738 K I 
but left his anfwer to all the objections againfl his general 
fcheme, of which this was a part, among the manufcripts 
to which we have above alluded. In the year 1717, 
archbifhop King was appointed one of the lords juftices 
of Ireland} and he held the fame office in the years 1721 
and 1723. He died at his palace in St. Sepulchre’s, in 
Dublin, May 8, 1729, when he wanted but a week of 
completing his feventy-ninth year. He was a prelate of 
great abilities and learning, fteadily attached to the prin¬ 
ciples of the revolution, fincerely defirous of advancing 
the interefts of religion, zealous for the profperity of the 
eftabliffiment to which he belonged, and of an unblemifhed 
and exemplary moral character. He was alfo diitinguilhed 
for wit as well as learning; and it is faid, that when Dr. 
Lindfey, the primate of Ireland, died, he claimed the 
primacy, as a preferment to which he had a kind of right, 
from his flation in the fee of Dublin, and from his ac¬ 
knowledged character in the church. Neither of thefe 
reafons, however, prevailed; it being pretended that he 
was too far advanced in years to be removed. This pre¬ 
tended reafon for fetting him afide was as little agreeable 
as the refufal; but the archbifhop had no opportunity of 
fhowing the fenfe which he entertained of this treatment, 
excepting to the new primate, Dr. Boulter. Him he re¬ 
ceived at his own houfe, and in his dining-room, without 
riling from his chair; but making this apology in his 
ufual ftrain of wit: “ My lord, I am certain your grace 
will forgive me, becaufe you know I am too old to rife." 
He appears to have been a fincere friend to dean Swift, 
and ftrongly preffed him not to employ his time in lite¬ 
rary trifles, but on fome work worthy of his genius and 
of his profeffion. Befides the pieces mentioned in the 
preceding narrative, Dr. King publiflied feveral Angle fer- 
rnons, preached on public occafions. After his death, 
his manufcripts were communicated to Mr. Edmund Law', 
M.A. fellow of Chrift’s college in Cambridge, and after¬ 
wards bifliop of Carlifle, who had tranflated the treatife 
De Origine Mali, and written notes upon it. From thefe 
papers he extracted the fubftance of the additions and 
improvements left to be incorporated in the original work, 
and comprehending anfwers to the objections preferred 
againlt it, which he publiflied in a fecond edition of his 
tranflation, under the following title: “ An Effay on the 
Origin of Evil, by Dr. William King, late Lord Archbi¬ 
fhop of Dublin ; tranflated from the Latin with Notes ; 
and a Differtation concerning the Principle and Criterion 
of Virtue, and the Origin of the Paffions. The fecond 
Edition. Corrected and enlarged .from the author's Ma¬ 
nufcripts. To which are added, Two Sermons by the 
fame Author, the former concerning Divine Prefcience, 
the latter on the Fall of Man, never before publiflied ;” 
2 vols. 8vo. 1729. 
KING (William), a mifcellaneous writer who ranked 
among the wits of his day, was born in London about 
1663. His father, Ezekiel King, was a gentleman of 
mercantile origin ; but it appears that William claimed 
kindred with fome noble families. He was educated at 
Weftminiter-fchool under Dr. Bufby, whence he was re¬ 
moved to Chrifi-church college, Oxford. A marvel¬ 
lous itory is told of the number of books that he perufed 
in the courfe of his academical lludies, of which Dr. 
jobnfon has fliown the abfurdity ; yet there is no reafon 
to doubt that he employed much time in various reading. 
Pie took the degree of M.A. in 1688 ; and in that year 
made his appearance as an author in a refutation of Varil- 
las’ account of Wicliffe in his Hiftory of Herefies. 
