but was obliged the next year to return to court, to justify himself against the accusations of the duke of Lauderdale, who had represented him as the cause and instrument
About six months after he returned to Scotland, where
he declined accepting the living of Saltoun, offered him
by sir Robert Fletcher of that place, resolving to travel for
some time on the continent, in 1664, he went over into
Holland; where, after he had seen what was remarkable
in the Seven Provinces, he resided for some time at Amsterdam, and afterwards at Paris. At Amsterdam, by the
help of a learned Rabbi, he increased his knowledge in
the Hebrew language, and likewise x became acquainted
with the leading men of the different persuasions tolerated
in that country: among each of whom, he used frequently
to declare, he had met with men of such real piety and
virtue, that he contracted a strong principle of universal
charity. At Paris he conversed with the two famous
ministers of Charenton, Dailie and Morus. His stay in
France was the longer, on account of the great kindness
with which he was treated by the lord Holies, then ambassador at the French court. Towards the end of the
year he returned to Scotland, passing through Londo/rr,
where he was introduced, by the president sir Robert
Murray, to be a member of the royal society. In 1665,
he was ordained a priest by the bishop of Edinburgh, and
presented by sir Robert Fletcher to the living of Saitoun,
which had been kept vacant during his absence. He soon
gained the affections of his whole parish, not excepting the
presbyterians, though he was the only clergyman in Scotland that made use of the prayers in the liturgy of the
church of England. During the five years he remained at
Saitoun, he preached twice every Sunday, and once on
one of the week-days; he catechized three times a-week,
so as to examine every parishioner, old or young, three
times in the compass of a year: he went round the parish
from house to house, instructing, reproving, or comforting
them, as occasion required: the sick he visited twice a
day: he administered the sacrament four times a year, and
personally instructed all such as gave notice of their intention to receive it. All that remained above his own necessary subsistence (in which he was very frugal), he gave
away in charity. A particular instance of his generosity
is thus related: one of his parishioners had been in execution for debt, and applied to our author for some small
relief; who inquired of him, how much would again set
him up in his trade: the man named the sum, and he as
readily called to his servant to pay it him: “Sir,” said he,
“it is all we have in the house.” “Well,” said Mr. Burnet, “pay it this poor man: you do not know the pleasure
there is in making a man glad.” This may be a proper
place to mention our author’s practice of preaching extempore, in which he attained an ease chiefly by allotting many
hours of the day to meditation upon all sorts of subjects,
and by accustoming himself, at those times, to speak his
thoughts aloud, studying always to render his expressions
correct. His biographer gives us here two remarkable
instances of his preaching without book. In 1691, when
the sees, vacant by the deprivation of the nonjuring
bishops, were filled up, bishop Williams was appointed to
preach one of the consecration -sermons at Bow-church;
but, being detained by some accident, the archbishop of
Canterbury desired our author, then bishop of Sarum, to
supply his place; which he readily did, to the general satisfaction of all present. In 1705, he was appointed to preach
the thanksgiving-sermon before the queen at St. Paul’s; and
as it was the only discourse he had ever written before-hand,
it was the only time that he ever made a pause in preaching, which on that occasion lasted above a minute. The
same year, he drew up a memorial of the abuses of the
Scotch bishops, which exposed him to the resentments of
that order: upon which, resolving to confine himself to
study, and the duties of his function, he practised such a
retired and abstemious course, as greatly impaired his
health. About 1668, the government of Scotland being in
the hands of moderate men, of whom the principal was sir
Robert Murray, he was frequently consulted by them; and
it was through his advice that some of the more moderate
presbyterians were put into the vacant churches; a step
which he himself has since condemned as indiscreet. In
1669, he was made professor of divinity at Glasgow; in
which station he executed the following plan of study.
