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

After extending his researches as far as Ireland could afford, he resolved to visit England in quest of the treasures which its public and private libraries contained. Arriving at London in April 1626, he had the happiness to find his friend Usher, then archbishop of Armagh, by whom he was introduced to sir Robert Cotton, who admitted him to his valuable library, and to his friendship, and kept up a constant correspondence with him for the five remaining years of his life. Having furnished himself with many materials from the Cotton collection, the Tower of London, and other repositories (many of which, in his hand-writing, are in Trinity college library) he returned with Usher to Ireland, and immediately published a tract entitled “Archiepiscoporum Cassiliensium et Tuamensium Vitae, duobis expressae commentariolis,” Dublin, 1626, 4to; and two years after, “De prttsulibus Lageniae, sive provincise Dubliniensis, lib. unus,” ibid. 1628, 4to, both which he afterwards inserted in his larger account of the Irish bishops. About the same time he published “Ccenobia Cistertiemia Hi hernia;,” which was afterwards included in his “Disquisitiones de Hibernia.” In the latter end of 1628 he went again to England, and carried with him some Mss. which he knew would be acceptable to sir Robert Cotton: and in this second journey added considerably to his own collections, by his acquaintance with Selden and other men of research and liberality. About the end of the summer 1629 he returned home, and soon after received the honour of knighthood from the hands of the lords justices.

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

“During the remainder of the troubles, sir James remained firm to the king’s interest, and zealously adhered to the marquis of Ormond, who ever after entertained a great affection for him. He continued, in Dublin, till the marquis, by the king’s orders, surrendered that place to the parliamentary power in June 1647. At this time sir James Ware was considered as a man of such consequence, that the parliament insisted on his being one of the hostages for the performance of the treaty; and accordingly he repaired, with the earl of Roscommon, and col. Arthur Chichester, to the committee for the management of Irish affairs at Derby-house, London; but as soon as the treaty was 'concluded, and the hostages permitted to depart, he returned to Dublin, and lived for some time in a private station, being deprived of his employment of auditor- general. He was, however, disturbed in this retirement by Michael Jones, the governor of Dublin, who, jealous of his chafacter and consequence, sent him a peremptory order to depart the city, and transport himself beyond seas into what country he pleased, except England. Having chosen France for the place of his exile, Jones furnished him with a pass for himself, his eldest son, and one servant, signed April 4, 1649. He landed at St. Malo’s, whence he removed not long after to Caen in Normandy, and then to Paris, and contracted an acquaintance there with some of the literati, and particularly with Bochart, whose works he much esteemed, and thought his” Hierozoicon" a suitable present for the library of the university of Dublin. After continuing in France about two years, he left it in 1651, and by licence from the parliament came to London on private business, and two years after went to Ireland to look after his estates.

On the restoration, he was, by special order from his majesty, repla ed in his office of auditor-general, and a parliament beiug summoned in May 1661, he was unanimously elected representative oPthe university of Dublin. He was very instrumental in the parliamentary grant of 30,000l. to the marquis, now duke, of Ormond, who distinguished him in a very particular manner. By his grace’s interest, he was made one of the fourcommissioners of appeal in causes of the excise, and new impost raised by the statute of 14th and 15th Charles II. with a salary of 150l. He was also appointed one of the commissioners for the execution of the king’s declaration for the settlement of the kingdom, and for the satisfaction of the several interests of adventurers, soldiers, and others, and was, by the king’s instructions, made of the quorum in this commission, without whose presence and concurrence no act could be done in execution of the declaration. His majesty, in consideration of his faithful services for a great number of years, and perhaps not forgetting a handsome sum of money which he had sent him in his exile, was graciously pleased to offer to create him a viscount of the kingdom of Ireland, but this he refused, and likewise a baronetcy. At his request, however, the king granted him two blank baronet’s patents, which he filled up and disposed of to two friends, whose posterity, Harris says, “to this day enjoy the honours,” but he does not mention their names.

As an antiquary, sir James Ware must ever be held in veneration by his countrymen. He was the Camden of Ireland, and was deficient only in not understanding the Irish language; yet major Vallancey observes, that considering his ignorance of that language, he did much. “His works are the outlines and materials of a great plan, which he enjoyed neither life nor abilities to finish; and it is much to be lamented that he had not the good fortune to meet with so experienced and intelligent an amanuensis as Mac Terbiss sooner.” He found, however, an excellent editor in Walter Harris, esq. who married his grand-daughter, and published all his works, except the Annals of Ireland, in 1739 1745, 3 vols. fol. ornamented with engravings. These were reprinted in 1764, 2 vols. foi. a work which now bears a very high price. Sir James Ware’s ms collections relative to Ireland were purchased of his heir by lord Clarendon, when lord-lieutenant in 1686, and after his death by the duke of Chandos, whom the public spirited dean of St. Patrick’s in vain solicited to deposit them in the public library at Dublin. These underwent a second dispersion by public auction. Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, whose uncle had considerable property in Ireland, purchased a large part, and deposited them in the British Museum; Dr. Rawlinson bought others, and bequeathed them to the library of St. John’s-college, Oxford, and some part fell into the hands of lord Newport, chancellor of Ireland. Of these Mss. a catalogue was printed at Dublin about 1641, and another at Oxford in 1697, in the “Catalogue of Mss. of England and Ireland.” Sir James was a man of a charitable disposition, and frequently contributed considerable sums of money to the relief of the indigent, especially to decayed royalists, whom he also often invited to his hospitable table. Harris says he always forgave the fees of office to widows, clergymen, and clergymen’s sons, as we have already noticed; and adds, that he was frequently known to lend -money, where he had no prospect of repayment, not knowing how to deny any body who asked. On one occasion, a house in Dublin, forfeited by the rebellion, being granted to him, he sent for the widow and children of the forfeiting person, and conveyed it back to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Warner is said to have declared that he wrote his “Ecclesiastical History,” and his “Dissertation on the Common Prayer,” three folio volumes, both the original and corrected copies, with one single pen, which was an old one when he began, and when he finished was not worn out. We are likewise told that a celebrated countess begged the doctor to make her a present of it, and he having complied, her ladyship had a gold case made with a short history of the pen engraved upon it, and placed it in her cabinet of curiosities. This foolish story, for such it probably is, reminds us of a similar one related of the pious Matthew Henry, who is said to have written the whole of his commentary on the Bible, 5 vols. fol. with one pen. Mr. Henry is also said to have made this declaration in public. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Henry never wrote the whole of his commentary, nor lived to see it completed, and consequently could have made no such declaration.

, a learned and munificent prelate, was the son of Herman Warner, citizen of London, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, Strand, about 1585. After some grammatical education, in which he made a very rapid progress, he was sent to Oxford in 1598, and the year following was elected demy of Magdalen college. Here he proceeded successfully in his studies, and taking the degree of B. A. in 1602, commenced M. A. in June 1G05, in which year he was elected to a fellowship. In 1610 he resigned this, probably in consequence of the fortune which came to him from his godmother. In 1614 he was presented to the rectory of St. Michael’s, Crookedlane, by archbishop Abbot, which he resigned in 1616, and remained without preferment until 1625, when the archbishop gave him the rectory of St. Dionis Backchurch in Fenchurch-street. In the interim he had taken both his degrees in divinity at Oxford; and Abbot, continuing his esteem, collated him to the prebend of the first stall in the cathedral of Canterbury. He was also appointed governor of Sion college, London, and was made chaplain to Charles I. In the second year of this monarch’s reign Dr. Warner preached before him while the parliament was sitting, during passion week, on Matt. xxi. 28, and took such liberties with the proceedings of that parliament as very highly provoked some of the members who happened to be present. Some measures appear to have been taken against him, but the dissolution of the parliament soon after protected him, yet vre are told that a pardon from the king was necessary, which pardon was extant at the time Dr. Zachary Pearce communicated some particulars of his life to the editors of the “Biographia Britannica.”

He sent 100l. to Charles II. in his exile, designing to continue remitting money as he could afford it, but he was betrayed by his servant, who discovered the matter to Cromwell, and he would have suffered for it, had he not prevailed on the treacherous informer, by money, to. go into Ireland. On the restoration, bishop Warner was replaced in the see of Rochester, and enjoyed it till his decease on Oct. 11, 1666. He was interred in Rochester cathedral, where a handsome monument was soon after erected to his memory in a small chapel, at the east end of the north aile.

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

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

, an eminent surgeon, was born in the island of Antigua, in 1717, on the family estate, which he inherited, together with a ring, famous in history, as the one given by queen Elizabeth to the earl of Essex, and which in the hour of impending danger he entrusted to the countess of Nottingham, who never delivered it to the queen, and this, according to the story, was the cause of Essex’s losing his life. By some means this ring had regularly descended, together with the estate, in the Warner family. Mr. Warner was sent to England at an early age, and educated at Westminster school. At the age of seventeen he was apprenticed to the celebrated surgeon, Samuel Sharpe, and after residing seven years with him, was admitted joint lecturer in anatomy at St. Thomas’s hospital with Mr. Sharpe, after whose resignation Mr. Warner continued the lectures for several years. In 1746, during the rebellion in Scotland, he volunteered his professional services, and joined the royal army under the duke of Cumberland, In the course of that campaign he was recalled to London to fill the office of surgeon to Guy’s hospital, a situation which he held, with increasing reputation, and great professional success, for the long period of forty-four years. During this time his private practice became extensive, and his fame was increased by his valuable treatises on the cataract, the hydrocele, &c. and his still more va-r luable volume of “Cases in Surgery,” 1754, &c. In 1756 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in whose Transactions a number of his communications were published. In 1764 he was elected a -member of the court of assistants of the then corporation of surgeons, and in 1771, became one of the court of examiners, in which office he continued to discharge his duty most punctually until the last month of his life.

