took an active part in the celebrated controversy between Dr. Bentley and the Hon. Charles Boyle, afterward Earl of Orrery, concerning the genuineness of Phalaris' Epistles; and wrote indeed more than half the book, published under the name of the latter, who for four months was his pupil. He was not quite satisfied, however, with his situation at Oxford, thinking himself qualified for more active and important scenes. In a letter to his father, dated Oct. 24, 1690, he says, My pupil I never had a thought of parting with, till I left Oxford.

66

I wish I could part with him to-morrow on that score; for I am perfectly wearied with this nauseous circle of small affairs, that can now neither divert nor instruct me. I was made, I am sure, for another scene, and another sort of conversation; though it has been my hard luck to be pinned down to this. I have thought and thought again, Sir, and for some years, nor have I ever been able to think otherwise, than that I am losing time every minute I stay here. The only benefit I ever propose to myself by the place is, studying; and that I am not able to compass. Mr. Boyle takes up half my time, and I grudge it him not; for he is a fine gentleman, and while I am with him, I will do what I can to make him a man. College and university business take up a great deal more, and I

* In a letter dated 'Chelsea, 1698,' he informs us, the matter had cost him some time and trouble. "In laying the design of the book, in writing above half of it, in reviewing a good part of the rest, in transcribing the whole and attending the press, half a year of my life went away." The whole was the combined effort of a club of wits; of which Atterbury appears, in this instance at least, to have been the President.

am forced to be useful to the Dean in a thousand particulars: so that I have very little time,"

His father, in reply, observes: "I know not what to think of your uneasiness. It shows unlike a Christian, and savours neither of temper nor consideration. I am troubled to remember it is habitual. You used to say, When you had your degrees, you should be able to swim without bladders.' You seemed to rejoice at your becoming Moderator, and of your quantum and Sub-lecturer. But neither of these pleased you: nor was you willing to take those pupils the house afforded you, when master; nor do your lectures please, or noblemen satisfy you. But you make yourself and friends uneasy: cannot trust Providence.

"Do your duty, and serve God in your station, until you are called to somewhat better. Man's ways are not in himself, nor can all your projecting change the colour of one of your hairs, which are numbered, and a sparrow falls not to the ground without a di-. vine oversight. What may we think of our stations? You need not doubt, but I could wish you all the great things you are capable of; but I can neither secure them to you nor myself, but must leave all to time and Providence. I am not wanting in pains and prospect, and deny myself more in toiling and sparing than you ever did or will do; and all I see to little purpose, when it is of no better effect with you."

Though his application to study was intense, both in polite literature and in mathematics, he was eminently distinguished for his social qualities. Among his more immediate friends were classed Smalridge,

Whitfield, Hickman, Charlett, Harrington, Newton, King, Travell, Gough, and the two brothers Robert and John Freind. By his tutors at Westminster, Busby and Knipe, he had been particularly noticed, as he was subsequently at Christ Church by Dr. Aldrich. At the latter seminary, in 1690, he appears to have held the censorship, as well as the catechetical lectureship founded by Dr. Busby. About this period he, probably, took orders, and repaired to London: for, in 1691, he was elected lecturer of St. Bride's, London; and, in 1693, minister and preacher at Bridewell Chapel. He was, soon afterward, appointed one of the Royal Chaplains. The earliest of his sermons in print was preached before Queen Mary at Whitehall, May 29, 1692.

In 1694, he delivered his celebrated Discourse, at Bridewell Chapel, on 'The Power of Charity to cover Sin;' to which Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, afterward Bishop of Winchester, published some 'Exceptions.'*

In 1698, he was appointed by Sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, Preacher at the Rolls Chapel.

In 1700, he engaged in the controversy with Dr. Wake, subsequently Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, concerning Convocations. His first piece upon this subject was entitled, The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vin

6

* In the Postscript to his Second Letter to Dr. Atterbury,' subsequently to their controversy, mentioned below, concerning The Advantages of Virtue with respect to the present Life.' In this he accuses Atterbury, and not without just grounds, of having asserted, that God will accept one duty (Charity) in lieu of many others.'

6

dicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake's, en titled, The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted, &c.'* In this piece he treated his antagonist's work as a shallow empty performance, written without any knowledge of our constitution, or any skill in the particular subject of debate; upon such principles, as are destructive of all our civil, as well as ecclesiastical liberties; and with such aspersions on the clergy, both dead and living, as were no less injurious to the body, than his doctrine.'"The very best construction (he tells us) that has been put upon Dr. Wake's attempt by candid readers is, that it was an endeavour to advance the prerogative of the prince in church-matters as high, and to depress the interest of the subject spiritual as low, as ever he could with any colour of truth.""Were all he says strictly true and justifiable, yet whether the labouring the point so heartily as he does, and showing himself so willing to prove the church to have no rights and privileges, be a very decent part in a clergyman, I leave his friends to consider. But when all a man advances is not only ill-designed, but

* This celebrated work underwent a serious scrutiny by the Judges in consultation, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. The Chief Justice Holt was strongly of that opinion, in common with Archbishop Tenison, and other high authorities. To every attempt, however, made to prejudice King William against him, his Majesty remained indifferent; and if the author incurred heavy censure on one side, on the other he was recompensed by the steady attachment of Sir Jonathan Trelawny Bishop of Exeter, Lawrence Earl of Rochester, and Dr. Sprat. The first edition had appeared anonymously; but, in 1701, he published a second (greatly enlarged) with his name, and a dedication to the two Archbishops, which was speedily answered by Drs. Hody, Kennet, and Wake.

ill-grounded, and his principles are as false as they are scandalous (as I have evidently proved his to be), there are no names and censures too bad to be bestowed on such writers and their writings."

Against this performance Bishop Burnet wrote a piece, in which he observes, that "he had so entirely laid aside the spirit of Christ and the character of a Christian, that without large allowances of charity one can hardly think that he did once reflect on the obligations he lay under to follow the humility, the meekness, and the gentleness of Christ. So far from that, he seems to have forgotten the common decencies of a man, or of a scholar."" A book written with that roughness and acrimony of spirit, if well received, would be a much stronger argument against the expediency of a Convocation, than any he brings or can bring for it."

6

Dr. Wake, in the Preface to his 'State of the Church and Clergy of England in their Councils, Synods, Convocations, &c.' says that, upon his first perusal of Dr. Atterbury's book, he saw such a spirit of wrath and uncharitableness, accompanied with such an assurance of the author's abilities for such an undertaking, as he had hardly ever met with in the like

degree before.' "In my examination of the whole book (he subjoins) I find in it enough to commend the wit, though not the spirit of him who wrote it. To pay what is dụe even to an adversary, it must be allowed, that Dr. Atterbury has done all that a man of forward parts and a hearty zeal could do, to defend the cause which he has espoused. He has chosen the most plausible topics of argumentation; and he has given them all the advantage, that either a