WHITAKER, John, was born at Manchester on the 27th of April 1735. His father, James Whitaker, does not appear to have been in affluent circumstances. At the age of ten, the son was sent to the free-school, and in 1752 was removed to Oxford upon an exhibition of ten pounds a year. He was entered of Brasen-nose College, but on the 2d of March 1753 was elected scholar of Corpus Christi. He proceeded A.M. in 1759, and in the following year was ordained deacon and priest. On the 21st of January 1763 he was elected fellow of his college, and on the 1st of July 1767 took the degree of B. D. At Oxford, we are informed, “his uncommon vigour of intellect at once displayed itself among his acquaintance; but whilst his animated conversation drew many around him, a few were repelled from the circle by his impatience of contradiction (a [7:21:871]failing which almost ever accompanies powers like his), and by the consciousness, it should seem, of their own inferiority.” That his conversation must have displayed sufficient vivacity, and his temper sufficient warmth, may very easily be conceived; but through these lines of panegyric, it is impossible not to discern a strong ray of truth; namely, that from the earliest period of his literary career, he was distinguished by a bold and dogmatical spirit, which could ill endure dissent or opposition. This may indeed be considered as his first and last characteristic; and although the zeal of a friend has, with some degree of dexterity, endeavoured to convert it into a topic of praise, by representing it as the ordinary mark of a superior mind, we are not very much inclined to regard it in the same light. The doctrine seems indeed to be of a somewhat dangerous tendency; to be calculated for misleading young candidates for literary honours, who may thus be induced to supply, by arrogance and dogmatism, what is wanting in sound learning and solid judgment. It may be asserted, without much hazard of confutation, that this overweening and dogmatical spirit is at least as frequently the characteristic of those who possess but a very moderate stock of real merit; who have perhaps made no uncommon progress in any branch of science or literature, and yet consider themselves as entitled to decide all controversies, and to adjust all claims to intellectual distinction.

For many years he served the curacy of Bray in Berkshire for Dr Berkeley, a son of the famous bishop of Cloyne; and was subsequently curate of Newton in Lancashire. He gave the first conspicuous proof of his abilities by the publication of “The History of Manchester.” Lond. 1771, 4to. The second volume followed in the year 1775; but although four books were originally promised, only two are thus completed; they embrace the Roman, British, and Saxon periods of the history. This work, which is perhaps the most remarkable of his publications, was immediately regarded as the production of no ordinary writer, but as more conspicuous for bold and ingenious speculation, than for cool and judicious discussion. Like the other works of the same author, it is written in a lively and rambling manner. His impatience and vivacity rendered him incapable of selecting his topics, and condensing his thoughts; and by adhering to his usual method of writing, a large book may be produced on almost any subject. Before he had brought this work to a close, he published “The genuine History of the Britons asserted.” Lond. 1772, 8vo. This volume is chiefly directed against the historical work of Mr Macpherson, better known as the foster-father of Ossian; and both publications have been considered by competent judges as adding very little to the real stock of information.

In the course of the following year we find him residing in the metropolis, and officiating as the morning preacher of Berkeley chapel. For this appointment he was indebted to a Mr Hughes; but their connexion was of a very short duration, for he was removed from his situation in less than two months. He thought proper to communicate his grievances to the public, in “The State of the Case between Mr Whitaker and Mr Hughes, relative to the Morning Preachership of Berkeley Chapel.” Lond. 1774, 4to. His resentment was so strong, and his discretion so weak, that he thus subjected himself to the vexation of a lawsuit, and the Court of Kings Bench held his printed Case to be a libel.

