"RICHARD HURD was born at Congreve, in the parish of Penkrich, in the county of Stafford, January 13, 1719-20. He was the second of three children, all sons, of John and Hannah Hurd; plain, honest, and good people; of whom he can truly say with the Poet

Si natura juberat, &c. They rented a considerable farm at Congreve, where he was born; but soon after removed to a larger at Penford, about half way between Brewood and Wolverhampton in the same county. There being a good grammar-school at Brewood, he was educated there under the Rev. Mr. Hillman, and, upon his death, under his successor, the Rev. Mr. Budworth-both well qualified for their of fice, and both very kind to him. Mr. Budworth had been master of the school at Rudgely; where he continued two years after his election to Brewood, while the school-house, which had been much neglected, was repairing. He was therefore sent to Rudgely immediately on Mr. Budworth's appointment to Brewood, returned with him to this place, and continued under his care, till he went to the University. He must add one word more of his second master. He knew him well, when he afterwards was of an age to judge of his merits. He had been a scholar of the famous Mr. Blackwell of Derby, and afterwards bred at Christ's College in Cambridge, where he resided till he had taken his M. A.'s degree. He understood Greek and Latin well, and had a true taste of the best writers in those languages.

He was,

besides, a polite, well-bred man, and singularly attentive to the manners, in every sense of the word, of his scholars. He had a warm sense of virtue and religion, and enforced both with a natural and taking eloquence. How happy, to have had such a man, first, for his schoolmaster, and then for his friend.-Under so good direction, he was thought fit for the University, and was accordingly admitted in Emanuel College, in Cambridge, October 3, 1733, but did not go to reside there till a year or two afterwards. In this college, he was happy in receiving the countenance, and in being permitted to attend the Lectures, of that excellent tutor, Mr. Henry Hubbard, although he had been admitted under another person. He took his B. A.'s degree in 1738-9. - He took his

M. A.'s degree, and was elected fellow in 1742. Was ordained Deacon, 13th of June that year in St. Paul's Cathe dral, London, by Dr. Joseph Butler, Bishop of Bristol and Dean of St. Paul's, on Letters Dimissory from Dr. Gooch, Bishop of Norwich. Was ordained Priest, May 20, 1744, in the Chapel of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, by the Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Gooch. He took his B. D.'s degree in 1749.- He published the same year Remarks on Mr. Weston's book on the Rejection of Hea then Miracles, and his Commentary on Horace's Ars Poetica; which last book introduced him to the acquaintance of Mr. Warburton, by whose recommendation to the Bishop of London, Dr. Sherlock, he was appointed Whitehall Preacher in May 1750. He published the Commentary on the Epistle to Augustus in 1751; the new edition of both Comments, with Dedication to Mr. Warburton, in 1753; the Dissertation on the Delicacy of Friendship in 1755. His father died Nov. 27 this year, æt. 70. He published the Remarks on Hume's Natural History of Religion in 1757. Was instituted this year, Feb. 16, to the Rectory of Thurcaston, in the county of Leicester, on the presentation of Emanuel College. He published Moral and Political Dialogues in 1759. He had the sinecure Rectory of Folkton, near Bridlington, Yorkshire, given him by the Lord Chancellor (Earl of Northington) on the recommendation of Mr. Allen, of Prior Park, near Bath, November 2, 1762: he published the Letters on Chivalry and Romance this year; Dialogues on Foreign Travel in 1763; and Letter to Dr. Leland of Dublin in 1764.-He was made Preacher of Lincoln's Inn, on the recommendation of Mr. Charles Yorke, &c. November 6, 1765; was collated to the Archdeaconry of Gloucester, on the death of Dr. Geekie, by the Bishop, August 27, 1767; was appointed to open the Lecture of Bishop Warbur ton on Prophecy in 1768. He took the degree of D. D. at Cambridge Commencement this year. He published the Sermons on Prophecy in 1772. His mother died Feb. 27, 1773, æt. 88. He was consecrated Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, the 12th of February, 1775. He published the 1st Volume of Sermons preached at Lincoln's Inn, 1776; and was made Preceptor to the Prince of Wales and his brother Prince Frederick, the 5th of June the same year; preached before the Lords, December 13, 1776, first Fast for the War. He lost his old and best friend, Bishop Warburton, June 7, 1779. He published the 2d and 3d Volumes of Sermons in 1780; these

