period will sufficiently account for his tardy promotion. Early in October, 1702, he published "The Parliamentary Origin and Rights of the Lower House of Convocation cleared, and the Evidences of its Separation from the Upper House produced, on several heads, particularly on the point of making separate applications (as a distinct body of men) to other bodies of persons, in pursuance of an argument for the power of the Lower House to adjourn itself." About the same time he warmly urged in Convocation the remission of the first-fruits. He thus continued to retain the post of foremost champion of the high church party. Opposition in church politics, quite as much as any other reason, appears to have led to the incidental controversies between him and Hoadley on doctrinal points. These controversies widened the breach between him and the ruling churchmen and their patrons. In a pamphlet published by Atterbury in 1705, under the title "Some Proceedings in Convocation," he charges "the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadley" with 66 treating the whole body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state." This is very different language from that used in the preface to "The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated." There the Dissenters were spoken of as "our brethren of the separation," and the warmest attachment professed to Revolution principles of government. The continuous growth of this spirit of bitterness was marked in 1708 by the publication of Atterbury's "Reflections on a late Scandalous Report about the Repeal of the Test Act." In 1709 a Latin sermon which he preached before the clergy of London on the 17th of May, was attacked by Hoadley as advocating "passive obedience." In 1709-10 came on the trial of Sacheverell, whose speech was generally believed to have been drawn up by Atterbury, in conjunction with Dr. Smalridge and Dr. Friend. This of course broke all terms between him and the politicians of the ministerial party; but enough has been stated of his previous career to show that his church politics had by degrees engaged him in a course of political opposition to the party then in the ascendant. The same cause which prevented his promotion under the Whigs accelerated it under their successors. The High Church party was a main stay of the new ministers, and Atterbury was the most powerful member of the Lower House of Convocation. He had indeed for some years held the chief management of affairs in that house. In March, 1711, he was appointed one of the committee 66 66 for comparing Whiston's doctrines with those of the Church of England. In June he had the chief hand in drawing up the draft of a Representation of the Present State of Religion," which was adopted by the Lower House, and, though laid aside by the bishops, printed for distribution. Burnet says of it: Atterbury procured that the drawing of this might be left to him, and he drew up a most virulent declamation, defaming all the administrations from the time of the Revolution." In 1712 and 1713 he maintained the validity of lay baptism in the Lower House; but openly expressed his regret_that the controversy should have been raised, asserting that it "will be looked upon by wise and good men as a stroke levelled at the present constitution of the church of England, and as a cordial intended to keep up the Dissenters' spirits under their late mortification." On the 9th of April, 1713, he was unanimously elected prolocutor of the Lower House. Occupying this position, won by the indefatigable services of fourteen years, it is not surprising that the ministry should seek to confirm their hold upon him by advancing him to a bishopric. The death of Queen Anne (August 1, 1714) precluded all prospect of further advancement. According to a story repeated by Stackhouse, George I. evinced a personal dislike to Atterbury. "He received a sensible mortification presently after the coronation of King George I., when, upon offering to present his majesty (with a view, no doubt, of standing better in his favour) with the chair of state and royal canopy, his perquisites as Dean of Westminster, the offer was rejected, and not, as it is said, without some evident marks of personal dislike." If Bishop Pearce's statement that Atterbury had of fered to proclaim the Pretender be true, it may easily be conceived that the king should be hostile to him. But whether the bishop's hostility to the Hanoverian succession originated in a personal slight, or was of older date, it was early and perseveringly displayed. Towards the end of 1714 a pamphlet appeared under the title " English