On Mondays, he made each of the students, in their turn,
explain a head of divinity in Latin, and propound such
theses from it as he was to defend against the rest of the
scholars; and this exercise concluded with our professor’s
decision of the point in a Latin oration. On Tuesdays, he
gave them a prelection in the same language, in which he
proposed, in the course of eight years, to have gone
through a complete system of divinity. On Wednesdays,
he read them a lecture, for above an hour, by way of a
critical commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel;' which he
finished before he quitted the chair. On Thursdays, the
exercise was alternate; one Thursday, he expounded a
Hebrew Psalm, comparing it with the Septuagint, the
Vulgar, and the English version; and the next Thursday,
he explained some portion of the ritual and constitution
of the primitive church, making the apostolical canons his
text, and reducing every article of practice under the head
of one or other of those canons. On Fridays, he made
each of his scholars, in course, preach a short sermon upon
some text he assigned; and, when it was ended, he observed upon any thing that was defective or amiss in the
handling of the subject. This was the labour of the mornings: in the evenings, after prayer, he every day read
some parcel of scripture, on which he made a short
discourse; and, when that was over, he examined into
the progress of their several studies. Ail this he performed
during the whole time the schools were open; and, in
order to acquit himself with credit, he was obliged to study
hard from four till ten in the morning; the rest of the day
being of necessity allotted, either to the care of his pupils,
or to hearing the complaints of the clergy, who, rinding he
had an interest with men of power, were not sparing in
their applications to him. In this situation he continued
four years and a half, exposed, through his principles of
moderation, to the censure both of the episcopal and presbyterian parties. The same year he published his “Modest and free Conference between a Conformist and a Nonconformist.
” About this time he was entrusted, by the
duchess of Hamilton, with the perusal and arrangement
of all the papers relating to her father’s and uncle’s
ministry; which induced him to compile “Memoirs of the
Dukes of Hamilton,
” and occasioned his being invited to
London, to receive farther information, concerning the
transactions of those times, by the earl of Lauderdale; between whom and the duke of Hamilton he brought about
a reconciliation. During his stay in London, he was offered a Scotch bishopric, which he refused. Soon after
his return to Glasgow, he married the lady Margaret Kennedy, daughter of the earl of Cassilis. In 1672, he published his “Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and
Laws, of the Church and State of Scotland,
” against the
principles of Buchanan and others; which was thought, at
that juncture, such a public service, that he was again
courted to accept of a bishopric, with a promise of the
next vacant archbishopric, but he persisted in his refusal
of that dignity. In 1673, he took another journey to
London; where, at the express nomination of the king,
after hearing him preach, he was sworn one of his majesty’s
chaplains in ordinary. He became likewise in high favour
with his majesty and the duke of York . At his return to
Edinburgh, finding the animosities between the dukes of
Hamilton and Lauderdale revived, he retired to his station
at Glasgow; but was obliged the next year to return to
court, to justify himself against the accusations of the duke
of Lauderdale, who had represented him as the cause and
instrument of all the opposition the measures of the court
had met with in the Scotch parliament. Thus he lost the
favour of the court; and, to avoid putting himself into the
hands of his enemies, he resigned the professor’s chair at
Glasgow, and resolved to settle in London, being now
about thirty years of age. Soon after, he was offered the
living of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, which he declined accepting, because he heard that it was intended for Dr.
Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. In 1675, our
author, at the recommendation of lord Holies, and notwithstanding the interposition of the court against him, was
appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by sir Harbottle
Grimstone, master of the Rolls. The same year he was
examined before the house of commons in relation to the
duke of Lauderdale, whose conduct the parliament was
then inquiring into. He was soon after chosen lecturer of
St. Clement’s, and became a very popular preacher. In
1676, he published his “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton;
” and the same year, “An account of a Conference
between himself, Dr. Stillingfleet, and Coleman.
” About
this time, the apprehensions of popery increasing daily, he
undertook to write the “History of the Reformation of the
Church of England.
” The rise and progress of this his
greatest and 'most useful work, is an object of too great
curiosity to require any apology on account of its length.
His own account of it is as follows: “Some time after I
had printed the ‘ Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,’
which were favourably received, the reading of these got
me the acquaintance and friendship of sir William Jones,
then attorney-general. My way of writing history pleased
him; and so he pressed me to undertake the History of
England. But Sanders’s book, that was then translated
into French, and cried up much in France, made all my
friends press me to answer it, by writing the History of
the Reformation. So now all my thoughts were turned
that way. I laid out for manuscripts, and searched into
all offices. I got for some days into the Cotton Library.
But duke Lauderdale hearing of my design, and apprehending it might succeed in my hands, got Dolben, bishop
of Rochester, to divert sir John Cotton from suffering me
to search into his library. He told him, I was a great
enemy to the prerogative, to which Cotton was devoted,
even to slavery. So he said, I would certainly make an ill
use of all 1 had found. This wrought so much on him,
that I was no more admitted, till my first volume was published. And then, when he saw how I had composed it,
he gave me free access to it.