Three

"To this short narrative (the last paragraph of which was written by the Author only five weeks before his death) little more will be added. So late as the first Sunday in February before his death, though then declining in health and strength, he was able to attend his Parish Church, and to receive the Sacrament. Free from any painful or acute disorder, he gradually became weaker, but his faculties continued perfect. After a few days' confinement to his bed, he expired in his sleep, on Saturday morning, May 28, 1808; having completed four months beyond his eightyeighth year

He was buried in Hartlebury Church-yard, according to his own directions. He had been Bishop of Worcester for almost twenty-seven years: a longer period than any Bishop of that See since the Reformation."

The far greater part of what is now presented to the publick in this Collection has again and again been sanctioned by their approbation in repeated Editions. Of the articles which are new, one that is not the least interesting will be found in the Fifth Volume, as an Appendix to the "Sermons on the Prophecies," under the title of "An Anonymous Letter to the Author of these Sermons, with his Answer to it."

"Soon after I had published this volume," says the good Bishop, "I received an anonymous Letter, addressed to me at Thurcaston, of which the following is an exact Copy:

"SIR,Some months ago it was reported, that Dr. Hurd was preparing to expound the Apocalypsis, and once more to prove the Pope to be Antichrist. The publick were amazed. By the gay and by the busy world, the very attempt was treated as an object of ridicule. Polite scholars lamented, that you should be prevailed on to give up your more solid and liberal studies, for such obscure and unprofitable researches. Your own brethren of the Church hinted, that it would be far more prudent to observe a respectful silence with regard to those awful and invidious mysteries. A more than common share of merit was requisite to surmount such adverse prejudices. Your Sermons, Sir, have been perused with pleasure by many, who had the strongest dislike to the name and subject. Every one has admired the vastness of the plan, the harmony of the proportions, and the elegance of the ornaments; and if any have remarked a weakness in the foundations, it has been imputed to the GENT. MAG. April, 1812,

nature of the ground; and the taste of the Patron has been arraigned rather than the skill of the Architect. Since you have undertaken the care and defence of this extensive province, I may be allowed, less as an opponent than as a disciple, to propose to you a few difficulties; about which I have sought more conviction than I have hitherto obtained. From the general cast of your writings, I flatter myself that I am speaking to a candid critick, and to a philosophical divine; whose first passion is the love of truth. On this pleasing supposition, let me venture to ask you, Whether there is sufficient evidence that the Book of Daniel is really as antient as it pretends to be.' You are sensible, that from this point the Golden Chain of Prophecy, which you have let down from Heaven to Earth, is partly suspended.There are two reasons which still force me to withhold my assent. I. The author of the Book of Daniel is too well informed of the revolutions of the Persian and Macedonian empires, which are supposed to have happened long after his death. II. He is too ignorant of the transactions of his own times. In a word, he is too exact for a Prophet, and too fabulous for a contemporary Historian.”

The Letter-writer then proceeds with a variety of specious objections, which he thus concludes:

"If these observations are founded in truth and nature; it will follow, that the author of the Book of Daniel has entertained us with incredible stories, which happened under an imaginary monarch. So much error and so much fiction are incompatible with an inspired, or even with a contemporary, writer. But if the prophecies were framed three or four centuries after the Prophet's death, it was much easier for the counterfeit Daniel to foretel great and recent events, than to compose an accurate history or probable romance of a dark and remote period. The question is curious in itself, important in its consequences, and in every light worthy the attention of a critical divine. This consideration justifies the freedom of my address, and the hopes I still entertain, that you may be able and willing to dispell the mist, that hangs, either over my eyes, or over the subject itself. On my side, I can only promise, that whatever you shall think proper to communicate, shall be received with the candour which I owe to myself, and with the deference, so justly due to your name and abilities. I am, Sir, with great esteem, your obedient humble servant,

"P. S.

