WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

Disappointed in his views of medical advancement, Linnaeus turned his thoughts more immediately to the subject of mineralogy. In the end of 1733, he had visited some of the principal mines of Sweden, and had been introduced to baron Reuterholm, governor of the province of Dalarne, or Dalecarlia, resident at Fahlun, at whose persuasion and expence he travelled through the pastern part of Dalecarlia, accompanied by seven of his ablest pupils, a journal of which tour exists in his library. At Fahlun he gave a course of lectures on the art of assaying, which was numerously attended; and here he first became acquainted with Browallius, then chaplain to the governor, afterwards bishop of Abo, who advised him to take his doctor’s degree, in order to pursue the practice of physic, and further recommended him to aim at some advantageous matrimonial connection. In pursuit of the first part of this advice, Linnaeus, having scraped together about 15l. sterling, now entered on his travels, with a view of obtaining his degree at the cheapest university he could find, and of seeing as much of the learned world as his chances and means might enable him to do. In the beginning of 1735 he set out, and after a short stay at Hamburgh and Amsterdam, he proceeded to Harderwyck, where, having offered himself *s a candidate, and undergone the requisite examinations, ce obtained his degree June 23. On this occasion he published and defended a thesis, entitled “Hypothesis nova de Febriuin Intermittentium Causâ,” in the dedication of which, to his “Mæceuates et Patrnes,” it is remarkable that, among the names of Rudbeck, Rothmann, StobacusV Moraius, &c. we find that of Rosen. The hypothesis here advanced, most correctly so denominated, is truly Boerhaavian. Intermitting fevers are supposed to be owing to fine particles of clay, taken in with the food, and lodged in the terminations of the arterial system, where they cause the symptoms of the disorder in question.

, a Venetian, distinguished himself much at the council of Trent, where he strongly opposed the plurality of benefices, and was one of the three presidents of that council under pope Julius III. Paul IV. sent him into Poland as nuncio in 1556, and afterwards appointed him his secretary. The sanctity of Lippomani’s life gained him no less esteem than his doctrine; he was bishop of Mondonedo, then of Verona, and afterwards of Bergamo, and acquitted himself honourably in various nunciatures, but was justly accused of great cruelties towards the Jews and protestants when in Poland. He died in 1559. His works are, a compilation of “Lives of the Saints,” in 8 vols. but little valued and “Catena in Genesim, in Exoiiuni, etin aliquot Psalmos,” 3 vols. fol. &c.

, an English antiquary, was educated at Eton school, and admitted to King’s -college, Cambridge, in 1584, where he took his degree of M. A. and became fellow, but quitted his fellowship on succeeding to an estate at Wilbraham, in Cambridgeshire. He was afterwards appointed one of the esquires extraordinary of the king’s body, and died in 1637. No farther particulars of his life are upon record. He published “A Saxon treatise concerning the Old and New Testament; written about the time of king Edgar, (700 years ago) by >Elfricus Abbas, thought to be the same that was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury,” 1623, 4to. (See jELFRic). This was published by Mr. Lisle from a ms. in sir Robert Cotton’s library. The copy before us has only this “Treatise,” but the volume is incomplete without “A Testimony of Antiquity, shewing the ancient faith in the church of England, touching the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord” the “Words of CEilfric abbot of St. Alban’s, &c. taken out of his epistles written to Wulfsine, bishop of Scyrburne;” and “The Lord’s prayer, the creed, and ten commandments, in the Saxon and English tongue.” The work is dedicated to prince Charles, afterwards Charles I. in a long copy of verses, “by way of eclogue, imitating the fourth of Virgile.” To this is added a still longer preface, or address to the reader, containing some curious remarks on a variety of topics relating to Saxon literature, the Bible, the English language, &c. Mr. Lisle also published Du Bartas’s “Ark, Babylon, Colonies, and Columns,” in French and English, 1637, 4to and “The Fair Æthiopian,” 1631, 4to, a long poem of very indifferent merit. His reputation was founded on his skill in the Saxon tongue.

, a learned scholar, was descended from the Westcot family of Mounslow, in Worcestershire, and born Nov. 8, 1627, at Hales-Owen, in Shropshire, of which place his father, Thomas, was vicar. He was educated under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1644 was chosen student of Christ-church, Oxford, but was ejected by the parliament visitors in Nov. 1648. This ejection, however, does not seem to have extended so far as in other cases, for we find that, soon after, he became usher of Westminster-school; and in 1658 was made second master, having for some time in the interim taught school in other places. In July 1670, being then chaplain in ordinary to the king, he accumulated his degrees in divinity, which were conferred upon him without taking any in arts, as a mark of respect due to his extraordinary merit. This indeed had been amply attested to the university by letters from Henchman, bishop of London, recommending him as a man eminently learned, of singular humanity and sweetness of manners, blameless and religious life, and of genius and ready faculty in preaching. In Sept. 1674, he was inducted into the rectory of Chelsea, was made a prebendary of Westminster, and afterwards sub -dean. In 1685 he was licensed to the church of St. Botolph Aldersgate, which he held about four years, and then resigned it, possibly on account of some decay in his constitution.

, a rigid but pious presbyter of the church of Scotland, was born in 1603. In 1617, he was sent to the college of Glasgow, where he remained until he passed M. A. in 1621. After this, he exercised the ministry in various places, as occasion oflered, till 1628, when he was, by the sentence of the general assembly, sent to Ancrum in Teviot-dale. He was twice suspended by bishop Down, and was one of those who tendered the covenant to king 'Charles II. a little before he landed in Scotland. In 1663, as he would not subscribe or take the oath of allegiance, he was banished out of the kingdom, and retired into Holland, where he preached to the Scots’ congregation at Rotterdam till his death, Aug. 9, 1672, His works are “Letters from Leith, 1663, to his Parishioners at Ancrum;” “Memorable Characteristics of Divine Providence;” and a “Latin Translation of the Old Testament,” not published.

, a loyal biographer and historian of the seventeenth century, the son of Hugh Lloyd, was born at Pant Mawr, in the parish of Trawsvinydd, in Merionethshire, Sept. 28, 1625. He was educated in grammar learning at the free-school at Ruthen in Denbighshire, and in 1652 became a servitor of Oriel college, Oxford, at which time, and after, he performed the office of janitor. He took one degree in arts, and by the favour of the warden and society of Merton college, was presented to itie rectory of Ibston near Watlington in Oxfordshire, in May 1658. Next year be took his master’s degree, and after a short time, resigned Ibston, and went to London, where he was appointed reader of the Charter-house. Afterwards he retired to Wales, and became chaplain to Dr. Isaac Barrow, bishop of St. Asaph, who, besides several preferments in his diocese, gave him a canonry in the church of St. Asaph, in August 1670. On Aug. 14, 1671, he was made vicar of Abergeley, and on the same day, as is supposed, prebend of Vaynol in the church of St. Asaph, at which time he resigned his canonry. He afterwards exchanged Abergeley for the vicarage of Northop in Flintshire, where he settled and taught the free-school, until his health began to decay. He then returned, probably to try the effect of his native air, to Pant Mawr, where he died Feb. 16, 1691, and was buried there.

, a learned English writer in the seventeenth century, was son of Mr. George Lloyd, minister of Wonson or Wonsington near Winchester, and grandson of Mr. David Lloyd, vicar of Lockford near Stockbridge in Hampshire. He was born at Hoi ton in Flintshire in 1634, and educated at Wykeham’s school near Winchester, and admitted a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, from Hart-hall, October 20, 1653. He afterwards became a fellow of Wadham, and July 6, 16.58, took the degree of roaster of arts. In 1665, when Dr. Blandford, warden of that college, became bishop of Oxford, our author was appointed chaplain to him, being about that time rector of St. Martin’s church in Oxford, and continued with the bishop till he was translated to the see of Worcester in 1671. The year following, the rectory of St. Mary Newington, in Surrey, falling void, the bishop of Worcester presented Mr. Lloyd to it, who kept it to his death, which happened Nov. 27, 1680. He was interred in the chancel of the church there, leaving behind him the character of an harmless quiet man, and an excellent philologist. His “Dictionarium Historicum,” &c. although now obsolete, was once reckoned a valuable work. The first edition was published at Oxford in 1670, folio. The second edition was printed at London in 1686, folio, under the fMlowing title: “Dictionarium Historicum, geographicum, poeticum, gentium, hominum, deorum gentilium, regionum, insularum, locorum, civitatum, aequorum, fluviorum, sinuum, portuum, promontoriorum, ac montium, antiqua recentioraque, ad sacras & profanas historias, poetarumque fabulas intelligendas nccessaria, Nomina, quo decet erdine, complectens & illustrans. Opus admodum utile & apprime necessarium; a Carolo Stephano inchoatum; ad incudem vero revocatum, innumerisque pene locis auctum & emaculatum per NicolaumV.Lloydium, Collegii Wadhami in celeberrima Academia Oxoniensi Socium. Editio novissima.” He left several unpublished Mss. consisting principally of commentaries and translations. He had a younger brother, John, somewhat of a poet, who appears to have shared the friendship and esteem of Addison.

In 1762, he attempted to establish a periodical work, “The St. James’s Magazine,” which was to be the depository of his own efVusions, aided by the contributions of his friends. The latter, however, came in tardily; Churchill, from whom he had great expectations, contributed nothing, although such of his poems as he published during the sale of the magazine, were liberally praised. Thornton gave a very few prose essays, and poetical pieces were furnished by Denis and Emily, two versifiers of forgotten reputation. Lloyd himself had none of the steady industry which a periodical work requires, and his magazine was often made up, partly from books, and partly from the St. James’s Chronicle, of which Colman and Thornton were proprietors, and regular contributors. Lloyd also translated some of Marmontel’s tales for the Magazine, and part of a French play, in order to fix upon Murphy the charge of plagiarism. This magazine, after existing about a year, was dropped for want of encouragement, as far as Lloyd was concerned; but was continued for some time longer by Dr. Kenrick. Lloyd’s imprudence and necessities were now beyond relief or forbearance, and his eretlitors confined him within the Fleet prison, where he afforded a melancholy instance of the unstable friendship of wits. Dr. Kenrick informs us that “even Thornton, though his bosom friend from their infancy, refused to be his security for the liberty of the rules; a circumstance which, giving rise to some ill-natured altercation, induced this quondam friend to become an inveterate enemy, in the quality of his most inexorable creditor.” It was probably during his imprisonment, that he published a very indifferent translation of Klopstock’s “Death of Adam.” After that, his “Capricious Lovers,” a comic opera, was acted for a few nights at Drury-lane theatre. This is an adaptation of Favart’s Ninette a la Cour to the English stage, but Lloyd had no original powers in dramatic composition. Churchill and Wilkes are said to have afforded him a weekly stipend from the commencement of his imprisonment until his final release. How this was paid we knownot. Wilkes had been long out of the kingdom, and Churchill, who left Lloyd in a jail when he went to France, bequeathed him a ring only as a remembrance*. It is more probable that his father assisted him on this occasion, although it might not be in his power to pay his debts. He had in vain tried every means to reclaim him from idleness and intemperance, and had long borne “the drain or burthen” which he was to his family. The known abilities of this unhappy son, “rendered this blow the more grievous to so good a father,” who is characterized by bishop Newton as a man that “with all his troubles and disappointments, with all the sickness and distress in his family, still preserved his calm, placid countenance, his easy cheerful temper, and was at all times an agreeable friend and companion, in all events a true Christian philosopher.”