About this time he began the profeffional ftudy of the ci¬ 
vil law, in which he took a doclor’s degree. He fettled 
in DoClors’ Commons as an advocate, and is faid to have 
come into great practice ; though his known diflike of 
bufinefs, and the employment of his pen on light and mif¬ 
cellaneous fubjeCls, render this fcarcely credible. Lord 
Molefworth’s account of Denmark appearing in 1692, its 
obfervations on the arbitrary fpirit of that court, and the 
llavifli principles of the people, gave fo much offence, 
N G. 
that Dr. King was applied to by the Daniffi refldent to 
draw up an anfwer to it; a talk which his own principles 
of government rendered congenial to "him. His “Ani- 
madverfions upon the pretended Account of Denmark” 
appeared in 1694, and were fo much approved by prince 
George of Denmark, that he was appointed fecretary to 
the princefs, afterwards queen, Anne.’ In fome fubfe- 
quent years, he publiflied feveral works of a kind of hu¬ 
morous banter, in which his principal flrength lay ; fuch 
as “A Journey to London,” intended as a'burlefque on 
Dr. Martin Lifter’s journey to Paris; and a fatire on fir 
Hans Sloane and the Royal Society. In thefe he made 
advantage of his defultory learning, and fell into a vein 
of ridicule fomewhat refembling that of Scriblerus, but 
of an inferior kind. His habits of life were fo totally ad- 
verfe to the exertions of regular induftry, that he deferted 
ail his profeffional profpedts, and (probably in 1702) ac¬ 
cepted an offer to go to Ireland, where he was made judge 
of the admiralty, commiffioner of the prizes, keeper of 
the records, and vicar-general to the primate. Thefe 
polls might have given him full employment,, and railed 
him to affluence; but he fpent his time chiefly in convi¬ 
viality at a country retirement, with judge Upton, an in¬ 
timate acquaintance, of tafle fimilar to his own. He re¬ 
turned to England in 1708, not at all improved in his 
fortune, and retired to his Undent’s place in Chrilt-church 
college, where he finilhed his largeft poem, an imitation 
of Ovid’s Art of Love, and compofed feveral other pieces. 
He clofely connected himfelf with the Tory party, and 
wrote in defence of Dr. Sacheverel. Fie was likewife 
concerned as an author or publilher in the periodical pa¬ 
per called The Examiner; and fuch were his fervices to 
his party, that Swift, Prior, and others, procured for him 
the place of gazetteer. The duties of that office, how¬ 
ever, appeared fo irkfome to him, that he foon refigned 
it ; and, his conftilution being broken by his intemperate 
habits, he died on Chriftmas-day, 1712. “Though (fays 
Dr. Johnfon) his life had not been without irregularity, 
his principles were pure and orthodox, and his death was 
pibus.” This brief account may fuffice of a writer who 
never palled mediocrity in any of his performances, and 
who deferves commemoration only from his connexion 
with the literary and political hiftory of his time. He 
certainly poffeffed humour, though of a trivial kind; and 
fome of his tales in verfe may be read with amufement. 
To the higher qualities of poetry he has no pretenfion. 
As a profe-writer he is forgotten ; yet his “Account of 
the Heathen Gods” was long a popular fchool-book. 
Parts of his works have been often printed ; and a com¬ 
plete colleHion of his Original Works in Profe and Verfe, 
in 3 vols. Svo. was edited in 1776 by Mr. John Nichols. 
John [on's Lives of the Poets. 
KING (Peter), baron of Ockham, lord chancellor of 
Great Britain, was born in 1669 at Exeter, of which 
city his father was a wealthy fnopkeeper. He was brought 
up to his father’s bufinefs ; but, having a ftrong inclina¬ 
tion for reading, he 'purchafed books, and fpent all the 
time he could command in improving his mind. Such 
was the fund,of knowledge he had acquired, that the ce¬ 
lebrated Locke, who was His kinfman, expreffed great fur- 
prife upon converfing with him, and advifed that he 
fliould be fent to Leyden for literary improvement. His 
ftudies at this time appear to have been chiefly theologi¬ 
cal ; and their firft fruits were a publication in 1691, en¬ 
titled “An Inquiry into the Conltitution, Difcipline, 
Unity, and Worlhip, of the primitive Church, that flou- 
rilhed within the firft three hundred Years after Chrift ; 
faithfully collected out of the extant Writings of thole 
Ages;” Svo. As only three of the heads were difeuffed 
in this volume, he foon after publiflied a Second Part, 
comprifing the fourth article, that of Worlhip. The 
great purpofe of this performance was to prepare the way 
for that comprehenfion of the diflenters within the pale 
of the eltablifned church, which the revolution was fup- 
pofed likely to effect. The writer therefore laboured to 
1 prove 