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

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

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

, the historian of English poetry, was descended from an ancient and honourable family of Beverley in Yorkshire. His father was fellow of Magdalen-college, Oxford, poetry professor in that university, and afterwards vicar of Basingstoke, Hampshire, and Cobham, Surrey. He married Elizabeth daughter of the rev. Joseph Richardson, rector of Dunsford, Surrey, and had by her three children; Joseph, the subject of the next article, Thomas, and Jane a daughter, who survived both her brothers. He died in 1746, and is buried under the rails of the altar of his church at Basingstoke, with an inscription on a tablet near it, written by his sons, who afterwards published a volume of his poems, by subscription, chiefly with a view to pay the few debts he left behind, and supply his children with some assistance in the progress of their education. Whether the success of this volume was equal to their hopes, is uncertain, but the poems acquired no reputation,

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

Soon after the appearance of the “Observations” they were attacked in an abusive pamphlet entitled “The Observer observed,” written by Huggins, the author of a very indifferent translation of Ariosto. Huggins had engaged Mr. Warton in this translation, but when he read what Warton asserted of the inferiority of Ariosto to Spenser, he immediately cancelled his share of the translation, and published this angry pamphlet*. Mr. Warton, who was

* The following paragraph from specimen of the whole. “Sect. If, He Huggins’s pamphlet will be a sufficient (Warton) resumes the poisonous aciinow in his thirty-sixth year, had employed fully half that time in an unwearied perusal of the old English poets and such contemporary writers as could throw light on their obscurities. The” Observations on Spenser“must have evidently been the result of much industry and various reading, aided by a happy memory. In 1757, on the resignation of Mr. Hawkins of Pembroke college, our author was elected professor of poetry, which office, according to the usual practice, he held for ten years. His lectures were elegant and original. The translations from the Greek anthologies, now a part of his collected poems, were first introduced in them; and his” Dissertatio de Poesi Bucolica Graecorum,“which he afterwards enlarged and prefixed to his edition of Theocritus, was also a part of the same course. During the publication of the” Idler“he sent to Dr. Johnson, with whom he had long been intimate, Nos. 33, 93, and 96 of that paper. His biographer, however, is mistaken in supposing that he contributed any papers to the” Connoisseur.“His being invited by Colman and Thornton to engage in a periodical publication has no relation to the” Connoisseur.“It was Moore, the editor of the” World,“who projected a Magazine, soon after the conclusion of that paper, and told the two Wartons that” he wanted a dull plodding fellow of one of the universities, who understood Latin and Greek." Mr. Bedingfield, one of Dodsley’s poets, and Gataker, the surgeon, were to be concerned in this Magazine, but Moore’s death prevented the execution of the scheme.

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

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

P. II. On Chaucer, who first introduced the manner of the Provencaux, improved by the Italians into our country; his character and merits at large; the different kinds in which he excelled. Gower, Occleve, Lydgate, Hawes, G. Douglas, Lindsay, Bellenden, Dunbar, &c.

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

of one of the colleges. Mr. Mant, who Warton’s life-time is not known. The

It is almost needless to say that the progress of Warton’s History afforded the highest gratification to every learned and elegant mind. Hitson, however, whose learning appears to have been dear to him only as it administered to his illiberality, attacked our author in a pamphlet entitled “Observations on the three first volumes of the History of English Poetry, in a familiar letter to the author,” 1782. In this, while he pointed out some real inaccuracies, for which he might have received the thanks of the historian, his chief object seems to have been to violate, by low scurrility and personal acrimony, every principle of liberal criticism, and of that decorous interchange of respect which men of learning, not otherwise acquainted, preserve between one another. What could have provoked all this can be known only to those who have dipped into a heart rendered callous by a contempt for every thing sacred and social.

The office of poet laureate was accepted by him this year, as it was offered at the express desire of his majesty, and he filled it with credit to himself and to the place. Whitehead, his immediate predecessor, had the misfor r tune to succeed Gibber, and could with difficulty make the public look seriously on the periodical labours of the laureate, yet by perseverance he contrived to restore some degree of respect to the office. Warton succeeded yet better by varying the accustomed modes of address, and by recalling the mind to gothic periods, and splendid events* The facetious authors, indeed, of the “Probationary Odes” (n set of political satires) took some freedoms with his name, but they seemed to be aware that another Gibber would have suited their purpose better; and Warton, who possessed a large share of humour, and a quick sense of ridicule, was not to be offended because he had for once been the “occasion of wit in other men *.”

* We have his brother’s authority the laugh of the Probationary Odes; that “he always heartily joined in the for a man more devoid of envy, anger, laugh, and applauded the exquisite wit and ill-nature, never existed. So sweet aad humour that appeared in many of was his temper, so remote from pethose original satires.” Mr. Bowles’s dantry and all affectation was his conevidence may be cited a? more impar- duct, that when even Ritson’s scurtial, and as affording the testimony of rilous abuse came out, in which he asan excellent judge, to the character of sertcd that his back was “broad enough, Warton.” I can say, being at that and his heart hard enough,“to bear time a scholar of Trinity college, that anything Ritsou could lay on it, h* the laureate, who did the greatest ho- only said, with hii usual smile,” A nour to hi* station from his real poeti- black-lettered dog, sir" Bowles’s edita.1 abilities, did most heartily join in tion of Pope’s wvrks, VI. 325. communicated to the editor by Dr. Kurd. At the time of our author’s death a new edition of his Poems was also preparing for publication.

To these particulars, some of which have been taken from Mr. Main’s Life of Warton prefixed to an edition of his Poems published in 1802, it may now be added on another authority, that from April 1755 to April 1774, he served the curacy of Woodstock, except during the Jong vacations; and although his pulpit oratory does not appear to have ever entitled him to particular notice, many are still alive who speak of him with more regard and affection than of any person who ever officiated there .

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

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

His temper was habitually calm. His disposition gentle, friendly, and forgiving. His resentments, where he could be supposed to have any, were expressed rather in the language of jocularity than anger. Mr. Mant has given as a report, that Dr. Johnson said of Warton, “he was the only man of genius that he knew without a heart.” But it is highly improbable that Johnson, who loved and practised truth and justice, should say this of one with whom he had exchanged so many acts of personal and literary friendship. It is to be regretted, indeed, that towards the end of Johnson’s life, there was a coolness between him and the Wartons; but if it be true that be wept on the recollection of their past friendship, it is very unlikely that he would have characterised Mr. Warton in the manner reported. Whatever was the cause of the abatement of their intimacy, Mr. Warton discovered no resentment, when he communicated so many pleasing anecdotes of Johnson to Mr. Boswell, nor when he came to discuss the merits of Milton in opposition to the opinions of that eminent critic. Dr. Warton, indeed, as may be seen in his notes on Pope, mixed somewhat more asperity with his review of Johnson’s sentiments.

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

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

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

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

Soon after his return to England, he published his edition of “Virgil” in English and Latin, the Æneid translated by Pitt, and the Eclogues and Georgics by himself, who also contributed the notes on the whole. Into this publication, he introduced Warburton’s Dissertation on the Sixth Æneid a commentary on the character of lapis by Atterbury, and on the Shield of Æneas by Whitehead, the laureate, originally published in Dodsley’s Museum and three Essays on Pastoral, Didactic, and Epic poetry, written by himself. Much of this valuable work, begun in 1748-9, was printed when he was abroad, and. the whole completed in 1753. It is unnecessary to add th.it his share in the translation, his notes, and especially his Essays, raised him to a very high reputation among the scholars and critics of his age. The second edition, which appeared a few years after, was much improved. In addition to the other honours which resulted from this display of classical taste, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of master of arts by diploma, dated June 23, 1759. Such is Mr. Wooll’s account, but it is evident from the date that his essay likewise preceded this just mark of esteem.

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

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

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

The tenour of his life was now even. During such times as he could spare from the school, and especially on the return of the Christmas vacation, he visited his friends in London, among -whom were the whole of that class who composed Dr. Johnson’s Literary Club, with some persons of rank, by whom he was highly respected, but who appear to have remembered their old master in every thing but promotion. In 1782, he was indebted to his friend and correspondent, Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, for a prebend of St. Paul’s and the living of Thorley in Hertfordshire, which, after some arrangements, he exchanged for Wickham. This year also he published his second and concluding volume of the “Essay on Pope,” and a new edition, with some alterations, of the first.

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

After the publication of Pope, he entered on an edition of Dryden, and about 1799 had completed two volumes with notes, which have since been published. At this time the venerable author was attacked by an incurable disorder in his kidneys, which terminated his useful and honourable life on Feb. 23, 1800, in his seventy-eighth year . He left a widow, who died in 1806, a son and three daughters, the youngest by his second wife. He was interred in the same grave with his first wife, in the north aisle of Winchester cathedral: and the Wiccamists evinced their respect for his memory by an elegant monument by Flaxman, placed against the pillar next to the entrance of the choir on the south side of the centre aisle.

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

His biographer has considered his literary character under the three heads of a poet, a critic, and an instructor; but it is as a critic principally that he will be known to posterity, and as one who, in the language of Johnson, has taught “how the brow of criticism may be smoothed, and how she may be enabled, with all her severity, to attract and to delight.” A book, indeed, of more delightful variety than his Essay on Pope, has not yet appeared, nor one in which there is a more happy mixture of judgment and sensibility. It did not, however, flatter the current opinions on the rank of Pope among poets, and the author desisted from pursuing his subject for many years. Dr. Johnson said that this was owing “to his not having been able to persuade the world to be of his opinion as to Pope.” This was probably the truth, but not the whole truth. Motives of a delicate nature are supposed to have had some share in inducing him to desist for a time. Warburton was yet alive, the executor of Pope and the guardian of his fame, and Warburton was no less the active and zealous friend and correspondent of Thomas Warton; nor was it any secret that Warburton furnished Ruffhead with the materials for his Life of Pope, the chief object of which was a rude and impotent attack on the Essay. Warburton died in 1779, and in 1782, Dr. Warton completed his Essay, and at length persuaded the world that he did not differ from the common opinion so much as was supposed *. Still by pointing out what is not poetry, he gave unpardonable offence to those, whose names appear among poets, but whom he has reduced to moralists and versifiers.