On the 23d of August 1777, he succeeded to the rectory Rιιan-Lanyhorne, one of the most valuable livings in the gift of his college. He now withdrew into Cornwall, and took possession of his benefice; and he afterwards married Jane Tregenna, a lady of an ancient Cornish family. Her great-grandfather, grandfather, and father, were successively rectors of Mawgan in Pydar. For a long time his retirement was not attended with peace and studious ease. His restless and domineering disposition soon involved him in a long train of contentions with his parishioners: he proposed a tithe-composition, which his friends represent as by no means unreasonable, but of which his parishioners appear to have entertained a different opinion; they refused to accede to his proposal, and he demanded the tithes in kind. “Disputes,” we are informed, “arose upon disputes; animosities were kindled; and litigations took place. That Mr Whitaker was finally victorious, afforded pleasure to the friends of the rector, and to the friends of justice and truth; yet it was long before harmony was restored to Ruan-Lanyhorne.” Let us here remark in passing, that this mode of confounding the cause of religion with the cause of tithes is a pretty ancient device. It is not certainly to be considered as wonderful, if, after all these contentions and litigations, Mr Whitaker was subjected to the mortification of observing that his parishioners manifested an aversion to his preaching, an indifference to his admonitions, and a repugnance to his authority. This is indeed the natural consequence of the measures to which he resorted; they have an obvious tendency to excite or continue animosities, and to circumscribe the utility of a clergyman, by rendering him obnoxious to almost every man in his parish who has property enough to bring him within the circle of such litigations. It may perhaps be regarded as extremely doubtful whether any clergyman, possessing a portion of the primitive spirit of Christianity, would be tempted to engage, more especially with his own flock, in quarrels, disputes, and lawsuits, which there might be any decent means of avoiding. We are informed, that after the lapse of a few years, Mr Whitaker had the satisfaction of perceiving a visible alteration in the behaviour of his principal parishioners, and that a good understanding was at length established between the pastor and his flock. His manner was hearty and familiar; and notwithstanding the rabid spirit that sometimes animates his writings, he was possessed of many virtues, though meekness and humility were certainly not of their number.^[1. In reference to this paragraph, the coadjutor of Mr Baines is pleased to remark, that “Mr Whitaker’s memory has been unjustly assailed, and his integrity wantonly called in question, by an anonymous writer in the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.” (History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, vol. ii. p. 386. Lond. 1836, 4 vols. 4to.) The most careless reader may perceive that not one word is uttered against his integrity; nor has this writer undertaken to prove that it afforded any indication of his piety or wisdom, to maintain against his own parishioners a series of litigations for the space of twelve years. “In this contest Mr Whitaker’s law expenses amounted to about a thousand pounds; but, by taking the tithes in kind during the suits, be not only made up this loss beyond the original produce of the tithes, but was several hundred pounds in pocket....But the conscientious minister looked with a deeper concern to the spiritual welfare of his flock. He saw, with sorrow, their aversion from his preaching, their indifference to his instruction, their repugnance to his authority and certainly no result could be more natural. An injudicious defence is sometimes more injurious than a wanton attack. ]

His next publication was of a professional kind, namely, “Sermons upon Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.” Lond. 1783, 12mo. He afterwards engaged in the famous controversy respecting the character of Queen Mary, and produced an immense work under the title of “Mary Queen of Scots vindicated.” Lond. 1787, 3 vols. 8vo. He published an enlarged edition in the year 1790; and he seems to have been not a little mortified that neither Lord Hailes nor Dr Robertson could be induced to print a single page against him. This production, which is by no means eminent for coolness of reasoning, or sobriety of manner, has probably convinced very few competent judges of historical evidence, who have submitted to the labour of a patient investigation. If Mary’s innocence is so apparent as some
[7:21:872]

of her advocates aver, is it not remarkable that so many bulky volumes should be required to display that innocence? Besides, if we suppose her to be innocent, we must, at the same time, suppose all the most distinguished of those who opposed her after the murder of her husband, to be covered with an enormous load of infamy. And we will only venture to add, that the uncontroverted history of her proceedings, from a short period preceding the murder, till her indecent nuptials with Bothwell, furnishes a degree of moral evidence which seems to be ineffectually opposed by all the persevering sophistry of her defenders.