, a very learned English bishop, was originally of Welsh extraction, being grandson of David Lloyd of Henblas, in the isle of Anglesey. He was born at Tilehurst, in Berkshire, in 1627, of which place his father, Mr. Richard Lloyd, was then vicar, and also rector of Sunning, in the same county. Having been carefully instructed by his father in the rudiments of grammar and classical learning, he understood Greek and Latin, and something of Hebrew, at eleven years of age; and was entered, in 1638, a student of Oriel college, in Oxford, whence, the following year, he was elected to a scholarship of Jesus college. In 1642 he proceeded B. A. and left the university, then garrisoned for the use of the king; but, after the surrender of it to the parliament, he returned, was chosen fellow of his college, and commenced M. A. in 1646. In 1649 he was ordained deacon by Dr. Skinner, bishop of Oxford, and afterwards became tutor to the children of sir William Backhouse, of Swallowfield, in Berkshire. In 1654, upon the ejection of Dr. Pordage by the Presbyterian committee, he was presented to the rectory of Bradfield, in the same county, by Elias Ashmole, esq. patron of that living in right of his wife; but this right being disputed by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Ford, two ministers at Reading, who endeavoured to bring in Dr. Temple, pretending the advowson was in sir Humphrey Forster, he chose to resign his presentation to Mr. Ashmole, rather than involve himself in a contest. In 1656 he was ordained priest hy Dr. Brownrig, bishop of Exeter, and the same year went to Wadham college, in Oxford, as governor to John Backhouse, esq. a gentleman-commoner, with whom he continued till 1659. In Sept. 1660, he was incorporated M. A. at Cambridge; and, about the same time, made a prebendary of Rippon, in Yorkshire. In 1666 he was appointed king’s chaplain; and, in 1667, was collated to a prebend of Salisbury, having proceeded D. D. at Oxford in the act preceding. In 1668 he was presented by the crown to the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Reading; and, the same year, was installed archdeacon of Merioneth, in the church of Bangor, of which he was made dean in 1672. This year he obtained also a prebend in the church of St. Paul, London. In 1674 he became residentiary<of Salisbury; and, in 1676, he succeeded Dr. Lamplugh, promoted to the see of Exeter, in the vicarage of St. Martin’s in the Fields, Westminster; upon which occasion he resigned his prebend of St. Paul’s.

* Coleman at that time wrote to the those that require it, on conditions pope’s internuncio thus: “There is prejudicial to the authority of the pope, but one thing to be feared (whereof! and so to persecute the rest of them with have a great apprehension) that ran more appearance of justice, and ruin hinder the success of our designs; which the one half of them more easily than is, a division among the catholics them- the whole body at once.” And carselves; by propositions to the parlia- dinal Howard delivered it as their ment to accord their conjunction to judgment at Rome. ' Division of CaAll suspicion, however, of his principles vanished in James IPs reign, when the nation saw him one of the six prelates, who, with archbishop Sancroft, were committed to the Tower in June 1688, for resisting his majesty’s order to distribute and publish in all their churches the royal declaration for liberty of conscience; and about the end of the same year, having concurred heartily in therevolution, he was made lord almoner to king William III. In 1692 he was translated to the see of Litchfield and Coventry, and thence to Worcester in 1699. He continued in the office of lord almoner till 1702, when, together with his son, having too warmly interested himself in the election for the county of Worcester, a complaint was made to the House of Commons, and a resolution passed of addressing the queen “to remove William lord bishop of Worcester from being lord almoner to her majesty; and that Mr. Attorney General do prosecute Mr. Lloyd, the lord bishop of Worcester’s son, for his said offence, after his privilege as a member of the lower house of convocation is out.” In consequence of this vote, an address Was presented to the queen, with which her majesty complied, and dismissed the bishop from his office.

Bishop Lloyd lived to the age of ninety-one; but in the latter part of his life seems to have fallen into some imbecility of mind; as appears from the account given by Swift of the good old prelate’s going to queen Anne, “to prove to her majesty, out of Daniel, and the Revelations, that four years hence there would be a war of religion, that the king of France would be a protestant, and that the popedom should be destroyed.” He died at Hartlebury- castle, August 30, 1717, and was buried in the church of Fladbury, near Kvesham, in Worcestershire, of which his son was rector; where a monument is erected to his memory with a long inscription, setting him forth " as an excellent pattern of virtue and learning, of quick invention, firm memory, exquisite judgment, great candour, piety, and gravity; a faithful historian, accurate chronologer, and skilled in the holy scriptures to a miracle; very charitable, and diligent in a careful discharge of his episcopal

virulent satire upon him on this ucea- Commons. office.“Bishop Burnet speaks of our author with the greatest warmth of friendship, and in the highest style of panegyric. In reality he was indebted to Dr. Lloyd for a great part of his own fame, having undertaken his” History of the Reformation“by his persuasion, and being furnished by him with a large share of the materials; he likewise revised every sheet of the whole work during the printing. The world is likewise indebted to Lloyd for that stupendous work, Pool’s” Synopsis,“which was undertaken by his advice, as appears by a letter of that prelate addressed to Mr. Henry Dodwell, and communicated to Mr. Granger by his son, the late Dr. Dodwell, archdeacon of Berks. Bishop VVilkins, in his preface to” An Essay towards a real character and a philosophical language,“acknowledges himself obliged to” the continual assistance of his most learned and worthy friend Dr. William Lloyd,“and expresses the highest opinion of his” great industry, and accurate judgment in philological and philosophical matters." But no written authority seems to represent bishop Lloyd’s temper and character in a more amiable light than the interesting account of his conduct towards the dissenters of his diocese, as given in the life of the Rev. Philip Henry, to which, from its length, we must refer. It occurs in p. 118 of the edition 1712.

Besides the “Considerations,” &c. mentioned above, he wrote, 1. “The late Apology in behalf of Papists, reprinted and answered, in behalf of the Royalists,” 1667, 4to. 2. “A seasonable Discourse, shewing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Popery,” 1672, 4to, which passed through five editions in the following year. 3. “A reasonable Defence of the Seasonable Discourse,” &c. 1673, 4to, in answer to the earl of Castlemain’s observations on the preceding article. 4. “The difference between the Church and the Court of Rome considered,” 1673, 4to. All the preceding were published without the author’s name, nor were they at first acknowledged by, though generally attributed to him. They were reprinted in 1689, 4to. 5. “An Alarm for Sinners,” 1679, 4to. This was published by our author when dean of Bangor, from an original copy containing the confession, prayers, letters, and last words of Robert Foulks, vicar of Stanton-Lucy, in Shropshire, who was executed at Tyburn, in 1678, for the murder of a natural child; and whom Dr. Lloyd and Dr. Buraet attended during his imprisonment. 6. Various occasional Sermons, printed separately. 7. “An historical account of Church Government,” 1684, 8vo. 8. “A Letter to Dr. William Sherlock, in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, which gives an account of Jaddua the high priest’s submitting to Alexander the Great,” 1691, 4to. 9. “A Discourse of God’s ways of disposing Kingdoms,” 1691, 4to. 10. “The Pretences of the French Invasion examined,” &c. 1692, 4to. 11. “A Dissertation upon Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” the substance of which is inserted in the chronology of sir Isaac Newton. 12. An exposition of the same subject, left printed imperfect, and not published. 13. *‘ A Letter upon the same subject, printed in the ’ Life of Dr. Humphrey Prideaux,' p. 288, edit. 1758,“8vo. 14.” A System of Chronology,“left imperfect, but out of it his chaplain, Benjamin Marshall, composed his” Chronological Tables,“printed at Oxford, 1712, 1713. 15.” A Harmony of the Gospels,“partly printed in 4to, but left imperfect. 16.” A Chronological account of the Life of Pythagoras,“&c. 1699. 17. He is supposed to have had a hand in a book published by his son at Oxford, 1700, in folio, entitled” Series Chronologica Olympiadum,“&c. He wrote also some” Explications of some of the Prophecies in the Revelations,“and added the chronological dates at the head of the several columns, with an index to the Bible, and many of the references and parallel places, first printed in the fine edition of the Bible published in folio, under the direction of archbishop Tenison, in 1701. He left a Bible interlined with notes in short hand, which was in the possession of Mr. Marshall, his chaplain, who married a relation, and would have published these notes had he met with encouragement, as Whiston informs us, who always, even in his index, calls Dr. Lloyd” the great bishop,“and in speaking of Wasse says,” one more learned than any bishop in England since bishop Lloyd."

During his residence in Holland, he was accused at court of having written certain tracts against the government of his country, which were afterwards discovered to be the production of another person; and upon that suspicion he was deprived of his studentship of Christ-church. This part of Mr. Locke’s history requires some detail. The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica (Nicoll) says that “being observed to join in company with several English malcontents at the Hague, this conduct was communicated by our resident there to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state; who acquainting the king therewith, his majesty ordered the proper methods to be taken for expelling him from the college, and application to be made for that purpose to bishop Fell, the dean; in obedience to this command, the necessary information was given by his lordship, who at the same time wrote to our author, to appear and answer for himself on the first of January ensuing, but immediately receiving an express command to turn him out, was obliged to comply therewith, and, accordingly, Air. Locke was removed from his student’s place on the 15th of Nov. 1684.” This account, however, is not correct. All that lord Sunderland did, was to impart his majesty’s displeasure to the dean, and to request his opinion as to the proper method of removing Mr. Locke. The dean’s answer, dated Nov. 8, contains the following particulars of Mr. Locke, and of his own advice and proceedings against him. “I have,” says the dean, “for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has his guard been on himself, that after several strict inquiries, I may confidently affirm there is not any man inthe college, however familiar with him, who had heard him speak a word either against or so much as concerning the government; and although very frequently, both in public and private, discourses have been purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the earl of Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he never could be provoked to take any notice, or discover in word or look the least concern. So that I believe there is not a man in the world so much master of taciturnity and passion. He has here a physician’s place (he had taken the degree of B. M. in 1674) which frees him from the exercise of the college, and the obligations which others have to residence in it; and he is now abroad for want of health.”