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

, a political writer and historian of the seventeenth century, was by birth a gentleman, descended from the Warwicks of Warthwykes of Warwicke in Cumberland, and bearing the same arms: “Vert, 3 lions rampant Argent.” His grandfather, Thomas Warwick, is (in the visitation of Kent, by sir Edward Bysche, in 1667), styled of Hereford, but whom he married is not mentioned. His father, Thomas Warwick, was very eminent for his skill in the theory of music, having composed a song of forty parts, for forty several persons, each of them to have his part entire from the other. He was a commissioner for granting dispensations for converting arable land into pasture, and was some time organist of Westminster-abbey and the Chapel-royal. He married Elizabeth daughter and co-heir of John Somerville, of Somerville Aston le Warwick; by whom he had issue: one son, Philip, our author, and two daughters; Arabella, married to Henry Clerke, esq. and afterwards married to Christopher Turnor, of the Middle Temple, esq. barrister at law, who, at the Restoration, was knighted, and made a baron of the exchequer.

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

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

Sir Peter Warwick died January 15th, 1682-3, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. His only child, Philip (who married Elizabeth, second daughter and co-heiress of John lord Freskville, of Stavely-le-Derby, by whom he had no issue, died at Newmarket the 26th of March following, as he was returning post from Sweden (where he was envoy) to take his last farewell of his father. She was afterwards fourth wife of John earl of Holdernesse.

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

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

At this period there is some reason to believe that neither general Washington nor his constituents entered heartily into the views of the New Englanders; but afraid lest their army, after shaking off the yoke of Great Britain, might give laws to the Continent, he took upon himself the command of that army in the month of July 1775. To detail his conduct in the years which followed, would be to relate the history of the American war. It may be said generally, that within a very short period after the declaration of independence, the affairs of America were in a condition so desperate, that perhaps nothing but the peculiar character of Washington’s genius could have retrieved them. Activity is the policy of invaders, and in the field of battle the superiority of a disciplined army is displayed. But delay was the wisdom of a country defended by undisciplined soldiers against an enemy who must be more exhausted by time than he could be weakened by defeat. It required the consummate prudence, the calm wisdom, the inflexible firmness, the moderate and well-balanced temper of Washington, to embrace such a plan of policy, and to persevere in it: to resist the temptations of enterprize; to fix the confidence of his soldiers without the attraction of victory; to support the spirit of the army and the people amidst those slow and cautious plans of defensive warfare which are more dispiriting than defeat itself; to contain his own ambition and the impetuosity of his troops; to endure temporary obscurity for the salvation of his country, and for the attainment of solid and immortal glory; and to suffer even temporary reproach and obloquy, supported by the approbation of his own conscience and the applause of that small number of wise men whose praise is an earnest of the admiration and gratitude of posterity. Victorious generals easily acquire the confidence of their army. Theirs, however, is a confidence in the fortune of their general. That of Washington’s army was a confidence in his wisdom. Victory gives spirit to cowards, and even the agitations of defeat sometimes impart a courage of despair. Courage is inspired by success, and it may be stimulated to desperate exertion even by calamity, but it is generally palsied by inactivity. A system of cautious defence is the severest trial of human fortitude. By this test the firmness of Washington was tried.

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

From his resignation till the month of July 1798, he lived in retirement at Mount Vernon. At this latter pe r riod it became necessary for the United States to arm, They had endured with a patience of which there is no example in the history of states, all the contumely and wrong which successive administrations in France had heaped upon them. Their ships were every where captured, their ministers were detained in a sort of imprisonment at Paris; while incendiaries, cloathed in the sacred character of ambassadors, scattered over their peaceful provinces the firebrands of sedition and civil war. An offer was made to terminate this long course of injustice, by a bribe to the French ministers. This offer was made by persons who appeared to be in the confidence of M. Talleyrand, who professed to act by his authority, but who have been since disavowed by him. In the mean time the United States resolved to arm by land and sea. The command of the army was bestowed on general Washington, which he accepted because he was convinced that “every thing we hold dear and sacred was seriously threatened;” though he had flattered himself “that he had quitted for ever the boundless field of public action, incessant trouble and high responsibility, in which he had long acted so conspicuous a part.” In this office he continued during the short period of his life which still remained. On Thursday the 12th December 1799, he was seized with an inflammation in his throat, which became considerably worse the next day; and of which, notwithstanding the efforts of his physicians, he died on Saturday the 14th of December 1799, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and in the twenty-third year of the independence of the United States, of which he may be considered as the founder. The same calmness, simplicity, and regularity, which had uniformly marked his demeanour, did not forsake him in his dying moments. Even the perfectly well-ordered state of the most minute particulars of his private business, bore the stamp of that constant authority of prudence and practical reason over his actions, which was a distinguishing feature of his character. He died with those sentiments of piety, which had given vigour and consistency to his virtue, and adorned every part of his blameless and illustrious life.

That he was a good scholar and critic, his essays in the “Bibliotheca Literaria” afford sufficient 'evidence; but he was not the editor of that work, as some have reported. Dr. Jebb was the editor, but Wasse contributed several pieces, as many others did, and at length destroyed the sale of the work by making his essays too long, particularly his life of Justinian, who filled two whole numbers, and was not then finished. This displeased the readers of the work, and after it had reached ten numbers (at Is. each) it was discontinued for want of encouragement. * What were published make a 4to volume, finished in 1724. Mr. Wasse was the author of three articles in the Philosophical Transactions;!. “On the difference of the height of a human body between morning and night.” 2. “On the effects of Lightning, July 3, 1725, in Northamptonshire.” 3. “An account of an earthquake In Oct. 1731, in Northamptonshire.” He was also a considerable contributor to the edition of “Thucydides,” which by the name of “Wassii et Dukeri,” Amst. 1721, 2 vols. fol. He died of an apoplexy, November 19, 1738, and was succeeded in his living of Aynhoe by Dr. Yarborough, afterwards principal of Brasenose college, Oxford, who purchased part of his collection of books, many of them replete with ms notes and collections of Mss. by Mr. Wasse. They are now in the library of that college, by the kindness of the heirs of Dr. Yarborough. John “Whiston adds that Wasse was” a facetious man in conversation, but a heavy preacher; a very deserving charitable man, and universally esteemed." A considerable part of his library appeared in one of Whiston’s sale catalogues.

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

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

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

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

A short time before the commencement of this controversy, Dr. Waterland had attacked a position in Dr. Whitby’s “Disquisitiones modestae in Bulli defensionem fidei Nicenae,” which produced an answer from Whitby, entitled “A reply to Dr. Waterland’s objections against Dr. Whitby’s Disquisiiiones.” This induced our author to publish in the same year (1718) “An answer to Dr. Whitby’s Reply; being a vindication of the charges of fallacies, misquotations, misconstructions, misrepresentations, &c. respecting his book, entitled `Disquisitiones modestae, in a letter to Dr. Whitby'.” In consequence of the reputation which Dr. Waterland had acquired by his first publication on this subject, he was appointed by Dr. Robinson, bishop of London, to preach the first course of sermons at the lecture founded by lady Moyer. This he accomplished in 1720, and afterwards printed in fc< Eight Sermons, &c. in defence of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,“c. 8vo, and in the preface informs us that they may be considered as a supplement to his” Vindication of Christ’s Divinity.“In 1721 Dr. Waterland was promoted by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s to the rectory of St. Austin’s and St. Faith’s, and in 1723 to the chancellorship of the church of York, by archbishop Dawes. The same year he published his” History of the Athanasian Creed," which he undertook in order to rescue this venerable form of faith from Dr. Clarke’s censures, who had gone so far as to apply to the prelates to have it laid aside. In 1727, upon the application of lord Townsend, secretary of state, and Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, his majesty collated him to a canonry of Windsor; and in 1730, he was presented by the dean and chapter to the vicarage of Twickenham in Middlesex. On this he resigned his living of St. Austin and St. Faith, objecting to holding two benefices at the same time with the cure of souls; but as this principle did not affect his holding the archdeaconry of Middlesex, he accepted that preferment this year, given him by bishop Gibson.

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

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

, a gallant officer and able engineer, was the son of a grazier, who lived at Holbeach, in Lincolnshire, where he was born about 1737, and educated at Gosberton school. Here his genius for the mathematics soon discovered itself, and in 1753 he was a frequent contributor to the “Ladies Diary.” About this time his abilities became known to Mr. Whichcot, of HarpsweJJ, then one of the members of parliament for Lincolnshire, who introduced him to the royal academy at Woolwich; and he soon after obtained a commission in the corps of engineers. Under the celebrated mathematician, Thomas Simpson, Watson prosecuted his studies at Woolwich, and continued to write for the “Ladies Diary,” of which Simpson was at that time the editor. Such was Simpson’s opinion of Watson’s abilities, that at his decease he left him his unfinished mathematical papers, with a request that he would revise them, and make what alterations and additions he might think necessary; but of this privilege it seems to be doubted whether he made the best use. (See Simpson, p. 20.)

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

Here he added considerably to his stock of knowledge, and at length entered upon his profession. He spent one year in assisting Mr. Newton of Norwich, and then repaired to the university of Edinburgh, where he acquired the esteem of some of its most eminent professors, especially the late principal Robertson, and as a proof of it, that university afterward conferred upon him the degree of doctor of laws. On his return to England, he was invited to succeed the late Rev. Mr. Williams, of Gosport. This invitation he accepted, and was ordained pastor in 1771. His ministrations being, however, unacceptable to a minority, occasioned a separation, which by his prudence and mildness very little interrupted their harmony. He generally preached thrice each Sunday, and was constant, unremitting, and peculiarly tender and consoling in his visits to the sick and afflicted. But at length, through the persuasions of some friends, who had discerned his talent for disputation, and had witnessed his clear and intimate acquaintance with the laws of his country, he was induced to change his profession, and enter himself at the InnerTemple. Accordingly he relinquished the ministry in the summer of 1776.

