, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport Pagnel, in Bucks,
, eldest son of the preceding,
was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport Pagnel, in
Bucks, on May 2, 1656. He was educated at Westminsterschool under Dr. Busby, and sent to Christ-church, Oxford, at the age of eighteen. He was ordained deacon in
Sept. 1679, being then B. A. and priest the year following,
when also he commenced M. A. In 1683, he served the
office of chaplain to sir William Pritchard, lord mayor of
London. In Feb. 1684 he was instituted rector of Symel
in Northamptonshire, which living he afterwards resigned
upon his accepting of other preferments. July 8, 1687, he
accumulated the degrees of bachelor aud doctor of civil law.
In 1691 we find him lecturer of St. Mary Hill in London.
Soon after his marriage he settled at Highgate, where he
supplied the pulpit of the reverend Mr. Daniel Lathom,
who was very old and infirm, and had lost his sight and,
upon the death of this gentleman, was in June 1695 elected
by the trustees of Highgate chapel to be their preacher.
He had a little before been appointed one of the six preaching chaplains to the princess Anne of Denmark at Whitehall and St. James’s, which place he continued to supply
after she came to the crown, and likewise during part of
the reign of George I. When he first resided at Highgate,
observing what difficulties the poor in the neighbourhood
underwent for want of a good physician or apothecary, he
studied physic and acquiring considerable skill, practised
it gratis among his poor neighbours. In 1707, the queen presented him to the rectory of Shepperton in Middlesex and
in March 1719, the bishop of London collated him to the
rectory of Hornsey, which was the more agreeable to him,
because the chapel of Highgate being situate in that parish,
many of his constant hearers became now his parishioners.
In 1720, on a report of the death of Dr. Sprat, archdeacon of Rochester, he applied to his brother, the celebrated bishop, in whose gift this preferment was, to be appointed to succeed him. The bishop giving his brother
some reasons why he thought it improper to make him his
archdeacon the doctor replied, “Your lordship very well
knows that Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, had a
brother for his archdeacon and that sir Thomas More’s
father was a puisne judge when he was lord chancellor.
And thus, in the sacred history, did God himself appoint
that the safety and advancement of the patriarchs should
be procured by their younger brother, and that they with
their father should live under the protection and government of Joseph.
” In answer to this, which was not very
conclusive reasoning, the bishop informs his brother, that
the archdeacon was not dead, but well, and likely to continue so. He died, however, soon after; and, on the 20tli
of May 1720, the bishop collated Dr. Brydges, the duke
of Chandos’s brother, to the archdeaconry, after writing
thus in the morning to the doctor “I hope you are convinced by what I have said and written, that nothing could
have been more improper than the placing you in that post
immediately under myself. Could I have been easy under
that thought, you may be sure no man living should have
had the preference to you.
” To this the doctor answered:
“There is some shew of reason, I think, for the non-acceptance, but none for the not giving it. And since your
lordship was pleased to signify to me that I should overrule you in this matter, I confess it was some disappointment to me. I hope I shall be content with that meaner
post in which I am my time at longest being but short in
this world, and my health not suffering me to make those
necessary applications others do nor do I understand the
language of the present times for, I find, I begin to grow
an old-fashioned gentleman, and am ignorant of the weight
and value of words, which in our times rise and fall like
stock.
” In this affecting correspondence there is evidently
a portion of irritation on the part of Dr. Lewis, which is not
softened by his brother’s letters but there must have been
some reasons not stated by the latter for his refusal, and it
is certain that they lived afterwards in the strictest bonds
of affection.