” The first volume of this
work lay near a year after it was finished, for the perusal
and correction of friends; so that it was not published tiii
the year 1679, when the affair of the popish plot was in
agitation. This book procured our author an honour never
before or since paid to any writer: he had the thanks of
both houses of parliament, with a desire that he would
prosecute the undertaking, and complete that valuable
work. Accordingly, in less than two years after, he
printed the second volume, which met with the same general approbation as the first: and such was his readiness
in composing, that he wrote the historical part in the
compass of six weeks, after all his materials were laid in
order. The third volume, containing a supplement to the
two former, was published in 1714. “The defects of
Peter Heylyn’s
” History of the Reformation,“as bishop
Kicolson observes,
” are abundantly supplied in our
author’s more complete history. He gives a punctual account of all the affairs of the reformation, from its beginning in the reign of Henry VIII. to its final establishment
under queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559. And the whole is
penned in a masculine style, such as becomes an historian,
and is the property of this author in all his writings. The
collection of records^ which he gives at the end of each
volume, are good vouchers of the truth of what he delivers
in the body of the history, and are much more perfect than
could reasonably be expected, after the pains taken, in
queen Mary’s days, to suppress every thing that carried
the marks of the reformation upon it.“Our author’s performance met with a very favourable, reception abroad, and
was translated into most of the European languages; and
even the keenest of his enemies, Henry Wharton, allows it
to have
” a reputation firmly and deservedly established.“The most eminent of the French writers who have attacked
it, M. Varillas and M. Le Grand, have received satisfactory
replies from -the author himself. At home it was attacked
by Mr. S. Lowth, who censured the account Dr. Burnet
had given of some of archbishop Cranmer’s opinions, asserting that both our historian and Dr. Stillingfleet had imposed upon the world in that particular, and had
” unfaithfully joined together“in their endeavours to lessen
episcopal ordination. Our author replied to Mr. Lowth,
in some
” letters. in answer“to his book. The next assailant was Henry Wharton, who, under the name of Anthony
Harrner, published
” A specimen of some Errors and
Defects in the History of the Reformation,“1693, 8vo, a
performance of no great candour; to which, however, our
historian vouchsafed a short answer, in a
” Letter to the
Bishop of Lichfield.“A third attack on this History was
made by Dr. Hickes in
” Discourses on Dr. Burnet and
Dr. Tillotson;“in which the whole charge amounts to no
more than this, that,
” in a matter of no great consequence,
there was too little care had in copying or examining a
letter writ in a very bad hand,“and that there was some
probability that Dr. Burnet
” was mistaken in one of his
conjectures.“Our author answered this piece, in a
” Vindication“of his History. The two first parts were translated into French by M. de Rosemond, and into Latin by
Melchior Mittelhorzer. There is likewise a Dutch translation of it. In 1682, our author published
” An abridgment of his History of the Reformation," in 8vo, in which
he tells us, he had wholly waved every thing that belonged
to the records, and the proof of what he relates, or to the
confutation of the falsehoods that run through the popish
historians; all which is to be found in the History at large.
And therefore, in this abridgment, he says, every thing is
to be taken upon trust; and those who desire a fuller satisfaction, are referred to the volumes he had before published.
llenden, nearly related to the noble lord of that name, and to the illustrious families of Maitland, duke of Lauderdale, and Drumrnond, earl of Perth. She had the misfortune
, a lady much distinguished by her literary accomplishments, was born in London, August 16, 1679, the daughter of captain David Trotter, who was a native of Scotland, and a commander in the royal navy, in the reign of king Charles the Second. Her mother was Mrs. Sarah Ballenden, nearly related to the noble lord of that name, and to the illustrious families of Maitland, duke of Lauderdale, and Drumrnond, earl of Perth. She had the misfortune to lose her father when very young; an event which also reduced her mother to narrow circumstances. In her childhood, she surprised a company of her relations and friends with some extemporary verses, on an incident which had happened in the street, and which excited her attention. By her own application and diligence, without any instructor, she learned to write, and also made herself mistress of the French language; but had some assistance in the study of the Latin grammar and logic; and of the latter she drew up an abstract for her own use. She was educated in the protestant religion, but having an early intimacy with several Roman catholic families of distinction, she was led, when very young, to embrace the Romish communion, and continued in it for some years.