Mr. Watson chiefly resided at Titchfield, a pleasant village in the neighbourhood of Gosport, and there availed himself of the professional knowledge of the late Mr. Missen, recorder of Southampton. In August 1777, he married miss Joanna Burges, who then resided with her grandmother at Titchfield. She was the daughter of a gentleman who was long resident at Calcutta. By this union he had fourteen children. Soon after his marriage he removed to London.

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

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

in the Gentleman’s Magazine, who gave full scope to the ingenuity of the

It will give me the greatest pleasure to ‘have an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with Mr. Gibbon. I beg he would accept my sincere thanks for the too favourable manner in which he has spoken of a performance, which derives its chief merit from the elegance and importance of the work it attempts to oppose.’ I have no hope of a future existence, except that which is grounded on the truth of Christianity. I wish not to be deprived of this hope; but I should be an apostate from the mild principle of the religion I profess, if I could be actuated with the least animosity against those who do not think with me upon this, of all others, the most important subject. I beg your pardon for this declaration of my belief; but my temper is naturally open, and it ought assuredly to be without disguise to a man whom I wish no longer to look upon as an antagonist, but as a friend. I have the honour to be, with every sentiment of respect, your obliged servant, V"

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

In 1786, bishop Watson had a considerable accession to his private fortune, by the death of Mr. Luther, of Ongar in Essex; who, having been one of his pupils at Cambridge, retained so great a sense of his worth, that he

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

From the very i commencement of the discussions on the slave trade, his lordship always stood forward as a strenuous advocate “for its abolition; and though in the earlier years of the eventful contest with France which speedily succeeded, he in general recommended pacific measures, yet before its conclusion he became convinced of the necessity of prosecuting the war with vigour. His lordship’s” Address to the People of Great Britain,“1798, 8vo, is evidently the address of a man, who amidst all the differences in matters of less moment, feels honestly for his country in the hour of danger, and wishes to unite all hands and hearts in her defence. Such a tract from so distinguished a character was not likely to pass unnoticed: several replies appeared, among which the most intemperate was that of Gilbert Wakefield. His” Charge delivered to the Clergy of Landaff, is a suitable supplement to the “Address;” and in 1802 appeared another very excellent “Cnarge to the Clergy of Landaff.” hi 1803, the bishop published “A Sermon, preached in the Chapel of the London Hospital, on the 8th of April;” a powerful antidote to the mischief produced among the people at large by his old antagonist Paine; of whom he takes occasion thus to speak, contrasting him, as an unbeliever, with sir Isaac Newton as a believer: “I think myseli justified in saying, that a thousand such men are, in understanding, but as the dust of the balance, when weighed against Newton;” an indubitable truth, most usefully presented to the contemplation of the multitude. In the same year appeared his “Thoughts on the intended Invasion,” 8vo. In “The Substance of a Speech intended to have been delivered in the House of Lords, Nov. 22, 1803,” which was printed in 1804, bishop Watson warmly entreats the nation, to coincide with the measures proposed for the emancipation of the catholics, and also states some proposals for freeing the nation of its public burthens by one patriotic effort.

The bishop published a Sermon preached at St. George, Hanover-square, May 3, 1804, before the Society for the Suppression of Vice; for which, it cannot be denied, he pleads with his usual energy; though it must be admitted, the principles and maxims of the society may not be found so efficacious towards the wished-for reformation, which is levelled at the lower ranks of society, instead of the higher, who are the manifest corrupters of the others, by their example and influence.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Watson, about this time, was the first, his biographer apprehends, who communicated to the English reader an account of a revolution which was about to take place among the learned, in botany and zoology, respecting the removal of a large body of marine productions, which had heretofore been ranked among vegetables; but which were now proved to be of animal origin, and stand under the name of zoophytes, in the present system of nature. It may be easily seen that this respects the corals, corallines, escharae, madrepores, sponges, &c. and although even Ges* ner, Imperatus, and Rumphius, had some obscure ideas relating to the dubious structure of this class, yet the full discovery that these substances were the fabrications of polypes, was owing to JV1. Peyssonnel, physician at Guac*aloupe. This gentleman had imbibed this opinion first in 1723, at Marseilles, and confirmed it in 1725, on the coast of Barbary. While at Guadaloupe he wrote a volume of 400 pages in 4to, in proof of this subject, which he trant^ mitted in manuscript to the royal society of London. It was afterwards translated, analyzed, and abridged in 1752 by Mr. Watson, and published in vol. XLVII. of the Philosophical Transactions, at a time when the learned were wavering in their opinions on this matter.

Omitting the very minute account which Dr. Pulteney has given of every botanical communication made by Mr. Watson, we may observe that his talents rendered him a welcome visitor to sir Hans Sloane, who had retired to Chelsea in 1740. In fact, he enjoyed no small share of the favour and esteem of that veteran in science, and was honoured so far, as to be nominated one of the trustees of the British Museum by sir Hans himself. After its establishment in Montague house, Mr. Watson was very assiduous, not only in the internal arrangement of subjects, but also in procuring the garden to be furnished with plants, i much that, in the first yearof its establishment, in 1756, it contained no fewer than 600 species, all in a flourishing state.

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

Those who were acquainted with the extent of Mr. Watson’s knowledge in the practice of physic, in natural history, and experimental philosophy, were not surprised to see him rise into the higher rank of his profession. This event took place in 1757, previous to which he had been chosen a member of the royal academy of Madrid, and he was created doctor of physic by the university of Halle. The same honour was conferred upon him by that of Wittemberg about the same time, soon after which he was disfranchised from the company of apothecaries. In 1759 he became a licentiate in the college of physicians. This alteration in his circumstances, hazardous as it might be considered by some, occasioned no diminution in his emoluments, but far the contrary. He had before this time removed from Aldersgate-street to Lincoln’s-inn-fields, where he lived the remainder of his days: and now he found himself at greater liberty to pursue his studies, and carry on at more leisure the extensive literary connexion in which he was engaged both at home and abroad. In Oct. 1762 he was chosen one of the physicians to the Foundling Hospital, which office he held during the remainder of his life.

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

, a French painter, was born at Valenciennes in 1684, of mean parents, who were ill al^le to cultivate his genius as it v deserved. He was placed at first under an ordinary master in the country; but his ambition led him to Paris, where he was employed in the theatre by a scene painter. Here his genius began to distinguish itself, and aspired to a prize in the academy, which he gained. He found means afterwards to obtain the king’s pension, which enabled him to see Rome, on which his heart had long been set. Here he was much taken notice of; as he was afterwards in England, where he spent a full year. His health declining, he returned into his own country with a view to establish it; but the experiment failed, and he died in the flower of his age in 1721, a martyr, as is commonly supposed, to industry, Watteau was a painter of great merit, considering his age and disadvantages. Every thing he gained was from himself. He had not only his own talents to form; but he had bad habits, contracted from bad masters, to overcome. In spite of all his difficulties, he became a very eminent painter; and his works are thought worthy of a place in the most curious cabinets. Vandyck and Rubens were the masters he copied after his studies became liberal. He painted chiefly conversation-pieces, in which the airs of his heads are much admired. It is thought he would have excelled in history if he had studied it. He left behind him a great number of drawings; some of which are done in red, others in black, chalk; and many there are in which both are mixed.

Lord Orford, who has included Watteau among his painters, allows that England has but very slight pretensions to him, he having come hither only to consult Dr. Mead, for whom he painted two pictures, that were sold in the doctor’s collection. He objects to Watteau, and it is a very serious objection, that in his landscapes, he did not copy his trees from nature, but from those of theTuilleries and villas near Paris, where they are trimmed into fantastical shapes.

At the age of twenty he left the academy, and spent two years in study and devotion at the house of his father, who treated him with great tenderness; and had the happiness indulged to few parents, of living to see his son eminent for literature, and venerable for piety.

While in this afflictigg situation, he was received into the house of sir Thomas Abney, of Newington, knight, and alderman of London, where he was entertained with the utmost tenderness, friendship, and liberality, for the space of thirty-six years. Sir Thomas died about eight years after Dr. Watts became an inmate in his family: but he continued with lady Abney, and her daughters, to the end of his life. Lady Abney died about a year after him; and the last of the family, Mrs. Elizabeth Abney, in 1782. “A coalition like this,” says Dr. Johnson, “a state in which the notions of patronage and dependence were overpowered by the perception of reciprocal benefits, deserves a particular memorial; and I will not withhold from the reader Dr. Gibbons’s representation, to which regard is to be paid, as to the narrative of one who writes what he knows, and what is known likewise to multitudes besides.”

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

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

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

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

His acknowledged talents and political sagacity procured him the unreserved confidence of his royal master, who appears to have treated him with condescending familiarity, employed him in some affairs of critical importance, and received throughout the whole of his turbulent reign abundant proofs of his invariable loyalty and attachment. In 1450, when the rebellion of Jack Cade burst forth, Waynflete, who had retired to the nunnery of Holywell, was sent for by the king to Canterbury, and advised the issuing a proclamation offering pardon to all concerned in the rebellion, except Cade himself; in consequence of which the rebels dispersed, and left their leader to his fate. Soon after, when Richard, duke of York, took up arms, the king sent our prelate, with the bishop of Ely, to inquire his reasons for so alarming a step. The duke replied, that his only view was to remove evil counsellors from his highness, and particularly the duke of Somerset. Waynflete and his colleague having made this report, the king ordered the duke of Somerset to be imprisoned, and received the duke of York with kindness, who on his part took a solemn oath of future allegiance and fidelity; which, however, he violated at the battle of Northampton in 1460. In October 1453, Waynflete baptised the young prince of Wales by the name of Edward, afterwards "Edward IV. In October 1456, he was appointed lord high chancellor in the room of Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury; and the following year he sat in judgment with the archbishop and other prelates, upon Dr. Reginald Pecocke, bishop of Chichester, who had advanced some doctrines contrary to the prevailing religious opinions. On this occasion the court was unanimous in enjoining Pecocke to a solemn recantation, and confinement to his house; his writings also were ordered to be burnt; but the archbishop, according to Mr. Lewis’s account, took a far more active share in this business than the chancellor.

