in Oct. 1648, chief baron of the exchequer, and one of the council of state. In 1641 he drew up the impeachment against the bishops, and presented it to the House of Lords, and was prime manager not only in that, but on the trial of archbishop Laud. “He was the same also,” says Wood, “who, upon the command, or rather desire, of the great men sitting at Westminster, did condemn to death at Winchester one captain John Bucley, for causing a drum to be beat uf) for God and king Charles, at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, in order to rescue his captive king in 1647.” Wood adds, that after the execution of Burley, Wilde was rewarded with 1000l. out of the privy purse at Derby-house, and had the same sum for saving the life of major Edmund Rolph, who had a design to have murdered the king. When Oliver became protector “he retired and acted not,” but after Richard Cromwell had been deposed he was restored to the exchequer. On the restoration he was of course obliged to resign again, and lived in retirement at Hampstead, where he died about 1669, and was buried at VVherwill, in Hampshire, the seat of Charles lord Delawar, who had married his daughter. Wilde married Anne, daughter of sir Thomas Harry, of Tonge castle, serjeant at law and baronet, who died in. 1624, aged only sixteen, “being newly delivered of her first born.” She lies buried in Tonge church, in Staffordshire.

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

In the mean time he went on publishing his “North Britons,” which, although written in an acute and popular style, and unquestionablv very galling to ministers, had not produced any great commotion, nor seemed likely to answer the authors purpose. Ministerial writers were employed to write against him, and in this way a literary warfare might have gone on for years, without any of the consequences he expected. One duel, indeed, he had with lord Talbot, but neither party was hurt, and Wiikes was not benefited. At length, therefore, he began to think he had been too tame, or that ministers were become too callous, and with a view to a provocation, which could not fail to irritate, he made a rude attack on his majesty in No. 45 of the “North Briton,” which appeared on the 23d of April 1763, and on the morning of the 30th Mr. Wilkes was served by a king’s messenger with a general warrant, in consequence of which he was on the same morning conveyed to the Tower. That “a warrant to apprehend and seize, together, with their papers, the authors, printers, and publishers of a work,” without naming who those authors, printers, and publishers were even suspected to be, has an appearance of illegality, cannot be denied. But in justice to the secretaries of state who signed it, it should be remembered, that for a hundred years the practice of their office had been to issue such; and that in so doing they did no more than what precedents seemed to justify. That they did not, however, in this case, act wisely the event shewed. Upon his commitment to the Tower, an application was instantly made to the court of common pleas for his habeas corpus, and he was brought up on the 3d of May. On the 4th he was dismissed from his situation as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia. On the 6th the validity of his warrant of commitment was argued, his plea of privilege was allowed, and he was in consequence discharged. He immediately erected a printing-press in his house in George-street, published a narrative of the transactions in which he' had been engaged, and renewed the publication of the “North Briton.” He visited Paris a few months after, and was there challenged, in the month of August, by a captain Forbes, who, standing forth as the champion of Scotland, asked satisfaction of him, as the editor and conductor of the “North Briton,” for the calumnies heaped upon his native country. Mr. Wilkes behaved on this occasion with much moderation, and declared himself no prize-fighter. Being again urged, however, though in terms of politeness, he half complied, but being in the mean while put under an arrest, he pledged his honour not to fight on French ground. When set at liberty he proceeded to Menin, and there awaited his challenger, but no meeting took place.

From Paris, where he sought an asylum, he certified to the speaker of the House of Commons, by the signatures of the physician of the king of France, and other gentlemen, his confinement to his room, and the impossibility, from his state of health, of his venturing to undertake the journey back to England. In the mean time, although the House of Commons had neglected his complaint of privilege, he derived his first considerable triumph from the verdict found for him in the court of common pleas. He had early brought his action against Robert Wood, esq. the under secretary of state, for the seizure of his papers, as the supposed author of the “North Briton.” It was tried before a special jury on the 6th of December, and 1000l. danlages were given. The charge to the jury, delivered by lord chief justice Pratt, concluded thus: “This warrant is unconstitutional, illegal, and absolutely void; it is a general warrant, directed to four messengers, to take up any persons, without naming or describing them with any certainty, and to apprehend them together with their papers. If it be good, a secretary of state can delegate and depute any of the messengers, or any even from the lowest of the people, to take examinations, to commit, or to release, and do every act which the highest judicial officers the law knows, can do or order. There is no order in our law-books that mentions these kinds of warrants, but several that in express words condemn them. Upon the maturest consideration, I am bold to say, that this warrant is illegal; but I am far from wishing a matter of this consequence to rest solely on my opinion; I am only one of twelve, whose opinions I am desirous should be taken in this matter, and I am very willing to allow myself to be the meanest of the twelve. There is also a still higher court, before which this matter may be canvassed, and whose determination is final; and here I cannot help observing the happiness of our constitution in adiiiitting these appeals, in consequence of which, material points are determined on the most mature consideration, and with the greatest solemnity. To this admirable delay or the law (for in this case the law’s delay may be styled admirable) I believe it is chiefly owing that we possess the best digested, and most excellent body of law which any nation on the face of the globe, whether ancient or modern, could ever boast. If these higher jurisdictions should declare my op-nion erroneous, I submit, as will become me, and kiss the rod; but I must say, I shall always consider it as a rod of iron for the chastisement of the people of Great Britain.”

Wilkes was perhaps the most popular political character that ever had been known, or perhaps will ever be known again, for, by imposing on the credulity, he has added to the experience of mankind, and it will be difficult, although we have seen it tried, for any other pretender to imitate Wilkes with equal effect. At one period of his life, he obtained a very dangerous influence over the minds of the people; his name was sufficient to blow up the flames of sedition, and excite the lower orders of the community to acts of violence against his opponents in a manner something allied to madness. After great vicissitudes of fortune, he found himself placed in a state of independence and affluence; gradually declined from the popularity he had acquired, and at last terminated a turbulent life in a state of neglected quiet. Reviewing the present state of the country, and comparing it with that in which he began his exertions, though some advantages may be placed to his account, we hesitate in giving him credit for those beneficial consequences which his admirers are apt to ascribe to him. We believe he was a patriot chiefly from accident, a successful one it must be owned, but not originating in principle. This was thought even in his life-time, but it has been amply confirmed by two publications which have since appeared; the one “Letters from the year 1774 to the year 1796 of John Wilkes, esq. addressed to his daughter,” 1804, 4 vols. 12mo, with a well-written memoir of his life, of which we have occasionally availed ourselves; the second, “The Correspondence of John Wilkes, esq. with his friends, printed from the original manuscripts, in which are introduced Memoirs of his Life, by John Almon,” 1805, 5 vols. 8vo, a publication in which Mr. Almon is the greatest admirer and the greatest enemy to Mr. Wilkes’s character he ever had.

He published an excellent “Treatise on the Dropsy,” and during the time that the distemper raged in Staffordshire among the horned cattle, he published a pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to the Gentlemen, Farmers, and Graziers, in the county of Stafford,” calculated to prevent, or cure that terrible plague. Among other things, he meditated a new edition of Hudibras, with notes, &c. As an antiquary he is principally known by his valuable collections for the history of Staffordshire. His chef-d'oeuvre, says Mr Shaw, is a general history from the earliest and most obscure ages to his own times, drawn up with great skill and erudition, which Mr. Shaw has made the basis of his own introduction. This, with his other manuscripts, were long supposed to have been lost, and were not indeed brought to light until 1792, when they fell into the hands of Mr. Shaw, who has incorporated them in his valuable history.

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

A few years before the publication of the first edition, Wilkie was ordained minister of Ratho, and in 1759 was chosen professor of natural philosophy in the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1766 the university conferred upon bim the degree of doctor in divinity. In 1768, he published his “Fables,” which had less success than even his “Epigoniad,” although they are rather happy imitations of the manner of Gay, and the thoughts, if not always original, are yet sprightly and just. After a lingering illness, he died Oct. 10, 1772. The private character of Dr. Wilkie appears to have been distinguished for those singularities, which are sometimes found in men of genius, either from early unrestrained indulgence, or from affectation. His biographers have multiplied instances of his slovenly and disgusting manners, exceeding what we have almost ever heard of; yet we are told he preserved the respect of his contemporaries and scholars. His learning, according to every account, xvas extensive, and much of it acquired at a very early age.

, a learned divine and editor, was born in 1685, but when, or where educated we are not told. His name does not appear among the graduates of either university, except that among those of Cambridge, we find he was honoured with the degree of D.D. in 1717. Two years before this, he was appointed by archbishop Wake te succeed Dr. Benjamin Abbot, as keeper of the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth and in three years drew up a very curious catalogue of all the Mss. and printed books in that valuable collection. As a reward for his industry and learning, archbishop Wake collated him to the rectory of Mongham-Parva, in Kent, in April 1716, to that of Great Chart in 1719, and to the rectory of Hadleigh in the same year. He was also constituted chaplain to the archbishop and collated to the rectories of Monks-Ely and Bocking; appointed commissary of the deanery of Bocking, jointly and severally with W. Beauvoir; collated to a prebend of Canterbury in 1720, and collated to his grace’s option of the archdeaconry of Suffolk in May 1724. In consequence of these last preferments, he resigned the former, and was only archdeacon of Suffolk and rector of Hadleigh and Monks-Ely at his death, which happened 8ept. 6, 1745, in the sixtieth year of his age. He married, Nov. 27, 1725, the eldest daughter of Thomas lard Fairfax of Scotland, a lady who survived him, and erected a monument to his memory at Hadleigh.

Wilkins had two characteristics, neither of which was calculated to make him generally admired: first, he avowed moderation, and was kindly affected towards dissenters, for a comprehension of whom he openly and earnestly contended: secondly, he thought 'it right and reasonable to submit to the powers in being, be those powers who they would, or let them be established how they would. And this making him as ready to swear allegiance to Charles II. after he was restored to the crown, as to the usurpers, while they prevailed, he was charged with being various and unsteady in his principles; with having no principles at all, with Hobbism, and every thing that is bad. Yet the greatest and best qualities are ascribed to him, if not unanimously, at least by many eminent and good men. Dr. Tillotson, in the preface to some “Sermons of Bishop Wilkins,” published by him in 1682, animadverts upon a slight and unjust character, as he thinks it is, given of the bishop in Mr. Wood’s “Historia & Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis;” “whether by the author,” says he, “or by some other hand, I am not curious to know:” and concludes his animadversions in the following words: “Upon the whole, it hath often been no small matter of wonder to me, whence it should come to pass, that so great a man, and so great a lover of mankind, who was so highly valued and reverenced by all that knew him, should yet have the hard fate to fall under the heavy displeasure and censur6 of those who knew him not; and that he, who never did any thing to make himself one personal enemy, should have the ill fortune to have so many. I think I may truly say, that there are or have been very few in this age and nation so well known, and so greatly esteemed and favoured, by so many persons of high rank and quality, and of singular worth and eminence in all the learned professions, as our author was. And this surely cannot be denied him, it is so well known to many worthy persons yet living, and hath been so often acknowledged even by his enemies, that, in the late times of confusion, almost all that was preserved and kept up, of ingenuity and good learning, of good order and government in the university of Oxford, was chiefly owing to his prudent conduct and encouragement: which consideration alone, had there been no other, might bave prevailed with some there to have treated his memory with at least common kindness and respect.” The other hand, Dr. Tillotson mentions, was Dr. Fell, the dean of Christ church, and under whose inspection Wood’s Athenæ Oxonienses“was translated into Latin and who, among other alterations without the privity of that compiler, was supposed to insert the poor diminishing character of bishop Wilkins, to be found in the Latin version. The friendship which subsisted between our author and Dr. Tillotson is a proof of their mutual moderation, for Wilkins was in doctrine a strict and professed Calvinism We need quote no more to prove this, than what has been already quoted by Dr. Edwards in his” Veritas Redux,“p. 553.” God might (says Dr. Wilkins) have designed us for vessels of wrath; and then we had been eternally undone, without all possible remedy. There was nothing to move him in us, when we lay all together in the general heap of mankind. It was his own free grace and bounty, that madehim to take delight in us, to chuse us from the rest, and to sever us from those many thousands in the world who shall perish everlastingly.“Gift of Prayer, c, 28. In his” Ecclesiastes,“section 3, he commends to a preacher, for his best authors, Calvin, Jiuiius, P. Martyr. Musculus, Pargeus, Piscator, Rivet, Zanchius, &c. 9” most eminent for their orthodox sound judgement.“Burnet, in his Life of Sir Matthew Hale, printed irt 1682, declares of Wilkins, that” he was a man of as great a mind, as true a judgement, as eminent virtues, and of as good a soul, as any he ever knew “and in his” History“he says, that, though” he married Cromwell’s sister, yet he made no other use of that alliance but to do good offices, and to cover the university of Oxford from the sourness of Owen and Goodwin. At Cambridge he joined with those who studied to propagate better thoughts, to take men off from being in parties, or from narrow notions, from superstitious conceits, and fierceness about opinions. He was also a great observer and promoter of experimental philosophy, which was then a new thing, and much looked after. He was naturally ambitious, but was the wisest clergyman I ever knew. He was a lover of mankind, and had a delight in doing good.“The historian mentions afterwards another quality Wilkins possessed in a supreme degree; and that was, says he,” a courage, which could stand against a current, and against all the reproaches with which ill-natured clergymen studied to load him."

All the works of bishop Wilkins are esteemed ingenious and learned, and many of them particularly curious and entertaining. His first publication was in 1638, when he was only twenty-four years of age, of a piece, entitled “The Discovery of a new World or, a Discourse tending to prove, that it is probable there may be another habitable World in the Moon with a Discourse concerning the possibility of a passage thither,” in 8vo. The object of this singular work may appear from the fourteen propositions which he endeavours to establish, some of which have often been quoted in jest or earnest by subsequent wits or philosophers. He contends, I. That the strangeness of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected, because other certain truths have been formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertained by common consent. II. That a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or faith. III. That the heavens do not consist of any such pure matter, which can privilege them from the like change and corruption, as these inferior bodies are liable unto. IV. That the moon is a solid compacted opacous body. V. That the moon hath not any light of her own. VI. That there is a world in the moon, hath been the direct opinion of many ancient, with some modern mathematicians, and may probably be deduced from the tenets of others. VII. That those spots and brighter parts, which by our sight may be distinguished hi the moon, do shew the difference betwixt the sea and land in that other world. VIII. That the spots represent the sea, and the brighter parts the land. IX. That there are high mountain^ deep vallies, and spacious plains in the body of the moon. X. That there is an atmosphere, or an orb of gross vaporous air immediately encompassing the body of the moon. XI. That as their world is otv moon, so our world is their moan. XII. That it is probable there may be such meteors belonging to that world in the moon as there are with us. XIII. That it is probable there may be inhabitants in this other world; but of what kind they are, is uncertain. XIV. That it is possible for some of our posterity to find out a conveyance to this’Other world; and if there be inhabitants there, to have. commerce with them. Under this head he observes, that " if it be here inquired, what means there may be conjectured for our ascending beyond the sphere of the earth’s magnetical vigour; I answer, says he, 1. it is not perhaps impossible, that a man may be able to rlye by the application of wings to his owne body; as angels are pictured, and as Mercury and Daedalus are fained, and as hath been attempted by divers, particularly by a Turke in Constantinople, as Busbequius relates. 2. If there be such a great Ruck in Madagascar, as Marcus Polus the Venetian mentions, the feathers in whose wings are twelve foot long, which can scope up a horse and his rider, or an elephant, as our kites doe a mouse; why then it is but teaching one of these to carry a man, and he may ride up thither, as Ganyined does upon an eagle, 3. Or if neither of these ways will serve, yet I doe seriously and upon good grounds affirme it possible to make a flying chariot; in which a man may sit, and give such a motion into it, as shall convey him through the aire. And this perhaps might be made large enough to carry divers men at the same time, together with foode for their viaticum, and commodities for traffique. It is not the bignesse of any thing in this kind, that can hinder its motion, if the motive faculty be answerable thereunto. We see a great ship swimme as well as ar small corke, and an eagle flies in the aire as well as a little gnat. This engine may be contrived from the same principles by which Archytas made a wooden dove, and Regiomontanus a wooden eagle. I conceive it were no difficult matter, if a man had leisure, to shew more particularly the meanes of composing it. The perfecting of such an invention would be of such excellent use, that it were enough, not only to make a man, but the age also wherein he lives. For besides the strange discoveries, that it might occasion in this other world, it would be also of inconceivable advantage for travelling above any other conveiance that is now in use. So that notwithstanding all these seeming impossibilities, 'tis likely enough, that there may be a meanes invented of journying to the moone. And how happy shall they be, that are first successefull in this attempt?

Two years after, in 1640, appeared his “Discourse concerning a new Planet; tending to prove, that it is probable our Earth is one of the planets.” In this he maintains; I. That the seeming novelty and singularity of this opinion can be no sufficient reason to prove it erroneous. 2. That the places of Scripture, which seem to intimate the diurnal motion of the sun or heavens, are fairly capable of another interpretation. 3. That the Holy Ghost in many places of Scripture does plainly conform his expressions to the error of our conceits, and does not speak of sundry things as tjiey are in themselves, but as they appear untt> us. 4. That divers learned men have fallen into great absurdities, whilst they have looked for the grounds of philosophy from the grounds of Scripture. 5. That the words of Scripture in their proper and strict construction do not any where affirm the immobility of the earth. 45.- That there is not any argument from the words of Scripture, principles of nature, or observations in astronomy, which can sufficiently evidence the earth to be in the center of the universe. 7. It is probable that the sun is the center of the world. 8. That there is not any sufficient reason to prove the earth incapable of those motions, which Copernicus ascribes unto it. 9. That it is more probable the earth does move, than the heavens. 10. That this hypothesis is exactly agreeable to common appearances.