Thus far we might suppose the dean had advanced enough in behalf of the innocence of Mr. Locke. What follows, however, will be read with regret, that so good a man as bishop Fell should have given such advice. “Notwithstanding this, I have summoned him to return home, which is done with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable to expulsion for contumacy; and if he does, he will be answerable to the law for that which he shall be found to have done amiss. It being probable that, though he may have been thus cautious here, where he knew himself suspected, he has laid himself more open at London, where a general liberty of speaking was used, and where the execrable designs against his majesty and government were managed and pursued. If he don't r^­turn by the first of January, which is the time limited to him, I shall be enabled of course to proceed against him to expulsion. But if this method seems not effectual or speedy enough, and his majesty, our founder and visitor, shall please to command his immediate remove, upon the receipt thereof, directed to the dean and chapter, it shall accordingly be executed.” In consequence of this, a warrant came down to the dean and chapter, dated Nov. 12, in these words: “Whereas we have received information of the factious and disloyal behaviour of Locke, one of the students of that our college; we have thought fit hereby to signify our will and pleasure to you, that you forthwith remove him from his student’s place, and deprive him of all rights and advantages thereunto belonging, for which this shall be your warrant,” &c. And thus, on the 16th following, one of the greatest men of his time was, expelled the college at the command of Charles II. without, as far as ia known, any form of trial or inquiry. After the death of Charles II. William Penn, the celebrated quaker, who had known Mr. Locke at the university, used his interest with king James to procure a pardon for him) an J would have obtained it, if Mr. Locke had not said, that he had no occasion for a pardon, since he had not been guilty of any crime.

Some time before this, Toland published his “Christianity not. mysterious,” in which he endeavoured to prove, that there is nothing in the Christian religion contrary to or above reason; and in explaining some of his notions, used several arguments drawn from Locke’s “Essay on Human Understanding.” Some Socinians,also about this time published several treatises, in which they affirmed, that there was nothing in the Christian religion but what was rational and intelligible; and Mr. Locke having asserted in his writings that revelation delivers nothing contrary to reason; all this induced Dr. Stillingfleet, the learned bishop of Worcester, to publish a treatise, in which he vindicated the doctrine of the Trinity against Toland and the Socinians, and likewise opposed some of Mr. Locke’s principles, as favourable to the above-mentioned writings. This produced a controversy, in the course of which our author endeavoured to show the perfect agreement of his principles with the Christian religion, and that he had advanced nothing which had the least tendency to scepticism, which the bishop had charged him with. But Stillingfleet dying some time after, the dispute ended, and ended as such disputes have frequently done, each party claiming the victory. On whichever side it lay, we may be permitted to add, that some of Mr. Locke’s biographers have spoken of Stillingfleet’s writings with unpardonable arrogance and contempt.

This edition contains, principally, the following treatises, to which we have here appended the years of their first publication 1. “Three Letters upon Toleration;” the first, printed at London in 168y, was in Latin. 2. “A Register of the Changes of the Air observed at Oxford,” inserted in Mr. Boyle’s “General History of the Air,” 1692, 8ro. 3. “New Method for a Common-place Book,” 1686. 4. “Essay concerning Human Understanding,” 1690, fol. 5. “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” &c. 1690, 8vo; again in 1694, and in 1698. A French translation at Amsterdam, and then at Geneva, in 1722. 6. “Some Considerations of the Consequences of lowering the Interest, and raising the Value, of Money,” 1691, 8vo, and again in 1695. 7. Some observations on a printed paper, entitled, “For coining silver Money in England,” &c. “Farther Observations concerning the raising the Value of Money,” &c. 9. “Some Thoughts concerning Education,” &c. 1693, 8vo, and again in 1694 and 1698; again after his death, with great additions; and in French, entitled, “De l'Education des Enfans,” Amster. 1695. 10. “The Reasonableness of Christianity,” &c. 1695, 8vo. 11. “Vindication of the Reasonableness,” &c. 1696, 8vo. 12. “A second Vindication,” &c. 1696, 8vo. 13. “A Letter to the Bishop of Worcester,” 1697, 8vo. 14. “Reply to the Bishop of Worcester,” &c. 1697, 4to. 15. “Reply, in answer to the Bishop’s second Letter,” 1698. 16. Posthumous Works of Mr. John Locke, viz. “Of the Conduct of the Understanding;” “An Examination of Malebranche’s Opinion,” &.c. “A Discourse of Miracles;” “Part of a fourth Letter for Toleration;” “Memoirs relating to the Life of Anthony first earl of Shaftesbury,” &c. &c. He deft behind him several Mss. from which his executors, sir Peter King aud Anthony Collins, esq. published, in 1705, his paraphrase and notes upon St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, which were soon followed by those upon the Corintbians, Romans, and Ephesians, with an essay prefixed, “For the understanding of St. Paul’s epistles, by consulting St. Paul himself.” In the following year the posthumous works of Mr. Locke were published, comprising a treatise “On the Conduct of the Understanding,” intended as a supplement to the “Essay:” “An Examination of Malebranche’s Opinion of seeing all Things in God.” In 1708, some familiar letters between Mr. Locke and several of his friends were published. All the works of this great man have been collected, and frequently reprinted in different sizes; in three vols. folio, in four vols. quarto, by bishop Law, and lately in nine vols. 8vo.

son of Stephen Locker, esq. or Lockier (for that was the family name in the reign of Charles II. as appears by the signature pf one of their ancestors to a lease in that reign), was of a gentleman’s family in Middlesex, where they possessed a considerable property, which, it is said, they lost, as many others did, by their loyalty. He was bred at MerchantTaylors’ school, whence he went to Merton-college, Oxford; after which he travelled abroad with his friend Mr. Twisleton, who was probably of the same college. He was entered at Gray’s Inn, where he studied the law in the same chambers formerly occupied by his admired lord Bacon; and having been called to the bar, was afterwards clerk of the companies of leather-sellers and clock-makers, and a commissioner of bankrupts. He married (the families being before related) miss Elizabeth Stillingfleet, who was remarkable for her many excellent qualities as well as personal charms. She was grand-daughter to the eminent bishop of Worcester by his lordship’s first wife, and sister to Benjamin Stillingfleet, esq. much distinguished by his ingenious writings and worthy character. By this lady, who died August 12, 1759, he had nine children. Mr. Locker is noticed by Dr. Johnson , in his Life of Addison, as eminent for curiosity and literature; as he is by Dr. Ward, in his Lives of the Gresham Professors, as a gentleman much esteemed for his knowledge of polite literature. He was remarkable for his skill in the Greek language; and attained the modern, which he could write very well, in a very extraordinary manner. Coming home late one evening, he was addressed in that language by a poor Greek, from the Archipelago, who had lost his way in the streets of London. Mr. Locker took him home, where he was maintained, for some time, by the kindness of himself and Dr. Mead; and, by this accidental circumstance, Mr. Locker acquired his knowledge of modern Greek. He almost adored lord Bacon; and had collected from original manuscripts and other papers, many curious things of his lordship’s not mentioned by others, which it was his intention to publish, but his death prevented it; however, this fell into such good hands, that the public are now in possession of them, as is mentioned in the last edition of lord Bacon’s works, by Dr. Birch and Mr. Mallet, 1765. Mr. Locker also wrote the preface to Voltaire’s Life of Charles XII. of Sweden, and translated the two first books; and Dr. Jebb the rest. He died, very much regretted, in May 1760, not quite a year after the loss of his amiable lady, which it was thought accelerated his own death. They both were buried in St. Helen’s church, Bishopsgate-street, London. Their son William, bred to the naval service, but a man of some literary talents, died lieutenant-governor of Greenwich-hospital, on December 26, 1800, at the age of seventy. Some particulars of him are to be found in our authority.

Besides his astronomical work,- he published in 1731, under the name of Dicaiophilus Cantabrigiensis, “The Rights of Churches and Colleges defended; in answer to a pamphlet called * An Enquiry into the customary estates and tenant-rights of those who hold lands of church and other foundations, by the term of three lives, &c. by Everard Fleetwood, esq.;' with remarks upon some other pieces on the same subject,” 8vo. The author of this pamphlet, to which our author replied, was not Fleetwood, which was an assumed name, but Samuel Burroughs, esq. a master in chancery. Dr. Long published also a “Commencement-Sermon, 1728;” and an answer to Dr. Gally’s pamphlet “On Greek Accents.” We shall subjoin a few traits of him, as delineated in 1769, by Mr. Jones: " He is now in the eighty-eighth year of his age, and, for his years, vegete and active. He was lately (in October) put in nomination for the office of vice-chancellor. He executed that trust before; I think in the year 1737. A very ingenious person, and sometimes very facetious. At the public commencement in the year 1713, Dr. Greene (master of Bene't college, and afterwards bishop of Ely) being then vice-chancellor, Mr. Long was pitched upon for the tripos-performance; it was witty and humourous, and has passed through divers editions. Some that remembered the delivery of it told me, that, in addressing ttye vice chancellor (whom the university-wags usually styled Miss Greene), the tripos-orator, being a native of Norfolk, and assuming the Norfolk dialect, instead of saying, Domine vice-cancellarie, did very archly pronounce the words thus, Domina vice-cancellaria; which occasioned a general smile in that great auditory. His friend the late Mr. Bonfoy of Ripton told me this little incident: `That he and Dr. Long walking together in Cambridge, in a dusky evening, and coming to a short post fixed in the pavement, which Mr. B. in the midst of chat and inattention, took to be a boy standing in his way, he said in a hurry, `Get out of my way, boy.‘ `That boy, sir,’ said the doctor very calmly and slily, `is a post-boy, who turns out of his way for nobody.'