Advice to the Freeholders of England." It was not published through the medium of a bookseller, but privately, though extensively distributed. It was denounced as "a malicious and traitorous libel" in a royal proclamation, offering a reward of one thousand pounds for the discovery of the author, and five hundred pounds for the printer. It was generally attributed to Atterbury, and those who have perused this rare tract state that the style affords strong internal evidence of its being his composition. Many of the most violent protests of the House of Lords, during the early part of the reign of George I., were drawn up by him. A declaration of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops residing in or near London, was issued in 1715, professing their abhorrence of the rebellion: Atterbury refused to sign it, on the ground that unbecoming reflections were cast upon the party in the church to which he belonged. In 1721 and 1722 he drew up the protests against the Quakers' bill. | Atterbury resided for some time at Brussels, but experiencing annoyance there, in consequence of the suspicions of the English ministers, he went to Paris. To avoid, it is said, the solicitations of the agents of the Pretender, he left that capital, in 1728, for Montpellier, where he resided two years. He Atterbury was arrested on the 24th of Au- then returned to Paris, and died there on the gust, 1722, on suspicion of being engaged in 15th of February, 1732. His body was a treasonable plot, and committed to the brought to England, with his MSS., which Tower. A committee of the House of Com- underwent a strict examination. He was mons appointed to inquire into his case, re- buried in Westminster Abbey, in a vault preported that he had been engaged in “ carry-pared by his directions in the year 1722, ing on a traitorous correspondence, in order the year of his wife's death. The funeral to raise an insurrection in the kingdom, and was strictly private, and no memorial was produce foreign forces to invade it." Upon erected over his grave. this report a bill was brought in on the 23rd of March, 1723, "For inflicting certain Pains and Penalties on Francis, Lord Bishop of Rochester," a copy of which was sent to him with notice that he had liberty to appoint counsel and solicitors for his defence. He desired the opinion of the House of Lords as to his conduct in this conjuncture, and appears to have been dissatisfied when a majority of the peers decided that he might, without diminution of the honour of that house, appear and make his defence in the House of Commons. Notwithstanding this decision, Atterbury informed the Speaker, by a letter, that he had determined to give the house no trouble, but should be ready to defend himself when it came to be argued in another house, of which he had the honour to be a member. His refusal to appear in the House of Commons proves nothing against him, for his political opponents had a majority there, and were animated by personal hostility. The strongest evidence against him consisted of letters in cipher to General Dillon, Lord Mar, and the Pretender, the addresses of which were sworn by the clerks of the post-office to be in the hand-writing of the bishop's confidential amanuensis. Atterbury's attempt to prove that these letters could not have been written or dictated by him is not convincing, and indeed the whole of the eloquent and ingenious speech in which he defended himself in the House of Lords, on the 11th of May, is far from satisfactory. The bill passed, after warm and protracted debates, on the 16th, by a majority of eighty-three to forty-three. The king gave his assent in person on the 27th. It is said that George I. gave his assent to the bill with reluctance. By it Atterbury was deprived of all his offices and emoluments, declared incapable of holding any for the future, and sentenced to perpetual exile. Atterbury left the Tower, to embark for France, on the 18th of June, 1723. On landing at Calais, he was informed that Bolingbroke, having received a pardon, had just reached that town on his return to England. Atterbury was more a churchman and politician than a man of letters. He cultivated dialectics, history, the belles-lettres, and even theology, far more as instruments to promote his views than for themselves. He had from nature a rich vein of humour, great delicacy of taste, and a vigorous strain of eloquence. He displays extensive, though not profound learning; is dexterous, though not always fair, as a disputant; and he cultivated with success the graces of style, as we know, from the testimony of Steele, he had cultivated the graces of