His name was not put to either of these works; but they were so well known to be his, that Langrenus, in his map of the moon, dedicated to the king of Spain, calls one of the lunar spots after Wilkins’s name. His third piece, in 1641, is entitled “Mercury; or, the secret and swift Messenger; shewing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his thoughts to a friend at any distance,” in 8vo. His fourth, -in 1648, “Mathematical Magic; or, the Wonders that may be performed by Mechanical Geometry,” in 8vo. All these pieces were published entire in one volume, 8vo, in 1708, under the title of “The Mathematical and Philosophical Works of the Right reverend John Wilkins,” &c. with a print of the author and general title-page handsomely engraven, and an account of his life and writings. To this collection is also subjoined an abstract of a larger work, printed in 1668, folio, and entitled “An Essay towards a real Character and a philosophical Language.” This he persuaded Ray to translate into Latin, which he did, but it never was published; and the ms. is now in the library of the Royal Society. These are his mathematical and philosophical works. He was also the inventor of the Perambulator, or Measuring wheel. His theological works are, 1. “Ecclesiastes; or, a Discourse of the Gift of Preaching, as it falls under the rules of Art,” 1646. This no doubt was written with a view to reform the prevailing taste of the times he lived in; from which no man was ever farther than Wilkins. It has gone through nine editions, the last in 1718, 8vo. 2. “Discourse concerning the beauty of Providence, in all the rugged passages’ of it,” 1649. 3. “Discourse concerning the Gift of Prayer, shewing what it is, wherein it consists, and how far it is attainable by industry,” &c. 1653. This was against enthusiasm, and fanaticism. These were published in his life-time; after his death, in 1675, Tillotson published two other of his works. 4. “Sermons preached on several occasions” and, 5. “Of the principles and duties of Natural Religion,” both in 8vo. Tillotson tells us, in the preface to the latter, that “the first twelve chapters were written out for the press in his life-time; and that the remainder hath been gathered and made up out of his papers;”

, one of four divines of the name of Wilkinson, who made considerable noise at Oxford during the usurpation, was born in the vicarage of Halifax in Yorkshire, Oct. 9, 1566, and came to Oxford in 158], where he was elected a probationer fellow of Merton college, by the interest of his relation Mr. afterwards sir Henry Savile, the warden. In 1586 he proceeded in arts, and studying divinity, took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty. In 1601 he was preferred to the living of Waddesdon in Buckinghamshire, which he held for forty-six years. He was a man of considerable learning and piety, and being an old puritan, Wood says, he was elected one of the assembly of divines in 1643. He was the author of “A Catechism for the use of the congregation of Waddesdon,” 8vo, of which there was a fourth edition in 1647. He published also “The Debt-Book; or a treatise upon. Romans xiii. 8. wherein is handled the civil debt of money or goods,” Lond. 1625, 8vo and other things, the names of which Wood has not mentioned. He died at Waddesdon March 19, 1647, aged eighty-one, and was buried in his own church, with a monumental inscription. By his wife Sarah, the daughter of Mr. Arthur Wake, another puritan, he had six sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Edward, was born in 1607, and educated at Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which he entered when little more than eleven years old, and completed his degrees in arts at the age of eighteen. He must have been of extraordinary parts, or extraordinary interest, for in 1627, when only twenty, he was chosen professor of rhetoric in Gresham college. All that Ward has been able to discover of him, is, that he held this office upwards of eleven years, and resigned it in 1638. Another of the rector of Waddesdon’s sons, a more distinguished character, is the subject of our next article.

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

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

, brother of the rector of Waddesdon, first-mentioned, and uncle to the two Henrys, was born in Halifax, and educated at Oxford, where he was very celebrated. He became fellow of Magdalen college, and in 1605, when Henry, prince of Wales, was matriculated of Magdalen college, Mr. Wilkinson, then B. D. was appointed his tutor, as high a mark of respect as could well be paid, and a striking proof of the respect in which he was then held. In the same year Mr. Wilkinson was made principal of Magdalen-hall; and Wood says, that under his government, in 1624, and before, there were three hundred students in the hall, of which number were forty or more masters of arts, but, Wood adds, “all mostly inclining to Calvinism.” On the commencement of the rebellion, being of the same sentiments as his relations beforementioned, he left Oxford in 1643, and joined the parliamentary party. After the surrender of the city of Oxforo! to the parliamentary forces in 1646, he returned to Magdalen-hall, and resumed his office as principal until 1648, when he resigned it on being advanced to be president of Magdalen-college. He had the year before been appointed one of the visitors of the university. He did not, however, live long to enjoy any of these honours, for he died Jan. 2, 1649, and was interred in the church of Great Milton in Oxfordshire. It does not appear that Dr. John Wilkinson published any thing; the greater part of his life he spent as the governor of the two societies of Magdalenhall and Magdalen-college. Notwithstanding his reputation in his early years, Wood gives him the character of being “generally accounted an illiterate, testy, old creature, one that for forty years together had been the sport of the boys, and constantly yoked with Dr. Kettle: a person of more beard than learning, &c.” It is unnecessary to copy more of this character, which agrees so ill with what Wood says of him in his account of Magdalen-hall, that we are almost inclined to think he is speaking of another person. There is much confusion in some of the accounts given of these Wilkinsons, and we are not quite sure that we have been enabled to dispell it; but Wood so expressly mentions a John Wilkinson Magdalen-hall, as one of the visitors of Oxford, and afterwards a physician, that we suspect he has mixed the characters of the two. On this account the story of Dr. John Wilkinson having robbed the college of some money, which is related by Fuller and Heylin, must remain doubtful, for Wood attributes it to Henry Wilkinson, the vice-president.

About 1786 he engaged in the office of teacher, and delivered lectures on the principles and practice of medicine at the Public Dispensary. But his success, we believe, in this undertaking, was inconsiderable. At a subsequent period he received, as pupils at the Dispensary, young physicians who had recently graduated, and who were initiated into actual practice, under his superintendence, among the patients of the institution; a mode of tuition from which they derived much practical knowledge, and were gradually habituated to the responsibility of their professional duties. Upwards of forty physicians, almost all of whom have subsequently attained professional reputation, or now occupy responsible situations, both in this country and abroad, have received the benefit of this instruction.

From the moment when Dr. Willan settled in London, he pursued his professional avocations with an indefatigable industry and attention, of which there are, perhaps, few examples. He never quitted the metropolis for any consideration of health or pleasure, during a period of thirty years. For many years he conducted the medical department of two dispensaries, (having subsequently been favoured with an appointment to the Finsbury Dispensary, in addition to that of Carey-street), during which his unremitting attention to the progress of the diseases which came under his care, is evinced by the prodigious collection of cases, which he has recorded in ms. mostly in a neat Latin style, in which he wrote with great fluency. During the whole of his career, he was not less assiduously employed in examining the records of medicine, both ancient and modern, than in the actual observation of diseases; of which the learning and critical acumen displayed in his publications, as well as the mass of manuscript coU lections which he has left behind, afford abundant proof. His habits of domestic privacy enabled him to dedicate a large portion of time to these researches; and indeed to the unabating ardour with which he applied himself to them, must be attributed that premature injury of his health, which shortened the period of his life.

From his childhood Dr. Willan had been of a delicate constitution; his complexion in early life being pale and feminine, and his form slender. His extremely regular and temperate mode of life, however, had procured him an uninterrupted share of moderate health, and latterly even a certain degree of corpulency of person, though without the appearance of robust strength. In the Winter of 1810, some of his friends had remarked a slight shrinking of bulk and change in his complexion; but it was not till the following spring that symptoms of actual disease manifested themselves, and increased rapidly. With a view to obtain some respite from professional fatigue, as well as the advantage of a better air, he took a house in June 1811 at Craven-hill, about a mile from town, on the Ux bridge- road, where he spent his time, with the exception of two or three hours in the middle of the day, when he went to Bloomsbury-square, to receive the patients who came thither to consult him; but the probability of becoming phthisical, under the influence of an English winter, induced him to accede to the strenuous recommendation of some of his friends, and to undertake a voyage to Madeira. He accordingly embarked on the 10th of October, and arrived at Madeira on the 1st of December. By perseverance in an active course of medicine, after his arrival at Funchall, all his bad symptoms were considerably alleviated; insomuch that, in the month of February, he meditated a return to the south of England in April, But this alleviation was only temporary: his disease was again aggravated; the dropsy, and its concomitant obstruction to the functions, increased; and with his faculties remaining entire to the last, he expired on April 7, 1812, in the fifty-fifth year of his age.

As a professional writer, Dr. Willan appeared early, in his contributions to the periodical works. On his arrival in London, he became a member of a private medical society, which held its meetings at a coffee-house, in Cecilstreet, and which published two volumes of papers, under the title of “Medical Communications,” in 1784 and 1790. In the second of these volumes he published the history of “A remarkable case of Abstinence,” in a hypochondriacal young man, which was uninterrupted for the space of sixty-one days, and terminated fatally. We believe that this was the only medical society of which he was ever a member. Several communications from him were also printed in the London MedicalJournal, edited between the years 1781 and 1790 by Dr. Simmons. In the fourth volume, p. 421, a short letter of his appears, stating the character of a non-descript Byssus, found in the sulphureous waters of Aix; and in the sixth volume of the same Journal, he relates a fatal case of obstruction in the bowels, to which last he appended some useful reflections on the diagnostic symptoms of these obstructions, as occurring in the large or in the small intestines. He has also some communications in the seventh and eighth volumes. After the publication of the eleventh volume of this Journal, Dr. Simmons commenced a new series, under the title of “Medical Facts and Observations” in the third volume of which a paper of Dr. Willan’s appeared, containing a description of several cases of iscuria renalis in children.

It was not till the beginning of 1798, that the first part of this work, including the papulous eruptions, was published, in which, as in the subsequent parts, each variety was represented by a coloured engraving. In 1801 the second part, including the scaly diseases of the skin, appeared; in 1805 the third part, comprising only two genera of rashes, viz. measles and scarlet-fever; and in 1808 the fourth part, comprehending the remainder of the rashes, and the bullas, or large vesications; the whole containing thirty-three plates, and comprising about half of the classification. Four orders, characterized by the appearance of pustules,vesicles, tubercles, and spots, remain unpublished. In the interim, however, from the temporary interest which the investigation of the vaccine question excited, Dr. WiHan was induced so far to anticipate the order of vesicles, as to publish in 1806 a treatise “On Vaccination;” in which he also introduced the subject of chickenpox (another vesicular disease) in consequence of the mistakes which had been committed, in supposing that this was small-pox, when it occurred after vaccination.

In addition to the writings above mentioned, which have been committed to the press, Dr. Willan had left some others in an unfinished state. During three or four years previous to his death he had employed his leisure in a most extensive investigation of the antiquities of medicine, if we may so express ourselves, which he had conducted with his usual felicity of execution. His principal object was the illustration of four subjects, which are enveloped in no small degree of obscurity; namely, 1. The nature and origin of the epidemic or endemic ignis sacer, which was a frequent cause of much mortality in ancient times, and in the middle ages, and has been confounded with the plague, to which it had no resemblance but in its fatality; 2. The evidence of the prevalence of small-pox, measles, and scarlet fever, not only in the first ages of the Christian aera, but at still more ancient periods, of which he has brought together, with great ingenuity, a collection that appears incontrovertibly to establish the affirmative of the question: 3. The history of the leprosy of the middle ages: and 4. That of the lues venerea. The dissertations relative to the two first mentioned topics, Dr. Willan had nearly completed, having re-modelled the second, by the aid of a friendly amanuensis, during his residence in Madeira. They contain a very able and original view of the state of disease in the early ages of the world, not founded upon any fanciful explanation of terms, but deduced from a sagacious developement of facts, which have hitherto been concealed under perplexed and mistaken, but sufficiently intelligible language. He has likewise supported the conclusions which he has drawn by evidence collected from sources not usually resorted to in such researches.

Several years ago, Dr. Willan made a collection of observations in about two thousand patients, with a view to an investigation of medical physiognomy, or temperaments, chiefly in regard to the diseases to which each variety of temperament is peculiarly predisposed, and to the operation of medicines on them respectively. In the prosecution of this inquiry he procured several drawings (portraits) illustrative of the characteristic marks of the more striking varieties. He arrived at some interesting inferences respecting both the physical and moral constitutions connected with these external characters, but he did not deem the matter sufficiently matured to lay before the public.

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

, an ingenious English lady, was the daughter of a surgeon and physician in South Wales, where she was born in 1706. Her father, Zachariah Williams, during his residence in Wales, imagined that he had discovered, by a kind of intuitive penetration, what had escaped the rest of mankind. He fancied that he had been fortunate enough to ascertain the longitude by magnetism, and that the variations of the needle were equal, at equal distances, east and west. The idea fired his imagination; and, prompted by ambition, and the hopes of splendid recompence, he determined to leave his business and habitation for the metropolis. Miss Williams accompanied him, and they arrived in London about 1730; but the bright views which had allured him from his profession soon vanished. The rewards which he had promised himself ended in disappointment; and the ill success of his schemes may be inferred from the only recompence which his journey and imagined discovery procured. Hg was admitted a pensioner at the Charter-house. When Miss Williams first resided in London, she devoted no inconsiderable portion of her time to its various amusements. She visited every object that merited the inspection of a polished and laudably-inquisitive mind, or could attract the attention of a stranger. At a later period of life she spoke familiarly of these scenes, of which the impression was never erased, though they must, however, have soon lost their allurements. Mr. Williams did not long continue a member of the Charter-house. A dispute with the masters obliged him to remove from this asylum of age and poverty. In 1749 he published in 4to A true Narrative," &c. of the treatment he had met with. He was now exposed to severe trials, and every succeeding day increased the gloominess of his prospects. In 1740 Miss Williams lost her sight by a cataract, which prevented her, in a great measure, from assisting his distresses, and alleviating his sorrows. She still, however, felt her passion for literature equally predominant. She continued the same attention to the neatness of her dress; and, what is more extraordinaryj continued still the exercise of her needle, a branch of female accomplishment in which she had before displayed great excellence. During the lowness of her fortune she worked for herself with nearly as much dexterity and readiness as if she had not suffered a loss so irreparable. Her powers of conversation retained their former vigour. Her mind did not sink under these calamities; and the natural activity of her disposition animated her to uncommon exertions:

In 1746, notwithstanding her blindness, she published the “Life of the emperor Julian, with notes, translated from the French of F. La Bleterie.” In this translation she was assisted by two female friends, whose names were Wilkinson. This book was printed by Bowyer, in whose life, by Nichols, we are informed, that he contributed the advertisement, and wrote the notes, in conjunction with Mr. Clarke and others. The work was revised by Markland and Clarke. It does not appear what pecuniary advantages Miss Williams might derive from this publication. They were probably not very considerable, and afforded only a temporary relief to the misfortunes of her father. About this time, Mr. Williams, who imparted his afflictions to all from whom he hoped consolation or assistance, told his story to Dr. Samuel Johnson; and, among other aggravations of distress, mentioned his daughter’s blindness. He spoke of her acquirements in such high terms, that Mrs. Johnson, who was then living, expressed a desire of seeing her; and accordingly she was soon afterwards brought to the doctor’s house by her father; and Mrs. Johnson found her possessed of such qualities as recommended her strongly for a friend. As her own state of health, therefore, was weak, and her husband was engaged during the greater part of the day in his studies, she gave Miss Williams a general invitation: a strict intimacy soon took place; but the enjoyment of their friendship did not continue long. Soon after its commencement, Mrs. Johnson was attended by her new companion in an illness which terminated fatally. Dr. Johnson still retained his regard for her, and in 17 $2? by his recommendation, Mr. Sharp, the surgeon, undertook to perform the operation on Miss Williams’s eyes, which is x usual in such cases, in hopes of restoring her sight. Her own habitation was not judged convenient for the occasion. She was, therefore, invited to the doctor’s. The surgeon’s skill, however, proved fruitless, as the crystalline humour was not sufficiently inspissated for the needle to take effect. The recovery of her sight was pronounced impossible. Afrer this dreadful sentence, she never left the roof which had received her during the operation. The doctor’s kindness and conversation soothed her melancholy situation: and her society seemed to alleviate the sorrows which his late loss had occasioned.

On the death of his father in 1733, he was elected member of parliament for the county of Monmouth, and uniformly supported the administration of sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; he received from that minister many early and confidential marks of esteem, and in 1739 was was appointed by him paymaster of the marines. His name occurs only twice as a speaker, in Chandler’s debates: but the substance of his speech is given in neither instance. Sprightliness of conversation, ready wit, and agreeable manners, introduced him to the acquaintance of men of the first talents: he was the soul of the celebrated coterie, of which the most conspicuous members were, lord Hervey, Winnington, Horace Walpole, late earl of Orford., Stephen Fox, earl of Ilchester, and Henry Fox, lord Holland, with whom, in particular, he lived in the strictest habits of intimacy and friendship. At this period he distinguished himself by political ballads remarkable for vivacity, keenness of invective, and ease of versification. In 1746 he was installed knight of the Bath, and soon after, appointed envoy to the court of Dresden, a situation which he is said to have solicited, that its employments might divert his grief for the death of his friend Mr. Winnington. The votary of wit and pleasure was instantly transformed into a man of business, and the author of satirical odes penned excellent He was well adapted for the office of a foreign minister, and the lively, no less than the solid, parts of his character, proved useful in his new employment; flow of conversation, sprightliness of wit, politeness of demeanour, ease of address, conviviality of disposition, together with the delicacy of his table, attracted persons of all descriptions. He had arv excellent tact for discriminating characters, humouring the foibles of those with whom he negotiated, and conciliating those by whom the great were either directly or indirectly governed.