After becoming a fellow of his college, he was in 1505 chosen principal of Magdalen-hall, which he resigned in 1507. In 1510 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in the following year. In 1514 he was promoted to be dean of Salisbury, and in 1519 had the additional preferment of a canonry of Windsor. At this time he was in such favour with Henry VIII. as to be appointed his confessor, and upon the death of Atwater, bishop of Lincoln, he was by papal provision advanced to this see in 1520, and was consecrated May 3, 1521. In the same year (1520) we find him at Oxford assisting in drawing up the privileges for the new statutes of the university. In 1523 he was at the same place as one of those whom. Wolsey consulted in the establishment of his new college; and when the foundation was laid on July 15, 1525, Longland preached a sermon, which, with two others on the same occasion, he dedicated to archbishop Warham. He was afterwards employed at Oxford by the king, to gain over the learned men of the university fo sanction his memorable divorce. It is said, indeed, that when Henry’s scruples, or, as we agree with the catholic historian, his pretended scruples, began to be started, bishop Longland was the first that suggested the measure of a divorce. The excuse made for him is, that he was himself over-persuaded to what was not consistent with his usual character by Wolsey, who thought that Longland’s authority would add great weight to the cause; and it is said that he expressed to his chancellor, Dr. Draycot, his sorrow for being concerned in that affair. In 1533 he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford, to which he proved in many respects a liberal benefactor, and to poor students a generous patron. The libraries of Brazenose, Magdalen, and Oriel colleges, he enriched with many valuable books; and in 1540 he recovered the salary of the lady Margaret professorship, which had almost been lost, owing to the abbey from which it issued being dissolved. It must not be disguised, however, that he was inflexible in his pursuit and persecution of what he termed heresy. In 1531, we find him giving a commission to the infamous Dr. London, warden of New college, and others, to search for certain heretical books commonly sold at St. Frideswyde’s fair near Oxford. He died May 7, 1547, at Wooburn in Bedfordshire, where his bowels were interred; while his heart was carried to Lincoln cathedral, and his body deposited in Eton-college chapel, where it is thought he once had some preferment. He built a curious chapel in Lincoln cathedral in the east part, in imitation of bishop Russel’s chapel, with a tomb, &c. He also gave the second bell at Wooburn church, and built almshouses at Henley, his birth-place.

, or Longolius, a very elegant scholar, was born in 1490, at Mechlin, although some have called him a Parisian, and Erasmus makes him a native of Schoohhoven in Holland. He was the natural son of Antony de Longueil, bishop of Leon, who being on some occasion in the Netherlands, had an intrigue with a female of Mechlin, of which this son was the issue. He remained with his mother until eight or aine years old; when he was brought to Paris for education, in the course of which he fur exceeded his fellowscholars, and was able at a very early age to read and understand the most difficult authors. He had also an extraordinary memory, although he did not trust entirely to it, but made extracts from whatever he read, and showed great discrimination in the selection of these. His taste led him chiefly to the study of the belles lettres, but his friends wished to direct his attention to the bar, and accordingly he went to Valence in Dauphiny, where he studied civil law under professor Philip Decius, for six years, and returning then to Paris, made so distinguished a figure at the bar, that in less than two years, he was appointed counsellor of the parliament of Paris, according to his biographer, cardinal Pole, but this has been questioned on account of its never having been customary to appoint persons so young to that office; Pole has likewise made another mistake, about which there can be less doubt, in asserting that the king of Spain, Philip, appointed Longueil his secretary of state, for Philip died in 1506, when our author was only sixteen years of age.

In the mean time, it is certain that his attachment to other studies soon diverted him from his law practice. He appears in particular to have considered Pliny as an author meriting his most assiduous application, and whose works would furnish him with employment for many years. With this view he not only studied Pliny’s “Natural History,” with the greatest care, as well as every author who had treated on the same subject, but determined also to travel in pursuit of farther information, as well as to inspect the productions of nature, wherever found. But before this it became necessary for him to learn Greek, with which he had hitherto been unacquainted, and he is said to have made such progress, as to be able, within a year, to read the best Greek authors, on whom he found employment for about five years. Besides selecting from these works whatever might serve to illustrate his favourite Pliny, he now determined to commence his travels, and accordingly went to England, Germany, and Italy, and would have travelled to the East had not the war with the Turks prevented him. In England, in which he appears to have been in 1518, he became very intimate with Pace and Linacre. He encountered many dangers, however, in his continental tour. As he was travelling, with two friends, through Switzerland, the natives of that country, who, after the battle of Marignan, regarded the French with horror, conceived that Longueil and his party were spies, and pursued them as far as the banks of the Rhone. One was killed, the other made his escape by swimming; but Longueil, being wounded in the arm, was taken prisoner, and treated with great severity for about a month, at the end of which he was released by the interposition of the bishop of Sion, who furnished him with money and a horse, to convey him to France. At Rome he was afterwards honoured with the rank of citizen, and received with kindness by Leo X. who had a great opinion of his talents and eloquence, made him his secretary, and employed him to write against Luther. He visited France once more after this, but the rec<*ption he met with in Italy determined him to settle there, at Padua, where he resided, first with Stephen Sauli, a noble Genoese, and on his departure, with Reginald Pole, afterwards the celebrated cardinal, to whom we are indebted for a life of Longueil. Here he died Sept. 11, 1522, in the thirty-third year of his age, and was interred in the church of the Franciscans, in the habit of that order, as he had desired. He was honoured with a Latin epitaph by Bembo, who was one of his principal friends, and recommended to him the writings of Cicero, as a model of style. Longueil became so captivated with Cicero, as to be justly censured by Erasmus on this account. Longueil, however, was not to be diverted by this, but declared himself so dissatisfied with what he ha4 written before he knew the beauties of Cicero’s style, *s to order all his Mss. written previous to that period, to be destroyed. We have, therefore, but little of Longueil left. Among the Mss. destroyed was probably his commentary on Pliny, which some think was published, but this is very doubtful. We can with more certainty attribute to him, 1. “Oratio de laudibus D. Ludovici Francorum regis, &c.” Paris, 1510, 4to. Some remarks on the court of Rome in this harangue occasioned its being omitted in the collection of his works, but Du Chesne printed it in the fifth volume of his collection of French historians. 2. “Christ. Longolii, civis Roman ae perduellionis rei defensiones duae,” Venice, 8vo. This is a vindication of himself against a charge preferred against him, when at Rome, that he had advanced sentiments dishonourable to the character of the Romans in the preceding oration. 3. “Ad Lutheranos jam damnatos Oratio,” Cologn, 1529, 8vo. It appears from his letters that he had been, requested both to write for and against Luther, that he was long in great perplexity on the subject, but that at length Leo X. prevailed with him to write the above. These last two pieces with his letters, &c. have been often reprinted, under the title of “Christ. Longolii Orationes, Epistolcc, et Vita, necnon Bembi et Sadoleti epistolse,” the first edition, at Paris, 1533, 8vo. There are many curious particulars of literary history and character scattered through this correspondence. The life prefixed is now known to have been written by Pole, who was his most intimate friend and admirer, and to whom he bequeathed his library.

, a learned and amiable clergyman, and some time Greek professor of the university of Cambridge, was descended from an ancient family in Pembrokeshire, and was the son of major Lort, of the Welsh fusileers, who was killed at the battle of Fontenoy, in 1745. He was born in 1725, and was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1743, from whence he removed into the family of Dr. Mead, to whom he was librarian until the death of that celebrated physician, in 1754; and while in that situation probably acquired the taste for literary history and curiosities which enabled him to accumulate a very valuable library, as well as to assist many of his contemporaries in their researches into biography and antiquities. In the mean time he kept his terms at college; and proceeded A. B. in 1746; was elected fellow of his college in 1749; and took his degree of M. A. in 1750. In 1755 he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and was many years a vice-president, until his resignation in 1788. During this time he made some communications to the “Archxologia,” vols. IV. and V. In 1759, on the resignation of Dr. Francklin, he was appointed Greek professor at Cambridge, and in 1761 he took the degree of B. D. and was appointed chaplain to Dr. Terrick, then bishop of Peterborough. In January 1771 he was collated by Dr. Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of St. Matthew, Friday-street, on which he resigned his Greek professorship; and in August 1779 he was appointed chaplain to the archbishop, and in the same year commenced D.D. In April 1780, the archbishop gave him a prebend of St. Pau Ps (his grace’s option) and he continued at Lambeth till 1783, when he married Susanna Norfolk, one of the two daughters of alderman Norfolk, of Cambridge. On the death of Dr. Ducarel, in 1785, he was appointed by archbishop Moore, librarian to the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth. He was also for some years librarian to the duke of Devonshire. In April 1789, he was presented by Dr. Porteus, bishop of London, to the sinecure rectory Jqf Fulham, in Middlesex; and in the same year was instituted to the rectory of Mile-end, near Colchester. He died Nov. 5, 1790, at his house in Savile-row; his death was occasioned by a fall from a chaise while riding near Colchester, which injured his kidnies, and was followed by a paralytic stroke. He was buried at his church in Friday-street, of which he had been rector nineteen years. A monumental tablet was put up to his memory, which also records the death of his widow, about fifteen months afterwards. They had no issue.

His pen was first employed, in 1716, in a kind of periodical work, called the “Occasional Papers,” which now form three volumes, 8vo, and in which he wrote, No. I. (vol. H.) “On Orthodoxy” and No. VI. “On the danger of the Chqrcb.” His colleagues in this paper were Mr. Simon Brown, Dr. Grosvenor, Dr. Evans, and others. The subjects are in general on points in controversy with the church. In 1718, he wrote a treatise against Collins, the title of which, says his biographer, is forgotten, but it is mentioned by the accurate Leland, as “The Argument from prophecy, in proof that Jesus is the Messiah, vindicated, in some considerations on the prophecies cf the Old Testament, as the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” It was not printed, however, until 1733. In 1735, he was one of the preachers at Salttr’s-H ill, against popery: the subject of his sermon, “The Principles of Popery schismatical.” He had published before this, two occasional sermons. Another of his pamphlets, entitled “An Argument to prove the Unity and Perfections of God d prioi'i,” uas more admired for its novelty and ingenuity than usefulness: but the works of Mr. Lowman on which his reputation is most securely founded, are, 1. “A Dissertation on the Civil Government of the Hebrews,” in answer to Morgan’s “Moral Philosopher.” This, whicU appeared in 1740, was esteemed a very judicious performance, and was highly approved of by bishop Sherlock and' other clergymen of the established church. The second edition, in 1745, has an appendix. 2. “A rationale of the Ritual of the Hebrew Worship: in which the design and usefulness of that ritual are explained and vindicated from objections/ 1 1748. 3.” A Paraphrase and Notes upon the Revelation of St. John,“4to, twice, and 8vo, lately. 4.” Three (posthumous) Tracts," on the Schechina, the Logos, &c.