about that time rector of St. Ebbe’s church in Oxford; and, in Sept. 1676, was made chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. In May 1677, his grace being appointed high
After his return home, in May 1675, he took the degree
just mentioned, being about that time rector of St. Ebbe’s
church in Oxford; and, in Sept. 1676, was made chaplain
to the duke of Lauderdale. In May 1677, his grace being
appointed high commissioner of Scotland, took his chaplain with him into that kingdom; and, in April 1678, sent
him up to court, with Dr. Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow,
to lay before the king the proceedings in Scotland. He
returned the month following, and was desired by Sharp,
archbishop of St. Andrew’s, to accept the degree of D. D.
in that university, as a testimony of his and his country’s
great esteem for him, which request the duke of Lauderdale approving, Hickes was dignified in a full convocation,
although rather against his will, as he seems to have thought
that this was putting a slight on his own university. Afterwards, when he returned with his patron into England, the
archbishop, in his own name and that of all his brethren,
presented him with a copy of Labbe’s “Councils,
” in 18
vols. folio, as an acknowledgment of his services to that
church.
ug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction
The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae &
Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas.
Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi
Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,
” Oxon. Antiquae literature
Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu
S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum
grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem
epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata
Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn
Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui
in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im,
necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi
extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus,
Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as
well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities,
have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which
is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at
3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter
now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The
great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his
master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of
strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They
did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that
they believed the author to be a man of a particular head;
for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he
went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two
volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before
printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After
his death was published another volume of his Sermons,
with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.
” A
Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was
afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of
” The
judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit
the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against
protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all
briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a
dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an
answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting
minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of
Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince
of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them
to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the
duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied
application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but
that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was
the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon
him the title of king. 5.
” Ravillac Redivivus, being a
narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an
attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s,
&c.“6.
” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the
mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of
Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh,
'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630,
and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of
Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction
made them much read, and did the author considerable
service with several great personages, and even with the
king. 7.
” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and
learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the
author of
” Julian.“8.
” The case of Infant Baptism,
1683;“printed in the second vol. of the
” London Cases,
168.5,“4to. 9.
” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse
on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin
Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.
” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with
the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted,
with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of
” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.
” The celebrated story of the Thebati
Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert
Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of
Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714,
for reasons given in the preface. 12.
” Reflections upon
a Letter out of the country to a member of this present
parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the
house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the
Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of
the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was
generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion
was afterwards contradicted, 13.
” A Letter to the author
of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the
Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive
obedience, 16S9.“The author of the
” Vindication,“was
Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not
to it. 14.
” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr.
Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs,
1689.“15.
” An Apology for the new Separation, in a
letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.
” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false
principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.
” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the
lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled
to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.
” The Pretences of the
Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19.
A letter in the
” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled,
“Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans
Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions,
quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca
” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr.
G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.
” The person
on whose account this book was published, was the lady
Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A
second collection of controversial Letters relating to the
church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed
between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.
”
This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in
Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian
Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order,
against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.
”
Trie third edition in A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the
Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas
Wise, D. D. 1710.
” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes,
and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from
the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.
” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,
” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to
civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;
” printed, after
several editions, in Seasonable
Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain
person.
” Besides the works enumerated here, there are
many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the
earnest request of others, either authors or editors.
, duke of Lauderdale, grandson of the preceding, was a statesman of
, duke of Lauderdale, grandson of
the preceding, was a statesman of great power and authority, but of most inconsistent character. On the breaking
out of the wars in Scotland in the reign of Charles I. he
was a zealous covenanter; and in Jan. 1644-5, one of the
commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, during which,
upon the death of his father the earl of Lauderdale, he
succeeded to his titles and estate. He took an active but
not very useful part in the above treaty; “being,
” says
lord Clarendon, “a young man, not accustomed to an orderly and decent way of speaking, and having no gracious
pronunciation., and full of passion, he made every thing
much more difficult than it was before.
