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

Notwithstanding the pains that had been taken by Mr. Marty n, the late earl of Shaftesbury did not think the work sufficiently finished for publication; and, therefore, somewhat more than twenty years ago, he put it into the hands of his friend Dr. Gregory Sharpe, master of the temple. All, however, that Dr. Sharpe performed, was to recommend it to the care of a gentleman, who examined Mr. Martyn’s manuscript with attention, pointed out its errors, made references, and suggested a number of instances in which it might be improved, but did not proceed much farther in the undertaking. At length, the work was consigned to another person, who spent considerable labour upon it, enlarged it by a variety of additions, and had it in contemplation to avail himself of every degree of information which might render it a correct history of the time, as well as a narrative of the life of lord Shaftesbury. The reasons (not unfriendly on either side) which prevented the person now mentioned from completing his design, and occasioned him to return the papers to the noble family, are not of sufficient consequence to be here, related. Whether the work is likely soon to appear, it is not in our power to ascertain.

without any view to a degree or a pro- of Memoirs, as above, fession, I should exc.eed the time His first regular publication was anonymous, “The History of Carausius; or an examination of what has been advanced on that subject by Genebrier and Dr. Stukeley,” 1762, 4to, a very elaborate and critical disquisition. In February 1767 he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries of London, and in 1771, on the death of Dr. Gregory Sharpe, master of the temple, he was nominated director of the society, which office he held till Dec. 12, 1797, when he quitted the society altogether. Two years before, he quitted the royal society, of which he had been chosen fellow in March 1775. In 1767 he commenced his correspondence with the Gentleman’s Magazine, by an account of the village of Aldfriston, under the signature of D. H. the final letters of his name, which signature he retained to the last, but not altogether uniformly, nor is another signature in some later volumes, with the same letters, to be mistaken for his. On the death of his fellow-collegian, Mr. Duncombe, in 1786, the department of the review in that miscellany was for the most part committed to him. “If,” as he says himself, “he criticised with warmth and severity certain innovations attempted in church and state, he wrote his sentiments with sincerity and impartiality in the fullness of a heart deeply impressed with a sense of the excellence and happiness of the English constitution both in church and state.” Such indeed were Mr. Gough’s steady principles during that period of intellectual delusion which followed the French revolution; and he gave his aid with no mean effect, to a numerous body of writers and thinkers, many of whom (and we wish his name could have been added to the number) have lived to enjoy the full gratification of their hopes. We cannot, however, quit this subject without noticing that extensive knowledge which Mr. Gough displayed in his critical labours in the Magazine; he seems never to have undertaken any thing of the kind without such an acquaintance with the subject as showed that his studies had been almost universal, and even occasionally directed to those points of literatare which could be least expected to demand his attention; we allude to the subjects of theology and criticism, both sacred and classical. The perusal of the classics in particular appears frequently to have relieved his more regular labours. In 1768 he published in 1 vol. 4to, his “Anecdotes of British Topography,” which was reprinted and enlarged in 2 vols. 1780. To have published a third edition, with the improvements of twenty-six years, would have afforded him a high gratification; and in fact a third edition was put to press in 1806, and was rapidly advancing, when the destructive fire (of Feb. 8, 1808,) in Mr. Nichols’s printing-office, and the then declining state of the author’s health, interrupted the undertaking. The corrected copy, with the plates, was given by him to Mr. Nichols, who has since relinquished his right; and it is hoped that the delegates of the Oxford press will speedily undertake a new edition. On the utility of this work to British antiquaries it would be unnecessary to make any remark. It points the way to every future effort to illustrate local history.