Having again recurred to his theological studies, Mr Whitaker published a large volume, entitled “The Origin of Arianism disclosed.” Lond. 1791, 8vo. Whatever might be the opinion of others,^[2. “I confess this book has satisfied me how little erudition will gain a man now a-days the reputation of vast learning, if it be only accompanied with dash and insolence. It seems to me impossible that Whitaker could have written well on the subject of Mary Queen of Scott, his powers of judgment being apparently so abject.” (Coleridge’s Literary Remains, vol. iv. p. 306.) ] it is clear that the author himself entertained a favourable enough opinion of this production; which he represents as “a train of historical argumentation, at once novel in its direction, comprehensive in its scope, and decisive in its efficacy.” If he could not discuss a point of history without heat and violence, it is easy to conceive how he would be disposed to discuss a point of heresy. As a proof of his zeal for orthodoxy, an anonymous friend presents us with the following anecdote. “That the feeble Deist should have shrunk from his indignant eye, may well be conceived, when we see his Christian principle and his manly spirit uniting in the rejection of a living of considerable value, which was at this time offered him by an Unitarian patron. He spurned at the temptation, and pitied the seducer.” But in order to render this anecdote altogether intelligible, some further information seems to be required. Were his principles so pure and rigid that he could only accept of preferment from a patron of confirmed and approved orthodoxy? Or did this nameless patron offer him the living under the condition, express or implied, that he should become a convert to the Unitarian creed? With respect to the first question, it is quite evident that many pious divines have accepted of preferment from patrons who, to all human appearance, had no religion whatsoever; and with respect to the second, it is equally evident, that no patron, if he possessed common sense, could expect a benched clergyman to make an open avowal of opinions which the church has formally condemned as heretical.

Whitaker had contributed to the English Review a series of articles on Gibbon’s history, which were now reprinted in a separate form, under the title of “Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in vols. iv. v. and vi. quarto, reviewed.” Lond. 1791, 8vo. This work, which extends to a considerable volume, is written in his usual vein, with sufficient acuteness and animation, but with little suavity of manner or elegance of style. He certainly detects errors and exposes inconsistencies; but it may readily be supposed that a writer of his cast of mind was not very likely to form an impartial estimate of Gibbon’s real merits, which, after all the fair and necessary deductions are made, must still be allowed to be very great. Whitaker is always an intrepid writer; he is never afraid to deliver a decided opinion; and whether the subject is very familiar or quite new to him, his tone of decision is commonly the same. Thus, for example, in his animadversions on Gibbon’s admirable chapter relating to the Roman jurisprudence, he is pleased to declare, that “nothing can subdue the native barrenness of such a field as this.” His censure refers to a subject of which he may be considered as in a state of almost total ignorance: he seems to have been alike unacquainted with this science, and incapable of appreciating the masterly manner in which it is here discussed. It may indeed be affirmed that there is no portion of Gibbon’s work more remarkable than this very chapter: although his early studies had not prepared him for such a task, he has yet exhibited a rapid and powerful sketch of the Roman jurisprudence, to which it might be difficult to find a parallel in the writings of the professed civilians. And it has accordingly been stamped with the approbation of some of the most distinguished civilians of the present age. It has been illustrated by Hugo and Warnkönig, the former having published it in German, and the latter in French.

After an interval of three years, Whitaker produced a copious work on a subject which is certainly curious and interesting. This work he entitles, in his usual form, “The Course of Hannibal over the Alps ascertained.” Lond. 1794, 2 vols. 8vo. Like some of his former publications, it attracted a considerable degree of attention, and, like them, was found to contain many hasty and erroneous opinions. On this ground he was encountered by the late Lord Woodhouselee, who published, but without his name, “A Critical Examination of Mr Whitaker’s Course of Hannibal over the Alps ascertained.” Lond. 1795, 8vo. In the year 1795, he endeavoured to enlighten the public by an octavo tract on “The real Origin of Government,” which we have never had the pleasure of seeing, but which his friend, formerly quoted, describes as a very singular pamphlet. This information may, without scruple, be received as authentic; for it is not difficult to conjecture how the subject of civil government would be treated by such a writer at such a period.