, a distinguished divine, was the son of William Lowth, apothecary and citizen of London, and was born in the parish of St. Martin’s Ludgate, Sept.H, 1661. His grandfather Mr. Simon Lowth, rector of Tylehurst in Berks, took great care of his education, ad initiated him early in letters. He was afterwards sent to Merchant-Taylors’ school, where he made so great a progress that he was elected thence into St. John’s-college in Oxford in 1675, before he was fourteen. Here he regularly took the degrees of master of arts, and bachelor in divinity. His eminent worth and learning recommended him to Dr. Mew, bishop of Winchester, who made him his chaplain, and in 1696 conferred upon him a prebend in the cathedral-church of Winchester, and in 1699 presented him to the rectory of Buriton, with the chapel of Petersfield, Hants. His studies were strictly confined within his own province, and solely applied to the duties of his function; yet, that he might acquit himself the better, he acquired an uncommon share of critical learning. There is scarcely any ancient author, Greek or Latin, profane or ecclesiastical, especially the latter, whose works he had not read with accuracy, constantly accompanying his reading with critical and philological remarks. Of his collections in this way, he was, upon all occasions, very communicative. His valuable notes on “Clemens Alexandrinus” are to be met with in Potter’s edition of that father; and his remarks on “Josephus,” communicated to Hudson for his edition, are acknowledged in his preface; as also those larger and more numerous annotations on the “Ecclesiastical Historians,” inserted in Reading’s edition of them at Cambridge. The author also of the “BibJiotheca Biblica” was indebted to him for the same kind of assistance. Chandler, late bishop of Durham, while engaged in his defence of Christianity from the prophecies o the Old Testament, against Collins’s discourse of the “Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion,” and in his vindication of the “Defence,” in answer to “The Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered,” held a constant correspondence with him, and consulted him upon many difficulties that occurred in the course of that work. But the most valuable part of his character was that which least appeared in the eyes of the world, the private and retired part, that of the good Christian, and the useful parishpriest. His piety, his diligence, his hospitality, and beneficence, rendered his life highly exemplary, and greatly enforced his public exhortations. He married Margaret daughter of Robert Pitt, esq. of Blandford, by whom he had three daughters and two sons, one of whom was the learned subject of our next article. He died May 17, 1732, and was buried, by his own orders, in the church-yard at Buriton, near the South side of the chancel; and on the inside wall is a plain monument with an inscription.

He published, 1. “A Vindication of the Divine Authority, and Inspiration of the Old and New Testament, 1692,” 12mo. And a second edition with “amendments, and a new preface, wherein the antiquity of the Pentateuch is asserted, and vindicated from some late objections, 16iy.” 2. “Directions for the profitable reading of the Holy Scriptures; together with some observations for confirming their Diving Authority, and illustrating the difficulties thereof, 1708,” 12mo. This useful tract has gone through several editions. 3. “Two Sermons preached in the cathedral church of Winchester, at the assizes in 1714, entitled” Religion the distinguishing Character of Human Nature, on Job xxviii. 28,“and,” The Wisdom of acknowledging Divine Revelation, on Matt. xi. 10.“4.” A Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, 1714.“5.” On Jeremiah, 1718.“6.” On Ezekiel, 1723.“7.” On Daniel and the Minor Prophets, 1726.“These, originally published in 4to, were afterwards republished together, with additions, in one vol. folio, as a continuation of bishop Patrick’s” Commentary on the other parts of the Old Testament, in which form it has had several editions. 8. “The Characters of an Apostolical Church fulfilled in the Church of England, and our obligations to continue in the Communion of it.” 9. “A Sermon preached in the Church of PetersfieM, in the county of Southampton, 1752.” This drew him unwillingly into some controversy with John Norman, a dissenter, of Portsmouth; but he soon dropped it, thinking him an unfair adversary, for his more useful studies and duties.

In 1746, Mr. Lowth published “An Ode to the people of Great Britain, in imitation of the sixth ode of the third book of Horace;” a spirited performance, severely reproving the vices of the times. This was afterwards inserted in Dodsley Collection, vol. III. and was followed by his “Judgment of Hercules,” in his friend Mr. Spence’s “Poly metis .” His first preferment in the church was to the rectory of Ovington, in Hampshire, which he received from bishop Hoadly. In 1748, he accompanied Mr: Legge, afterwards chancellor of the Exchequer, to Berlin, who went to that court in a public character; and with whom, from his earliest years, Mr. Lowth lived on terms of the mosc intimate and uninterrupted friendship. In tha following year he became acquainted with the duke of Devonshire, in consequence of his attending his brothers lord George and lord Frederic Cavendish, on their travels, and especially at Turin, which place was their principal residence during th*. ir absence from this country. The duke was so amply satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Lowth, as the travelling tutor of his brothers, that he afterwards proved his steady friend and patron. In 1750, bishop Hoadly conferred on him the archdeaconry of Winchester, and in 1753, the rectory of East Wooclhay, in Hampshire.

ID this last mentioned year he published his Poetrylectures, under the title of “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones academicc,” 4to, of which he gave the public an enlarged edition in 1763, 2 vols. 8vo. The second volume consists of additions made by the celebrated Michaelis. To this work, as we have already noticed, the duties of his professoiship gave occasion; and the choice of his subject, which lay out of the beaten paths ol criticism, and which was highly interesting, not only in a literary, but a religious view, afforded ample scope for the poetical, critical, and theological talents of the author. In these prelections, the true spirit and distinguishing character of the poetry of the Old Testament are more thoroughly entered into, and developed more perfectly, than ever had been done before Select parts of this poetry are expressed in Latin composition with the greatest elegance and force; the general criticism which pervades the whole work is such as might be expected from a writer of acknowledged poetical genius and literary judgment; and the particular criticism applied to those passages of the original Hebrew, which he has occasion to introduce, in order either to express the sense, or correct the words of k, is a pattern for that kind of sacred literature: nor are the theological subjects which occur in the course of the work, and are necessarily connected with it, treated with less ability. To the “Prelections” is subjoined a “Short Confutation of bishop Hare’s system of Hebrew Metre,” in which he shows it to be founded on laUe reasoning, on apetitio princigiiy that would equally prove a different and contrary system true This produced the fir>t and most creditable controversy in which Mr Lowth was engaged. The Harian metre was defended by Dr. Thomas Edwards, of Cambridge, (see his life,) who published a Latin letter to Mr. Lowth, to which the latter replied in a “Larger Confutation,” addressed to Dr. Edwards in 1766. This “Larger Confutation,” which from the subject may be supposed dry and uninteresting to the majority of readers, is yet, as a piece of reasoning, extremely curious; for" there never was a fallacy more accurately investigated, or a system more complete!) refuted, than that of bisnop Hare.

In July 1754-, probably as a reward for the distinguished ability displayed in his “Praelectiones,” he received the degree of D. D. conferred by the university in the most honourable manner in their power, by diploma; and in 1755 he went t > Irela d as first chaplain to Uie marquis of Harrington (afterwards duke of Devonshire, and then) lord lieutenant. In consequence of this appointment he had the offer of the bishopric of Limeric, but this * he exchanged with Dr Lesl.e, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Sedgefiild, near that place, for these preferments, which were accordingly given to him by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who was not a little pleased to rank among his clergy a gentleman of such rare accomplishments.

In 1758 he published that admirable specimen of recondite biography, his “Life of William of Wykeham,” 8vo, founder of Winchester and New colleges. It is collected from authentic evidences, and affords the most certain information of the manners of the times, and of many of the public transactions in which Wykeham was concerned, with such an account of the origin and foundation of his college, as was scarcely to be supposed recoverable at so remote a period. This work has gone through three editions. In the dedication to bishop Hoadly, Dr. Lowth gives the sanction of his approbation to a decision which Hoadly, as visitor, had recently made respecting the wardenship of Winchester college. This produced a sarcastic address to him, which he replied to in a pamphlet entitled “An Answer to an anonymous Letter to Dr. Lowth concerning the late Election of a Warden of Winchester college.” This was written in his usual masterly manner.

In 1765 Dr. Lowih was elected a fellow of the royal societies of London and Gottingen; and in the same year was involved in a controversy with bishop Warburton. On this subject we shall be brief, but we cannot altogether agree with former biographers of Lowth and Warburton, in considering them as equally blameable, and that the contest reflected equal disgrace on both. In all contests the provoking party has more to answer for than the provoked. We lament that it was possible for Warburton to discover in the amiable mind of Lowth that irritability which has in some measure tainted the controversy on the part of the latter and we lament that Lowth was not superior to the coarse attack of his antagonist; but all must allow that the attack was coarse, insolently contemptuous, and almost intolerable to any man who valued his own character. Lowth bad advanced in his Prelections an opinion respecting the Book of Job, which Warburton considered as aimed at his own peculiar opinions. This produced a private correspondence between them in 1756, and after some explanations the parties seem to have retired well satisfied with each other. This, however, was not the case with Warburton, who at the end of the last volume of a new edition of his “Divine Legation,” added “An appendix concerning the Book of Job,” in which he treated Dr. Lowth with every expression of sneer and contempt, and in language most grossly illiberal and insolent. This provocation must account for the memorable letter Dr. Lowth published entitled “A Letter to the right rev. author of the Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated, in answer to the Appendix to the fifth volume of that work; with an appendix, containing a former literary correspondence. By a laic professor in the university of Oxford,” 8vo. Few pamphlets of the controversial kind were ever written with more ability, or more deeply interested the public than this. What we regret is the strong tendency to personal satire; but the public at the time found an apology even for that in the overbearing character of Warburton, and the contemptuous manner in which he, and his under-writers, as Hard and others were called, chose to treat a man in all respects their equal at least. It was, therefore, we think, with great justice, that one of the monthly critics introduced an account of this memorable letter, by observing, that “when a person of gentle and amiable manners, of unblemished character, and eminent abilities, is calumniated and treated in the most injurious manner by a haughty and over-bearing colossus, it must give pleasure to every generous mind to see a person vindicating himself with manly freedom, resenting the insult with proper spirit, attacking the imperious aggressor in his turn, and taking ample vengeance for the injury done him. Such is the pleasure which every impartial reader, every true republican in literature, will receive from the publication of the letter now before us.” 1