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

epicure, which shortened his life about who sold the whole again to Mr. Webb

1741. Mr. Godfrey (who was related before it wag unpacked. Of Mr. John to sir Edmondbury) was a person of Godfrey and hi* lady, good portraits

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

, a royal academician, and a man of *ery considerable talents, was the son of a sculptor, a native of Berne in Switzerland, but was born in London in 1751. Part of his education as an artist he received at Paris, but afterwards entered the Royal Academy of London. He was elected an associate Nov. 5, 1785, and a royal academician in February 1791. In the last voyage which captain Cook made to the South-Seas, Mr. Webber was appointed draughtsman to the expedition, and when the two ships, the Discovery and the Resolution, arrived at St. Peter and St. Paul, Kamtschatka, Webber was obliged to act as interpreter between captain Gower and major Behm, he being the only person on board of ei her ships who understood German. From this voyage he returned in 1780, when he was employed by the lot (is of the admiralty to superintend the engraving of the prints (by Bartolozzi and other eminent artists) executed after the drawings which he had made, representing the different events and scenes that occurred in the voyage, the accuracy of which has been confirmed by subsequent experience. When this work was concluded, he published, on his own account, a set of views of the different places he had visited in the voyage. They were etched and aquatinted by himself, afterwards coloured, and produced a very pleasing effect. This work was in part completed, when his health declined, and, after lingering for some months, he died April 29, 1793, in the forty-second year of his age.

, ar learned and laborious divine, grandson to bishop Sparrow, was born in December 1689,. and having been admitted a student of Caius-college, Cambridge, there took his degrees of B. A. 1711, M. A. 1716, and D. D. 1752. In 1715 he was made curate of St. Dunstan in the West, London; and in 1725, edited the “Life of General Monk,” from the original manuscript of Dr. Skinner. This volume he Dedicated to the countess Granville, and to John lord Gower, who were descended from the family of Monk. His next production was, “The Clergy’s Right of Maintenance vindicated,” 8vo, which is also inscribed to lord Gower, who was afterwards his patron.

In 1731 he was removed from his curacy at St. Dunstan’s, and published in that year “The fitness of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ considered; in answer to the principal objections against them,” 8vo; and also two pamphlets and a letter in a newspaper, in defence of bishop Hare, who had been attacked by Gordon, the translator of Tacitus, on account of some passages in a 30th of January sermon. Being now out of employment, his eldest brother was at the expence of obtaining for him his doctor’s degree in divinity; but in August of the same year, 1732, bishop Gooch gave him the curacy of St. Clement Eastcheap, with a salary of 70l. and in February following he was presented by a relation to the rectory of Deptden in Suffolk, worth 102l. a year.

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

, son of the preceding, was likewise a very able printer. Being a protestant, he went to Frankfort, about 1573; having left Paris, after the massacre on St. Bartholomew’s day, the year before. He himself relates the great danger to which he was exposed on the night of that massacre; and in what manner he was saved by the learned Hubert Languet, who lived in his house. He expresses his gratitude for it in the dedication of Albert Krantz’s “Vandalia,” printed at Frankfort in 1575; in which place he continued to print many great and important works. He died in 1581. It was at his house where our celebrated sir Philip Sidney lodged when at Frankfort, and where he became acquainted with Languet, then a resident from the elector of Saxony.

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

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

, a nonconformist divine, the son of Mr. William Wells, of St. Peter’s East, in Oxford, was born there August 18, 16 J 4, and brought up in Magdalen college, but is not mentioned by Wood. He commenced M. A. in 1636; married Mrs. Dorothy Doyley, of Auborn in Wilts, 1637, being the twenty-second year of his age. He was ordained Dec. 23, 1638, at which time he kept a school in Wandsworth. He was assistant to Dr. Temple,* at Battersea, in 1639. In the war-time, for their security, he removed his family into Fetter-lane, London, about 1644; and about that time was in the army, chaplain to Col. Essex. He was fixed minister at Remnam, in Berks, 1647, where his income is said to be 200l. per annum, but not above twenty families in the parish. He was invited to Banbury in Oxfordshire; accepted the offer, and settled there in 1649, though a place of less profit, namely, about 100l. per annum. His reason for leaving Remnam was, that he might do good to more souls. When the troubles were over, he had the presentation of Brinkworth, said to be about 300l. per annum, but declined it for the former reason. When the Bartholomew-Act displaced him, he remitted 100l. due from Banbury; and afterwards would cheerfully profess, “that he had not one carking thought about the support of his family, though he had then ten children, and his wife big with another.” The Five-Mile act removed him to Dedington, about five miles distant from Banbury, but as soon as the times would permit, he returned to Banbury, and there continued till his death. There Mr. (afterwards Dr.) White, of Kidderminster, the church minister, was very friendly and familiar with him, frequently paying each other visits; and one speech of his, when at Mr. Weils’s, is still remembered. “Mr. Wells,” said he, “I wonder how you do to live so comfortably. Methinks you, with your numerous family, live more plentifully on the providence of God than I can with the benefits of the parish.” Mr Wells was of a cheerful disposition, and of a large and liberal heart to all, but especially to good uses. It was the expression of one who had often heard him preach, “That his auditory’s ears were chained to his lips.” As he used to hear Mr. White in public, so Mr. White, though secretly, went to hear him in private; and once, upon his taking leave, he was heard to say, “Well, I pray God to bless your labours in private, and mine in public.” There is a small piece of Mr. Weils’s printed; the title, “A Spirituall Remembrancer,” sold by Cockrell. >

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

Mr. Welsted married a daughter of Mr. Henry Purcell, who died in 1724; and by whom he had one daughter, who died at the age of eighteen, unmarried. His second wife, who survived him, was sister to sir Hoveden Walker, and to Mr. Walker, the defender of Londonderry. He had an official house in the Tower of London, where he died in 1747. His works were regularly collected in one octavo volume, and his fair fame as a man completely vindicated, by Mr. Nichols, in 1787.

, a Scotch physician and historian, was born near Edinburgh 1652, and educated at Glasgow; whence he went over to Holland with his parents, who were driven from Scotland in consequence of having been suspected as accessary to the murder of archbishop Sharp, in 1679. Having spent some years at Ley den, he took his degrees in physic, and came over with king William at the revolution. He was then appointed one of the king’s physicians for Scotland, and settled at Edinburgh, and became very eminent in his profession, acquiring a considerable fortune. Strongly attached to republican notions of civil government, he wrote a volume of “Memoirs of England from 1588 to 1688,” which although extremely well writien, yet betray plain marks of a party-spirit. He died at Edinburgh 1716, aged sixty-four.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before he had been many months in Ireland, he solicited the king to raise him to the dignity of an earl, but had the mortification to meet with a repulse. The king seems to have been unwilling to bestow this honour on one who had incurred a considerable share of popular odium, and whose misconduct his majesty would have been thought to approve had he given such a decided proof of royal favour. About two years after, he made the same application to the king, who again declined the request, but now in a manner so pointed and decisive as seemed to bar all hopes of compliance. He assured Wentworth that the cause of his request, namely, to refute the malicious insinuations of his enemies, and prove that his majesty disbelieved their calumnies, would, if known, rather encourage than silence his enemies, who would become more bold and dangerous when they found that they were feared. But this did not reconcile Wentworth to the disappointment, which he continued to feel bitterly, until the king sending for him in September 1639, he was in January following raised to his long-desired dignity, the earldom of Stratford. At the same time he was raised from the title of deputy to that of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and was likewise made a knight of the garter.

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

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

Several members, even among the personal enemies of Strafford, remonstrated against this complicated injustice, but in vain; and no obstacle could restrain the commons from pursuing their victim to death, nor were they without means to accelerate the progress of the bill of attainder in the upper House. As a warning to the lords, the namts of the fifty- nine commoners who had voted against it, were posted up in conspicuous places, with this superscription, “The Straffordians, the men who to save a traitor would betray their country.” The populace, indeed, were excited to every species of outrage, in order to intimidate the House of Lords as well as his Majesty, and they succeeded too well in both cases. Out of eighty lords who had been present during the whole trial, only forty-six now ventured to attend; and when the bill came to a vote, it was carried with eleven dissenting voices. The king, who dreaded that himself and family might fall victims to the vindictive rioters, summoned his privy-council to devise means for his safety, and they declared no other could be found but his assent to the death of Strafford; he represented the violence which he should thus impose on his conscience; and they referred him to the prelates, who, trembling under their own apprehensions, earnestly concurred in the advice of the privy-counsellors. Juxon alone, whose courage was not inferior to his other virtues, ventured to advise him, if in his conscience he. did not approve of the bill, by no means to assent to it,

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

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

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

, an eminent protestant divine, was the grandson of John James Werenfels, a clergyman at Basil, who died November 17, 1655, leaving ' Sermons“in German, and” Homilies on Ecclesiastes“in Latin. He was the son of Peter Werenfels, likewise an eminent protestant divine, born 1627, at Leichtal; wtio, after having been pastor of different churches, was appointed archdeacon of Basil in 1654, where he gave striking proofs of his piety and zeal during the pestilence which desolated the city of Basil in 1667 and 1668. His sermons, preached at that time from Psalm xci. have been printed. He was appointed professor of divinity in 1675, and died May 23, 1703, aged seventy-six, leaving a great number of valuable ”Dissertations,“some” Sermons,“and other works. His son, the immediate subject of the present article, was born March I, 1657, at Basil. He obtained a professorship of logic in 1684, and of Greek in the year following, and soon after set out on a literary journey through Holland and Germany, and then into France, with Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, and Frederick Battier. At his return to Basil he was appointed professor of rhetoric, and filled the different divinity chairs successively. He died in that city, June 1, 1740. His works have all been collected and printed in 2 vols. 4to; the most complete edition of them is that of Geneva and of Lausanne, 1739. They treat of philology, philosophy, and divinity, and are universally esteemed, particularly the tract” De Logomachiis Eruditorum.“In the same collection are several poems, which show the author to have been a good poet as well as an able philosopher and learned divine. We have also a vol. 8vo, of his” Sermons," which are much admired.