Hooker, having now lost his fellowship by this marriage, remained without preferment, and supported himself as well as he could, till the latter end of 1584, when he was presented by John Cheny, esq. to the rectory of DraytonBeauchamp, in Buckinghamshire, where he led an uncomfortable life with his wife Joan for about a year. In this situation he received a visit from his friends and pupils Sandys and Cranmer, who found him with a Horace in his hand, tending a small allotment of sheep in a common field; which he told them he was forced to do, because his servant was gone home to dine, and assist his wife in the household business. When the servant returned and released him, his pupils attended him to his house, where their best entertainment was his quiet company, which was presently denied them, for Richard was called to rock the cradle, and the rest of their welcome being equally repulsive, they stayed but till the next morning, which was long enough to discover and pity their tutor’s condition. At their return to London, Sandys acquainted his father with Hooker’s deplorable state, who entered so heartily into his concerns, that he procured him to be made master of the Temple in 1585. This, though a valuable piece of preferment, was not so suitable to Hooker’s temper, as the retirement of a living in the country, where he might be free from noise; nor did he accept it without reluctance. At the time when Hooker was chosen master of the Temple, one Walter Truvers was afternoon-lecturer there; a man of learning and good manners, it is said, but ordained by the presbytery of Antwerp, and warmly attached to the Geneva church discipline and doctrines. Travers had some hopes of establishing these principles in the Temple, and for that purpose endeavoured to be master of it; but not succeeding, gave Hooker all the opposition he couid in his sermons, many of which were about me doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies of the church; insomuch that they constantly withstood each other to the face; for, as somebody said pleasantly, “The forenoon sermon spake Canterbury, and the afternoon Geneva.” The opposition became so visible, and the consequences so dangerous, especially in that place, that archbishop Whitgift caused Travers to be silenced by the high commission court. Upon that, Travers presented his supplication to the privycouncil, which being without effect, he made it public. This obliged Hooker to publish an answer, which wa.s inscribed to the archbishop, and procured him as much reverence and respect from some, as it did neglect and hatred from others. In order therefore to undeceive and win these, he entered upon his famous work “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity ;” and laid the foundation and plan of ir, while he was at the Temple. But he found the Temple no fit place to finish what he had there designed; and therefore intreated the archbishop to remove him to some quieter situation in the following letter:

Dr. Gregory Sharpe, master of the Temple, collected and re published some of Dr. Hyde’s pieces that were formerly published, under the title of “Syntagma Dissertationum et Opuscula,” 1767, 2 vols. 4to. This is accompanied by a life and very just praises of the author, as one of the greatest Orientalists that any country has produced.

tbor, with whom h appears to have th same work, p. 310. Oxford, who supplied many of the observations, and by a person whom he described 'as “virum summa eruditione, summo loco” who was afterwards known to have been archbishop Seeker. Some remarks introduced here in opposition to Dr. Gregory Sharpe’s criticism on the 1-1 Oth Psalm, produced from that gentleman “A Letter to the right rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford, from the Master of the Temple, containing remarks upon some strictures made by his grace the late archbishop of Canterbury, in the rev. Mr. Merrick’s Annotations on the Psalms,” 1769, 8vo.

, D. D. F. R. and A. Ss. master of the Temple, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, was born in Yorkshire in 1713, and, after passing some time at the grammar-school of Hull, came to Westminster, where he studied under the celebrated Dr. Freind. While here, he fell into a youthful mistake, which rendered his continuance at the seminary uneasy to himself and his relations, who becoming acquainted with the late Principal Blackwell, then at London, they settled Mr. Sharpe with him in the summer of 1731. Mr. Blackwell was at that time Professor of Greek in the Marischal College of Aberdeen, and was publishing his “Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer,” so that Mr. Sharpe’s friends judged he might have a fair opportunity of making a considerable proficiency in the Greek language under a person so eniinently skilled in it. Mr. Sharpe was boarded in his house four years without stirring out of Scotland; and after he had finished his studies, returned to England, and in a few years entered into orders. When Dr. Seeker was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s, Mr. Sharpe was appointed minister of the Broad -way chapel, St. James’s, in which he continued till the death of Dr. Nicholls, of the Temple, when, on account of his great learning, he was declared the Doctor’s successor, and in this station he was at his death, which happened at the Temple-house, Jan. 8, 1771. The Doctor never was married. His abilities and attainments in every kind of useful knowledge were conspicuous, and his skill in the Oriental languages extensive and uncommon.