This was followed by “Remarks on Dr. Lowth’s Letter to the bishop of Gloucester,” anonymous, but now known to have been written by Mr. Towne, archdeacon of Stow in Lincolnshire; to which is annexed “The second epistolary Correspondence” between Warburton and Lowth, in which Warburton accuses Lowth of a breach of confidence in publishing the former correspondence. A more petty controversy arose from Dr. Lowth’s letter, between him and Dr. Brown, author of “Essays on the Characteristics,” who fancied that Lowth had glanced at him as one of the servile admirers of Warburton. He therefore addressed “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Lowth,” which was answered in “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Brown,” written in a polite and dispassionate manner. It was followed by two anonymous addresses to Dr. Brown, censuring him for having introduced himself and his writings into a dispute which had nothing to do with either f.

ings he lashed his antagonists without the bishop; and whatsoever might be

opposition, and the zeal of opposition Lowth; ampng these was Richard CumIn June 17 66 Dr. Lowth was promote* to the see of St. David’s, and about four mouths after was translated to that of Oxford. In this high office he remained till 1777, when he succeeded Dr. Terrick in the see of London. In 1778 he published the last of his literary labours, entitled “Isaiah: a new Translation, with a preliminary dissertation, and notes, critical, philological, and explanatory,” His design in this work was not only to give an exact and faithful representation of the words and sense of the prophet, by adhering closely to the letter of the text, and treading as nearly as may be in his footsteps; but to imitate the air and manner of the author, to express the form and fashion of the composition, and to give the English reader some notion of the peculiar turn and cast of the original. For this he was eminently qualified, by his critical knowledge of the original language, by his understanding more perfectly than any other writer of his time the character and spirit of its poetry, and by his general erudition, both literary and theological. In the preliminary dissertation the form and construction of the poetical compositions of the Old Testament are examined more particularly, and at large, than even in the “Prelections” themselves; and such principles of criticism are established as must be the foundation of all improved translations of the different, and especially of the poetical books of the Old Testament. In this instance the translation of the evangelical prophet, who is almost always sublime or elegant, yet often obscure notwithstanding all the aids of criticism, was executed in a manner adequate to the superior qualifications of the learned prelate who undertook it; and marked out the way for other attempts of a like kind, at a time when the hopes of an improved version was cherished by many, and when sacred criticism was cultivated with ardour. In our account of Michael Dodson we have mentioned an attempt to censure some part of this admired translation, which was ably repelled by the bishop’s relative, Dr. Sturges.

His second daughter, Frances, died as she was presiding at the tea-table, in July 1783; she was going to place a cup of coffee on the salver. “Take this,” said she, “to the bishop of Bristol;” immediately the cup and her hand fell together upon the salver, and she instantly expired. His eldest son also, of whom he was led to form the highest expectations, was hurried to the grave in the bloom of youth. Amid these scenes of distress, the venerable bishop, animated by the hopes which the religion of Jesus alone inspires, viewed, with pious resignation, the king of terrors snatching his dear and amiable children from his fond embrace, and at length met the stroke with fortitude, and left this world in full and certain hope of a better. He died Nov. 3, 1787, aged seventy-seven, and was buried at Fulham.

Several occasional discourses, which the bishop was by his station at different times called upon to deliver, were of course published, and are all worthy of his pen. That “On the Kingdom of God,” preached at a visitation at Durham, was most admired for liberality of sentiment, and went through several editions. Some of his poetical effusions have been already mentioned, and others appear in podsley’s and Nichols’s Collections, the Gentleman’s Magazine, &c. With such various abilities, equally applicable either to elegant literature or professional studies, bishop Lowth possessed a mind that felt its own strength, and decided on whatever came before it with promptitude and firmness a mind fitted fur the high station in which he was placed. He had a temper, which, in private and domestic life, endeared him in the greatest degree to those who were most nearly connected with him, and towards others produced an habitual complacency and agreeableness of manners; but which, as we have seen, was susceptible of considerable warmth, when it was roused by unjust provocation or improper conduct.

, an English clergyman, was born iir Northamptonshire about 1630, and is supposed to have been the son of Simon Lowth, a native of Thurcaston in Leicestershire, who was rector of Dingley in that county in 1631, and was afterwards ejected by the usurping powers. This, his son, was educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where be took his master’s degree in 1660. He was afterwards rector of St. Michael Harbledown in 1670, and vicar of St. Co.Miius and Damian on the Blean in 1679, both in, Kent. On Nov. 12, 1688, king James nominated him, and he was instituted by bishop Sprat, to the deanery of Rochester, on the death of Dr. Castillon, but never obtained possession, owing to the following circumstances. The mandate of installation bad issued in course, the bishop not having allowed himself time to examine whether the king’s presentee was legally qualified; which happened not to be the case, Mr. Lowth being only a master of arts, and the statute requiring that the dean should be at least a bachelor of divinity. The bishop in a day or two discovering that he had been too precipitate, dispatched letters to the chapter clerk, and one of the prebendaries, earnestly soliciting that Mr. Lowth might not be installed; and afterwards in form revoked the institution till he should have taken the proper degree. On Nov. 27 Mr. Lowth attended the chapter, and produced his instruments, but the prebendaries present refused to obey them. He was admitted to the degree of D.D.Jan. 18 following, and on March 19 again claimed instalment, but did not obtain possession, for which, in August of this year, another reason appeared, viz. his refusing to take the oaths of allegiance; in consequence of which he was first suspended from his function, and afterwards deprived of both his livings in Kent. He lived very long after this, probably in London, as his death is recorded to have happened there on July 3, 1720, when he was buried in the new cemetery belonging to the parish of St. George the Martyr, Queen Square. He published, 1. “Letters between Dr. Gilbert Burnet and Mr. Simon. Lowth,” 1684, 4to, respecting some opinions of the former in his “History of the Reformation.” 2. “The subject of Church Power, in whom it resides,” &c. 1685, 8vo. 3. “A Letter to Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. in answer to the Dedicatory Epistle before, his ordination-sermon, preached at St. Peter’s Cornhill, March 15, 1684, with reflections. on some of Dr. Burnet’s letters on the same subject,” 1687, 4to, and 8vo. This was answered by Dr. Stillingfleet in a short letter to the bishop of London, “an honour,” bishop Nicolson says, “which he (Lowth) had no right to expect;” Lowth had submitted this letter both to Stillingfleet and Tillotson, who was then dean of Canterbury, but, according to Birch, “the latter did not think proper to take the least public notice of so confused and unintelligible a writer.” Dr. Hickes, however, a suffering nonjuror like himself, calls Lowfeh “a very orthodox and learned divine,” and his book an excellent one. His only other publication, was “Historical Collections concerning Deposing of Bishops,” 1696, 4to. From the sameness of name we should suppose him related to the subjects of the two preceding articles, but have not discovered any authority for more, than a conjecture on the subject.

Having embarked at Barcelona, in order to go to Jerusalem, he arrived at Cajeta in five days; but, as he would not proceed in his enterprise till he had received the pope’s benediction, he went to Rome on Palm-Sunday, in 153; and after paying his respects to Hadrian VI. departed foe Venice. He embarked there on the 14th of July, 1523, arrived at Joppa the last of August, and at Jerusalem the 4th of September. Having gratified his devout curiosity in that country, he returned to Venice, where he embarked for Genoa; and from thence came to Barcelona, where he stopped, as at the most convenient place with respect to the design he had of studying the Latin tongue. The miraculous adventures, the e^tatic visions, which he bad during this voyage, were innumerable; and it would be endless to transcribe, from his historians, on these occasions. Bishop Stillingfleet has drawn a good proof from them, that the institution of the Jesuits, as well as other monks, is founded originally in fanaticism. Loyola began to learn the rudiments of grammar in 1524, and soon came to read the “Enchiridion militis Christiani” of Erasmus; a work of great purity of style and morals; but Loyola soon laid it aside, and applied himself to the stiuly of. Thomas a Kempis. It was, he thought, like so much ice, which abated the fervour of his devotion, and cooled the fire of divine love in him; for which reason he took an aversion to it, and would never read the writings of Erasmus, nor even suffer his disciples to read them.

, bishop of Cagliari, the metropolis of Sardinia, is known in ecclesiastical history as the author of a schism, the occasion of which was, that Lucifer would not allow the decree made in the council of Alexandria, A. D. 362, for receiving the apostate Arian bishops. This he opposed so resolutely, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from the communion of the rest, and to form a new schism, which bore his name, and -soon gained a considerable footing, especially in the West; several persons no less distinguished for piety than learning, and among the rest Gregory, the famous bishop of Elvira, having adopted his rigid sentiments. As Lucifer is honoured by the church of Rome as a saint, where his festival is kept on the 20th of May, Baronius pretends that he abandoned his schism, and returned to the communion of the church, before his death. But his contemporary, Ruffinus, who probably knew him, assures us, that he died in the schism which he had formed, A D. 370. His works are written in a harsh and barbarous style. According to Lardner, they consist very much of passages of the Old and New Testament, cited one after another, which he quotes with marks of the greatest respect. He farther adds, that the works of this prelate have not yet been published with all the advantage that might be wished. The titles of these works are, “Ad Constantinum Imperatorem, lib. ii.” “De Regibus Apostaticis” “De non conveniendo cum Hereticis” “De non parcendo Delinquentibus in Deum” “Quod moriendurn sit pro Filio Dei” and “Epistola brevis ad Florentium.” They were collected together, and published at Paris by John Till, bishop of Meaux, in 1568, and at Venice about 1780, in fol. with additions.

The deplorable state of Christianity, in the countries through which he travelled, undoubtedly moved him to undertake after his return the impression of the New Testament in vulgar Greek, with the ancient Greek in tbie opposite column, and to make a charitable present of it to the Greek church. He printed it from a copy in two volumes which had been published several years before in Holland. These two volumes were by the industry of Ludolph, and the generous contributions of the bishop of Worcester, and their friends, printed in one volume, 12mo, in London; and afterwards distributed among the Greeks by Ludolph, by means of his friendship and correspondence with some of the best-disposed among them. He often expressed his wishes, that the Protestant powers in Europe would settle a sort of college at Jerusalem; and in some degree imitate the great zeal of the papists, who spare neither cost nor pains to propagate their religion everywhere. He wished also, that such men as were designed for that college, might be acquainted with the vulgar Greek, Arabic, and Turkish languages, and might by universal love and charity be qualified to propagate genuine Christianity: “for many,” says he, “propagate their own particular systems, and take this to be the gospel of Christ.”