” In April 1647,
he came with the earl of Dumfermling to London, with a
commission to join with the parliament commissioners in
persuading the king to sign the covenant and propositions
offered to him; and in the latter end of the same year, he,
in conjunction with the earl of Loudon, chancellor of Scotland, and the earl of Lanerick, conducted a private treaty
with his majesty at Hampton court, which was renewed
and signed by him on Dec. 26 at Carisbrook castle. By
this, among other very remarkable concessions, the king
engaged himself to employ the Scots equally with the
English in all foreign employments and negociations; and
that a third part of all the offices and places about the
king, queen, and prince, should be conferred upon persons of that nation; and that the king and prince, or one
of them, should frequently reside in Scotland. In August
the year following, the earl of Lauderdale was sent by the
committee of estates of Scotland to the prince of Wales,
with a letter, in which, next to his father’s restraint, they
bewailed his highness’s long absence from that kingdom;
and since their forces were again marched into England,
they desired his presence to countenance their endeavours
for religion and his father’s re-establishment. In 1649, he
opposed with great vehemence the propositions made by
the marquis of Montrose to king Charles II.; and in 1651
attended his majesty in his expedition into England, but
was taken prisoner after the battle of Worcester in September the same year, and confined in the Tower of London, Portland-castle, and other prisons, till the 3d of
March, 1659-60, when he was released from his imprisonment in Windsor-castle.
management of affairs in England, and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the garter. But these honours did
Upon the Restoration he was made secretary of state for
Scotland, and persuaded the king to demolish the forts
and citadels built by Cromwell in Scotland; by which
means he became very popular. He was likewise very
importunate vfith his majesty for his supporting presbyterv
in that kingdom; though his zeal, in that respect, did not
continue long. In 1669, he was appointed lord commissioner for the king in Scotland, whither he was sent with
great pomp and splendour to bring about some extraordinary points, and particularly the union of the two kingdoms. For this purpose he made a speech at the opening
of the parliament at Edinburgh on the 19th of October
that year, in which he likewise recommended the preservation of the church as established by law, and expressed
a vast zeal for episcopal government. And now the extending of the king’s power and grandeur in that kingdom.
was greatly owing to the management of his lordship
although he had formerly been as much for depressing the
prerogative; and from the time of his commission the Scots
had reason to date all the mischiefs and internal commotions of that and the succeeding reign. Having undertaken to make his majesty absolute and arbitrary, he
stretched the power of the crown to every kind of excess,
and assumed to himself a sort of lawless administration,
the exercise of which was supposed to be granted to him
in consequence of the large promises he had made. In
the prosecution of this design, being more apprehensive of
other men’s officious interfering, than distrustful of his own
abilities, he took care to make himself his majesty’s sole
informer, as well as his sole secretary; and by this means,
not only the affairs of Scotland were determined in the
court of England, without any notice taken of the king’s
council in Scotland, but a strict watch was kept on all
Scotchmen, who came to the English court; and to attempt any access to his majesty, otherwise than by his
lordship’s mediation, was to hazard his perpetual resentment. By these arrogant measures, he gradually made
himself almost the only important person of the whole
Scotch nation; and in Scotland itself assumed so much
sovereign authority, as to name the privy-counsellors, to
place and remove the lords of the session and exchequer,
to grant gifts and pensions, to levy and disband forces, to
appoint general officers, and to transact all matters belonging to the prerogative. Besides which, he was one of the
five lords, who had the management of affairs in England,
and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the
garter. But these honours did not protect him from the
indignation of the House of Commons; by whom, in November the year following, he was voted a *' grievance,
and not fit to be trusted or employed in any office or place
of trust.“And though his majesty thought proper on
the 25th of June, 1674, to create him a baron of England
by the title of Baron of Petersham in Surrey, and earl of
Guildford, yet the House of Commons the next year presented an address to the king to remove him from all his
employments, and from his majesty’s presence and counsels for ever; which address was followed by another of
the same kind in May 1678, and by a third in May the
year following.
He died at Tunbridge Wells, August 24, 1682, leaving
a character which no historian has been hardy enough to
vindicate. In Clarendon, Burnet, Kennet, Hume, Smollet, &c. we find a near conformity of sentiment respecting
his inconsistency, his ambition, and his tyranny . Mr.
Laing observes, that
” during a long imprisonment, his
mind had been carefully improved by study, and impressed
with a. sense of religion, which was soon effaced on his
return to the world. His learning was extensive and accurate; in public affairs his experience was considerable,
and his elocution copious, though unpolished and indistinct. But his temper was dark and vindictive, incapable
of friendship, mean and abject to his superiors, haughty
and tyrannical to his inferiors; and his judgment, seldom
correct or just, was obstinate in error, and irreclaimable
by advice. His passions were furious and ungovernable,
unless when his interest or ambition interposed; his violence was ever prepared to suggest or to execute the most
desperate counsels; and his ready compliance preserved
his credit with the king, till his faculties were visibly impaired with age." The duke died without male issue, but
his brother succeeded to the title of Earl, whose son
Richard was the author of a translation of Virgil, which is
rather literal than poetical, yet Dryden adopted many of
the lines into his own translation.