Sir Charles Hanbury Williams arrived at St. Petersburg in the latter end of June; the negociation had been already opened by Mr. Guy Dickins, who lately occupied the post of envoy to the court of Russia; but his character and manners were not calculated to ensure success. He was treated with coldness and reserve by the empress, and had rendered himself highly offensive to the great chancellor, count Bestucheff. On the first appearance of the new ambassador, things immediately wore a favourable aspect; at his presence all obstacles were instantly removed, and all difficulties vanished- The votary of wit and pleasure was well received by the gay and voluptuous Elizabeth; he attached to his cause the great duke, afterwards the unfortunate Peter the Third; and his consort, the princess of Anhalt Zerbst, who became conspicuous under the name of Catherine the Second. All the ministers vied in loading him with marks of attention and civility; he broke through the usual forms of etiquette, and united in his favour the discordant views of the Russian cabinet; he conciliated the unbending and suspicious Bestucheff; warmed the phlegtnatic temper of the vice-chancellor, count Voronzoff; and gained the under agents, who were enabled, by petty intrigues and secret cabals, to thwart the intentions of the principal ministers. He fulfilled literally the tenor of his own expressions, that he would “make use of the honeymoon of his ministry,” to conclude the convention as speedily as possible on the best terms which could be obtained: he executed the orders of the king, not to sign any treaty in which an attack on any of his majesty’s allies, or on any part of his electoral dominions, was not made a casus foederis: in six weeks after his arrival at St. Petersburg, he obtained the signature, without using all the full powers intrusted to him by the British cabinet, and instantly transmitted it to Hanover.

His official dispatches, says Mr. Coxe, are written with, great life and spirit; he delineates characters with truth and facility; and describes his diplomatic transactions with minuteness and accuracy, but without tediousness or formality. His verses were highly prized by his contemporaries, but in perusing those which have been given to the public, “Odes, 1775, 12mo,” and those which are still in manuscript, the greater part are political effusions, or licentious lampoons, abounding with local wit and temporary satire, eagerly read at the time of their appearance, but little interesting to posterity. Three of his pieces, however, deserve to be exempted from this general character; his poem of “Isabella, or the Morning,” is remarkable for ease of versification, and huppy discrimination of character; his epitaph on Mr. Winnington is written with great feeling; and his beautiful “Ode to Mr. Pointz,” in honour of the duke of Cumberland, breathes a spirit of sublimity, which entitles the author to the rank of a poet, and excites pur regret that his, muse was not always employed on subjects worthy of his talents.

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

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

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

Dr. Williams died, after a short illness, Jan. 26, 1715—16, in the seventy- third year of his age. He appears to have been a man of very considerable abilities, and having acquired an independent fortune, had great weight both as a member of the dissenting interest, and as a politician in general. As he had spent much of his life in benevolent actions, at his death he fully evinced, that they were the governing principles of his character. The bulk of his estate fie bequeathed to a great variety of chanties. Besides the settlement on his wife, and legacies to his relations and friends, he left donations for the education of youth in Dublin, and for an itinerant preacher to the native Irish; to the poor in Wood-street congregation, and to that in Hand-alley, where he had been successively preacher; to the French refugees; to the poor of Shoreditch parish, where he lived; to several ministers’ widows; to St. Thomas’s hospital; to the London workhouse; to several presbyterian meetings in the country; to the college of Glasgow; to the society for the reformation of manners; to the society of Scotland for propagating Christian knowledge; to the society for New-England, to support two persons to preach to the Indians; to the maintaining of charity-schools in Wales, and the support of students; for the distribution of Bibles, and pious books among the poor, &c. He also ordered a convenient building to be purchased, or erected, for the reception of his own library, and the curious collection of Dr. Bates, which he purchased for that purpose, at the expence of between five and six hundred pounds. Accordingly, a considerable number of years after his death, a commodious building was erected by subscription among the opulent dissenters, in lledcross-street, Cripplegate, where the doctor’s books were deposited, and by subsequent additions, the collection has become a very considerable one. It is also a depository for paintings of nonconformist ministers, which are now very numerous; of manuscripts, and other matters of curiosity or utility. In this place, the dissenting ministers meet for transacting all business relating to the general body. Registers of births of the children of protestant dissenters are also kept here with accuracy, and have been, in the courts of law, allowed equal validity with parish registers. The librarian, who resides in the house, is usually a minister, chosen from among the English presbyterians, to which denomination the founder belonged. Dr. Williams’s publications, be^ sides his “Gospel Truth stated,” are chiefly sermons preached on occasion of ordinations, or funerals. These were published together in 1738, 2 vols. 8vo, with some account of his life.

, a literary and religious projector of some note, was born at a village near Cardigan, in 1738, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was placed in a school or college at Carmarthen, preparatory to the dissenting ministry; which profession he entered upon in obedience to parental authority, but very contrary to his own inclination. His abilities and acquirements even then appeared of a superior order; but he has often in the latter part of his life stated to the writer of his memoirs, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, that he had long considered it &s a severe misfortune, that the most injurious impressions were made upon his youthful and ardent mind by the cold, austere, oppressive, and unarniable manner in which the doctrines and duties of religion were disguised in the stern and rigid habits of a severe puritanical master. From this college he took the office of teacher to a small congregation at Frome, in Somersetshire, and after a short residence was removed to a more weighty charge at Exeter. There the eminent abilities and engaging manners of the young preacher opened to him the seductive path of pleasure; when the reproof that some elder members of the society thought necessary, being administered in a manner to awaken resentment rather than contrition; and the eagle eye of anger discovering in his accusers imperfections of a different character indeed, but of tendency little suited to a public disclosure, the threatened recrimination suspended the proceedings, and an accommodation took place, by which Mr. Williams left Exeter, and was engaged to the superintendence of a dissenting congregation at Highgate. After a residence there of a year or two, he made his first appearance in 1770, as an author, by a “Letter to David Garrick,” a judicious and masterly critique on the actor, but a sarcastic personal attack qn the man, intended to rescue Mossop from the supposed unjust displeasure of the modern Roscius: this effect was produced, Mossop was liberated, and the letter withdrawn from the booksellers, Shortly after appeared “The Philosopher, in three Conversations,” which were much read, and attracted considerable notice. This was soon followed by “Essays on Public Worship, Patriotism, and Projects of Reformation;” written and published upon the occasion of the leading religious controversy of the day; but though they obtained considerable circulation, they appear not to have softened the asperities of either of the contending parties. The Appendix to these Essays gave a strong indication of that detestation of intolerance, bigotry, and hypocrisy which formed the leading character of his subsequent life, and which had been gradually taking possession of his mind from the conduct of softie of the circle of associates into which his profession had thrown him.

He published two volumes of “Sermons,” chiefly upon Religious Hypocrisy, and then discontinued the exercise of his profession, and his connection with the body of dissenters. He now turned his thoughts to the education of youth, and in 1773, published “A Treatise on Education,” recommending a method founded on the plans of Commenius and Rousseau, which he proposed to carry into effect. He took a house in Lawrence-street, Chelsea, married a young lady not distinguished either by fortune or connection, and soon found himself at the head of a lucrative and prosperous establishment. A severe domestic misfortune in the death of his wife blighted this prospect of fame and fortune: his fortitude sunk under the shock; his anxious attendance upon her illness injured his own health, the internal concerns of the family became disarranged, and he left his house and his institution, to which he never again returned.

During his residence at Chelsea, he became a member of a select club of political and literary characters, to one of whom, the celebrated Benjamin Franklin, he afforded an asylum in his house at Chelsea during the popular ferment against him, about the time of the commencement of the American war. In this club was formed the plan of public worship intended to unite all parties and persuasions in one comprehensive form. Mr. Williams drew up and published, “A Liturgy on the universal principles of Religion and Morality;” and afterwards printed two volumes of Lectures, delivered with this Liturgy at the chapel in Margaret- street, Cavendish-square, opened April 7, 1776. This service continued about four years, but with so little public support, that the expence of the establishment nearly involved the lecturer in the loss of his liberty. As the plan proposed to include in one act of public worship every class of mn who acknowledged the being of a God, and the utility of public prayer and praise, it necessarily left unnoticed every other point of doptrine; intending, that without expressing them in public worship, every man should be left in unmolested possession of his own peculiar opinions in private. This, however, would not satisfy any of the various classes and divisions of Christians; it was equally obnoxious to the churchman and to the dissenter; and as even the original proposers, though consisting only of five or six, could not long agree, several of them attempting to obtain a more marked expression of their own peculiar opinions and dogmas, the plan necessarily expired. Mr. Williams now occupied his time and talents in assisting gentlemen whose education had been defective, and in forwarding their qualifications for the senate, the diplornacy, and the learned professions. In this employment he prepared, and subsequently published, “Lectures ori Political Principles,” and “Lectures on Education,” in 3 vols, His abilities also were ever most readily and cheerfully employed in the cause of friendship and benevolence; and many persons under injury and distress have to acknowledge the lasting benefit of his energetic and powerful pen.

During the alarm in 1780 he published a tract, entitled “A Plan of Association on Constitutional Principles” and in 1782, on occasion of the county meetings and associations, he gave to the public his “Letters on Political Liberty;” the most important perhaps of all his works-, it was extensively circulated both in England and France, having been translated into French by Brissot, and was the occasion of its author being invited to Paris, to assist in the formation of a constitution for that country. He continued about six months in Paris; and on the death of the king, and declaration of war against this country, took leave of his friends of the Girondist party, with an almost prophetic intimation of the fate that awaited them. He brought with him on his return a letter from the minister of war, addressed to lord Grenville, and intended to give Mr. Williams, who was fully and confidentially entrusted with the private sentiments and wishes of the persons then in actual possession of the government of France, an opportunity of conveying those sentiments and wishes to the British ministry. Mr. Williams delivered the letter into the hands of Mr. Aust, the under secretary of state, but never heard from lord Grenville on the subject. Some further curious circumstances relating to this transaction are detailed in a page or two, corrected by Mr. Williams himself, in Bisset’s “History of George III.”

During the peace of Amiens Mr. Williams again visited Paris, and is supposed to have been then intrusted with some confidential mission from the government of his own country, his remarkable figure having previously been noticed entering the houses of several of the higher members of the then administration. On his return he published a much enlarged edition of a little work which the alarm of invasion had induced him to write, entitled “Regulations of Parochial Police;” and he is thought to have been the author of a sort of periodical publication which appeared about that time in numbers, “Egeria; or Elementary Studies on the Progress of Nations in Political Economy, Legislation, and Government;” but which does not appear to have been continued beyond the first volume. The last acknowledged work that proceeded from his prolific pen was, “Preparatory Studies for Political Reformers.” It is curious and instructive to observe -thrf marked aad striking effect produced by his experience of reform and reformers in the struggles of, and consequent upon, the French revolution'; his diction retain3 its full vigour, but his anticipations are much less sanguine, and his opinions on the pliability of the materials ort which reformers are to operate, or in other words, on the real character of human nature, seem much changed. About five years before his death he was seized with a severe paralytic affection, from which he partially recovered, but continued to suffer the gradual loss of his corporeal and mental powers; his memory became very considerably impaired, and for some length of time preceding his decease he was unable to walk or move without assistance. The tender assiduities of an affectionate niece soothed the sorrows of declining nature, and received from him the most affecting and frequent expressions of gratitude. The state of his mind cannot be so well depicted as by himself in the following letter, one of the last he ever wrote, and addressed to a clergyman of the church of England, in the country:

After remaining four years in the diocese of Bangor, in which the bishop’s conduct made him uneasy, he went to Cambridge, and took his degree of D. D. and returning to London became domestic chaplain to the earl of Montgomery (afterwards earl of Pembroke) and tutor to his children, and was promoted to be chaplain to the king, prebendary of Westminster, and dean of Bangor, to the last of which preferments he was instituted March 28, 1634; and he held this deanery in commendam till his death. He says that, “before he was forty years old, he narrowly escaped being elected bishop of St. Asaph.” He remained in the enjoyment of these preferments about twelve years y and in 1641 was advanced to the bishopric of Ossory, but the Irish rebellion breaking out in less than a month after his consecration, he was forced to take refuge in England, and joined the court, being in attendance on his majesty, as one of his chaplains, at the battle of Edge-hill, Oct. 23, 1642. He remained also with the king during the greater part of the winter at Oxford, and then retired to Wales to be at more leisure to write his “Discovery of Mysteries, or the plots of the parliament to overthrow both church and state,” published at Oxford, 1643, 4to. In the following year he published his “Jura majestatis; the rights of kings both in church and state, granted, first by God, secondly, violated by rebels, and thirdly, vindicated by the truth,” Oxford, 4to. He had also published in 1643, at the same place, “Vindiciae regum, or the Grand Rebellion,” c.

Bishop Williams’ s other works were, 1. “Seven golden Candlesticks, holding the seven greatest lights of Christian Religion,” Lond. 1627, 4to. 2. “The True Church shewed to all men that desire to be members of the same in six books, containing the whole body of divinity,” ibid. 1629, fol. 3. “The right way to the best Religion; wherein is largely explainecUne sum and principal heads of the Gospel, in certain sermons and treatises,” ibid. 1636, fol. 4. “The great Antichrist revealed,” ibid. 1660, fol. In this he attempted to prove that Antichrist was neither pope, nor Turk, nor any one person, but the party which overthrew the church and state. He published also some other treatises arising from the circumstances of the timers, and many sermons afterwards published collectively, in 1662, fol. and 1666, 4to. His most curious production, and from which the preceding circumstances of his life are taken, is entitled “The persecution and oppression of John Bale, and Griffith Williams, bishops of Ossory,” Lond. 1664, 4to. In this he institutes a parallel between bishop Bale and himself, as promoted to the same see at the mere motion of kings, without any interest or application; both violently expelled from the same house; both their persecutions occasioned by their pulpit performances; the one by popish, the other by puritan adversaries; both their dangers by sea were great; both persecuted by false accusers; to which Mr. Harris adds, “the same licentious spirit of railing appears in their writings, which no apology can excuse.”

He was not, however, so much distinguished for his learning, as for his dexterity and skill in business. When he was no more than five and twenty, he was employed by the college in some concerns of theirs; on which occasions he was sometimes admitted to speak before archbishop Bancroft, who was exceedingly taken with his engaging wit and decent behaviour. Another time he was deputed, by the masters and fellows of his college, their agent to court, to petition the king for a mortmain, as an increase of their maintenance; on this occasion he succeeded in his suit, and was taken particular notice, of by the king; for, there was something in him which his majesty liked so well, that he told him of it long after when he came to be his principal officer. He entered into orders in his twenty-­seventh year and took a small living,.- which lay beyond St. Edmund’s Bury, upon the confines of Norfolk. In 1611 he was instituted to the rectory of Grafton Regis, in Northamptonshire, at the king’s presentation; and the same year was recommended to the lord-chancellor Egerton for his chaplain, but obtained leave of the chancellor to continue one year longer at Cambridge, in order to serve the office of proctor of the university. While Mr. Williams was in this post, the duke of Wirtemberg and his train happened to pay a visit to the university. The duke having the reputation of a learned prince, it was thought proper to entertain him with learned disputations. Mr. Williams being on this occasion president or moderator, performed his part with equal skill and address. Out of compliment to the duke he confirmed all his reasons with quotations from the eminent professors of the German uni^ versities, which was so. acceptable to the duke and his retinue, that they would not part with Mr. Williams from their company while they continued at Cambridge, and afterwards carried him with them to the palace at Newmarket, and acquainted the king with the honour he had done to the literati of their country. The following year Mr. Williams took the degree of B. D. and afterwards chiefly resided in the house of his patron, lord Egerton, who advised with him on many occasions, and testified his regard for him by various promotions, particularly the rectory of Grafton Underwood, in Northamptonshire; and in 1613 he was made precentor of Lincoln; rector of Waldgrave, in Northamptonshire, in 1614; and between that year and 1617 was collated to a prebend and residentiaryship in the church of Lincoln, and to prebends in those of Peterborough, Hereford, and St. David’s, besides a sinecure in North Wales.

When sir Francis Bacon was made lord keeper, he offered to continue Williams his chaplain; who, however, declining it, was made a justice of the peace by his lordship for the county of Northampton. He was made king’s chaplain at the same time, and had orders to attend his majesty in his northern progress, which was to begin soon after; but the bishop of Winchester got leave Jor him to stay and to take his doctor’s degree, for the sake of giving entertainment to Marco Antonio v de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, who was lately come to England, and designed to be at Cambridge the commencement following. The questions which he maintained for his degree were, “Supremus maoistratus non est excommunicabilis,” and “Subductio caiicis est mutilatio sacramenti et sacerdotii.” Dr. Williams now retired to his rectory of Wai d grave, where he had been at the expence, before he came, of building, gardening, and planting, to render it an agreeable residence. He had also provided a choice collection of books, which he stu lied with his usual diligence. As a minister he was very attentive to the duties of his function. He read, prayers constantly on Wednesdays and Fridays, and preached twice every Sunday at Waldgrave, or at Grafton; performing in his turn also at Kettering, in a lecture preached by an association of the best 'divines in that neighbourhood. It was a common saying with him, that “the way to get the credit from the nonconformists was, to out- preach them.” And his preaching was so much liked that his church used to be thronged with the gentry of the neighbouring parishes as well as his own. In the mean time, he was most of all distinguished for his extensive charities to the poor; the decrepid, the aged, the widow, and the fatherless, were sure of a welcome share in his hospitality.