elocution. But the literary merits of his writings are always subordinate to the promotion of some end which he had in view. To understand aright the character of Atterbury, we must never lose sight of the fact that he was a clergyman. The lessons of a worthy but not very intellectual and somewhat worldly-minded father could inspire no very clear or elevated principles of morality into his mind when young; but this defect was in part counteracted by an energetic and generous disposition. His ambition was great, but it was high-minded. He threw himself upon the world as an adventurer; and looking to the church as his only means of advancement, he devoted himself to assert the interests of the clerical body to which he belonged. His pleasing manner and elocution were turned to account to obtain a position in the church. His support of the Convocation, and his active participation in its business, had in view to keep in existence a means of rendering the clergy powerful, and himself of consequence as a member of it. That he was disposed to use well the power acquired by such means, his discharge of his official duties in the pulpit, at visitations, and in promoting general literature and the literature of his order, satisfactorily show. He was one of those churchmen who seek influence over the public mind, in order to purify and refine it. He seems to have taken Luther, with his high notions of the authority of theologians, and his impetuosity, as a model. Some of Atterbury's admirers have sought to vindicate him from the "charge" of aspiring to be archbishop of Canterbury: we believe that he did aspire to that office, and believed that he could do good in it. Atterbury's politics were a mere supplement of his zeal for the church. He flattered Mary and William as long as the church stood well at court; he threw himself into the arms of the Tories because the Whigs patronised the dissenters; and he appears to have embraced the party of the Pretender when the settlement of the succession in the Hanoverian line broke the hopes of the Tories. He had no definite political opinions, and took up with any political party that promised to promote his views. He did not evince the same tact and judgment in his secular as in his ecclesiastical politics; he was a churchman, not (with all his familiarity with the court) a man of the world. His writings are voluminous, but for the most part of an ephemeral interest; occasional sermons, polemical pamphlets, and contributions to the publications of others. The works best calculated to convey a just estimate of his powers are:1." An Answer to some Considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation," Oxford, 1687, London, 1723. 2. "The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated," London, 1700. 3. "Sermons on various Occasions, by the Right Reverend Father in God, Francis Atterbury, D.D., late Bishop of Rochester, published from the Originals by Thomas Moore, D.D., his Lordship's Chaplain," London, 1734. 4. "The Epistolary Correspondence, Visitation Charges, Speeches, and Miscellanies of the Right Reverend Fraucis Atterbury, D.D., Lord Bishop of Rochester. Edited and published by J. Nichols," London, 1783. Atterbury's wife died in 1722. He had by her-Francis, who died an infant; Osborn, who entered the church and survived his father; Elizabeth, who died in 1716, aged seventeen; and Mary, who married Mr. Morice, accompanied her father in his exile, and died in 1729. (Thomas Stackhouse, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Francis Atterbury, | D.D.; The Epistolary Correspondence, Visitation Charges, Speeches, and Miscellanies of the Right Reverend Francis Atterbury, D.D., Lord Bishop of Rochester, with His torical Notes, edited by J. Nichols; Journals of the Houses of Lords and Commons; Kippis, Biographia Britannica.) W. W. ATTERBURY, LEWIS, D.D., called, by way of distinction, Lewis Atterbury the elder, was born about the year 1631, and was the son of Francis Atterbury, rector of MiddletonMalsor, in the county of Northampton, where, according to Yardley, the family of Atterbury had long been settled. The father of Lewis Atterbury is said to have been an eloquent, judicious, and useful preacher, and one who subscribed, in 1648, to the Solemn League and Covenant. Lewis was entered a student of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1647; he submitted to the authority of the visitors ap | | pointed by parliament; took the degree of A.B. February 23, 1649; and was created A.M. March 1, 1651, by dispensation from Oliver Cromwell, who held the office of chancellor of the university of Oxford. In 