ster in Jan. 1673 and on his majesty’s visit to Cambridge he was created D. D. out of respect to the duke of Lauderdale, whose chaplain he then was, and whose character
In November 1672 he was elected Greek professor at Cambridge. Tr.e first church preferment he had was the sine-cure of Llandiuon -in Wales, given him by archbishop Sheldon; on this he quitted his fellowship, and procured himself to be admitted of Trinity college, for the sake of being more nearly connected with the master, Dr. Isaac Barrow, for whom he had the greatest esteem. About this time he was appointed clerk of the closet to Charles II. who also bestowed on him a prebend in Westminster in Jan. 1673 and on his majesty’s visit to Cambridge he was created D. D. out of respect to the duke of Lauderdale, whose chaplain he then was, and whose character his brother has very weakly endeavoured to defend Among his official duties, it is recorded that in 1676, Dr. North baptised Isabella, second daughter of James duke of York and Mary D'Este.
comb, he removed to Petersham, where, in 1681, he was associated with Dr. Hickes, as chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. On the duke’s death, in 1683, he removed to St.
, an eminent nonjuving divine,
was the son of the rev. Edward, or Edmund Spinckes, rector of Castor, Northamptonshire, and was born there in
1653 or 1654. His father came from New Kngland with
Dr. Patrick, afterwards bishop of Ely, and, being a nonconformist, had been ejected from Castor and from Overton Longviil in Huntingdonshire. His mother, Martha,
was daughter of Thomas Elmes, of Lilford in Huntingdonshire. After being initiated in classical learning under Mr.
Samuel Morton, rector of Haddon, he was admitted of
Trinity-college, Cambridge, under Mr. Bainbrigg, March
22, 1670; and matriculated on July 9, the same year. In
the following year, by the death of his father, he obtained
a plentiful fortune, and a valuable library; and, on the
12th of October, 1672, tempted by the prospect of a Rustat
scholarship, he entered himself of Jesus- college, where,
in nine days, he was admitted a probationer, and May 20,
1673, sworn a scholar on the Iiustat foundation. “This,
”
Mr. T. Baker observes in the registers, “was for his
honour; for the scholars of that foundation undergo a very
strict examination, and afterwards are probationers for a
year. And as these scholarships are the best, so the scholars are commonly the best in college, and so reputed.
”
He became B. A. early in 1674; was ordained deacon May
21, 1676; was M. A. in 1677; and admitted into priest’s
orders Dec. 22, 1678. After residing some time in Devonshire, as chaplain to sir Richard Edgcomb, he removed to
Petersham, where, in 1681, he was associated with Dr.
Hickes, as chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. On the
duke’s death, in 1683, he removed to St. Stephen’s Waibrook, London, where he continued two years, curate and
lecturer. In 1685 the dean and chapter of Peterborough
conferred on him the rectory of Peakirk or Peaking cum
Glynton, in Northamptonshire, where he married Dorothy,
daughter of Thomas Rutland, citizen of London. On
July 21, 1687, he was made a prebendary of Salisbury;
in the same year, Sept. 24, instituted to the rectory of St.
Mary, in that town; and three days after, was licensed to
preach at Stratford subter Castrum, or Mid en -castle, in
Wilts, for which he had an annual stipend of 80l. Being
decided in his attachment to the Stuart family, he was deprived of all his preferments in 1690, for refusing to take
the oaths to William and Mary. He was, after this period,
in low circumstances, but was supported by the benefactions of the more wealthy ftonjurors; and on the third of
June, 1713, he was consecrated one of their bishops, receiving that title from the hands of Dr. Hickes. He died
July 28, 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of the
parish of St. Faith, on the north side of St. Paul’s, London,
where an inscription is engraven on a white marble stone.
By his wife, who lived but seven days after him, he had
many children, of whom two survived their parents: William Spinckes, esq. who, by industry and abilities, acquired a plentiful fortune; and Anne, married to Anthony
Cope, esq. Mr. Nelson was the particular friend of Mr.
Spinckes, who was a proficient in the Greek, Saxon, and
French languages, and had made some progress in the
oriental. He is said to have been “low of stature, venerable of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no
wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was orthodox in
the faith: his enemies being judges. He had uncommon
learning and superior judgment; and his exemplary life
was concluded with a happy death. His patience was
great; his self-denial greater; his charity still greater;
though his temper seemed his cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution and grace), having never been observed to fail him in a stage of thirty-nine years.