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

Bishop Williams was very desirous of keeping upon good terms with the favourite Buckingham, but it appears, notwithstanding, that he withstood him when he had just reason for it. He sometimes also gave Buckingham good advice, which being delivered with freedom, could not be very acceptable to the haughty favourite. His resolution in opposing Buckingham’s designs, when he saw weighty reasons for it, was so remarkable that the king used to say, that “he was a stout man, and durst do more than himself.” James sometimes really appeared afraid of openly expressing his dislike at such of Buckingham’s actions as he really disapproved; and we are told that his majesty thanked God, that he had put Williams into the place of lord keeper; “for,” said he, “he that will not wrest justice for Buckingham’s sake, whom he loves, will never be corrupted with money which, he never loved.” And because the lord keeper had lived for the space of three years upon the bare revenues of his office, and was not richer by the sale of one cursitor’s place in all that time, his majesty gave him a bountiful new-year’s gift, thinking that it was but reasonable to encourage, by his liberality, a man who never sought after wealth by the sordid means of extortion or bribery.

The lord keeper made use of his influence with the king, in behalf of several noblemen who were under the royal displeasure and in confinement. He prevailed with his majesty to set at liberty the earl of Northumberland, who had been fifteen years a prisoner in the Tower. He procured also the enlargement of the earls of Oxford and Arundel, both of whom had been a considerable time under confinement. He employed likewise his good offices with the king, in behalf of many others of inferior rank, particularly some clergymen who offended by their pulpit freedoms. One instance we shall extract from his principal biographer, as a proof of his address, and knowledge of king James’s peculiar temper. A Mr. Knight, a young divine at Oxford, had advanced in a sermon somewhat which was said to be derogatory to the king’s prerogative. For this he was a long time imprisoned, and a charge was about to be drawn up against him, to impeach him for treasonable doctrine. One Dr. White, a clergyman far advanced in years, was likewise in danger of a prosecution of the same kind. Bishop Williams was very desirous of bringing both these gentlemen off, and hit on the following contrivance. Some instructions had been appointed to be drawn up by his care and direction, for the performance of useful and orderly preaching; which being under his hand to dispatch, he now besought his majesty that this proviso might pass among the rest, that none of the clergy should be permitted to preach before the age of thirty years, nor after three-score. “On my soul,” said the king, “the devil, or some fit of madness is in the motion; for I have many great wits, and of clear distillation, that have preached before me at Royston and Newmarket to my great liking, that are under thirty. And my prelates and chaplains, that are far stricken in years, are the best masters of that faculty that Europe affords.” “I agree to all this,” answered the lord keeper, “and since your majesty will allow both young and old to go up into the pulpit, it is but justice that you shew indulgence to the young ones if they run into errors before their wits be settled (for every apprentice is allowed to mar some work before he be cunning in the mystery of his trade), and pity to the old ones, if some of them fall into dotage when their brains grow dry. Will your majesty conceive displeasure,' and not Jay it down, if the former set your teeth on edge sometimes, before they are mellow- wise and if the doctrine of the latter be touched with a blemish, when they begin to be rotten, and to drop from the tree?” “This is not unfit for consideration,” said the king, “but what do you drive at?” “Sir,” replied Williams, “first to beg your pardon for mine own boldness; then to remember you that Knight is a beardless boy, from whom exactness of judgment could not be expected. And that White is a decrepit, spent man, who had not a fee-simple, but a lease of reason, and it is expired. Both these that have been foolish in their several extremes of years, I prostrate at the feet of your princely clemency.” In consequence, of this application, king James readily granted a pardon to both of them.

In the mean time, the duke of Buckingham was not content with having removed our prelate from all power at court, but for a long time laboured to injure him, although some time before his death he appears to have beet) rather reconciled to him. With Laud, however, Williams found all reconciliation impossible, for which it is not easy to assign any cause, unless that their political principles were in some respects incompatible, and that Laud was somewhat jealous of the 'ascendancy which Williams might acquire, if again restored at court. In consequence of this animosity, besides being deprived of the title of privycounsellor, Williams was perpetually iiarassecl with lawsuits and prosecutions; and though nothing criminal could be proved against him, yet he was, by these means, put to great trouble and expence. Amongst other prosecutions, one arose from the following circumstances, as related by his biographer Hacket. “In the conference which the bishop had with his majestv, when he was admitted to kiss his hand, after the passing of the petition of Right, the king conjuring his lordsh;p to tell him freely, hovr he might best ingratiate himself with the people, his lordship replied, ‘ that the Puritans were many and strong sticklers and if his majesty would give but private orders to his ministers to connive a little at their party, and shew them some indulgence, it might perhaps mollify them a little, and make them more pliant; though he did not promise that they would be trusty long to any government.’ And the king answered, that ‘ he had thought upon this before, and would do so.’ About two months after this, the bishop at his court at Leicester acted according to this counsel resolved upon by his majesty; and withal told sir John Lamb and Dr. Sibthorp his reason for it, ‘ that it was not only his own, but the Royal pleasure.’ Now Lamb was one, who had been formerly infinitely obliged to the bishop: but, however, a breach happening between them, he and Sibthorp carried the bishop’s words to bishop Laud, and he to the king, who was then at Bisham. Hereupon it was resolved, that upon the-deposition of these two, a bill should be dra-wn up against the bishop for revealing the king’s secrets, being a sworn counsellor. That in formation, together with some others, being transmitted to the council-table, was ordered for the present to be sealed up, and committed to the. custody of Mr. Trumbal, one of the clerks of the council. Nevertheless the bishop made a shift to procure a copy of them, and so the business rested for some years. However, the bishop was still more and more declining in favour, by reason of a settled misunderstanding between him and bishop Laud, who looked upon Williams as a man who gave encouragement to the Puritans, and was cool with respect to our church-discipline; while, on the other hand, Williams took Laud to be a great favourer of the papists. Laud’s interest at court was now so great, that in affairs of state, as well as of the church, he governed almost without controul; so that a multitude of lesser troubles surrounded bishop Williams, and several persons attacked him with a view to ingratiate themselves at court. Abundance of frivolous accusation and little vexatious law-suits were brought against hirn daily; and it was the height of his adversaries policy to empty his purse, and clip his wings, by all the means they could invent, that so at last he might lie wholly at their mercy, and not be able to shift for himself. Notwithstanding all which, what with his innocency, and what with his courage springing from it, he bore up against them all> and never shewed any grudge or malice against them. But his lordship, perceiving himself to be thus perpetually harassed, asked the lord Cottington, whether he could tell him, what he should do to procure his peace, and such other ordinary favours as other bishops had from his majesty. To which the lord Cottington answered, that the splendor in which he lived, and the great resort of company which came to him, gave offence; and that the king must needs take it ill, that one under the height of his displeasure should live at so magnificent a rate. In the next place, his majesty would be better satisfied, if he would resign the deanery of Westminster, because he did not care that he should be so near a neighbour at Whitehall. As for the first of these reasons, his natural temper would not suffer him to comply with it, and to moderate his expences in house-keeping; and he was not so shortsighted as to part with his deanery upon such precarious terms;” for,“said he,” what health can come from such a remedy? Am I like to be beholden to them for a settled tranquillity, who practise upon the ruin of my estate, and the thrall of my honour? If I forfeit one preferment for fear, will it not encourage them to tear me in piecemeal hereafter? It is not my case alone, but every man’s; and if the law cannot maintain my right, it can maintain no man’s.“So, in spite of all their contrivances to out him, he kept the deanery till the king received it from him at Oxford in 1644. But they did all they could, since he was resolved to hold it, to make him as uneasy as possible in it. In this uneasy situation he continued several years; and now it was sufficiently known to all people how much he was out of favour; so that it was looked upon as a piece of merit to assist in his ruin. And this perhaps might be some incitement to what sir Robert Osborn, high sheriff of Huntingdonshire, acted against him in the levying of the ship-money. The bishop, for his part, was very cautious to carry himself without offence in this matter; but sir Robert, laying a very unequal levy upon the hundred wherein Bugden was, the bishop wrote courteously to him to rectify it, and that he and his neighbours would be ready to see it collected. Upon this sir Robert, catching at the opportunity, posts up to the court, and makes an heavy complaint against the bishop, that he not only refused the payment of ship-money himself, but likewise animated the hundred to do so too. And yet for all that, when the bishop afterwards cleared himself before the lords of the council, and they were satisfied that he had behaved himself with duty and prudence, sir Robert was not reprehended, nor had the bishop any satisfaction given him, nor was the levy regulated. After this, was revived the long and troublesome trial against the bishop in the Star-chamber, which commenced in the fourth year of king Charles I. upon some informations brought against him by Lamb and Sibthorp. Here he made so noble a defence of himself, that the attorney-general, Noy, grew weary of the cause, and slackened his prosecution; but that great lawyer dying, and the information being managed by Kilvert a solicitor, the bishop, when the business came to a final determination, was fined 10,000l. to the king, and to suffer imprisonment during his majesty’s pleasure, and withal to be suspended by the high commission court from all his dignities, offices, and functions. In his imprisonment in the Tower, hearing that his majesty would not abate any thing of his fine, he desired that it might be taken up by 1000l. yearly, as his estate would bear it, till the whole should be paid; but he could not have so small a favour granted. Upon which Kilvert, the bishop’s avowed enemy, waTs ordered to go to Bugclen and Lincoln, and there to seize upon all he could, and bring it immediately into the exchequer. Kilvert, being glad of this office, made sure of all that could be found; goods of all sorts, plate, books, and such like, to the value of iO.Ooo/. of which he never gave account but of 800l. The timber he felled; killed the deer in the park; sold an organ, which cost \2Ql. for 10l.; pictures, which cost 400l. for 5l.; made away with what books he pleased, and continued revelling for three summers in Bugden-house. For four cellars of wine, cyder, ale, and beer, with wood, hay, corn, and the like, stored up for a year or two, he gave no account at all. And thus a large personal estate was squandered away, and not the least part of the king’s fine paid all this while; whereas if it had been managed to the best advantage, it would have been sufficient to discharge the whole. It were endless to repeat all the contrivances against his lordship during his confinement; the bills which were drawn up, and the suits commenced against him, as it were on purpose to impoverish him, and to plunge him into debt, that so, if he procured his enlargement from this prison, he might not be long out of another. However, he bore all these afflictions with the utmost patience; and if a stranger had seen his lordship in the Tower, he would never have taken him for a prisoner, but rather for the lord and master of the place. For here he lived with his usual cheerfulness and hospitality, and wanted only a larger allowance to give his guests an heartier welcome; for now he was confined to bare 500l. a year, a great part of which was consumed in the very fees of the Tower. He diverted himself, when alone, sometimes with writing Latin poems; at other times with the histories of such as were noted for their sufferings in former ages. And for the three years and a half that he was confined, he was the same man as elsewhere, excepting that his frequent law-suits broke his studies often; and it could not be seen that he was the least altered in his health or the pleasantness of his temper.”

At length when the parliament met in November 1640, bishop Williams petitioned the king for his enlargement, and to have his writ of summons to parliament, which his majesty thought proper to refuse but about a fortnight after, the House of Lords sent the gentleman- usher of the black rod to demand him of the lieutenant of the Tower, in. consequence of which he took his seat among his brethren. Some being set on to try how he stood affected to his prosecutors, he answered, that “if they had no worse foes than him, they might fear no harm; and that he saluted them with the charity of a bishop;” and when Kilvert came to him to crave pardon and indemnity for all the wrongs he had done, “I assure you pardon,” said the bishop, “for what you have done before; but this is a new fault, that you take me to be of so base a spirit, as to defile myself with treading upon so mean a creature. Live still by petty-fogging and impeaching, and think that I have forgotten you.” And now the king, understanding with what courage and temper he had behaved himself under his misfortunes, was pleased to be reconciled to him; and commanded all orders, filed or kept in any court or registry upon the former informations against him, to be taken off, razed, and cancelled, that nothing might stand upon record to his disadvantage.

When the earl of StrafFord came to be impeached in parliament, Williams defended the rights of the bishops, in a very significant speech, to vote in case of blood, as Racket relates; but lord Clarendon relates just the contrary. He says, that this bishop, without communicating with any of his brethren, very frankly declared his opinion, that '< they ought not to be present; and offered, not only in his own name, but for the rest of the bishops, to withdraw always when that business was entered upon:“and so, adds the noble historian, betrayed a fundamental right of the whole order, to the great prejudice of the king, and to the taking away the life of that person, who could not otherwise have suffered. Shortly after, when the king declared, that he neither would, nor could in conscience, give his royal assent to that act of attainder; and when the tumultuous citizens came about the court with noise and clamour for justice; the lord Say desired the king to confer with his bishops for the satisfaction of his conscience, and with bishop Williams in particular, who told him, says lord Clarendon, that” he must consider, that as he had a private capacity and a public, so he had a public conscience as well as a private: that though his private conscience, as a man, would not permit him to do an act contrary to his own understanding, judgment, and conscience, yet his public conscience as a king, which obliged him to do all things for the good of his people, and to preserve his kingdom in peace for himself and his posterity, would not only permit him to do that, but even oblige and require him; that he saw in what commotion the people were; that his own life, and that of the queen and the royal issue, might probably be sacrificed to that fury: and it would be very strange, if his conscience should prefer the right of one single private person, how innocent soever, before all those other lives and the preservation of the kingdom. This,“continues lord Clarendon,” was the argumentation of that unhappy casuist, who truly, it may be, did believe himself:“yet he reveals another anecdote, which shews, at least if true, that bishop Williams could have no favourable intentions towards the unfortunate earl of Strafford. It had once been mentioned to the bishop, when he was out at court, whether by authority or no was not known, says the historian, that” his peace should te made there, if he would resign his bishopric and deanery of Westminster, and take a good bishopric in Ireland:“which he positively refused, and said,” he had much to do to defend himself against the archbishop (Laud) here; but, if he was in Ireland, there was a man (meaning the earl of Strafford) who would cut off his head within one month."

In 1641, he was advanced to the archbishopric of York; and the same year opposed, in a long speech, the bill for depriving the bishops of their seats in the House of Lords; which had this effect, that it laid the bill asleep for five months. Then the mob flocked about the parliament-house, crying out, “No bishops, no bishops;” and insulted the prelates, as they passed to the House. Williams was one of the bishops who was most rudely treated by the rabble; his person was assaulted, and his robes torn from his back. Upon this, he returned to his house, the deanery of Westminster; and sending for all the bishops then in the town, who were in number twelve, proposed, as absolutely necessary, that “they might unanimously and presently prepare a protestation, to send to the House, against the force that was used upon them; and against all the acts which were or should be done during the time that they should by force be kept from doing their duties in the House;” and immediately, having pen and ink ready, himself prepared a protestation, which was sent. But the politic bishop Williams is here represented to have been transported by passion into impolitic measures; for, no sooner was this protestation communicated to the House than the governing Lords manifested a great satisfaction in it; some of them saying, that “there was digitus Dei to bring that to pass, which they could not otherwise have compassed:” and, without ever declaring any judgment or opinion of their own upon it, sent to desire a conference with the Commons, who presently joined with them in accusing the protesters of high treason, and sending them all to the Tower; where they continued till the bill for putting them out of the House was passed, which was not till many months after. Lord Clarendon says, there was only one gentleman in the House of Commons that spoke in the behalf of these prelates; who said, among other things, that “he did not believe they were guilty of high treason, but that they were stark-mad, and therefore desired they might be sent to Bedlam.”

In June 1642, the king being at York, our archbishop was enthroned in person in his own cathedral, but, soon after the king had left York, which was in July following, was obliged to leave it too; the younger Hotham, who was coming thither with his forces, having sworn solemnly to seize and kill him, for some opprobrious words spoken of him concerning his usage of the king at Hull. He retired to his estate at Aber Con way, and fortified Con way-castle for the king; which so pleased his majesty, that by a letter, Oxford, Aug. the 1st, 1643, the king “heartily desired him to go on with that work, assuring him, that, whatever moneys he should lay out upon the fortification of the said castle should be repayed unto him before the custody thereof should be put into any other hand than his own, or such as he should command.” By virtue of a warrant, Jan. 2, 1643-4, the archbishop deputes his nephew William Hooks, esq. to have the custody of this castle; and, some time after, being sent for, set out to attend the king at Oxford, whom he is said to have cautioned particularly against Cromwell, who, “though then of but mean rank and use in the army, yet would be sure to rise higher. I knew him,” says he, “at Buckden; but never knew his religion. He was a common spokesman for sectaries, and maintained their parts with stubbornness. He never discoursed as if he were pleased with your majesty and your great officers; indeed he loves none that are more than his equals. Your majesty did him but justice in repulsing a petition put up by him against sir Thomas Steward, of the Isle of Ely; but he takes them all for his enemies that would not let him undo his hest friend; and, above all that live, I think he is injuriarum perscquentissimus^ as Portius Latro said of Catiline. He talks openly, that it is fit some should act more vigorously against your forces, and bring your person into the power of the parliament. He cannot give a good word of his general the eajl of Essex; because, he says, the earl is but half an enemy to your majesty, and hath done you more favour than harm. His fortunes are broken, that it is impossible for him to subsist, much less to be what he aspires to, but by your majesty’s bounty, or by the ruin of us all, and a common confusion; as one said, ‘ Lentulus salva republica salvus esse non potuit.’ In shprt, every beast hath some evil properties; but Cromwell hath the properties of all evil beasts. My humble motion is, either that you would win him to you by promises of fair treatment, or catch him by some stratagem, and cut him off.”