, a learned Roman catholic writer, was born at Ypres, June 12, 1612, and at the early age of fifteen, joined the society of the hermits f St. Augustine. Having afterwards studied at Cologne, he was sent to Louvain to teach philosophy; in which he acquired such celebrity, as to secure the particular esteem of the learned Fabio Chigi, then the papal nuncio in Germany, afterwards pope Alexander VII. In 1655, Lupus was one of the deputies sent to Rome by the university of Louvain, on some matters of importance with the papal court; and on his return was appointed professor of divinity At Louvain. Pope Clement IX. would willingly have made him a bishop; and from Innocent XL and the grand duke of Tuscany, he received repeated marks of esteem: latter was desirotts of settling upon him a considerable pension, that he might attach him to his court. He died July 10, 16-81, at the age of seventy. Of his numerous works the principal are, “Commentaries on the History and Canons of the Councils,” 1665, and 1673, 5 vols. 4to; a “Treatise on Appeals to the Holy See,” according to the Ultramontane opinions, 4to a “Treatise on Contrition,” 12mo; a collection of “Letters and Memorials respecting the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,” 2 vols. 4to; a great number of “Dissertations” on various subjects; a “Commentary on Tertullian’s Prescriptions;” “The Life and Letters of St. Thomas of Canterbury,” &c. All the above were republished at Venice in 12 volumes, folio, the first of which appeared in 1724.

Luther’s propositions concerning indulgences were no sooner published, than Tetzel, the Dominican friar and commissioner for selling them, maintained and published at Franc fort, a thesis containing a set of propositions directly contrary to them. He also stirred up the clergy of his order against Luther; anathematized him from the pulpit as a most damnable heretic; and burnt his thesis publicly at Francfort. Eight hundred copies of Tetzel’s thesis were also burnt in return by some persons at Wittemberg; but Luther himself disowned having had any hand in that procedure, and in a letter to Jodocus, a professor at Isenac, who had formerly been his master, asked him “If he thought Luther ao void of common sense as to do a thing of that kind in a place where he had not any jurisdiction, and against a divine of so great authority as Tetzel?” Luther, indeed, although he perceived that his propositions were very well liked, and entertained as perfectly sound and orthodox, yet behaved himself at first with great calmness and submission. He proposed them to be discussed only in the way of disputation, till the church should determine what was to be thought of indulgences. He wrote to Jerom of Brandenburg, under whose jurisdiction he was, and submitted what he had written to that bishop’s judgment. He entreated him either to scratch out with his pen, or commit to the flames, whatever should teem to him unsound; to which, however, the bishop replied, that he only begged him to defer the publication of his propositions; and added, that be wished no discourse had been started about indulgences. Luther complied with the bishop’s request; and declared that “it gave him more pleasure to be obedient, than it would to work miracles, if he was ever so able.” And so much justice must be done to Luther, even by those who are not of his party, as to acknowledge that he was willing to be silent, and to say nothing more of indulgences, provided the same conditions might be imposed upon his adversaries.

The emperor Maximilian was equally solicitous with the pope, about putting a stop to the propagation of Luther’s opinions in Saxony; since the great number of his followers, and the resolution with which he defended them, made it evident beyond dispute that if he were not immediately checked he would become troublesome both to the church and empire. Maximilian therefore applied to Leo in a letter dated Aug. 5, 1518, and begged him to forbid by his authority, these useless, rash, and dangerous disputes; assuring him also that he would strictly execute in the empire whatever his holiness should enjoin. The pope on his part ordered Jerom de Genutiis, bishop of Ascula, or Ascoli, auditor of the apostolic chamber, to cite Luther to appear at Rome within sijcty days, that he might give an account of his doctrine to the auditor and master of the palace, to whom he had committed the judgment of the cause. He wrote at the same time to Frederick the elector of Saxony, to pray him not to protect Luther and let him know that he had cited him, and had given cardinal Cajetan, his legate in Germany, the necessary instructions upon that occasion. He exhorts the elector to put Luther into the hands of this legate, that he might be carried to Rome; assuring him that, if he were innocent, he would send him back absolved, and if he were guilty, would pardon him upon his repentance. This letter to Frederic was dated Aug. 23, 1518, and it was by no means unnecessary; for though Luther had nothing to trust to at first but his own personal qualities, his parts, his learning, and his courage, yet he was afterwards countenanced and supported by this elector, a prince of great personal worth. At the same time also the pope sent a brief to cardinal Cajetan, in which he ordered him to bring Luther before him as soon as possible; and to hinder the princes from being any impediment to the execution of this order, he denounced the punishments of excommunication, interdiction, and privation of goods against all who should receive Luther, and give him protection; and promised a plenary indulgence to those who should assist in delivering him up.

This same year 1519, Luther’s books concerning indulgences were formally censured by the divines of Louvain and Cologne. The former having consulted with the cardinal of Tortosa, afterwards Adrian VI. passed their censure on the 7th of November; and the censure of the lakter, which was made at the request of the divines of Louvain, was dated on the 30th of August. Luther wrote immediately against these censures, and declared that be valued them not: that several great and good men, such as Occam, Picus Mirandula, Laurentius Valla, and others, had been condemned in the same unjust manner; nay, he would venture to add to the list, Jerom of Prague and John Huss. He charged those universities with rashness, in being the first that declared against him; and accused them of want of proper respect and deference to the holy see, in condemning a book presented to the pope, on which judgment had not yet been passed. About the end of this year, Luther published a book, in which be contended for the communion being celebrated in both kinds. This was condemned by the bishop of Misnia, Jan. 24, 1520. Lnther, seeing himself so beset with adversaries’, wrote a letter to the new emperor, Charles V. of Spain, who was not yet come into Germany, and another to the elector of Mentz; in both which he humhly implores protection, till he should be able to give an account of himself and his opinions; adding, that he did not desire to be defended, if he were convicted of impiety or heresy, but only that he might not be condemned without a hearing. The former of these letters is dated Jan. 15, 1520; the latter, Feb. 4. The elector Frederic fell about this time into a dangerous illness, which threw the whole party into great consternation, and occasioned some apprehensions at Wittemberg: but of this he happily recovered.

Weary at length of his retirement, he appeared publicly again at Wittemberg, March 6, 1522, after he had been absent about ten months. He appeared indeed without the elector’s leave, but immediately wrote him a letter, to prevent his being offended. The diet of Charles V. severe as it was, had given little or no check to Luther’s doctrine; for the emperor was no sooner gone into Flanders, than his edict was neglected and despised, and the doctrine seemed to spread even faster than before. Carolostadius, in Luther’s absence, had acted with even more vigour than his leader, and had attempted to abolish the use of mass, to remove images out of the churches, to set aside auricular confession, invocation of saints, the abstaining from meats; had allowed the monks to leave their monasteries, to neglect their vows and to marry, and thus had quite changed the doctrine and discipline of the church at Wittemberg: all which, though not against Luther’s sentiments, was yet blamed by him, as being rashly and nnseasonably done. The reformation was still confined to Germany; it had not extended to France; and Henry V11I. of England made the most rigorous acts to prevent its entering his realm; and to shew his zeal for the holy see, wrote a treatise “Of the seven Sacraments,” against Luther’s book “Of the captivity of Babylon;” winch he presented to Leo X. in Oct. 1521. The pope received it favourably, and complimented Henry with the title of “Defender of the Faith.” Luther, however, paid no regard to his dignity, but treated both his person and performance in the most contemptuous manner. Henry complained of this rude usage to the princes of Saxony; and Fisher, bishop of Rochester, replied, in hehall' of Henry’s treatise: but neither the king’s complaint, nor the bishop’s reply, were attended with any visible effects.

In the beginning of 1524, Clement VII. sent a legate into Germany to the diet which was to be held at Nuremberg. This pope had succeeded Adrian, who died in Oct. 1523, and had, a little before his death, canonized Benno, who Was bishop of Meissen in the time of Gregory VII. and one of the most zealous defenders of the holy se. Luther, imagining that this was done directly to oppose him, drew up a piece with this title, “Against the new Idol and Devil set up at Meissen;” in which he treats the memory of Gregory with great freedom, and does not spare even Adrian. Clement VII.'s legate, therefore, represented to the diet at Nuremberg the necessity of enforcing the execution of the edict of Worms, which had been strangely neglected by the princes of the empire; but, notwithstanding the legate’s solicitations, which were very pressing, the decrees of that diet were thought so ineffectual, that they were condemned at Rome, and rejected by the emperor. It was in this year that the dispute between Luther and Erasmus began about free-will. Erasmus had been much courted by the papists to write against Luther; but had hitherto avoided the task, by saying, “that Luther was too great a man for him to write against, and that he had learned more from one short page of Luther, than from all the large books of Thomas Aquinas.” Besides, Erasmus was all along of opinion, that writing would not be found an effectual way to end the differences, and establish the peace of the church. Tired out, however, at length with the importunities of the pope and the catholic princes, and desirous at the same time to clear himself from the suspicion of favouring a cause which he would not seem to favour, he resolved to write against Luther, though, as he tells Melancthon, it was with some reluctance; and he chose free-will for the subject. His book was entitled “A diatriba, or Conference about Free-will,” and was wriuen with much moderation, and without personal reflections. He tells Luther in the preface, “that he ought not to take his differing from him in opinion ill, because he had allowed himself the liberty of differing from the judgment of popes, councils, universities and doctors of the church.” Luther was some time before he answered Erasmus’s book, but at last published a treatise “De servo arbitrio, or, Of the Servitude of Man’s Will;” and though Melancthon had promised Krasmus, that Luther should answer him with civility and moderation, yet Luther had so little regard to Melancthon’s promise, that he never wrote any thing more severe. He accused Erasmus of being carelrsn about religion, and little solicitous what became of it, provided the world continued in peace; and that his notions were rather philosophical than Christian. Erasmus immediately replied to Luther,- in a piece called “Hyperaspistes”. in the first part of which he answers his arguments, and in the second his personal reflections.