”. He
assisted in the publication of Grabe’s Septuagint, Newcourt’s Repertorium, Howell’s Canons, Potter’s Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Walker’s “Sufferings of the Clergy.
”
His own works were chiefly controversial, as, 1. An answer
to “The Essay towards a proposal for Catholic Communion, &c.
” The new Pretenders to Prophecy
re-examined, &c.
” Measures of Submission,
” The Case stated between the church of
Rome and the church of England,
” as to supremacy, Restoring the
prayers and directions of Edward Vlth’s Liturgy,
” The Sick Man
visited, &c.
”
bart. by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Murray, earl of Dysart, afterwards married to John, duke of Lauderdale. His talents and education were improved by his
, a brave English officer, was descended of a family said to be more ancient than the Norman conquest. He was the son of sir
Lionel Tolmach of Helmingnam in the county of Suffolk,
bart. by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Murray,
earl of Dysart, afterwards married to John, duke of Lauderdale. His talents and education were improved by his
travels, in which he spent several years, and after he entered into the army, distinguished himself so much by skill
and bravery, as very soon to acquire promotion. But L|
the reign of James If. whose measures he thought hostile
to the true interests of the kingdom, he resigned his commission, and went again abroad. The same political principles inclining him to favour the revolution, he was, on
the accession of William III. appointed colonel of the
Coldstream regiment, which had been resigned by William,
carl of Craven, on account of his great age and infirmities;
and was soon advanced to the rank of lieutenant-general.
In 1691, he exerted himself with uncommon bravery in
the passage over the river Shannon, at the taking of Athlone in Ireland, and in the battle of Aghrim. In 1693, he
attended king William to Flanders, and at the battle of
Landen against the French, commanded by marshal Luxemburg, when his majesty himself was obliged to retire,
the lieutenant-general brought off the English foot with
great prudence, resolution, and success.
But, in June the year following, he fell in the unfortunate attempt for destroying the harbour of Brest in France.
He had formed this desigrt, and taken care to be well instructed in every circumstance relating to it. Six thousand
men seemed to be more than necessary for taking and keeping Cameret, a small neck of land, which lies in the mouth
of and commands the river of Brest. The project and the
preparations were kept so secret, that there was not the
least suspicion till the hiring of transport-ships discovered
it. A proposition for that purpose had indeed been made
two years before to the earl of Nottingham; who, among
other things, charged admiral Russel with having neglected
that scheme, when it was laid before him by some persons
who came from Brest. Whether the French apprehended
the design from that motion, or whether it was now betrayed to them by some who were in the secret; it is certain, that they had such timely knowledge of it, as put
them upon their guard. The preparations were not quite
ready by the day that had been fixed; and when all was
ready, they were stopt by a westerly wind for some time;
so that they arrived a month later than was intended. They
found the place well fortified with many batteries, which,
were raised in different lines upon, the rocks, that lay over
the place of descent; and great numbers were posted there
to dispute their landing. When the English fleet came so
near as to see all this, the council of officers declared
against making the attempt; but the lieutenant-general
was so possessed with the scheme, that he could not be
diverted from it. He imagined, that the men they saw
were only a rabble brought together to make a shew;
though it proved, that there were regular bodies among
them, and that their numbers were double to his own. He
began with landing of six hundred men, and put himself
at the head of them, who followed him with great courage;
but they were so exposed to the enemies’ fire, and could
do them so little harm, that the attempt was found absolutely impracticable. The greatest part of those, who
landed, were killed or taken prisoners; and not above an
hundred of them came back. The lieutenant-general himself was shot in the thigh, of which he died in a few days,
extremely lamented. Thus failed a design, which, if it
had been undertaken before the French were so well prepared to receive it, might have been attended with success,
and followed with very important effects. In this manner
bishop Burnet represents the affair, who styles the lieutenant-general a brave and generous man, and a good officer,
very fit to animate and encourage inferior officers and soldiers. Another of our historians speaks of this affair in
somewhat a different strain, declaring, that the lieutenantgeneral “fell a sacrifice in this desperate attempt, being
destined, as some affirmed, to that fall by the envy of some
of his pretended friends.
” His body was brought to England, and interred on the 30th of June, 1694, at Helmingham in Suffolk.