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

In the beginning of 1705 he printed a poem on the battle of Blenheim, with which the duke of Marlborough was so well pleased, that he made him chaplain to colonel Lepelle’s regiment, which was to remain in England some time. In consequence of the same poem, a noble lord sent for him to London, promising to procure him a prebend; but unhappily he was at this time engaged in a controversy with the dissenters, who being in favour at queen Anne’s court, and in parliament, had influence enough to obstruct his promotion, and even to procure his removal from the chaplaincy of the regiment.

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

, the most celebrated of the family, and the founder of the society of Methodists, was the second son of the rev. Samuel Wesley, and was born at Epworth in Lincolnshire, June 17, 1703, O. S. His mother was the youngest daughter of Dr. Samuel Annesley, an eminent nonconformist, and appears to have been a woman of uncommon mental acquirements, and a very early student of religious controversies. At the age of thirteen she became attached to the church of England, from an examination of the points in dispute betwixt it and the dissenters; but when her husband was detained from his charge at Epworth by his attendance on the convocation in London, she used to admit as many of his flock as his house could hold, and read a sermon, prayed, &c. with them. Her husband, who thought this not quite regular, objected to it, and she repelled his objections with considerable ingenuity. It is not surprising, therefore, that she afterwards approved of her sons’ extraordinary services in the cause of religion.

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

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

In 1732 we find Mr. Wesley at London, whence he went to Putney, on a visit to the celebrated William Law, with whose writings he was greatly captivated. From this time also he began to read the “Theologia Germanica,” and other mystic writers, with whose opinions he coincided, as making religion to consist chiefly in contemplation, and inward attention to our own mind; but, says his biographer, it does not appear that he was less diligent in the instituted means of grace, nor less active in doing good to others than before. He was now known to many pious and respectable persons in London, who began to take notice of him. He heartily approved of the conduct of those welldispoaed persons who associated together to carry on a plan. for the suppression of vice, and spreading religion and virtue among the people; and in August 1732 was admitted into the society for the propagation of Christian knowledge.

By reading Law’s “Christian Perfection,” and his “Serious Call to a holy Life,” Mr. Wesley was confirmed in the views he before had of the effects which the gospel is intended to produce on the minds of those who sincerely embrace it; and was fully convinced of the absurdity and danger of being an half Christian. On Jan. 1,1733, he preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, before the university, on the “circumcision of the heart.” His biographer says, that in this sermon “he has explained with great clearness, and energy of language, his views of the Christian salvation to be attained in this life; in which he never varied, in any material point, to the day of his death.” In this month he set out for Epworth; and the declining state of his father’s health occasioned his parents to speculate on the possibility of obtaining the living of Epworth for him, in case of his father’s demise. But to this he seems to have been indifferent, if not reluctant; he still wished to go back to Oxford, where in his absence there had been a great falling-off in his society; and when in the following year his. father wrote to him, requesting him to apply for the next presentation, he answered he was determined not to accept the living if he could obtain it, and gave the preference to Oxford, as the place where he could improve himself more than elsewhere, and consequently contribute rnotst to the improvement of others. It was in vain that his father and brother Samuel engaged in a controversy with him on the subject. His father died in April 1735, and the living was given away in, May, so that he now considered himself as settled at Oxford, without any wish of being further molested in his quiet retreat.

But a new scene of action was soon proposed to him,- of which he had not before the least conception. The trustees of the new colony of Georgia were greatly in want of proper persons to send thither to preach the gospel, not only to the colony, but to the Indians. They fixed their eyes on Wesley and some of his friends, as the most proper persons, on account of the regularity of their behaviour, their abstemious way of living, and their readiness to endure hardships. In August 1735, being in London, he was introduced to Mr. Oglethorpe, and the matter proposed to him. For some time he hesitated, in order to consider it, and take the advice of his friends, and then consented, and began td prepare for his voyage, along with his brother Charles, Mr. Ingham, and Mr. Delamotte, the son of a merchant in London. But his expedition was unsuccessful. The Indians were the intended objects of his ministry, but he found no opportunity of going among them, for general Oglethorpe wished to detain him at Savannah, Where the English had formed their settlement. Even here, however, be became frequently involved in disputes with the colonists. High-church principles, says one of his biographers, continually influenced his conduct; “an instance f which was his refusing to admit one of the holiest men In the province to the Lord’s Supper, though he earnestly desired it, because he was a dissenter, unless he would submit to be re-baptized.” He also refused the communion to a married lady, whom he had himself courted for a wife, which excited a powerful hostility against him, and occasioned his return to England, after a ministry in Georgia of about a year and nine months. He allows himself that all he learned was, what he least of all expected, that he “who went to America to convert others, was never himself converted to God.”

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

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

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

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

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

He was very often visited by Lyttelton and Pitt, who, when they were weary of faction and debates, used at Wickham to find books and quiet, a decent table, and literary conversation. There is at Wickham a walk made by Pitt; and, what is of far more importance, at Wickham Lyttelton received that conviction which produced his "Dissertation on St. Paul. 7 ' These two illustrious friends had for a while listened to the blandishments of infidelity; and when West’s book was published, it was bought by some who did not know his change of opinion, in expectation of new objections against Christianity; and, as infidels do not want malignity, they revenged the disappointment by calling him a methodist.

, a gentleman of literary talents, and long known for his fine library and museum, was the son of Richard West, esq. of Alscott, in Warwickshire, said to be descended, according to family tradition, frona Leonard, a younger son of Thomas West, lord De la Warr, who died in 1525. He was educated at Baliol college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1726. He had an early attachment to the study of antiquities, and was elected F. S. A. in 1726, and was afterwards one of the vice-presidents. Of the Royal Society likewise he became a fellow in the same year, and was first treasurer, from Nov. 1736 to Nov. 1768, when he was elected president, and held that honourable office until his death, July 2, 1772. In 1741 he was chosen one of the representatives in parliament for St. Alban’s, and, being appointed one of the joint secretaries of the treasury, he continued in that office until 1762. His old patron, the duke of Newcastle, afterwards procured him a pension of 2000l. For what services so large a sum was granted, we are not told.

Mr. West married the daughter and heiress of sir Thomas Stephens, timber-merchant in Southwark, who brought him a valuable estate in Rotherhithe; and by her he had a son, James, who was auditor of the land-tax for the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Chester, and Derby, and sometime member of parliament for Borouijhbridge in Yorkshire; and two daughters, one of whom, Sarah, married the late lord Archer, and died his widow a few years ago. The other is still living in London. Mr. West’s curious collection of Mss. were sold to the late marquis of Lansviowne, and were lately purchased by parliament, with the rest of his lordship’s collection, for the British Museum. Among them is much of his correspondence with the antiquaries of his time; and in the first volume of the “Restituta,” some curious extracts are given of letters to and from Hearne. His valuable library of printed books, including many with copious ms notes by bishop Kennet, was sold by auction, from an excellently digested catalogue by Sain. Paterson, in 1773; and the same year were disposed of, his prints, drawings, coins, pictures, &c. Mr. West’s catalogue is still in demand as one of the richest in literary curiosities.

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

, a learned lady of the sixteenth century, was born about the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, and is supposed by Dr. Fuller to have been a branch of the ancient family of the Westons, of Sutton, in Surrey. She appears to have left England at an early age, and to have settled at Prague, in Bohemia, where she married one John Leon, who is said to have resided there in the emperor’s service. She was skilled in the languages, particularly in the Latin, in which she wrote with elegance and correctness. She was greatly esteemed by learned foreigners. She is commended by Scaliger, and complimented by Nicholas May in a Latin epigram. She is placed by Mr. Evelyn, in his “Numisnma,” among learned women; and by Philips among female poets. She is ranked by Farnaby with sir Thomas More, and the best Latin poets of the sixteenth century. She translated several of the fables of Æsop into Latin verse. She also wrote a Latin poem in praise of typography, with many poems and epistles, on different subjects, in the same language, which were collected and published. She was living in 1605, as appears from an epistle written by her, and dated Prague, in that year. The only work we can point out of hers, as published, is, “Parthenico Elizabeth Joannae Westonise, virginis nobilissimae, poetriae fiorentissimae, linguarum plurimarum peritissimae, libri tres, opera et studio G. Mart, a Baldhoven, Sil. collectus, et mine denuo amicis desiderantibus commuoicatus,” Pragse, typis Pauli Sissii, 12iiio, without date, but probably about 1606.

The son of bishop Weston, styled from his being a privy counsellor, the Right Hon. Edward Weston, was born and educated at Eton, and afterwards studied and took his degrees at King’s college, Cambridge. His destination was to public life, at the commencement of which be became secretary to lord Townshend at Hanover during the king’s residence there in 1729, and continued several years in the office of lore! Harrington, as his secretary. He was also transmitter of the state papers, and one of the clerks of the signet. In 1741 he was appointed gazetteer; and in 1746, when he was secretary to lord Harrington, lord lieutenant of Ireland, he became a privy-counsellor of that kingdom. Our authorities do not give the date of his death, but it happened in the early part of the present reign. In 1753 he published a pamphlet on the memorable Jew bill; in 1755, “The Country Gentleman’s advice to his Son;” and in 1756, “A Letter to the right rev. the lord bishop of London,” on the earthquake at Lisbon, and the character of the times. He published also “Family Discourses, by a country gentleman,” re-published in 1776 by his son, Charles, under the title of “Family Discourses, by the late right hon. Edward Weston,” a name, we are properly told, “very eminently distinguished for abilities and virtue, and most highly honoured throughout the whole course of life, by the friendship and esteem of the best and greatest men of his time.” He left two sons, Charles, a clergyman, who died in Oct. 1801, and the rev. Stephen Weston, now living, well known as one of the most profound scholars, and what seldom can be said of men of that character, one of the first wits of the age.