1654 he was made rector of Great or Broad Risington, in Gloucestershire; and, after the Restoration, he renewed or confirmed his title to that benefice by taking a presentation under the great seal. In 1657 he became also rector of Middleton-Keynes, or MiltonKeynes, near Newport Pagnell, in Buckinghamshire, and he took the same means to corroborate his title to that living on the return of Charles II. On the 25th of July, 1660, he was appointed chaplain extraordinary to Henry, Duke of Gloucester, an office which he held until the death of that prince, before the end of the same year; and, on the 1st of December following, he received the degree of D.D. He subsequently appears to have become involved in several lawsuits; and, on the 7th of December, 1693, on his return from London, whither his legal business had led him, he was accidentally drowned, near his own residence at Middleton-Keynes, where, according to Wood, he was buried. Atterbury married, and left two sons, the subjects, respectively, of the following and the preceding articles. He published the following single sermons :- 1. "A Good Subject; or the Right Test of Religion and Loyalty;" a Sermon on Proverbs xxiv. 21, 22, preached at Buckingham assizes, July 17, 1684. 2. "The Grand Charter of Christian Feasts, with the right way of keeping them;" on 1 Corinthians v. 8, preached at St. Mary-le-Bow, London, before an assembly of the natives of Buckinghamshire. 3. "Babylon's Downfall, or England's Happy Deliverance from Popery and Slavery;" a sermon on Revelation xviii. 2, preached at Guildhall chapel on the 28th of June, 1691 (and previously at Milton), and published by desire of the Court of Aldermen. Watt, in his “Bibliotheca Britannica," gives an erro neous account of the first of the above ser mons, and also assigns to this Lewis Atterbury a volume of sermons by his son, the subject of the next article. (Yardley, Brief Account of the Author, &c., prefixed to the Sermons of Lewis Atterbury the younger, vol. i. p. 4; Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, iv. 395: Works, as above.) J. T. S. ATTERBURY, LEWIS, LL.D., the eldest son of Lewis Atterbury the elder, and brother of Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport-Pagnell, in Buckinghamshire, on the 2nd of May, 1656, and was educated first at Westminster school, under Dr. Richard Busby, and subsequently at Christ Church college, Oxford, where he matriculated April 10, 1674. On the 21st of September, 1679, at which time he had taken the degree of A.B., he was ordained deacon. In the fol lowing year he became A.M., on the 5th of July; and on the 25th of September, 1681, he was admitted to priests' orders. In 1683 he was chaplain to Sir William Pritchard, lord mayor of London; and in the following year he obtained the living of Sywell, in Northamptonshire, which he subsequently resigned on receiving other preferments. On the 8th of July, 1687, he took by accumulation the degrees of bachelor and doctor of law. We find no notice of his taking other degrees, but on his title-pages he is styled LL. D. In 1691 Dr. Atterbury was lecturer of St. Mary Hill, London; and on the 16th of June, 1695, he was elected preacher at Highgate chapel, where he had, for some time before, officiated for the Rev. Daniel Lathom, whose infirmity and blindness incapacitated him from preaching before his death. Before that time he had been appointed one of the six chaplains to the Princess Anne, at Whitehall and St. James's, an office which he continued to hold after she came to the throne, and also during part of the reign of her successor, George I. During his residence at Highgate he practised physic for the benefit of his poorer neighbours, and is said to have acquired considerable skill. In 1707 he was presented by Queen Anne to the rectory of Shepperton, in Middlesex, which had lapsed in consequence of the incumbent having neglected to take the oaths within the prescribed time; and in 1719 the Bishop of London collated him to the rectory of Hornsey, the parish in which Highgate chapel was situated; but he nevertheless held the office of preacher at Highgate until his death. He never rose to any dignity in the church; but, as may be seen from a correspondence published by Archdeacon Yardley, he was very pressing in his requests to his brother for the archdeaconry of Rochester, when that preferment became vacant by the death of Dr. Sprat, in 1720. His first application was made before the death of Sprat, on occasion of a false report to that effect; but this was resisted by the bishop on the ground of the impropriety of placing so near a relative in such a