, a learned English divine, was born in South wark about 1641, and educated at Eton 1 school, where he distinguished himself by the vigour of his genius and application to his studies. Thence he removed to Peter-house in Cambridge in May 1657, where he took a bachelor of arts degree in 1660, and a master’s in 1665. He now went into holy orders, and officiated as a curate until 1669, when he was preferred to the rectory of St. George’s, Botolph-lane, in London. In this parish he discharged the duties of his function with great zeal, and was esteemed an excellent preacher. In 1673, he.published “A discourse concerning the knowledge of Christ, and our union and communion with him,” which involved him in a controversy with the celebrated nonconformist Dr. John Owen, and with Mr. Vincent Alsop. In 1680, he took the degree of D. D. and about the same time published some pieces against the nonconformists. Soon after he was collated to a prebend of St. Paul’s, was appointed master of the Temple, and had the rectory of Therfield in Hertfordshire. In 1684 he published a pamphlet, entitled “The case of Resistance to the Supreme Powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures;” and continued to preach the same opinion after the accession of James II. when it was put to the test. He engaged also in the controversy with the papists, which shews that he was not a servile adherent to the king, but conscientious in his notions of regal power. This likewise he shewed at the Revolution, when he refused to take the oaths to William and Mary, and was therefore suspended from all his preferments. During his suspension, he published his celebrated treatise, entitled “A practical discourse on Death,” 1690, which has passed through at least forty editions, and is indeed the only one of his works now read. But before the expiration of that year, he thought proper to comply with the new government, and taking the oaths, was reinstated in all his preferments, of which, though forfeited, he had not been deprived. Being much censured for this step by those who could not yield a like compliance, he endeavoured to vindicate himself in a piece entitled “The Case of the Allegiance due to the Sovereign Princes stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason, and the principles of the Church of England, with a more particular respect to the Oath lately enjoined of Allegiance to their present Majesties king William and queen Mary, 1690,” quarto. This was followed by twelve answers. His design was to lay down such principles as would prove the allegiance due to William and Mary, even supposing them to have no legal right, which the celebrated Mr. Kettlewell could by no means agree with, and therefore wrote, upon another principle, “The duty of Allegiance settled upon its true grounds.” The dispute is perhaps now of little consequence; but Sherlock persisted in preaching his doctrine of non-resistance in the new reign, and had undoubtedly some merit in this kind of consistency, and in rendering that plausible in any degree, which the other nonjurors thought contradictory in every degree. In 1691, he published his “Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity;” but his attempt to explain this mystery was not satisfactory, and involved him in a controversy with Dr. South. What was more mortifying, a fellow of University-college, Oxford, having preached his doctrine in a sermon at St. Mary’s, the university issued a decree, censuring that doctrine as false, impious, and heretical, and warned all persons under their jurisdiction not to preach or maintain any such notions. The controversy being exasperated by this indignity, the king at last interposed, and issued directions “to the archbishops and bishops,” ordaining, that “all preachers should carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of explanation as have been commonly used in the church.” After this, it is but fair to state Dr. Sherlock’s notion: he thought that there were three eternal minds 9 two of these issuing from the father, but that these three were one by a mutual consciousness in the three to every one of their thoughts. Dr. Sherlock was promoied to the deanery of St. Paul’s in 1691. He died at Hampstead June 19, 1707, in his 67th year; and was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul. He left two sons and two daughters; the eldest of his sons was Dr. Thomas SherLck, bishop of London. Burnet says, that “he was a clear, polite, and a strong writer, but apt to assume too much to himself, and to treat his adversaries with contempt. This created him many enemies, and made him pass for an insolent haughty man.” He was, however, a man of considerable learning and abilities, and conscientious, however mistaken, in those peculiar opinions which engaged him in such frequent controversies with his brethren.

During many years Dr. Sykes had been greatly afflicted with the gout and stone, but had received much relief from the pains of the latter disorder, for fifteen or sixteen years before his death, by the medicine purchased by parliament of Mrs. Stephens, for the public use. And upon the whole he enjoyed a general state of good health and spirits, until he was seized with a stroke of the palsy, while attending the funeral of a friend, on Monday evening, Nov. 15, 1756, and died, at his house in Cavendish-square, at two o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday the 23d, in the seventythird year of his age. He was buried near the pulpit in the parish church of St. James’s Westminster 6n the 30th of November. Dr. Gregory Sharpe, who succeeded him in King-street chapel, and was afterwards master of the Temple, and who had long been in habits of friendship with the deceased, officiated upon this occasion.