, a very learned divine of Germany, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family, and born at Basil in 1693. He was trained with great care, and had early made such a progress in the Greek and Latin tongues as to be thought fit for higher pursuits. At fourteen he applied himself to divinity under his uncle John Rodolph Wetstein, a professor at Basil, and learned Hebrew and the Oriental languages from Buxtorf. At sixteen, he took the degree of doctor in philosophy, and four years after was admitted into the ministry; on which occasion he publicly defended a thesis, " De variis Novi Testament! Leetionibus,' in which he demonstrated that the vast variety of readings in the New Testament are no argument against the genuineness and authenticity of the text. These various readings he had for some time made the object of his attention and, while he was studying the ancient Greek authors, as well sacred as profane, kept this point constantly in view. He was also very desirous of examining all the manuscripts he could come at; and his curiosity in this particular was the chief motive of his travelling to foreign countries. In 1714 he went to Geneva, and, after some stay there, to Paris; thence to England; in which last place he had many conferences with Dr. Bentley relating to the prime object of his journey. Passing through Holland, he arrived at Basil in July 1717, and applied himself to the business of the ministry for several years. Still he went on with his critical disquisitions and animadversions upon the various readings of the New Testament; and kept a constant correspondence with Dr. Befntley, who was at the same time busy in preparing an edition of it, yet did not propose to make use of any manuscripts less than a thousand years old, which are not easy to be met with.

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

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

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

On the accession of queen Anne, his lordship was removed from his employments, and in December 1702 he was one of the managers for the lords in the conference with the House of Commons relating to the bill against occasional conformity, which he opposed on all occasions with great vigour and address. In April 1705 he attended the queen at Cambridge, when her majesty visited that university, and was admitted, among other persons of r.ank, to x the honorary degree of doctor of laws. In the latter end of that year, his lordship opened the debate in the House of Lords for a regency, in case of the queers demise, in a manner which was very much admired. He had not been present at the former debate relating to the invitation of the princess Sophia to come over and live in England; but, he said, he was much delighted with what he heard concerning it; since he had ever looked upon the securing a Protestant succession to the crown, as that which secured the nation’s happiness. His proposition for the regency contained these particulars, that the regents should be empowered to act in the name of the successor, till he should send over orders: that, besides those whom the parliament should name, the next successor should send over a nomination, sealed up, and to be opened when that accident should happen, of persons who should act in the same capacity with the persons named by parliament. This motion being supported by all the Whig lords, a bill was ordered to be brought into the House upon it.

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

Soon after this event, Wharton was severely attacked in “The Examiner,” and other political papers, on account of his administration of that kingdom; and by no writer with more asperity than Swift *, who endeavoured to expose him under the character of Verres, although he had, not long before, solicited in very abject terms to be admitted his lordship’s chaplain. Swift’s character of him in vol. V. of his Works, is perhaps the bitterest satire ever written on any man, but it may be observed that it relates in some measure to his morals, and those have been generally represented as very bad. On the other hand, the author of the Spectator, who dedicated the fifth volume of that work to him, affords a very favourable idea of his conduct in public life. He (probably Addison) observes that it was his lordship’s particular distinction, that he was master of the whole compass of business, and had signalized himself in the different scenes of it; that some are admired for the dignity, others for the popularity of their behaviour; some for their clearness of judgment, others for their happiness of expression; some for laying of schemes, and others for putting them in execution; but that it was his lordship only, who enjoyed these several talents united, and that too in as great perfection, as others possessed them singly; that his lordship’s enemies acknowledged this great extent

r' quest to lord Wharton, but without we have not character enough our­>iccess and the answer Wharton is selves.“*aid to have given, which was never in his character, at the same time that they used their utmost industry and invention to derogate from it; but that it was for his honour, that those who were then his enemies, were always so; and that he had acted in so much consistency with himself, and promoted the interests of his country in so uniform a manner, that even those who. would misrepresent his generous designs for the public good, could not but approve the steadiness and intrepidity with which he pursued them. The annotator on this character quotes an eminent historian as saying that lord Wharton” had as many friends as the constitution, and that only its enemies were his that he made no merit of his zeal for his country and that he expended above 80,000l. for its service," &c.

When the marquis was at Lyons, he took a very strange step, little expected from him. He wrote a letter to the chevalier de St. George, then residing at Avignon, to whom he presented a very fine stone-horse. Upon receiving this present, the chevalier sent a man of quality to the marquis, who carried him privately to his court, where he was received with the greatest marks of esteem, and had the title of duke of Northumberland conferred upon him. He remained there, however, but one day; and then returned post to Lyons, whence he set out for Paris. He likewise made a visit to the queen-dowager of England, consort to James II. then residing at St. Germain*, to whom he paid his court, pursuing the same rash measures as at Avignon. It was reported that he told the queen he was resolved to atone by his own services for the faults of his family, and would exert all his endeavours to subvert the Hanover suecession, and promote the interest of the exiled prince; but as he complained that being underage, and kept out of his estate, he wanted money to carry on the design, the dowager-queen, though poor, pawned her jewels to raise him 2000l. We shall afterwards find that the chevalier accommodated him with the same sum long after the dowager’s death.

During his stay at Paris, his winning address and astonishing parts gained him the esteem and admiration of all the British subjects of both parties who happened to be there. The earl of Stair, then the English ambassador there, notwithstanding all the reports to the marquis’s disadvantage, thought proper to shew some respect to the representative of so great a family. His excellency never failed to lay hold of every opportunity to give some admonitions, which were not always agreeable to the vivacity of his temper, and sometimes provoked him to great indiscretions. Once in particular, the ambassador, extolling the merit and noble behaviour of the marquis’s father, added, that he hoped he would follow so illustrious an example of fidelity to his prince and love to his country: on which the marquis immediately answered, that “he thanked his excellency for his good advice, and, as his excellency had also a worthy and deserving father, he hoped he would likewise copy so bright an original, and tread in his steps.” This was a severe sarcasm, as the ambassador’s father had betrayed his master in a manner that was not very creditable. Before he left France, an English gentleman expostulating with him for swerving so much from the principles of his father and whole family, his lordship answered, that “he had pawned his principles to Gordon, the Pretender’s banker, for a considerable sum, and, till he could repay him, he must be a Jacobite; but, when that was done, he would again return to the Whigs.”

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

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

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

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

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

Wharton’s biographer represents him as a man of great natural endowments, a quick apprehension, solid judgment, and faithful memory. As to his person, he was of a middle stature, of a brown complexion, and of a grave and comely countenance. His constitution was vigorous and healthful; but his immoderate application and labours, together with the too violent operation of a medicine which weakened his stomach, so far broke it, that all the skill and art of the most experienced physicians could do nothing for him. The summer before he died he went to Bath, and found some benefit by the waters; but, falling immoderately to his studies on his return to Canterbury, he was presently reduced to extreme weakness, under which he languished for some time, and at last died at Newton in Cambridgeshire, March 5, 1694-5, in his thirty-first year. He was greatly lamented, especially by the clergy, to whom his labours and publications had been very acceptable. As a testimony of their esteem for him, they attended in great numbers at his funeral, with many of the bishops; and, among the rest, archbishop Tenison, and Lloyd bishop of Lichfield, who both visited him in his last sickness. He was interred on the South side of Westminster abbey, towards the West end, where, on the wall, is fixed up a small tablet to his memory.

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

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

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

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

, an eminent puritan divine, was born at Banbury in Oxfordshire, in May 1583, where his father, Thomas Whately, was justice of the peace, and had been several times mayor. He was educated at Christ’scollege, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Potman, a man of learning and piety, and was a constant hearer of Dr. Chaderton, Perkins, and other preachers of the Puritan-stamp. It does not appear that he was originally destined for the church, as it was not until after his marriage with the daughter of the Rev. George Hunt that he was persuaded to study for that purpose, at Edmund -hall, Oxford. Here he was incorporated bachelor of arts, and, according to Wood, with the foundation of logic, philosophy, and oratory, that he had brought with him from Cambridge, he became a noted disputant and a ready orator. In 1604, he took his degree of M. A. as a member of Edmund-hall, “being then esteemed a good philosopher and a tolerable mathematician.” He afterwards entered into holy orders, and was chosen lecturer of Banbury, his native place. In 1610, he was presented by king James to the vicarage of Banbury, which he enjoyed until his death. He also, with some of his brethren, delivered a lecture, alternately at Stratford-upon-Avon. In his whole conduct, Mr. Leigh says, he “was blameless, sober, just, holy, temperate, of good behaviour, given to hospitality”,&c. Fuller calls him “a good linguist, philosopher, mathematician, and divine;” and adds, that he “was free from faction?' Wood, who allows that he possessed excellent parts, was a noted disputant, an excellent preacher, a good orator, and well versed in the original text, both Greek and Hebrew, objects, nevertheless, that,” being a zealous Calvinist, a noted puritan, and much frequented by the precise party, for his too frequent preaching, he laid such a foundation of faction at Banbury, as will not easily be removed.“Granger, who seems to have considered all these characters with some attention, says, that” his piety was of a very extraordinary strain; and his reputation as a preacher so great, that numbers of different persuasions went from Oxford, and other distant places, to hear him. As he ever appeared to speak from his heart, his sermons were felt as well as heard, and were attended with suitable effects.“In the life of Mede, we have aa anecdote of him, which gives a very favourable idea of his character. Having, in a sermon, warmly recommended his hearers to put in a purse by itself a certain portion from every pound of the profits of their worldly trades, for works of piety, he observed, that instead of secret grudging, when objects of charity were presented, they would look out for them, and rejoice to find them. A neighbouring clergyman hearing him, and being deeply affected with what he so forcibly recommended, consulted him as to what proportion of his income he ought to give.” As to that,“said Whately,” lam not to prescribe to others; but I will tell you what hath been my own practice. You know, sir, some years ago, I was often beholden to you for the loan of ten pounds at a time; the truth is, I could not bring the year about, though my receipts were not despicable, and I was not at all conscious of any unnecessary expenses. At length, I inquired of my family what relief was given to the poor; and not being satisfied, I instantly resolved to lay aside every tenth shilling of all my receipts for charitable uses; and the Lord has made me so to thrive since I adopted this method, that now, if you have occasion, I can lend you ten times as much as I have formerly been forced to borrow."