Hacket likewise, after observing that he was a man of great hospitality, charity, and generosity, especially to gentlemen of narrow fortunes, and poor scholars in both universities, informs us that his disbursements this way every year-amounted to 1000l. or sometimes 1200l. Hacket had reason to know his private character; for he was his chaplain, and although he may be supposed partial to so eminent a benefactor, the character he gives of archbishop Williams is, in general, not only consistent with itself, but with some contemporary authorities. He appears, amidst all his secular concerns, to have entertained a strong sense of the importance of religion, When a divine once came to him for institution to a living, Williams expressed himself thus; “I have passed through many places of honour and trust, both in church and state, more than any of my order in England these seventy years before. But were I but assured, that by my preaching I had converted but one soul unto God, I should take therein more spiritual joy and comfort, than in all the honours and offices which have been bestowed upon me.”

Archbishop Williams undertook a Latin Commentary on the Bible; and the notes collected from various authors by his own hand were formerly in the custody of Mr. Gouland, keeper of Westminster-college library. His lordship knowing well, that to perform such a task completely was above the abilities of any one man, intended to leave it to be finished by twelve or more of the best scholars in the nation, whom he had in his eye, and was willing to give them twenty thousand pounds rather than it should be left unfinished. He likewise resolved, as noticed by Dr. Pegge, in his valuable life of that prelate, to publish the works of his predecessor bishop Grosthead, which were scattered in several libraries at home and abroad, and he digested what he could procure of them, and wrote arguments upon various parts of them.

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

Dr. Willis was one of the first members of the Royal Society, and soon made his name as illustrious by his writings as it was already by his practice. In 1666, after the fire of London, he removed to Westminster, upon an invitation from archbishop Sheldon, and took a house in St. Martin’slane. As he rose early in the morning, that he might be present at divine service, which he constantly frequented before he visited his patients, he procured prayers to be read out of the accustomed times while he lived, and at his death settled a stipend of 20l. per annum to continue them, He was a liberal benefactor to the poor wherever he came, having from his early practice allotted part of his profits to charitable uses. He was a fellow of the college of physicians, and refused the honour of knighthood. He was regular and exact in his hours; and his table was the resort of most of the great men in London. After his settlement there, his only son Thomas falling into a consumption, he sent him to Montpellier in France for the recovery of his health, which proved successful. His wife also labouring under the same disorder, he offered to leave the town; but she, not suffering him to neglect the means of providing for his family, died in 1670. He died, at his house in St. Martin’s, Nov. 11, 1675, and was buried near her in Westminster-abbey. His son Thomas, above mentioned, was born at Oxford in Jan. 1657-8, educated some time in Westminster-school, became a student a Christ church, and died in 1699. He was buried in Bletcbley church, near Fenny-Stratford, the manors of which places his father had purchased of the duke of Buckingham, and which descended to his eldest son Browne Willis of Whaddon-hall, esq. eminent for his knowledge in antiquities, and of whom some memoirs will be given. Wood tells us, that “though Dr. Willis was a plain man, a man of no carriage, little discourse, complaisance, or society, yet for his deep insight, happy researches in natural and experimental philosophy, anatomy, and chemistry, for his wonderful success and repute in his practice, the natural smoothness, pure elegancy, delightful unaffected neatness of Latin style, none scarce hath equalled, much less outdone, him, how great soever. When at any time he is mentioned by authors, as he is very often, it is done in words expressing their highest esteem of his great worth and excellency, and placed still as first in rank among physicians. And, further, also, he hath laid a lasting founJation of a body of physic, chiefly on hypotheses of his own framing.” These hypotheses, by far too numerous and fanciful for his reputation, are contained in the following works: 1. “Diatribse duae Medico-philosophicae de ft-rmentatione, altera de febribus,” Hague, 1659, 8vo, London, 1660, 1665, &c. 12mo. This was attacked by Edm. de Meara, a doctor of physic of Bristol, and fellow of the college of physicians, but defended by Dr. Richard Lower in his “Diatribse Thomas Wiilisii Med. Doct. & Profess. Oxon de Febribus Vindicatio contra Edm. de Meara,” London, 1665, 8vo. 2. “Dissertatio Epistolica de Uriuis” printed with the Diatribes above mentioned. 3. “Cerebri Anatome,” London, 1664, 8vo, Amsterdam, 1667, in 12mo. 4. “De ratione motus musculorum,” printed with the “Cerebri Anatome.” 5. “Pathologise Cerebri & nervosi generis specimina, in quo agiiur de morbis convulsivis & descorbuto,” Oxford, 1667, 4to, London, 1668, Amsterdam, 1669, &c. 12mo. 6. “Affectionum quae dicuntur hystericae & hypochondriacae Pathologia spasmodica, vindicata contra responsionem Epistolarem Nath. Highmore, M. D.” London, 1670, 4to, Leyden, 1671, 12mo, &c. 7. “Exercitationes Medico-physicae duae, 1. De sanguinis accensione. 2.” De motu musculari,“printed with the preceding book. 8.” De anim& Brutorum, quag hominis vitalis ac sensativa est, exercitationes duac, &c.“London, 1672, 4to and 8vo, Amsterdam, 1674, 12mo, All these books, except” Affection um quae dicuntur hystericae, &c.“and that” de am ma Brutorum,“were translated into English by S. Pordage, esq. and printed at London, 1681, folio. 9.” Pharmaceutice Rationalis: sive Diatriba de medicamentorum operationibus in humano corpore." In two parts, Oxford, 1674 and 1675, 12mo, 4to. Published by Dr. John Fell. In the postscript to the second part is the following imprimatur put to it by Dr. Ralph Bathurst, the author dying the day before.

This book was translated into English by an anonymous person, and printed at London, in 1679, in folio; but this translation being very faulty, it was corrected by S. Pordage, esq. above mentioned, and published in his version of Dr. Willis’s Works in 1681. In 1685 there came out afe London, in 8vo, “The London practice of Physic; or the whole practical part of physic contained in the works of Dr. Willis, faithfully made English, and printed together for the public good.” This contains, I. the first and second parts of our author’s Pharmaceutice rationalis; II. his treatise of convulsive diseases; III. that of the scurvy; IV. that of the diseases of the brain and genus nervosum; V. that of fevers. 10. A plain and easy method of preserving those that are well from the infection of the plague, or any contagious distemper, in city, camp, country, fleet, &c. and for curing such as are infected with it. Written in 1666, but not published till the end of 1690. All our author’s Latin works were printed in two volumes in 4to at Geneva in 1676, and Amsterdam in 1682 in 4to.

, an eminent antiquary, was born Sept. 14, 1682, at Blandford in Dorset. He was grandson to the preceding Dr. Willis, and eldest son of Thomas Willis, esq. of Bletchley, in Bucks. His mother was daughter of Robert Browne, esq. of Frampton, in Dorsetshire. He had the first part of his education under Mr. Abraham Freestone at Bechampton, whence he was sent to Westminster-school, and during his frequent walks in the adjoining abbey imbibed that taste for architectural, particularly Ecclesiastical, antiquities, which constituted the pleasure and employment of his future life. At the age of seventeen he was admitted a gentleman commoner of Christ church, Oxford, wilder the tuition of the famous geographer Edward Wells, D. D. and when he left Oxford, he lived for three years with the famous Dr. Will. Wotton. In 1702, he proved a considerable benefactor to Fenny-Stratford, by reviving the market of that town. In 1705, he was chosen for the town of Buckingham; and, during the short time he was in parliament, was a constant attendant, and generally upon committees. In 1707, he married Catharine, daughter of Daniel Elliot, esq. of a very ancient family in Cornwall, with whom he had a fortune of 8000l. and by whom he had a numerous issue. She died Oct. 2, 1724. This lady had some literary pretensions. She wrote a book entitled “The established Church of England the true catholick church, free from innovations, or diminishing the apostolic doctrines, the sacraments, and doctrines whereof are herein set forth,” Lond. 1718, 8vo. What the merit of this work may be, we know not; but her husband often made a joke of it, and in his own copy wrote the following note, " All the connexion in this book is owing to the book binder.' 7 Between 1704 and 1707 he contributed very largely towards the repairing and beautifying Bletchley church, of which he was patron, and to which he gave a set of communion-plate. In 1717-18, the Society of- Antiquaries being revived, Mr. Willis became a member of it, and Aug. 23, 1720, the degree of M. A. and 1749, that of LL. D. were conferred on him, by diploma, by the university of Oxford. From some of his letters in 1723, it would appear that at that time he had some employment in the Tower, or perhaps had only gained access to the archives preserved there. At his solicitation, and in concurrence with his cousin Dr. Martin Benson, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, rector of that parish, a subscription was raised for building the beautiful chapel of St. Martin’s at Fenny -Stratford, which was begun in 1724, and consecrated May 27, 1730. A dreadful fire having destroyed above fifty houses and the church at Stoney-Stratford, May 19, 1746, Mr. Willis, besides collecting money among his friends for the benefit of the unhappy sufferers, rerpaired, at his own expence, the tower of the church, and afterwards gave a lottery ticket towards the re-building of that church, which came up a prize. In 1741 he presented the university of Oxford with his fine cabinet of English coins, at that time looked upon as the most complete collection in England, and which he had been upwards of forty years in collecting; but the university thinking it too much for him, who had then a large family, to give the gold ones, purchased them for 15O guineas, which were paid to Mr. Willis for 167 English gold coins, at the rate of four guineas per ounce weight; and even in this way the gold coins were a considerable benefaction.This cabinet Mr. Willis annually visited 19 Oct. being St, Frideswide’s day, and never failed making some addition to it. He also gave some Mss. to the Bodleian library, together with a picture of his grandfather, Dr. Thomas Willis. In 1752 he laid out 200l. towards the repairs of the fine tower at Buckingham church, which fell down some years ago, and he was, upon every occasion, a great friend to that town. In 17.56, Bow Brickhill church, which had been disused near 150 years, was restored and repaired by his generosity. In 1757 he erected, in Christ church, Oxford, a handsome monument for Dr. lies, canon of that cathedral, to whose education his grandfather had: contributed; and in 1759, he prevailed upon University college to do the same in Bechampton church, for their great benefactor sir Simon Benet, bart. above 100 years after his death: he also, at his own expence, placed a marble stone over him, on account of his benefactions at Bechampion, Buckingham, Stoney-Stratford, &c. Dr. Willis died at Whaddon-hall, Feb. 5, 170, in the seventy-eightli year of his age, and was buried in Fenny- Stratford chapeJ, where is an inscription written by himself.

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

In 1710, when Mr. Gale published his “History and Antiquities of Winchester Cathedral,” Willis supplied him with the history of Hyde abbey,- and lists of the abbots of Newminster and Hyde, published in that work. In 1715 and 1716 he published his “Notitia Parliamentaria, or an History of the Counties, cities and boroughs in England and Wales,” 2 vols. 8vo, to which he added a third in 1730. The first volume was reprinted in 1730, with additions; and a single sheet, as far as relates to the borough of Windsor, was printed in 1733, folio. In 1717, 'he published^ without his name, a kind of abridgment of * The Whole Duty of Man,“” for the benefit of the poorer sort.“In the same year,” A Survey of the Cathedral Church of St. David’s, and the edifices belonging to it, as they stood in the year 1715,“8vo. In 1718 and 1719,” An History of the mitred Parliamentary abbies and conventual cathedral churches,“2 vols. 8vo. In 1719, 20, and 21,” Surveys of the Cathedral churches of Llandaff, St. Asaph, and Bangor, &c.“8vo. This led to his greatest and most important work,” Survey of the Cathedrals of England, with the Parochialc Anglicanmn^ illustrated with draughts of the cathedrals," 3 vols. 4to, 1727, 1730, and 1733. These volumes contain the history of the cathedrals of York, Durham, Carlisle, Chester, Man, Lichfield, Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol, Lincoln, ifty, Oxford, and Peterborough*. These were first published by Mr. Francis Gosling, afterwards the banker and founder of the well-known and highly respected firm of that name, who, on giving up the bookselling business, sold the remaining copies to Osborne, who prefixed a title with the date 1742, and advertised them as containing a history of all the cathedrals. Against this roguish trick, Willis thought proper to guard the public in an advertisement in the public papers. It is to be regretted, however, that he did not extend his labours to all the cathedrals, for he had during his long life visited every cathedral in England and Wales except Carlisle, which journies he used to call his pilgrimages.

, a noted wit in the reign of Charles II. was the son of Henry earl of Rochester; who bore a great part in the civil wars, and was the chief manager of the king’s preservation after the battle of Worcester. He was born April 10, 1647, at Ditchley in Oxfordshire; and was educated in grammar and classical literature in the free-school at Burford. Here he acquired the Latin to such perfection, that to his 'dying day he retained a quick relish for the beauties of that tongue; and afterwards became exactly versed in the authors of the Augustan age, which he often read. In 1659, when only twelve years old, he was admitted a nobleman of Wadham college in Oxford, under the inspection of Dr. Blandford, afterwards bishop of Oxford and Worcester; and, in 1661, was with some other persons of rank created master of arts in convocation: at which time, Wood says, he and none else was admitted very affectionately into the fraternity by a kiss from the chancellor of the university, Clarendon, who then sate in the supreme chair. Afterwards he travelled into France and Italy; and at his return frequented the court, which, Wood observes, and there is reason to believe very truly, not only corrupted his morals, but made him a perfect Hobbist in principle. In the mean time, he became one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the king, and comptroller of Woodstockpark. In 1665 he went to sea with the earl of Sandwich, who was sent to lie in wait for the Dutch East-India fleet; and was in the Revenge, commanded by sir Thomas Tiddiman, when the attack was made on the port of Bergen in Norway, the Dutch ships having got into that port. It was a desperate attempt; and, during the whole action, the earl of Rochester shewed the greatest resolution, and gained a high reputation for courage. He supported his character for bravery in a second expedition, but afterwards lost it in an adventure with lord Mulgrave; of which that noble author, in the memoirs of himself, gives a particular account. It exhibits some traits of the earl of Rochester’s character; and therefore, though somewhat tedious and wordy, may not be unacceptable. “I was informed,” says lord Mulgrave, “that the earl of Rochester had said something of me, which, according to his custom, was very malicious. I therefore sent colonel Aston, a very mettled friend of mine, to call him to account for it. He denied the words, and indeed I was soon convinced he had never said them; but the mere report, though I found it to. be false, obliged me, as I then foolishly thought, to go on with the quarrel; and the next day was appointed for us to fight on horseback, a way in England a little unusual, but it was his part to chuse. Accordingly, I and my second lay the night before at Knightsbridge privately, to avoid the being secured at London upon any suspicion; and in the morning we met the lord Rochester at the place appointed, who, instead of James Porter, whom he assured Aston he would make his second, brought an errant lifeguard man, whom nobody knew. To this Mr. Aston took exception, upon the account of his being no suitable adversary; especially considering how extremely well he was mounted, whereas we had only a couple of pads: upon which, tve all agreed to fight on foot. But, as my lord Rochester and i were riding into the next field in order to it, he told me, that he had at first chosen to fight on horseback, because he was so much indisposed, that he found himself unfit at all any way, much less on foot. I was extremely surprised, because at that time no man had a better reputation for courage; and I took the liberty of representing what a ridiculous story it would make, if we returned without fighting, and therefore advised him for both our sakes, especially for his own, to consider better of it, since I must be obliged in my own defence to lay the fault on him, by telling the truth of the matter. His answter was, that he submitted to it; and hoped, that I would not desire the advantage of having to do with any man in so weak a condition. I replied, that by such an argument he had sufficiently tied my hands, upon condition that I might call our seconds to be witnesses of the whole business; which he consented to, and so we parted. When we returned to London, we found it full of this quarrel, upon our being absent so long; and therefore Mr. Aston thought himself obliged to write down every word and circumstance of this whole matter, in order to spread every where the true reason of our returning without having fought. This, being never in the least contradicted or resented by the lord Rochester, entirely ruined his reputation as to courage, of which I was really sorry to be the occasion, though nobody had still a greater as to wit; which supported him pretty well in the world, notwithstanding some more accidents of the same kind, that never fail to succeed one another, wten once people know a man’s weakness.”

The earl of Rochester, before he travelled, had given somewhat into that disorderly and intemperate way of living which the joy of the whole nation, upon the restoring of Charles II. had introduced; yet during his travels he bad at least acquired a habit of sobriety. But, falling into court-company, where excesses were continually practised, he soon became intemperate, and the natural heat of his fancy, being inflamed with wine, made him so extravagantly pleasant, that many, to be more diverted by that humour, strove to engage him deeper and deeper in intoxication. This at length so entirely subdued him, that, as he told Dr, Burnet, he was for five years together conttnually drunk: not all the while under the visible effect of liquor, but so inflamed in his blood, that he was never cool enough to be master of himself. There were two principles in the natural temper of this lively and witty earl, which carried him to great excesses; a violent love of pleasure, and a disposition to extravagant mirth. The one involved him in the lowest sensuality, the other led him to many odd adventures and frolics. Once he had disguised himself so, that his nearest friends could not have known him, and set up in Tower-street for an Italian mountebank, where he practised physic for some weeks. He disguised himself often as a porter, or as a beggar; sometimes to follow some mean amours, which, for the variety of them, he affected. At other times, merely for diversion, he would go about in odd shapes; in which he acted his part so naturally, that even those who were in the secret, and saw him in these shapes, could perceive nothing by which he might be discovered. He is said to have been a generous and good-natured man in cold blood, yet would go far in his heats after any thing that might turn to a jest or matter of diversion; and he laid out himself very freely in libels and satire*, in which he had so peculiar a talent of mixing wit with malice, that all his compositions were easily known. Andrew Marvell, Ivho was himself a great wit, used to say, “that Rochester was the only man in England who had the true vein of satire.”