The last work which Whitaker lived to communicate to the public is “The Ancient Cathedral of Cornwall historically surveyed.” Lond. 1804, 2 vols. 4to. His vigour was still undiminished, and he had formed the plan of many other works, particularly a history of Oxford, and a history of London: the former he intended to comprise in an octavo volume, the latter he contemplated as “quite new and original, and fit to make a quarto.” While he was prosecuting his ardent researches into the antiquities of the metropolis, his friends remarked the first indications of declining health. He had originally possessed a robust constitution, but his mind was restless, and his temper ardent; and during his last visit to London, his great exertions in procuring materials for his work, and his great efforts in supporting his usual tone of conversation in the literary circles, left him in a state of debility which was not at first considered as alarming. It was however followed by a stroke of palsy, from which his recovery was never so complete as to allow him to resume his occupations with his former vigour. During the last year of his life, he lingered in a state of gradual decay; and he is said to have contemplated his approaching dissolution with the cheerful resignation of a Christian. On Sunday the 30th of October 1808, he sank as into a quiet slumber, without any indication of suffering, and with a smile on his countenance. He died at Ruan-Lanyhorne, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. Of his three daughters, two survived him. One of these, named Anne, was married in 1821 to Dr Taunton, a physician of Truro. Whitaker’s widow, who is described as the last of her ancient family, died at Truro in 1828, at the age of eighty-five.

He had recently sent to the press an antiquarian volume, which, after his death, was published under the title of “The Life of Saint Neot, the oldest of all the Brothers of King Alfred.” Lond. 1809, 8vo. He had likewise made some progress in preparing a life of Queen Mary; and his materials were consigned by his widow to Mr George Chalmers, who adopted them as the foundation of his own [7:21:873]extraordinary performance. All his principal works have now been enumerated, but a few supplementary notices are still necessary. He wrote an introduction to Flindell’s Bible, and a supplement to Polwhele’s Antiquities of Cornwall, and was a contributor to “The Cornwall and Devon Poets.” His connection with the English Review has already been mentioned; but he likewise appears to have lent his aid to the British Critic and the Antijacobin Review; and his eulogist informs us, in a very solemn style, that “the strength of his principles is nowhere more apparent than in those articles where he comes forward, armed with the panoply of truth, in defence of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution. It was there he struck his adversaries with consternation, and we beheld the host of Jacobins shrinking away from before his face, and creeping into their caverns of darkness.” The same tasteful and judicious writer avers, that at Whitaker’s lucubrations “a Gibbon trembled but this panegyric is somewhat abated by another piece of information, namely, that Gibbon was a “feeble Deist.” With what torrents of fiery indignation this worthy divine must, in his fugitive and anonymous writings, have overwhelmed Jacobins and heretics, may very easily be imagined by those who have inspected his more elaborate works, bearing his name and addition, and intended for the benefit of posterity. Some persons of cooler tempers, and of more Habitual candour, when they are fairly enveloped in the cover of a review, may now and then be tempted to speak in a very high and arrogant tone to men greatly elevated above their own standard, and of subjects of which they only possess a very casual and superficial knowledge.

This anonymous writer, whom we strongly suspect to be Mr Polwhele, has, in the following passage, discussed the character of Whitaker with more sobriety and discrimination. “It is true, to the same warmth of temper, together with a sense of good intentions, we must attribute an irritability at times destructive of social comfort, an impetuousness that brooked not opposition, and bore down all before it. This precipitation was in part also to be traced to his ignorance of the world; to his simplicity in believing others like himself—precisely what they seemed to be; and, on the detection of his error, his anger at dissimulation or hypocrisy. But his general good Humour, his hospitality, and his convivial pleasantry, were surely enough to atone for those sudden bursts of passion, those flashes which betrayed his ‘ human frailty,’ but still argued genius. And they who knew how ‘fearfully and wonderfully he was made,’ could bear from a Whitaker what they could not so well have tolerated in another. In his family, Mr Whitaker was uniformly regular; nor did he suffer at any time his literary cares to trench on his domestic duties. The loss of such a man must be deemed, as it were, a chasm both in public and private life. But, for the latter, we may truly say, that if ever wife had cause to lament the kind and faithful husband, or children the affectionate parent, or servants the indulgent master, the family at Ruan-Lanyhorne must feel their loss irreparable.”^[3. Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. lxxviii. p. 1037. See likewise Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, vol. iii. p. 105, and Baines’s History of the County of Lancaster, vol. ii. p. 385. ] (x.)