"P. S. You will be pleased, Sir, to address your answer to Daniel Freeman, Esq. at the Cocoa Tree, Pall Mall. but if you have any scruple of engaging with a mask, I am ready, by the same channel, to disclose my real name and place of abode; and to pledge myself for the same discretion, which, in my turn, I shall have a right to expect."

On this Letter the Bishop observes, "I had neither leisure nor inclination to enter into controversy with this stranger (for which there was the less occasion, as he had disputed no principle or opinion advanced by me in the Sermons); but, as I knew, whoever he was, that he would complain, or rather boast, of being wholly unnoticed by me, I sent him this answer:

"Sir, Thurcaston, Aug. 29, 1772. "Your very elegant letter on the antiquity and authenticity of the Book of Daniel (just now received) finds me here, if not without leisure, yet without books, and therefore in no condition to enter far into the depths of this controversy; which indeed is the less necessary, as every thing, that relates to the subject, will come, of course, to be considered by my learned successors in the new Lecture. For, as the prophecies of Daniel make an important, link in that chain, which, as you say, has been let down from heaven to earth (but not by the

Author of the late Sermons, who brought into view only what he had found, not invented) the grounds, on which their authority rests, will, without doubt, be carefully examined, and, as I suppose, firmly established. But, in the mean time, and to make at least some small return for the civility of your address to me, I beg leave to trouble you with two or three short remarks, such as occur to me, on the sudden, in reading your letter."

It is unnecessary to state, that the Bishop's very masterly arguments reflect the highest honour on his candour, as well as on his acknow ledged critical acumen.

"After all, Sir," he adds, "I doubt, I should forfeit your good opinion, if I did not acknowledge that some, at least, of the circumstances, which you have pointed out, are such as one should hardly expect at first sight. But then such is the condition of things in this world; and what is true in human life is not always, I had almost said, not often, that which was to be previously expected: whence, an indifferent romance is, they say, more probable than the best history. But should any or all of these circumstances convince you perfectly that some degree of error or fiction is to be found

in the Book of Daniel, It would be too precipitate to conclude that therefore the whole book was of no authority, For, at most, you could but infer, that the historical part, in which those circumstances are observed, namely the sixth chapter, is not genuine: Just as hath been adjudged, you know, of some other pieces, which formerly made a part of the Book of Daniel. For it is not with these collections, which go under the name of the Prophets, as with some regularly connected system, where a charge of falsehood, if made good against one part of it, shakes the eredit of the whole. Fictitious histories may have been joined with true prophecies, when all that bore the name of the same person, or any way related to him, came to be put together in the same volume: but the detection of such misalliance could not affect the prophecies, certainly not those of Daniel, which respect the latter times; for these have an intrinsic evidence in themselves, and assert their own authenticity in proportion as we see, or have reason to admit, the accom

plishment of them. And now, Sir, I have only to commit these hasty reflec tions to your candour; a virtue, which cannot be separated from the love of truth, and of which I observe many traces in your agreeable letter. And if you would indulge this quality still further, being true and reasonable, in matters of so as to conceive the possibility of that religion, which may seem strange, or, to so lively a fancy as your's, even ridiculous, you would not hurt the credit of your excellent understanding, and would thus remove one, perhaps a principal, occasion of those mists which,' as you complain, 'hang over these nice and difficult subjects.' I am, with true respect, Sir, &c. R. H."

As an apology for introducing this correspondence into this Collection, the benevolent Prelate subjoins,

it worth while to print either of these "I should not perhaps have thought Letters, if a noble person had not made it necessary for me to give the former to the publick, by doing this honour (though without my leave or knowledge) to the latter. By which means, however, we are now at length informed (after the secret had been kept for twice twelve years), that the anonymous Letter-writer was Edward Gibbon, esq. afterwards the well-known author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*.' - Of Mr. Gib

*See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in 4to. Lond. 1796, vol. I. p. 463.

bon's