position with respect to himself. "I cannot help thinking it," observes the bishop in one of his letters," the most unseemly indecent thing in the world; and I am very sure the generality of those whose opinions I regard would be of that opinion." Notwithstanding their disagreement upon this point, Dr. Atterbury appears to have lived subsequently in the strictest friendship with his brother. He enjoyed tolerably good health until about the age of seventy; but after that period the infirmities of age, and a slight stroke of the palsy, prevented him from preaching much, and led him frequently to visit Bath, where he died on the 20th (and not, as in some authorities, on the 17th or 24th) of October, 1731, in his seventysixth year, after being thirty-six years minister of Highgate chapel, where he was buried. He left a few books to the libraries at Bedford and Newport-Pagnell, and a valuable collection of pamphlets, extending to more than two hundred volumes, to the library of Christ Church, Oxford. He likewise bequeathed ten pounds a year towards the support of a school-mistress at Newport-Pagnell; one hundred pounds to his brother, "in token of his true esteem and affection;" and the remainder of his property first to his grand-daughter, and after her death, which happened shortly after his own, to his nephew Osborn, the son of the bishop. He had married on the 27th of December, 1688, and had two sons who died in infancy; a third, named, from the maiden name of his mother, Bedingfield Atterbury, who was educated at Oxford, and gave promise of future eminence, but died at an early age, in 1718; and a daughter, who married and died before him, and who was the mother of his heiress. Mrs. Atterbury died in 1723. The published works of Dr. Atterbury were as follow:-1. "The Penitent Lady, or Reflections on the Mercy of God," translated from the French of Madame de la Vallière, 12mo. 1684. 2. "A Sermon on the Funeral of Lady Compton," 1687. 3. A volume of "Ten Sermons preached before Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, at the chapel at St. James's," 8vo. 1699. 4. A second volume of Sermons, 8vo. 1703. 5. "Some Letters relating to the History of the Council of Trent," a quarto pamphlet published in 1705. 6. A Sermon preached at Whitehall, August 23, 1705, on occasion of the public Thanksgiving for the successes of the Duke of Marlborough, 4to. 1705. 7. "A Vindication of Archbishop Tillotson's Sermons; being an Answer to a Popish book, entitled 'A True and Modest Account of the Chief Points in controversie between the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants." The work to which this was an answer was avowedly by N. Colson; but Kippis says that the real name of the writer was Cornelius Nary, whom he styles an Irish priest, and author of a church history, from the creation to the birth of Christ, some controversial tracts against Archbishop Synge, and an English version of the New Testament. Atterbury's answer was published in 1709 (according to the copy in the British Museum, but 1706 according to Yardley), in a small 8vo. volume. 8. "The Re-union of Christians: or the means to reunite all Christians in one confession of Faith." Translated from the French, 8vo. 1708. 9. A sermon, entitled "The perfect and upright Man's Character and Encouragement," preached at Highgate, March 22, 1712-13, on occasion of the death of Lady Gould, 4to. 1713. 10. A Sermon on Romans xiii. 1, preached at Whitehall on Thursday, June 7, 1716, the day of public Thanksgiving for the suppression of the Rebellion, 8vo. 1716. 11. Two octavo volumes of "Sermons on Select Subjects," published from the original manuscripts in 1743, under the editorial care of Edward Yardley, B.D., archdeacon of Cardigan, who prefixed to the first volume a memoir of Dr. Atterbury, and an account of his writings. A portrait of Atterbury, engraved by Vertue, is also prefixed to this work. (Yardley, Brief Account of the Author, prefixed to Atterbury's Sermons; Kippis, Biographia Britannica.) J. T. S. ATTERBURY, LUFFMAN, was a gleewriter of some eminence towards the close of the eighteenth century. His name appears as a member of the Madrigal Society in 1765, and in that of the Catch Club in 1779. His compositions, which were not numerous, will be found in "Warren's Collection," in Bland's "Ladies' Amusement," and the best of them, his beautiful round "Sweet Enslaver," in almost every collection of glees and catches in existence. (Records of the Madrigal Society and of the Catch Club.) E. T. ATTEY, JOHN, a "practitioner in musick," was the author of a work entitled "The First Booke of Ayres, of four parts, with