In Oct. 1679, when he was slowly recovering from a severe disease, he was visited by Dr. Burnet, upon an intimation that such a visit would be very agreeable to him. With great freedom he laid open to that divine all his thoughts both of religion and morality, and gave him a full view of his past life: on which the doctor visited hick often, till he went from London in April following, and once or twice after. They canvassed at various times the principles of morality, natural and revealed religion, and Christianity in particular; the result of all which, as it is faithfully related by Dr. Burnet in a book, which, Dr. Johnson observes, “the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint-far its piety,” was, that this noble earl, though he had lived the life of an atheist and a libertine, yet died the death of a sincere penitent. The philosophers of the present age will naturally suppose, that his contrition and conviction were purely the effects of weakness and low spirits, which scarcely suffer a man to continue in his senses, and certainly not to be master of himself; but Dr. Burnet affirms him to have been “under no such decay as either darkened or weakened his understanding, nor troubled with the spleen or vapours, or under the power of melancholy.” The reader may judge for himself from the following, which is part of a letter from the earl to Dr. Burnet, dated “Woodstock-park, June 25, 1680, Oxfordshire.” There is nothing left out, but some personal compliments to the doctor.

“My spirits and body decay so equally together, that I shall write you a letter as weak as 1 am in person. I, begin to vlue churchmen above all men in the world, &c. If God be yet pleased to spare me longer in this worid^ I hope in your conversation to be exalted to that degree of piety, that the world may see how much J abhor what I so long loved, and how much I glory in repentance, and in God’s service. Bestow your prayers upon me, that God would spare me, if it be his good wili, to shew a true repentance and amendment of life fqr the time to come or else, if the” Lord pieaseth to put an end to my worldly being now, that be would mercifully accept of my death-bed repentance, and perform that promise he hath been pleased to make, that at what time soever a sinner doth repeat, he would receive him.' Put up these prayers, most dear doctor, to Almighty God, for your most obedient and languishing servant, Rochester."

He died July 26 following, without any convulsion, or so much as a groan: for, though he had not completed his thirty -third year, he was worn so entirely down, that all the powers of nature were exhausted. He left behind him a son named Charles, who died Nov. 12, 1.681; and three daughters*. The male line ceasing, Charles II. conferred the title of Rochester on Laurence viscount Killingworth, a younger son of Edward earl of Clarendon.

“Wood and Burnet give us reason to believe, that much was imputed to him which he did not write. It is not known by whom the original collection was made, or by what authority its genuineness was ascertained. The first edition was published. in the year of his death, with an air of concealment, professing in the title-page to be printed at Antwerp. Of some of the pieces, however, there is no doubt. The Imitation of Horace’s Satire, the Verses to lord Mulgrave, the Satire against Man, the verses upon Nothing, and perhaps some others, are I believe genuine, and perhaps most of those which the collection exhibits. As he cannot be supposed to have found leisure for any course of continued study, his pieces are commonly short, such as one fit of resolution would produce. His songs have no particular character; they tell, like other &ongs, in smooth and easy language, of scorn and kindness, dismission and desertion, absence, and inconstancy, with the common-places of artificial courtship. They are commonly smooth and easy; but have little nature, and little sentiment. His imitation of Horace on Lucilius is not inelegant or unhappy. In the reign of Charles the Second began that adaptation, which has since been very frequent, of ancient poetry to present times; and perhaps few will be found where the parallelism is better preserved than in this. The versification is indeed sometimes careless, but it is sometimes vigorous and weighty. The strongest effort of his muse is his poem upon” Nothing.“Another of his most vigorous pieces is his lampoon upon sir Carr Scrope. Of the satire against Man, Rochester can only claim what remains when all Boileau’s part is taken away. In all his works there is sprightliness and vigour, and every where may be found tokens of a mind which study might have carried to excellence. What more can be expected from a life spent in ostentatious contempt of regularity, and ended before the abilities of many other men began to be displayed?” The late George Steevens, esq. made the selection of Rochester’s poems which appears in Dr. Johnson’s edition; but Mr. Malone observes, that the same task had been performed in the early part of the last century by Jacob Tonson.

In the autumn of 1756, lord Hardwicke resigned the great seal, which continued for about a year in the hands of three lords commissioners, chief justice Willes, sir S. S. Smythe, and sir John Eardley VVihnot. In March 1757, sir Eardley had a most providential escape from being destroyed at Worcester by the fall of a stack of chimneys through the roof into court. His first clerk was killed at his feet, also the attorney in the cause then trying, two of the jurymen, and some others. Sir Eardley was beginning to sum up the evidence when the catastrophe happened. Sir Eardley continued about nine years longer, as one of the puisne judges of the court of King’s Bench. The King’s Bench was at this time filled with men of distinguished talents, and ic is no small honour to sir Eardley Wilmot that he sat for a long period as the worthy colleague of Mansfield, Dennison, and Foster. Though the part be took was not a very conspicuous one, from his situation on the bench, and from his native modesty, yet his brethren, and those who were acquainted with Westminster-hall at that period, bore testimony that his active mind was always engaged, either in or out of court, in elucidating some obscure point, iii nicely weighing questions of the greatest difficulty, and in contributing his share towards expediting and deciding the important suits then under discussion nor was he less eminent in that important branch of his judicial office, the administration of the criminal justice 6f the kingdom; and while his pervading mind suffered few crimes to escape detection and punishment, his humanity and compassion were often put to the severest trials.

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

In 1768, bishop Warburton, who had the highest opnion of sir Eardley, requested him to become one of the first trustees of his lectureship at Lincoln’s-inn chapel, along with lord Mansfield and Mr. Yorke; and this being complied with, in 1769, sir Eardley requested his assistance and advice on the occasion of one of his sons preparing himself for the church. The bishop complied, and sent him the first part of some “Directions for the study of Theology,” which have since been printed in Warburton’s works, being given to his editor, Dr. Hurd, by the son to whom they were addressed, the late John Eardley Wilmot, esq. Circumstances afterwards induced this son to go into the profession of the law, on which sir Eardley, in 1771, made the following indorsement on the bishop’s paper. “These directions were given me by Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, for the use of my son, when he proposed to go into orders; but, in the year 1771, he unfortunately preferred the bar to the pulpit, and, instead of lying upon a bed of roses, ambitioned a crown of thorns. Digne puer meliore flamma /” This shews how uniform sir Eardley was, from his earliest youth, in his predilection for the church, a predilection which probably influenced, more or less, every act of his life. It was about this time, viz. 1769, that sir Eardley presided in the memorable cause of Mr. Wilkes against lord Halifax and others, a period of great heat and violence, both in parliament and in the nation; but he was so entirely free from all political bias, that his conduct gave universal satisfaction. It was an action of trespass for false imprisonment, damages laid at 20,000l.; Mr. Wilkes having been taken up and confined in the Tower, and his papers seized and taken away, by virtue of a general warrant from lord Halifax, one of his majesty’s secretaries of state. Sir Eardley’s speech is published in his Life, and does great credit to his impartiality. The jury gave 4000l. damages.

, an English historian, was the son of Richard Wilson, of Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, gentleman; and was born in that county, 1596. In 1609 he went to France, where he continued almost two years; and upon his return to England was placed with sir Henry Spiller, to be one of his clerks in the exchequer office; in whose family he resided till having written some satirical verses upon one of the maid-servants, he was dismissed at lady Spiller’s instigation. In 1613 he took a lodging in Holborn, where he applied himself to reading and poetry for some time; and, the year after, was taken into the family of Robert earl of Essex, whom he attended into the Palatinate in 1620; to the siege of Dornick, in Holland, in 1621 to that of Rees in 1622 to Arnheim, in 1623 to the siege of Breda in 1624 and in the expedition to Cadiz in 1625. In 1630 he was discharged the earl’s service, at the importunity of his lady, who had conceived an aversion to him, because she had supposed him to have been against the earl’s marrying her. He tells us, in his own life, that this lady’s name, before she marrie,d the earl, was Elizabeth Paulet; that “she appeared to the eye a beauty, full of harmless sweetness; that her conversation was affable and gentle; and, as he was firmly persuaded, that it was not forced, but natural. But the height of her marriage and greatness being an accident, altered her very nature; for,” he says, “she was the true image of Pandora’s box,” nor was he much mistaken, for this lady was divorced for adultery two years after her marriage. In 1631 he retired to Oxford, and became gentlman commoner of Trinity college, where he stayed almost two years, and was punctual in his compliance with the laws of the university. Then he was sent for to be steward to the earl of Warwick, whom he attended in 1637 to the siege of Breda. He died in 1652, at Felstead, in Essex, and his will was proved in October of that year. The earl and countess of Warwick received from him the whole of his library, and 50l. to be laid out in purchasing a piece of gold plate, as a memorial, particularly applying to the Jatter, “in testimony,” as he adds, “of my humble duty and gratitude for all her noble and 1 undeserved favours to me.” Gratitude seems to have been a strong principle with Wilson, as appears from his life, written by himself, and printed in Peck’s “Desiderata.” Wood’s account of him is, that “he had little skill in the Latin tongue, less in the Greek, a good readiness in the French, and some smattering in the Dutch. He was well seen in the mathematics and poetry, and sometimes in the common law of the nation. He had composed some comedies, which were acted at the Black Friars, in London, by the king’s players, and in the act-time at Oxford, with good applause, himself being- present; but whether they are printed I cannot yet tell; sure lam, that I have several specimens of his poetry printed in divers books. His carriage was very courteous and obliging, and such as did become a wellbred gentleman. He also had a great command of the English tongue, as well in writing as speaking; and, had he bestowed his endeavours on any other subject than that of history, they would without doubt have seemed better. For, in those things which he hath done, are wanting the principal matters conducing to the completion of that” faculty, viz. matter from record, exact time, name, and place, which, by his endeavouring too much to set out his bare collections in an affected and bombastic style, are much neglected.“The history here alluded to by Wood, is” The Life and Reign of king James I.“printed in London in 1653, folio; that is, the year after his death and reprinted in the 2d volume of” -The complete History of England,“in 1706, folio. This history has been severely treated by many writers. Mr. William Sanderson says, that,” to give Wilson his due, we may find truth and falsehood finely put together in it.“Heylin, in the-general preface to his” Examen,“styles Wilson’s history” a most famous pasquil of the reign of king James; in which it is not easy to judge whether the matter be more false, or the style more reproachful to all parts thereof.“Mr. Thomas Fuller, in his” Appeal of injured Innocence,“observes, how Robert earl of Warwick told him at Beddington, that, whenWilson’s book in manuscript was brought to him, his lordship expunged more than an hundred offensive passages: to which Mr. Fuller replied,” My lord, you have done well; and you had done better if you had put out a hundred more.“Mr. Wood’s sentence is,” that, in our author’s history, may easily be discerned a partial presbyterian vein, that constantly goes through the whole work: and it being the genius of those people to pry more than they should into the courts and comportments of princes, they do take occasion thereupon to traduce and bespatter them. Further also, our author, having endeavoured in many things to make the world believe that king James and his son after him were inclined to Popery, and to bring that religion into England, hath made him subject to many errors and misrepresentations.“On the other band, archdeacon Echard tells us, that” Wilson’s History of the life and reign of king James, though written not without some prejudices and rancour in respect to some persons, and too much with the air of a romance, is thought to be the best of that kind extant:“and the writer of the notes on the edition of it in the” Complete History of England“remarks, that, as to the style of our author’s history,” it is harsh and broken, the periods often obscure, and sometimes without connection; faults, that were common in most writers of that time. Though he finished that history in the year 1652, a little before his death, when both the monarchy and hierarchy were overturned, it does not appear he was an enemy to either, but only to the corruptions of them; as he intimates in the picture he draws of himself before that hook."

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

Sir Thomas Wilson wrote, 1. “Epistola de vita et obita duorum fratrum SufFolciensium, HenricietCaroli Brandon,” Lond. 1552, 4to, prefixed to a collection of verses written on their deaths by several scholars of Oxford and Cambridge. Of this rare book there are only three copies known, one in the Bodleian, another in the British museum, and a third in the magnificent library of earl Spencer. 2. “The rule of Reason, containing the art of Logic,” 1551, 1552, 1553, 1567, 4to. 3. “The art of Rhetoric,” 1553, 4to, often reprinted. 4. “Discourse upon Usury,” Lond. 1572, a work much praised by Dr. Lawrence Humphrey, the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford, in his life of Jewell. Wilson also translated from Greek into English, <c The three Orations of Demosthenes, chief orator among the Grecians,“Lond. 1570. Of his” Art of Logic,“Mn Warton says that such a” display of the venerable mysteries of this art in a vernacular language, which had hitherto been confined within the sacred pale of the learned tongues, was esteemed an innovation almost equally daring with that of permitting the service of the church to be celebrated in English; and accordingly the author, soon, afterwards happening to visit Rome, was incarcerated by the inquisitors of the holy see, as a presumptuous and dangerous heretic.“Of his” Art of Rhetoric," Mr. Wartori says, it is liberal and discursive, illustrating the arts of eloquence by example, and examining and ascertaining the beauties of composition with the speculative skill and sagacity of a critic. It may therefore be justly considered as the first book or system of criticism in our language. This opinion Mr. Warton confirms by very copious extracts.

But there happened another dispute between the bishop and the governor, which, so far as the bishop was personally concerned, was much more serious; and it is related thus: Mrs. Home, the governor’s wife, had defamed Mrs. Puller and sir James Pool with a false charge of criminal conversation; and, in consequence of being contumacious, and refusing to ask pardon of the persons injured, was by the bishop interdicted from the holy communion. But Mr. Horribin, his archdeacon, who was chaplain to captain sHorne, received Mrs. Home to the communion, and was suspended by the bishop. Upon this, the governor, conceiving that the bishop had acted illegally, fined him 50l. and his two vicars-general 20l. each; and, on their refusing to pay this fine, committed them all, June 29, 1722, to Castle Rushin, a damp and gloomy prison, where they were closely confined, and no persons were admitted within the walls to see or converse with them, and where Dr. Wilson was treated with a rigour which no protestant bishop had experienced since the reformation.

Bishop Wilson’s life was an uniform display of the most genuine and active benevolence. Considering himself as the steward, not the proprietor, of the revenues of the bishopric, he devoted his income to what he esteemed its proper use. The annual receipts of the bishopric, as we have just mentioned, did not exceed 300l. in money; some necessaries in his house were of course to be paid for in money; distressed or shipwrecked mariners, and some other poor objects, it was also requisite to relieve with money; but the poor of the island were fed and clothed, and the house in general supplied from his demesnes by exchange, without money. The poor who could spin or weave, found the best market at Bishop’s-court, where they bartered the produce of their labour for corn. Taylors an'd shoemakers were kept in the house constantly employed, to make into garments or shoes that cloth or leather which his corn had purchased; and the aged and the infirm were supplied according to their several wants. At the same time he kept an open hospitable table, covered with the produce of his own demesnes, at which he presided with equal affability and decorum. His manners, though always consistently adorned with Christian gravity, were ever gentle and polite; and in his conversation he was one of the most entertaining and agreeable, as well as instructive of men. With these qualities of the gentleman, the bishop united the accomplishments and virtues of the scholar and the divine. He was well skilled in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages; and there was hardly any part of science that could be serviceable in his diocese which he did not understand. In his younger days he had a poetical turn, but afterwards laid aside such amusements, as thinking them inconsistent with his episcopal character. During the fiftyeight years that he held the bishopric, he never failed, unless on occasions of sickness, to expound the scripture, to preach, or to administer the sacrament, every Sunday, at one or other of the churches in his diocese, and, if absent from the island, he always preached at the church where he resided for the day. He alternately visited the different parishes of his diocese on Sundays (which the dimensions of the island will permit in a carriage) without giving them notice, and, after doing the duty of the day, returned home to dinner. His family prayers were as regular as his public duties. Every summer morning at six, and every winter morning at seven o'clock, his whole household attended him in his chapel, where he himself, or one of those divinity-students whom he maintained in his house, performed the service of the day; and in the evening they did the same. Thus it was that he formed his young clergy for the pulpit, and for a graceful delivery. He was so great a friend to toleration, that the papists who resided in the island, loved and esteemed him, and not unfrequently attended his ministrations. Dissenters likewise even attended the communion-service, as he admitted them to receive the sacrament, either standing or sitting, at their own option, so that there was neither schism nor separate- congregation in his diocese. The few quakers also, who were resident on the island, visited and respected him. Many other amiable, and some singular traits of the character of this excellent prelate may be seen in the work from which the above particulars are taken.