, Camdenian professor of history at Oxford, was born at Jacobstow, in Cornwall, 1573, and admitted of Broadgate-hall in that university. He took the degrees in arts, that of master being completed in 1600; and, two years after, was elected fellow of Exeter-college. Leaving that house in 1608, he travelled beyond the seas into several countries; and at his return found a patron in lord Chandois. Upon the death of this nobleman, he retired with his wife to Gloucester-hall in Oxford, where, by the care and friendship of the principal, he was accommodated with lodgings; and there contracted an intimacy with the celebrated mathematician, Thomas Allen, by whose interest Camden made him the first reader of that lecture which he had founded in the university. It was thought no small honour that on this occasion he was preferred to Bryan Twyne, whom Camden named as his successor, if he survived him, but Twyne died first. Soon after, he was made principal of that hall; and this place, with his lecture, he held to the time of -his death, which happened Aug. 1, 1647. He was buried in the chapel of Exetercollege. Wood tells us, that he was esteemed by some a learned and genteel man, and by others suspected to be a Calyinist. He adds, that he left also behind him a widow and children, who soon after became poor.

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

, a learned orientalist, and first professor of the Arabic and Saxon tongues in the University of Cambridge, was born at Loppington, in Shropshire (of which county likewise was his patron and founder, sir Thomas Adorns) and admitted of Trinity cpllege, Cambridge. There he became B. A. in 1614, M. A. in 1618, and %vas admitted fellow of Clare-hall the year following. In- 1623 he was appointed one of the university preachers, and in 1625 commenced bachelor of divinity. In 1622 he was: made minister of St. Sepulchre’s church, which he held until 1642. About the same time (1622) he read the Arabio lecture ipr Mr. (afterwards sir Thomas) Adams, though it &as not then settled, but he received for the same forty pounds a year, remitted to him by quarterly payments. Hte read also the Saxon lecture for sir Henry Spelman, for which he received an annual stipend, not settled, but voluntary: together with this, sir Henry gave Mr. Wheelocke the vicarage of Middleton, in Norfolk, worth fifty pounds a year, which was intended to be augmented out of the appropriate parsonage, and to be the ground of his intended foundation, if sir Henry’s death, which happened in 1641, had not prevented it. Multiplicity of literary business, and severity of application, probably shortened Wheelocke’s clays:' for he died at London whilst he was printing his Persian gospels, in the month of September 1653. He is said to have been sixty years old. He was buried at St. Botolph’s Aldersgate. His funeral sermon was preached and published by William Sclater, D. D. 1654, 4to. Wheelocke’s was a great loss to the gentlemen concerned in the celebrated Polyglot, who knew how to value his services. His province was to have corrected the Syriac and Arabic at the press.

Sir George married a daughter of sir Thomas Higgohs of Grewell in Hampshire, who died in 1703, and left a numerous issue. The rev. Granville Wheler, of Otterdenplace, Kent, and rector of Leak in Nottinghamshire, who died in 1770, was his third son, and became his heir. He likewise distinguished himself as a gentleman of science, and a polite scholar. He was the friend and patron of Mr, Stephen Gray, who, jointly with him, contributed to revive the study of electricity in England. Sir George Wheler’s name is preserved in London, from his having built a chapel on his estate in Spital-fields, known by the name of sir George Wheler’s chapel, which has lately been repaired and refitted for public worship.

, a learned abbot of St. Albans, was ordained a priest in 1382, and died in 1464, when he had been eighty-two years in priest’s orders, and above an hundred years old. He wrote a chronicle of twenty years of this period, beginning in 1441 and ending in 1461. It contains many original papers, and gives a very full account of some events, particularly of the two battles of St. Alban’s. More than one half of his chronicle is filled with the affairs of his own abbey, to which he was a great benefactor, particularly to the altar of the patron saint, which he adorned with much magnificence. About 1430 he employed Lydgate to translate the Latin legend of St. Alban’s life into English rhymes, for the purpose of familiarising the history of that saint to the monks of his convent. He enriched the library by procuring transcripts of useful books, and was on account of such pursuits in high favour with duke Humphrey, who, when about to found his library at Oxford, often visited St. Alban’s, and employed Whethamstede to collect valuable books for him.

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

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

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

, an English divine of very uncommon parts and more uncommon learning, but of a singular and extraordinary character, was born Dec. 9, 1667, at Norton near Twycrosse, in the county of Leicester; of which place his father Josiah Whiston, a learned and pious man, was rector. He was kept at home till he was seventeen, and trained under his father; and this on two accounts: first, because he was himself a valetudinarian, being greatly subject to the flatus hypocondriaciis in various shapes all his life long; secondly, that he might serve his father, who had lost his eye-sight, in the quality of an amanuensis. In 1684, he was sent to Tamvvorth school, and two years after admitted of Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he pursued his studies, and particularly the mathematics, eight hours a day, till 1693. During this time, and while he was under-graduate, an accident happened to him, which he relates for a caution and benefit to others in the like circumstances. He observed one summer, that his eyes did not see as usual, biU dazzled after an aukward manner. Upon which, imagining it arose fro'm too much application, he remitted for a fortnight, and tried to recover his usual sight, by walking much in green fields; but found himself no better. At that time he met with an account of Mr. Boyle’s having known a person, who, having new-whited the wall of his chamber on which the sun shone, and having accustomed himself to read in that glaring light, thereby lost his sight for some time; till, upon hanging the place with green, he recovered it again: and this, he says, was exactly his own case, in a less degree, both as to the cause and the remedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whiston married, in 1 69y, Ruth, the daughter of the Rev. Mr. Antrobus, master of Tamworth-school, by whom he had several children, three of whom survived him. The eldest a daughter, Sarah, was married to Samuel Barker of Lyndon, in Rutlandshire, esq. at whose house he died. This lady died in 1791. His surviving sons were George and John, the latter an eminent bookseller, who died in 1780. Whiston had a younger brother, the Rev. Daniel Whiston, frequently mentioned in his “Memoirs,” and who appears to have entertained an equal aversion to the Athanasian Creed. He was curate at Somersham for fifty-two years; but his principles did not permit him to accept of any living. He died in 1759, leaving a son, the Rev. Thomas Whiston, who died in 1795. Of this Daniel Whiston, we have heard nothing more remarkable than that he left behind him several hundred manuscript sermons, which he had never preached.

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

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

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

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

Dr. Whitaker was twice married, to “women of good birth and note,” and had eight children by them. His surviving wife, described as ready to lie-in when he expired, caused her child to be baptized on Dec. 11, the day after her husband’s funeral, by the name of Jabez, doubtless for the scriptural reason, “because,” she said, “I bare him with sorrow.” A few particulars of his family may be seen in our authorities. Mr. Churton, who has furnished much of the preceding information, in his excellent Life of dean Nowell, has also embellished that work with a fine portrait of Whitaker, and a view of the house in which he was born, now the property of the Rev. Thomas Dunham Whitaker, LL. D. Dr. Whitaker' s corpse had a public funeral, and was interred in the chapel of St. John’s college.

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

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

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."

Dr. Whitby died March 24, 1726, aged eighty-eight years. It is said, that he preached the day before, at St. Edmund’s church. How he conducted thie service of the. church, after changing his opinions, we are not told. Wood, who lived till 1695, gives his character in the following words.: “He is a person very welt read in the fathers, and in polemical divinity, especially as to the main' part thereof, which is directed against papists. He hath been all along so wholly devoted to his severer studies, that he hath scarcely ever allowed himself leisure to mind any of those mean and trifling worldly concerns, which administer matter of gain, pleasure, reach, and cunning. Also he hath not been in the least tainted with those too much now-a-days practised arts of fraud, cozenage, and deceit.” He was upwards of fifty when Wood gave this good character of him; to which Dr. Sykes adds, “that he was in stature short and very thin, had a tenacious memory, even to the last, and always closely appliecj himself to his studiesthat he was ever strangely ignorant of worldly affairs, even to a degree that is scarcely to be conceived; and that he was easy, affable, pious, devout, and charitable.”

, 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.

He quitted his employers in October 1804. Mr. Simeon had advised him to degrade for a year, and place himself, during that time, under some scholar. He went accordingly to the rev. Mr. Grainger, of Winteririgham, in Lincolnshire, and there, notwithstanding all the intreaties of his friends, pursued such an unintermitting course of study as greatly injured his delicate and already undermined constitution. He frequently at this time studied fourteen hours a day; the progress which he made in twelve months was indeed astonishing; for when he went to Cambridge he was immediately as much distinguished for his classical knowledge as his genius; but the seeds of death were in him, and the place to which he had so long looked with hope, served unhappily as a hot-house to ripen them. During his first term, one of the university scholarships became vacant, and Henry, young as he was in college, and almost self-taught, was advised by those who were best able to estimate his chance of success, to offer himself as a competitor for it. He passed the whole term in preparing for this, but his strength sunk under the intenseness of his studies, and he was compelled to decline; and this was not the only misfortune. The general college examination came on; he was utterly unprepared to meet it; and believed that a failure here would have ruined his prospects for ever. He had only about a fortnight to read what other men had been the whole term reading. Once more he exerted himself beyond what his shattered health could bear: the disorder returned, and he went to his tutor Mr. Catton with tears in his eyes, and told him that he could not go into the hall to be examined. Mr. Catton, however, thought his success here of so much importance, that be exhorted him, with all possible earnestness, to hold out the six days of the examination. Strong medicines were given him, to enable him to support it, and he was pronounced the first man of his year. But life was the price which he was to pay for such honours as this. As he succeeded in gaining approbation, he became farther stimulated to studious exertions far beyond his strength, and when he returned to college in 1806, he was no longer a subject for medicine. His mind also was worn out, and it was the opinion of his medical attendants, that if he had recovered, his intellect would have been affected. In this state he died, Oct. 19, 1806, in the twenty-first year of his age.