Tablature for the Lute; so made that all the parts may be plaied together with the Lute, or one Voice with the Lute and Bass Violl," London, 1622. E. T. ATTIA GENS. [ATIA GENS.] ATTI'ANUS, CÆLIUS. [HADRIANUS.] ATTICA. [ATTICUS, TITUS POMPONIUS.] ATTICUS ('ATTIKós), rhetorician. The critical historians of ancient literature have not yet been able to adjust satisfactorily the appropriation of this name among several obscure claimants. The only one of these about whom anything is positively known is Dionysius Atticus. This person, as we are informed by Strabo, was a native of Pergamus, and a disciple of Apollodorus (who taught Augustus Cæsar at Apollonia); and he himself became a sophist, or teacher of rhetoric, and a writer of orations and historical compilations. This was in all likelihood the same person to whom Quintilian refers by the name of Atticus, without any prænomen; and of whom he says that his careful account of his master's opinions was for Greek readers, as that of Caius Valgius for those who read Latin, the best authority for teaching the differences between the contending rhetorical schools of Apollodorus and Theodorus. Thus far there is neither difficulty nor contradiction. But a doubt arises when we turn to the elder Seneca, by whom there are mentioned two rhetoricians, both bearing the name of Atticus. The one of these, being described as the pupil of Apollodorus, might be set down as the person referred to by Strabo, if Seneca gave him no prænomen at all, or that of Dionysius. However, he calls him Atticus Vipsanius; and from these names it has been inferred, not only that this Atticus was a different person from Dionysius, but that he belonged to the family, and was perhaps | even the son, of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who was the friend and minister of Augustus, and son-in-law of Titus Pomponius Atticus. Both points, however, are extremely questionable. Nowhere else do we read of any such member of Agrippa's family. Nor, again, does it necessarily follow from the difference of the two appellations in Strabo and Seneca, that Vipsanius Atticus was a different person from Dionysius of Pergamus. It has been proposed to consider the word Vipsanius as an incorrect reading; but, perhaps, this is unnecessary. Dionysius Atticus, whose position as a disciple of Apollodorus might naturally have brought him into connection with Augustus, was likely enough to have become a client of the emperor's friend Agrippa, and to have adopted, according to a practice usual among his countrymen, the gentile name of his Roman patron. No light is thrown upon the difficulties as to the rhetorical Attici by the second passage, in which Seneca mentions a person of the name. He there merely refers to a declamation written by one Antonius Atticus: the name, however, is read Æticus by one or two critics. (Strabo, lib. xiii. p. 625; Quintilian, lib. iii. cap. i. sec. 18, with Spalding's note; Seneca, Controversia iii., Suasoria ii., with the note of Faber; Schottus, De Claris apud Senecam Rhetoribus, in Morell's Seneca.) W. S. ATTICUS (ATTIKÓS), a philosopher of the Platonic school, lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, that is, in the latter half of the second century of our æra. His place in the history of philosophy is not indeed very conspicuous; but it derives some importance from the fact that we know rather more in regard to his opinions than in regard to those held by most of his contemporaries. Our knowledge is gained through six extracts from his works, preserved by Eusebius. These fragments, occupied in expounding essential differences between the philosophy of Plato and that of Aristotle, show him to have zealously opposed that system of syncretism, by which the recent revivers of the Platonic school had endeavoured to make its doctrines acceptable to the Aristotelians. In the subsequent ages of the ancient philosophy, the works of Atticus were highly authoritative. Plotinus used to explain them to his pupils, as forming excellent manuals of the Platonic system. This approval, however, pronounced in times of philosophical as well as literary decline, has not been confirmed by modern critics. Ritter pronounces his exposition of the doctrines of the two schools to be distinguished neither by accuracy nor by ingenuity. The only remains of Atticus are the fragments in Eusebius. (Brucker, Historia Critica Philosophiæ, ii. 175; Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. 1834, iv. 248; Eusebius, Præparatio Evangelica, lib. xv. cap. 4-9.) W. S. ATTICUS ('ATTIKós), patriarch of CONSTANTINOPLE in the fifth century, was born |