, an artist and antiquary of great taste and talents, was born August 21, 1739, at Twickenham, in the house afterwards the residence of Richard Owen Cambridge, esq. He was educated at Eton school, from which he went to Christ’s-college, Cambridge, but took no degree. He returned from an extensive tour through France, Italy, Istria, and Switzerland, in 1769; and soon after married the honourable Charlotte De Grey, sister to the lord Walsingham; by whom he has left no issue. In all which is usually comprehended under the denomination of Belles Lettres, Mr. Windham may claim a place among the most learned men of his time. To an indefatigable diligence in the pursuit of knowledge, he joined a judgment clear, penetrating, and unbiassed, and a memory uncommonly retentive and accurate. An ardent love for truth, a perfect freedom from prejudice, jealousy, and affectation, an entire readiness to impart his various and copious information, united with a singular modesty and simplicity, marked his conversation and manners. Few men had a more critical knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, or a deeper feeling for the beauties of style and sentiment in the classic writers; but in his minute and comprehensive acquaintance with every thing in them illustrative of human life and manners, especially all that relates to the fine arts, he scarcely had an equal. The history of art in the middle ages, and every circumstance relative to the revival of literature and the arts, from the fourteenth century to the present time, were equally familiar to him; and his acquaintance with the language of modern Italy was surpassed by few. He had very particularly studied the antiquities of his own country, and was eminently skilled in the history of English architecture. His pencil, as a draftsman from nature, was exquisite. His portraits of mere natural scenery were peculiarly spirited and free, and his drawings of architecture and antiquities most faithful and elegant. During his residence at Rome, he studied and measured the remains of ancient architecture there, particularly the baths, with a precision which would have done honour to the most able professional architect. His numerous plans and sections of them he gave to Mr. Cameron, and they are engraved in his great work on the Roman baths. To this work he also furnished a very considerable and valuable part of the letter-press. He also drew up the greater portion of the letter-press of the second volume of the “Ionian Antiquities,” published by the society of Dilettanti; and Mr. Stuart received material assistance from him in the second volume of his Athens. In his own name he published very little. His accuracy of mind rendered it difficult to him to please himself; and, careless of the fame of an author, he was better content that his friends should profit by his labours, than that the public should know the superiority of his own acquirements. He had been long a fellow of the Royal and Antiquarian Societies; and in the latter, was for many years of the council, and one of the committee for the publication of the Cathedrals of England. He more than once declined the honourable office of vice-president. Of the society of Dilettanti he was one of the oldest members; and to his zeal it was principally owing that the publications of that society were continued, after a suspension of many years. Mr. Windham died at Earsham-house, Norfolk, Sept. 21, 181U. In private life, he was the most amiable of men. Benevolent, generous, cheerful, without caprice, above envy, his temper was the unclouded sun-shine of virtue and sense. If his extreme modesty and simplicity of character prevented his striking at the first acquaintance, every hour endeared him to those who had the happiness of his intimacy. In every relation of life he was exemplary. A kind husband, a firm friend, a generous landlord, an indulgent master.

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

or Winfrid. See Boniface, St.

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

His works are, 1. “The use of the proportional Rules in Arithmetic and Geometry; also the use of Logarithms of numbers, with those of sines and tangents;” printed ill French, at Paris, 1624, 8vo, and at London, in English^ 1626, 1645, and 1658. In this book, Mr. Wingate speaks of having been the first who carried the logarithms tqf France; but an edition of Napier’s “Description and construction of Logarithms” was printed at Lyons in 1620, four years earlier than Wingate’s publication. 2. “Of Natural, and Artificial Arithmetic, or Arithmetic made easy,” Lond. 1630, 8vo, which has gone through numerous editions; the best is that by Mr. Doclson. 3. 4 Tables of Logarithms of the signs and tangents of all the degrees and minutes of the Quadrant; with the use and application of the same,“ibid. 1633, 8vo. 4.” The Construction and use of Logarithms, with the resolution of Triangles, &c.“5.” Ludus Mathematicus: or an Explanation of the description, construction, and use of the numerical table of proportion,“ibid. 1654, 8vo. 6.” Tacto-metria, seu Tetagne-nqme-t tria, or the Geometry of regulars, &c.“ 8vo. 7.” The exact Surveyor of Land, &c.“8vo. 8.” An exact abridgment of all the statutes in force and use from the Magna Charta to 1641,“1655, 8vo, reprinted and continued to 1663, 1680, 1681, and 1684. 9.” The body of the common law of England,“1655, &c. 8vo. 10.” Maxims of reason, or the Reason of the Common Law of England,“1658, fol. 11.” Statuta Pacis; or, the Table of all the Statutes which any way concern the office of a justice of peace, &c." 12mo. 12. An edition of Britton, 1640, 12mo. He was supposed to be the editor of some other law books, which show equal judgment and industry, but he is now remembered only as a mathematician.

, an eminent antiquary, was born at Stendall, in the old Marche of Brandenbourg, in the beginning of 1718. He was the son of a shoemaker, but although to all appearance destined by his birth to superintend a little school in an obscure town in Germany, he raised himself to the office of president of antiquities in the Vatican. After having been seven years professor in the college of Seehausen near Salswedel, he went into Saxony,where he resided seven years more, and was Jibrarian to count Bonau at Nothenitz. The count was author of an “History of the Empire,” and died 1762. His fine library, valued in 1749 at 15,000 English crowns, has been since added to the public library of Dresden. Mr. Winkelman, in 1748, made a most methodical and informing catalogue of it, in 4 vols. When he left this place in 1754, he went to Dresden, where he formed an acquaintance with the ablest artists, and particularly with M. Oeser, an excellent painter, and one of the best draughtsmen of the age. In that year he abjured Lutheranism, and embraced the Roman cathylic religion. In Sept. 1755, he set out for Italy, and arrived at Rome in December following. His principal object was to see the Vatican library, and to examine the ruins of Herculaneum. While engaged, as he tells us, in teaching some dirty boys their Abc, he aspired to a knowledge of the beautiful, and silently meditated on the comparisons of Homer’s Greek with the Latin literature, and a critical acquaintance with the respective languages, which were more familiar to him than they had ever been to any former lover of antiquity, both by his application in studying them, and his public lectures as professor of them. His extensive reading was improved in the noble and large library which he afterwards superintended. The solitude and the beauty of the spot where he lived, and the Platonic reveries which he indulged, all served to prepare the mind for the enthusiasm winch he felt at the sight of the master-pieces of art. His first steps in this career bespoke a man of genius; but what a concurrence of^circumstances were necessary to develope his talents! The magnificent gallery of paintings and the cabinet of antiquities at Dresden, the conversation of artists and amateurs, his journey to Rome, his residence there, the friendship of Mengs the painter, his residence in the palace and villa of cardinal Albani, his place of writer in the Vatican, and that of president *of antiquities, were so many advantages and helps to procure him materials, and to facilitate to him the use of them for the execution of the design which he had solely in view. Abso,­lute master of his time, he lived in a state of perfect independence, which is the true source of genius, contenting himself with a frugal and regular life, and knowing no other passions than those which tended to inflame his ardent pursuit. An active ambition urged him on, though he affected to conceal it by a stoical indifference. A lively imagination, joined to an excellent memory, enabled him to derive great advantages from his study of the works of the ancients, and a steady indefatigable zeal led him naturally to new discoveries. He kindled iii Rome the torch of sound study of the works of the ancients. His intimate acquaintance with them enabled him to throw greater certainty upon his explanations, and even upon his conjectures, and to overthrow many arbitrary principles and ancient prejudices. His greatest merit is, to have pointed out the true source of the study of antiquity, which is the knowledge of art, to which no writer had before attended. Mr. Winkelman carried with him into Italy a sense of beauty and art, which led him instantly to admire the master-pieces of the Vatican, and with which he began to study them. He soon increased his knowledge, and it was not till after he had thus purified his taste, and entertained conceptions of ideal beauty, which transported him to inspiration, and led him into the greatest secrets of art, that he began to think of the explanation of other monuments, in which his great learning could not fail to distinguish him. At the same time another immortal scholar treated the science of antiquity in the same manner on this side the Alps. Count Caylus had a profound and extensive knowledge of the arts, was master of the mechanical part, and drew and engraved in a capital style. Winkelman was upt endowed with these advantages, but in point of classical erudition surpassed the count; and while the latter employed himself in excellent explications of little objects, the former had continually before him at Rome the greatest monuments of ancient art. This erudition enabled him to fill ap his principal plan of writing the “History of Art.” In 1756 he planned his “Restoration of Ancient Statues,” and a larger work on the “Taste of the Greek Artists;” $od designed an account of the galleries of Rome and Italy, beginning with a volunqe on the Belvedere statues, in the manner of Richardson, who, he says, only ran over Rome. In. the preface he intended to mention the fate of these statues at the sacking of Rome in 1527, when the soldiers made a fire in Raphael’s lodge, which spoiled many things. He also intended a history of the corruption of taste in art, the restoration of statues, and an illustration of the obscure points of mythology. All these different essays led him to his “History of Art,” and his “Monumenti Inediti.” It must, however, be confessed, that the first of these works has not all the clearness and precision that might be expected in its general plan, and division of its parts and objects; but it has enlarged and extended the ideas both of antiquaries ancj collectors. The description of the gems and sulphurs of the Stosch cabinet contributed not a little to extend Mr. Winkelman’s knowledge. Few persons have had opportunities of contemplating such vast collections. The engravings of Lippet and count Caylus are all that many can arrive at. Mr. Winkelman’s “Monumenti Inediti,” of which he had begun the third vol. 1767, seem to have secured him the esteem of antiquaries. He there explained a number of monuments, and particularly bas reliefs till then accounted inexplicable, with a parade of learning more in compliance with the Italian fashion than was necessary. Had he lived, we should have had a work long wished for, a complete collection of the bas reliefs discovered from the time of Bartoli to the present, the greater part of which are in the possession of cardinal Albani. But however we may regret his tragical end, the intenseness of his application, and the eagerness of his pursuit after ancient monuments, had at last so bewildered tym, in conjectures, that, from a commentator on the works of the ancients, he became a kind of seer or prophet. yis warm imagination outran his judgment. As he proceeded in his knowledge of the characters of art in monunients, he exhausted iiis fund of observations drawn from the ancients, and particularly from the Greeks. He cited early editions, which are frequently not divided into chapters; and he was entirely unacquainted with the publications in the rest of Europe on the arts and antiquity. Hence his “History of Art” is full of anachronisms.

Abbe Winkelman was a middle-sized man; he had a very low forehead, sharp nose, and little black hollow eyes, which gave him an aspect rather gloomy than otherwise. If he had any thing graceful in his physiognomy, it was, his mouth, yet his lips were too prominent; but, when he was animated, and in good humour, his features formed an ensemble that was pleasing. A fiery and impetuous disposition often threw him into extremes. - Naturally enthusiastic, he often indulged an extravagant imagination; but, as he possessed a strong and solid judgment, he knew how to give things a just and intrinsic value. In consequence of this turn of mind, as well as a neglected education, a cautious reserve was a quality he little knew. If hewas bold in his decisions as an author, he was still more so in his conversation, and has often made his friends tremble for his temerity. If ever man knew what friendship was, that man was Mr. Winkelman, who regularly practised all its duties, and for this reason he could boast of having friends among persons of every rank and condition. People of his turn of thinking and acting seldom or ever indulged suspicions: the abbe’s fault was a contrary extreme. The frankness of his temper led him to speak his sentiments on all occasions; but, being too much addicted to that species of study which he so assiduously cultivated, he was not always on his guard to repress the sallies of self-love. His picture was drawn half length, sitting, by a German lady born at Kosinitz, but carried when young into Italy by her father, who was a painter. She etched it in a 4to size, and another artist executed it in mezzotinto. This lady was Angelica Kauffman. The portrait is prefixed to the collection of his letters published at Amsterdam, 1781, 2 vols. 12ino. Among his correspondents were Mr. Heyne, Munchausen, baron Reidesel (whose travels into Sicily, translated into English by Dr. Forster, 1773, 8vo, are addressed to him, and inspired him with an ardent longing to go over that ground), count Bunau, C. Fuesli, Gesner, P. Usteri, Van Mechlen, the duke de Rochfoucault, lord (alias Mr. Wortley) Montague, Mr. Wiell; and there are added extracts from letters to M. Clerisseaux, while he was searching after antiquities in the South of France a list of the principal objects in Rome, 1766, &c. and an abstract of a letter of Fuesli to the German translators of Webb on the “Beauties of Painting.”

, a skilful anatomist who settled in France, was born in 1669, at Odensee, in Denmark, where his father was minister of the place, and intended him for his own profession, but he preferred that of medicine, which he studied in various universities in Europe. In 1698 he was at Paris, studying under the celebrated Duverney, and here he was induced by the writings of Bossuet to renounce the protestant religion, a change which, it is rather singular, happened to his granduncle Stenonius (See Stenonius) by the same influence. He now settled at Paris, was elected one of the college of physicians, lecturer at the royal garden, expounder of the Teutonic language at the royal library, and member of the academy of sciences. According to Haller, who had been his pupil, his genius was not so remarkable as his industry, but by dint of assiduity he became an excellent anatomist; and his system of anatomy, or “Exposition Anatomique,” has long been considered as a work of the first reputation and utility, and has been translated into almost all the European languages, and into English by Douglas, 1734, 2 vols. 4to. He was also the author of a great number of anatomical dissertations, some of which were published separately, but they mostly -appeared in the Memoirs of the French academy. He died in 1760, at the advanced age of ninety-one.

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

, an artist, whom, Fuseli says, situation, temper, and perhaps circumstances, hav:e deprived of the celebrity he deserved, was a native of Zuric, born in 1640, the son of a canon, and professor of divinity in its college, and appears to have had a liberal education. Thoqgb, when a youth, he lost one eye, he was bound to Conrad Meyer, of whom, with the elements of painting, he acquired the mystery of etching. As a painter he devoted himself to portraiture, which he exercised with success, and in a style little inferior and sometimes equal to that of S. Hofmann; but the imitation of dormant or insipid countenances, unable to fill a mind so active and open to impression, in time gave way to composition in art and writing, both indeed devoted to the most bigoted superstition, and theologic rancour, for in his Dialogues ofi the Apocalypsis of S, John, blind zeal, legendary falsehood, and barbarism of style, go hand in hand with shrewdness of observation, controversial acuteness, and blunt naivete a heterogeneous mass, embellished by ah etched series of poetic and historic subjects, in compositions dictated.by the most picturesque fancy, original, magnificent, various, romantic, terrible, and fantastic; though in small, on a scale of arrangement and combinations to fill the pompous scenery of Paolo, or challenge the wildest caprice of Salvator; and in the conception of the Last Judgment, for sublimity far superior to Michael Agnolo. With these prerogatives, and neither insensible to beauty nor form, the artist is often guilty of ludicrous, nay, even premeditated incorrectness, and contortions which defy possibility. His style of etching, free, spirited, and yet regular, resembles that of Wilhelm Baur; and though no vestiges remain of his having seen Italy, it is difficult to conceive by what other means he could acquire that air of Italian scenery, and that minute acquaintance with the architecture, the costume, and ceremonies, of that country, without having visited it himself. His dialogues, above mentioned, were published in 1677, 8vo, entitled “J. Wirzii Romse animale exemplum, &c.” with 42 plates. Wirz resided and died in 1709, at a small villa which he possessed near Zuric.

, a learned antiquary, and Radcliffe librarian at Oxford, was born in the house of his father Francis Wise, a mercer at Oxford, June 3, 1695. He received the first part of his education in New college school, under the care of Mr. James Badger, a man very eminent as a schoolmaster. In January 1710-11 he was admitted a. member of Trinity college, and in the summer following was elected scholar of that house. He took the degree of M.A. in 1717, and about this period was employed by Mr. Hudson, as an underkeeper or assistant in the Bodleian library, an admirable school for Mr. Wise, who had a turn for literary history and antiquities. In 1718 he became probationer, and in the following year actual fellow of his college. In 1722 he published “Asser Menevensis de rebus gestis Alfredi magni,” 8vo, very elegantly printed, and with suitable engravings, &c. The year preceding this, (172 J) the hon. Francis North, afterwards earl of Guildford, entered of Trinity college under die tuition of Mr. Wise, for whom he entertained a great esteem through life. From this nobleman he received the living of Eljesfield near Oxford, a very small piece of preferment, and not worth above 251. a year at most, but peculiarly agrefeable to our author, who contrived to make it a place of some importance to curious visitors. He took a small estate there, on a long lease, under lord Guildford, and converted a cottage upon it into an agreeable retirement, by building one or two good rooms, and laying out a garden with a piece of ground adjoining, scarcely before of any use, in a very whimsical but pleasing manner. In this little spot of a few acres, his visitors were surprised to meet with ponds, cascades, seats, a triumphal arch, the tower of Babel, a Druid temple, and an Egyptian pyramid. These buildings, which were designed to resemble the structures of antiquity, were erected in exact scale and measure, to give, as far as miniature would permit, a just idea of the edifice they were intended to represent. From the time that his illustrious pupil left Oxford, Mr. Wise constantly resided in his family at intervals, and divided his time between the seat of the Muses, and the elegant mansion of his friend and patron. In 1726 he was elected custos archivorum; and in 1727 took his degree of bachelor of divinity.

In 1745, he was presented by Trinity college to the rectory of Rotherfield Greys, in the county and diocese of Oxford; and on May 10, 1748, he was appointed Radcliffe librarian. In 1750, he published his “Catalogue of the Coins in the Bodleian library,” folio, which he had designed, and taken subscriptions for, above twenty years before, but through the smallness of his income he was unable to bear the expense of engravings, &c. This work he dedicated to his friend and patron the earl of Guildford, and in it has given some yiews of his house and gardens at Ellesfield. After this period he resided chiefly in this pleasing retreat, and pursued his researches into antiquity. In 1758, he printed in 4to, “Some Enquiries concerning the first inhabitants, learning, and letters of Europe, by a member of the Society of Antiquaries, London;” and in 1764, another work in 4to, entitled “History and Chronology of Fabulous Ages considered.” No name is prefixed to these performances, but at the end of each we have the initials F. W. R. L. (Francis Wise, Radcliffe librarian). These were his last publications. He was after this period much afflicted with the gout, and lived quite retired at Ellesfield till his death, which happened Oct. 6, 1767. He was buried in the churchyard of that place, and by his own direction, no stone or monument perpetuates his memory. In his life-time he had been a benefactor to the Bodleian library by supplying from his own collections many deficiencies in the series of their coins; and after his death, his surviving sister, who resided at Oxford, and was his executrix, generously gave a large and valuable cabinet of his medals, &c. to the Radcliffe library.

, one of the first martyrs for the protestant religion in Scotland, and a person of great distinction in the ecclesiastical history of that country, was born in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and appears to have very early felt the consequences of imbibing the spirit of the reformers. He was descended of the house of Pitarrow in the Mearns, an illustrious family in Scotland, and is said to have travelled into Germany, where he became acquainted with the opinions of Luther. Other accounts mention x his having been banished from his own country by the bishop of Brechin, for teaching the Greek 7‘estament in the town of Montrose, and that after this he resided for some years in the university of Cambridge. Of this latter circumstance there is no reason to doubt, for besides an account of him while there by one of his pupils, printed by Fox, the historian of Bene’t or Corpus Christ! college has inserted a short account of him, as one of the members of that house. In 1544, he returned to his native country, in the company of the commissioners who had been sent to negociate a treaty with Henry VIII. of England. At this time he was allowed to excel all his countrymen in learning, and to be a man of the most persuasive eloquence, irreproachable in life, courteous and affable in manners. His fervent piety, zeal, and courage, in the cause of truth, were tempered with uncommon meekness, modesty, patience, prudence, and charity. With these qualifications he began to preach in a very bold manner, against the corruptions of the Romish church, and the vices of the clergy. He met with a most favourable reception wherever he appeared, and was much followed and eagerly listened to, which so excited the indignation of cardinal Beaton, and the popish clergy in general, that a resolution was formed to take away his life by some means or other.

Two attempts were made to cut him off by assassination; but he defeated the first by his courage, and the second by his caution. On the first of these attempts he behaved with great generosity. A friar named Weighton, who had undertaken to kill him when he was in Dundee (where he principally preached), knowing that it was his custom to remain in the pulpit after sermon, till the church was empty, skulked at the bottom of the stairs with a dagger in his right hand under his gown. Wishart (who was remarkably quick-sighted), as he came down from the pulpit, observing the friar’s countenance, and his hand with something in it under his gown, suspected his design, sprung forward, seized his hand, and wrenched the dagger from him. At the noise which this scuffle occasioned, a crowd of people rushed into the church, and would have torn the friar in pieces; but Mr. Wishart clasped him in his arms, and declared that none should touch him but through his body. “He hath done me no hurt” said he, “my friends; he hath done me much good; he hath taught me what I have to fear, and put me upon my guard.” And it appeared that he defeated the second attempt on his life by the suspicion which the first had inspired. When he was at Montrose, a messenger came to him with a letter from a country gentleman, acquainting him that he had been suddenly taken ill, and earnestly intreating him to come to him without delay. He immediately set out, accompanied by two or three friends, but when they were about half a mile from the town, he stoppled, saying, “I suspect there is treason in this matter. Go you (said he to one of his friends) up yonder, and tell me what you observe.” He came back and told him, that he had seen a company of spearmen lying in ambush near the road. They then returned to the town, and on the way he said to his friends; “I know I shall one day fall by the hands of that blood-thirsty man (meaning cardinal Beaton), but I trust it shall not be in this manner.”

These two plots having miscarried, and Wishart still continuing to preach with his usual boldness and success, the cardinal summoned a synod of the clergy to meet Jan. 11, 1546, in the Blackfriars church, Edinburgh, and to consider of means for putting a stop to the progress of heresy, and while thus employed, he heard that Wishart was in the house of Ormiston, only about eight miles from Edinburgh, where he was seized by treachery, and conducted to the castle of Edinburgh, and soon after to the castle of St. An-r drew’s. Here, being completely in the hands of the cardinal, he was put upon his trial March 1, before a convocation of the prelates and clergy assembled for that purpose in the cathedral, and treated with the utmost barbarity, every form of law, justice, or decency, being dispensed with. He endeavoured to answer the accusations brought against him, and to shew the conformity between the doctrines he had preached and the word of God; but this was denied him, and he was condemned to be burnt as an obstinate heretic, which sentence was executed next day on the castle green. The cardinal seems to have been sensible that the minds of men would be much agitated by the fate of this amiable sufferer, and even to have apprehended that some attempt might be made to rescue him from the flames. He commanded all the artillery of the castle to be pointed towards the scene of execution; and, either to watch the ebullitions qf popular indignation/to display his Contempt of the reformers, or to satiate himself by contemplating the destruction of a man, in whose grave he hoped that their principles would be buried, he openly, with the prelates who accompanied him, witnessed the melancholy spectacle. In many accounts which we have of Wishart’s death, it is mentioned that, looking towards the cardinal, he predicted, “that he who, frooi yonder place (pointing to the tower where he sat), beholdeth us with such pride, shall, within a few days, lie in the same as ignominiously as now he is seen proudly to rest.” In our account of Beaton we have noticed the evidence for this fact, and the opinion of historians upon it, to which may now be added the opinions of some able writers (noticed in our references) who have appeared since that article was drawn up. Concerning Wishart, we may conclude, with Dr. Henry, that his death was a loss to his persecutors as well as to his friends. If he had lived a few years longer, the reformation, it is probable, would have been carried on with more regularity and less devastation. He had acquired an astonishing power over the minds of the people; and he always employed it in restraining them from acts of violence, inspiring them with lave to one another, and with gentleness and humanity to their enemies.

, a good astronomer and mathematician, was born in 1728. He was maternally descended from the celebrated clock and watchmaker, Daniel Quare, in which business he was himself brotignt up, and was educated in the principles of the Quakers, all his progenitors for many generations having been of that community, whose simplicity of manners he practised through life. It appears that he cultivated the study of astronomy at a very early age, as he had a communication on that subject in the “Gentleman’s Diary” for 1741, which must have been written when he was thirteen years of age. Soon after this he became a frequent writer both in the Diaries and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, sometimes under his own name, but oftener with the initials G. W. only. In 1764 he published a map, exhibiting the passage of the moon’s shadow over England in the great solar eclipse of April 1, that year; the exact correspondence of which to the observations gained him great reputation. In the following year he presented to the commissioners of longitude a plan for calculating the effects of refraction and parallax, on the, moon’s distance from the sun or a star, to facilitate the discovery of the longitude at sea. Having taught mathematics in London for many years with much reputation, he was in 1767 elected F. R. S. and appointed head master of the royal naval academy at Portsmouth, where he died of a paralytic stroke in 1785, aged fiftyseven.

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

, a very learned and eminent divine of North Holland, was born at Enckhuisen, Feb. 12, 1636. He was trained to the study of divinity, and so distinguished himself by his uncommon abilities and learning, that he was chosen theological professor, first at Franeker, afterwards at Utrecht, and lastly at Leyden. He applied himself successfully to the study of the Oriental tongues, and was not ignorant in any branch of learning which is necessary to form a good divine. He died Oct. 82, 1708, in the seventy-third year of his age, after having published several important works, which shew great judg^ ment, learning, and piety. One of the principal of these is “Egyptiaca;” the best edition of which, at Amsterdam, 1696, in 4to, has this title “Ægyptiaca, et Decaphylon sive, de Jigyptiacorum Sacrorum cum Hebraicis collatione Libri tres. Et de decem tribubus Israelis Liber singularis. Accessit Diatribe de Legione Fulminatrice Christianorum, &ub Icnperatore Marco Aurelio Antonino,” Amst. 1683, and 1696, 4to. Witsius, in this work, not only compares the religious rites and ceremonies of the Jews and Egyptians, but he maintains particularly, against our sir John Marsham and Dr. Spencer, that the former did not borrow theirs, or any part of them, from the latter, as these learned and eminent writers had asserted in their respective works, “Canon Chronicus,” and “De Legibus Hebrseorum.” “The Oetionomy of the Covenants between God and Man” is another work of Witsius, and the best known in this country, having been often printed in English, 3 vols. 8vo. Of this and its author, Hervey, in his “Theron and Aspasia,” has taken occasion to speak in the following terms: “The Oeconomy of the Covenants,” says he, “is a body of divinity, in its method so well digested, in its doctrine so truly evangelical, and, what is not very usual with our systematic writers, in its language so refined and elegant, in its manner so affectionate and animating, that I would recommend it to every student in divinity. I would not scruple to risk all my reputation upon the merits of this performance; and I cannot but lament it, as one of my greatest losses, that I was no sooner acquainted with this most excellent author, all whose works have such a delicacy of composition, and such a sweet savour of holiness, that I know not any comparison more proper to represent their true character than the golden pot which had manna, and was outwardly bright with burnished gold, inwardly rich with heavenly food.”

, or W1TTEN (Henningus), a German biographer, was born in 1634. We find very few particulars of him, although he has contributed so muc)i to our knowledge of other eminent men. He was a divine and professor of divinity at Riga, where he died Jan. 22, 1696. Morhoff bestows considerable praise on his biographical labours, which were principally five volumes of memoirs of the celebrated men of the seventeenth century, as a sequel to those of Meichior Adam. They were octavo volumes, and published under the titles of “Memoria Theologorum nostri seculi,” Franc. 1674, reprinted in 1695, 2 vols. “Memoria Medicorum” “Memoria Jurisconsultorum” “Memoria Philosophorum,” &c. which last includes poets and polite scholars. The whole consist of original lives, or eloges collected from the best authorises. The greater part are Germans, butthere are a few French and English. In 1688 he published, what we have often found very useful, his * 4 Diarium Biographicum Scriptorum seculi xvii.“vol. I. 4to, 1688, vol, II. 1691. It appears that Wittepaid a visit to England in 1666, and became acquainted with the celebrated Dr. Pocock, to whom he sent a letter ten years afterwards, informing the doctor that he had for some time been engaged in a design of writing the lives of the most famous writers of that age in each branch of literature, and had already published some decades, containing memoirs of divines, civilians, and physicians;” that he was now collecting eloges on the most illustrious phiiologers, historians, orators, and philosophers; but wanted memoirs of the chief Englishmen who, in the present (seventeenth) century, have cultivated these sciences, having no relation of this sort in his possession, except of Mr. Camden; he begs, therefore, that Dr. Pocock, would, by the bearer, transmit to him whatever he had to communicate in this way."

From Twyford he was removed to Winchester school, and afterwards to Brasennose college, Oxford. He inherited from his father, who died while he was at school, a large fortune, of which the first use that he made was to build a handsome mansion on his patrimonial inheritance. In 1761 he married a lady of great personal accomplishments, and universally loved and respected, Miss Catherine Milcah Ingram, of an ancient family situated at WoK ford, in Warwickshire, who left him a widower without family in 1808. In 1803 he took advantage of the short peace to gratify his curiosity in the libraries of Paris, and was one of the English detained by Bonaparte, but was afterward released on account of his age. He returned home an invalid and alone, and it was a source of great distress to him to be compelled to leave behind him in France his faithful servant. From that period his bodily infirmities gradually increased, his sight at length failed, and his voice became scarcely audible, but his senses and his memory, which was most singularly retentive, continued unimpaired to the last. He died without a struggle or groan, Nov. 10, 1816, in the seventy-seventh year of his age.

Of his politics, Mr. Wodhtill says they were c< those of a British whig, not run away with by national prejudices;" but he never entered into public life; his chief occupation and amusement being the study of books, of which he was celebrated as a collector. He disposed during his life of many which he had purchased, but left behind him above 4000 volumes, consisting principally of first editions and rare specimens of early printing. The duties 6f private and social life no man discharged with more fidelity or exactness. As a son, a husband, a friend, a master, a landlord, few could excel him, and his charities, which were numerous, were known generally to those only whom he benefited.

As to his religious sentiments, although he was an advocate for toleration, he invariably asserted the principle of conformity to the sound and apostolic establishments of the land. His practice, even when very infirm, was to attend divine service in his parish church, to read or pro-? cure some friend to read a sermon and prayers to his family and domestics every Sunday evening. He never spoke an unkind word to his servants, and there was hardly an instance known of any one quitting his service for that of another master. He never complained, nor uttered a peevish expression under the greatest privations and the most severe pain. His funeral was, by his own desire,' as his life had been, without parade or ostentation, and the monumental stone declares no more than the name and age of him whose mortal reliques lie near it.

The first edition of Mr. Wodhull’s translation of “Euripides” appeared in 1782, 4 vols. 8vo, since reprinted in 3 vols. 8vo. Whoever considers the number of dramas composed by the Greek tragedian, the variety of allusions which they contain to ancient manners, and to the tenets of philosophers; and the peculiar force of the language in which they were written, will acknowledge that the attempt to render them into English verse must have failed altogether without a rare unibn of perseverance, knowledge, and ability. Original composition is the surest test of genius, but the poetical images, and ideas of one man cannot adequately be represented or expressed by another who does not himself possess the imagination and fancy of a poet. In his translation of Euripides, Mr. Wodhull has selected blank verse as the best adapted for the dialogue, and has rendered the chorusses for the most part in a Pindaric ode. The difference therefore both of the subject and versification is such that no comparison can fairly be instituted with the poetical versions of the Æneid and the Iliad. But as Dryden and Pope have secured to themselves a high rank in the list of British Classics by their translations, an honourable post will also be assigned to Mr. Wodhull, who has contributed no mean addition to the stock of British Literature, and naturalized among us him, whom he entitles “The Philosophic Bard.”

, a name worthy to be preserved on account of his valuable edition of the Alexandrine ms. of the New Testament, was a native of Holland, but of his early history we have no account. His first preferment in this country was to the preachership of the Dutch chapel-royal at St. James’s, about 1770, to which he was afterwar4s appointed reader also. At the time of his death he was reader and chaplain at the Dutch chapel in the Savoy. In 1778 he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and in that year distinguished himself by revising, through the Clarendon press, Scholtz’s “Egyptian Grammar,” written in 1750, in 2 vols. 4to, and also La Croze’s 5* Lexicon Egyptiaco-Latinum." It had long been the wish of the learned that both these works, left in ms. by their respective authors, might be published, but they could not find a printer furnished with Egyptian types, or who would hazard the undertaking, until at last the university of Oxford, with its usual munificent spirit, determined to t>ear the expense. When the Lexicon was printing, Mr. Woide was desired to make some additions to it, but this not being proposed till more than half the work was printed, he could extend his remarks to three letters only, and to render the undertaking more useful, he added an index. It was intended to print Scholtz’s Grammar in 2 quarto yols. immediately after the Dictionary, which consists of one vol. quarto; but it being found too voluminous, Woide very properly abridged it, and has improved it by carefully examining and correcting it by means of Mss. unknown to Scholtz. The Sahidic part was entirely supplied by Dr. Woide.

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

At nine years old, Mr. Wollaston was sent to a master, who had opened a Latin school, at Shenstone in Stafford^ shire, where his father then resided. Here he continued near two years, and then removed to Lichfield; but had not been long at this school, when the magistrates of the city, in consequence of some dispute, turned the master out of the school-house. Mr. Wollaston, however, with many of the scholars, followed the ejected master, and re^ inained with him till he quitted school, which was about three years, after which, the schism being ended, he returned into the free-school, and continued there about a year. The rudeness of a great school was particularly disagreeable to his natural disposition; and what was still worse, he began now to be much troubled with the headach, which seems to have been constitutional in him; yethis uncommon attention to his book, and eagerness to improve, had now rendered him fit for the university. Accordingly he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted a pensioner at Sidney-college, June 18, 1674, in the sixteenthyear of his age. Here he laboured under some discouragements. He was come up a country lad from a countryschool; had no acquaintance in his college^ nor even in the university; few books or materials to work with; his allowance being by no means more than sufficient for bare necessaries; neither had he sufficient confidence to supply that defect by applying to others. Add to this that his state of health was not quite firm. However, under all these disadvantages, he acquired much reputation, and having taken his degree of B. A. at the regular time, he offered himself a candidate for a fellowship in his college, but missed of that preferment. In July 1681 he commenced M. A. and about this time seems to have entered into deacon’s orders.

On Michaelmas-day following, he left the university, and having made a visit to the then head of this branch of the family, his cousin Wollaston of Shenton in Leicestershire, he went to pay his duty to his father and mother at Bloxwyche, where they then lived, and remained with them till May or June 1682. But seeing no prospect of preferment, he so far conformed himself to the circumstances of his family, as about this time to become assistant at Birmingham school to the head master, who readily embraced the opportunity of such a coadjutor, and considered Mr. Wollaston as one who had prudentially stooped to an employment beyond what he might reasonably have pretended to. This instance, however, of his humble industry was far from being displeasing to his cousin of Shenton, who had a great esteem for the head master, and in a short time, he got a small lecture at the distance of about two miles from Birmingham; but as he performed there the whole Sunday’s duty, that fatigue, added to the business of a great freeschool for about four years, began to break his constitution. But the old master being now turned out, in order to make way for a particular person to succeed him, our author was chosen second master only, under a pretence that he was too young to be at the head of so great a school, but some of the governors themselves owned that he was not well used in this affair.

However that may be, it is certain upon this occasion he took priest’s orders in pursuance to the charter of that school, which being interpreted likewise so as to oblige the masters to take no church-preferment, he resigned his lecture. This happened in 1686, and was a considerable relief to him, while his new post was worth about TOl. per annum, which afforded him a tolerable subsistence. In the mean time the late chief master after his expulsion retired to his brother’s house, which lying in the neighbourhood of Shenton, he once or twice waited upon Mr. Wollaston, of Shenton, and undoubtedly informed him of the character, learning, conversation, and conduct of our author, which he was very capable of doing, because they lived together, till the time of this old gentleman’s leaving Birmingham. Mr. Woliaston, of Shenton, having now lately lost his only son. and never intending (as appears from his whole conduct) to give his estate to his daughters, pursued his father’s design of continuing it in the male line of his family, and resolved to settle it upon our author’s uncle and father, his own first cousins, and his nearest male-relations, in the same proportions and manner exactly as it had been entailed on them by his father. And accordingly he made such a settlement, subject however to a revocation.