This year the court of Rome, finding it impossible to deal with the protestants by force, began to have recourse to stratagem. They affected therefore to think, that though Luther had indeed carried things to a violent extreme, yet what he had pleaded in defence of these measures was not entirely without foundation. They talked with a seeming shew of moderation; and Pius 111. who succeeded Clement VII. proposed a reformation first among themselves, and even went so far as to fix a place for a council to meet at for that purpose. But Luther treated this farce as it deserved to be treated; unmasked and detected it immediately; and, to ridicule it the more strongly, caused a picture to be drawn, in which was represented the pope seated on high upon a throne, some cardinals about him with fox’s tails, and seeming to evacuate upwards and downwards, “sursum deorsum repurgare,” as Melchior Adam expresses it. This was fixed against the title-page, to let the readers see at once the scope and design of the book which was, to expose that cunning and artifice with which those subtle politicians affected to cleanse and purify themselves from their errors and superstitions. Luther published about the same time “A Confutation of the pretended grant of Constanline to Sylvester bishop of Rome,” and also “Some letters of John Huss,” written from his prison at Constance to the Bohemians.

, an Italian artist, was born at Florence, in 1666. He was the disciple of Dominico Gabbiani, and at twenty-four his merit was judged equal to that of his master. He afterwards studied at Rome, under the patronage of the grand duke, and hoped to have profited by the instructions of Giro Ferri; but on his arrival he had to regret the death of that master. He now, however, pursued his studies with such success, that his works became much valued in England, France, and Germany. The emperor knighted him, and the elector of Mentz sent with his patent of knighthood, a cross set with diamonds Lutti was never satisfied with his own performances, and though he often retouched his pictures, yet they never appeared laboured; he always changed for the better, and his last thought was the best. There were three much-admired public works of his at Rome, viz. a Magdalene in the church of St. Catharine of Siena, at Monte Magna Napoli; the prophet Isaiah, in an oval, St. John de Lateran; and St. Anthony of Padua, in the church of the Holy Apostles; and at the palace Albani was a miracle of St. Pio, which some reckon his master-piece. Fuseli speaks of his “Cain, flying from his murdered brother,” he says has something of the sublimity and the pati it strike in the Pietro Martyre of Titian and his “Psyche” in the gallery of the capitol, breathes refinement of taste and elegance. His death is said to have been hastened by a fit of chagrin, owing to his not having been able to finish a picture of St. Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, designed for Turin, for which he had received a large earnest, and promised to get it ready at a set time. But several disputes happening between him and those who bespoke the picture, brought on a fit of sickness, of which he died at Rome, in 1724, aged fifty-eight, and the picture was afterwards finished by Pietro Bianchi, one of his disciples. Lutti is blamed for not having placed his figures advantageously, but in such a manner as to throw a part of the arms and legs out of the cloth. This fault he possesses in common with Paul Veronese and Rubens, who, to give more dignity and grandeur to the subject they treated, have introduced into the fore-ground of their pictures, groups of persons on horseback, tops of heads, and arms and legs, of which no other part of the body appears.

Having now qualified himself completely for a work of that nature, he undertook the arduous task of publishing the “Etymologicum Anglicanum” of Francis Junius, from the manuscript of the author in the Bodleian Library. To this undertaking he was led, as he tells us in his preface, by the commendations which Hickes and other learned antiquaries had given to that unpublished work. In the seventh year from the commencement of his design, he published the work, with many additions, and particularly that of an Anglo-Saxon Grammar prefixed. The work was received with the utmost approbation of the learned. In 1750, Mr. Lye became a member of the society of antiquaries, and about the same time was presented by the earl of Northampton to the vicarage of Yardley Hastings, on which accession he resigned his former living of Houghton; giving an illustrious example of primitive moderation, especially as he had hitherto supported his mother, and had still two sisters dependent upon him. The next publication which he issued, was that of the Gothic Gospels, undertaken at the desire of Eric Benzelius, bishop of Upsal, who had collated and corrected them. This, which he had been long preparing, appeared from the Oxford press in the same year, with a Gothic Grammar prefixed. His last years were employed chiefly in finishing for the press his own great work, the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic Dictionary, which was destined to owe that to another editor, which he had performed for Junius. His manuscript was just completed, and given to the printer, when he died at Yardley Hastings, in 1767; and was there buried, with a commendatory but just and elegant epitaph. His Dictionary was published in 1772, in two volumes folio, by the rev. Owen Manning, with a grammar of the two languages united, and some memoirs of the author, from which this account is taken. It appears by some original correspondence between Mr. Lye and Dr. Ducarel (for the perusal of which we are indebted to Mr. Nichols), that Mr. Lye had been employed on his dictionary a long time before 1765, and that he had almost relinquished the design from a dread of the labour and expence. In the labour he had none to share with him, but at the time above mentioned archbishop Seeker offered him a subscription of 50l. to forward the work, and he appears to have hoped for similar instances of liberality.

Although he took no active part in the disputes of the nation, he gave his opinion on some subjects arising out of them, respecting toleration, in a work entitled “Cases of conscience propounded in the time of Rebellion,” which bishop Kennet in his “Chronicle” says is written, with plainness, modesty, and impartiality. His other works are, 1. “Principles of Faith and of a good Conscience,” Lond. 1642; Oxford, 1652, 8vo. 2. “An Apology for our public Ministry and infant Baptism,” ibid. 1652, 1653, 4 to. 3. “The plain man’s senses exercised to discern both good and evil; or a discovery of the errors, heresies, and blasphemies of these times,” ibid. 1655, 4to, with some other pious tracts.

, a learned English gentleman, was descended from a family in Dorsetshire, and born in 1579. Being sent to Westminster school, he was admitted scholar upon the foundation, and thence elected student of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1596. Four years afterwards he commenced B. A. about which time he became heir to a considerable estate, was made a justice of peace, and knighted by king James in 1613. He obtained a seat in the House of Commons in several parliaments; but he is entitled to a place in this work as a man of learning, and author of several books, which had considerable reputation in their day. He died June 14, 1636, and was interred in the chancel of the church at Cobham in Surrey. The night before he died, being exhorted by a friend to give some testimony of his constancy in the reformed religion, because it was not unlikely that his adversaries might say of him, as they did of Beza, Reynolds, King bishop of London, and bishop Andrews, that they recanted the protestant religion, and were reconciled to the church of Rome before their death; he professed, that if he had a thousand souls, he would pawn them all upon the truth of that religion established by law in the church of England, and which he had declared and maintained in his “Via tuta.” Accordingly, in his funeral sermon by Dr. Daniel Featly, he is not only styled “a general scholar, an accomplished gentleman, a gracious Christian, a zealous patriot, and an able champion for truth; but” one that stood always as well for the discipline, as the doctrine of the church of England; and whose actions, as well as writings, were conformable both to the laws of God and canons and constitutions of that church."

, third son of sir Thomas, and brother to George lord Lyttelton, was born at Hagley, in 1714. He was educated at Eton-school, and went thence first to University-college, Oxford, and then to the InnerTemple, where he became a barrister at law; but entering into orders, was collated by bishop Hough to the rectory of Alvechurch, in Worcestershire, Aug. 13, 1742. He took the degree of LL. B. March 28, 1745; LL. D. June 18 the same year; was appointed king’s chaplain in Dec. 1747, dean of Exeter in May 1748, and was consecrated bishop of Carlisle, March 21, 1762. In 1754 he caused the cieling and cornices of the chancel of Hagley church to be ornamented with shields of arms in their proper colours, representing the paternal coats of his ancient and respectable family. In 1765, on the death of Hugh lord Willoughby of Parham, he was unanimously elected president of the society of antiquaries; a station in which his distinguished abilities were eminently displayed. He died unmarried, Dec. 22, 1768. His merits and good qualities are universally acknowledged; and those parts of his character which more particularly endeared him to the learned society over which he so worthily presided, shall be pointed out in the words of his learned successor dean Milles: “The study of antiquity, especially that part of it which relates to the history and constitution of these kingdoms, was one of his earliest and most favourable pursuits; and he acquired g cat knowledge in it by constant study and application, to which he was led, not only by his natural disposition, but also by his state and situation in life. He took frequent opportunities of improving and enriching this knowledge by judicious observations in the course of several journies which he made through every country of England, and through many parts of Scotland and Wales. The society has reaped the fruits of these observations in the most valuable papers, which his lordship from time to time has communicated to us; which are more in number, and not inferior either in merit or importance, to those conveyed to us by other hands. Blest with a retentive memory, and happy both in the disposition and facility of communicating his knowledge, he was enabled also to act the part of a judicious commentator and candid critic, explaining, illustrating, and correcting from his own observations many of the papers which have been read at this society. His station and connections in the world, which necessarily engaged a very considerable part of his time, did not lessen his attention to the business and interests of the society. His doors were always open to his friends, amongst whom none were more welcome to him than the friends of literature, which he endeavoured to promote in all its various branches, especially in those which are the more immediate objects of our attention. Even this circumstance proved beneficial to the society, for, if I may be allowed the expression, he was the centre in which the various informations -on points of antiquity from the different parts of the kingdom united, and the medium through which they were conveyed to us. His literary merit with the society received an additional lustre from the affability of his temper, the gentleness of his manners, and the benevolence of his heart, which united every member of the society in esteem to their head, and in harmony and friendship with each other. A principle so essentially necessary to the prosperity and even to the existence of all communities, especially those which have arts and literature for their object, that its beneficial effects are visibly to be discerned in the present flourishing state of our society, which I flatter myself will be long continued under the influence of the same agreeable principles. I shall conclude this imperfect sketch of a most worthy character, by observing that the warmth of his affection to the society continued to his latest breath; and he has given a signal proof of it in the last great act which a wise man does with resp'ect to his worldly affairs; for, amongst the many charitable and generous donations contained in his will, he has made a very useful and valuable bequest of manuscripts and printed books to the society, as a token of his affection for them, and of his earnest desire to promote those laudable purposes for which they were instituted.” The society expressed their gratitude and respect to his memory by a portrait of him engraved at their expence in 1770.

, another young writer of considerable talents, was the son of George Donald, a gardener at Leith. The Mac he appended. to his name when he came to London. He was born in 1757 at Leith, where he was educated, chiefly by the assistance of bishop f Forbes. For some time he had the charge of a chapel at Glasgow, in which city he published a novel, -entitled *' The Independent.“He afterwards came to London, and wrote for the newspapers. His works were lively, satirical, and humorous, and were published under the signature of Matthew Bramble. He naturally possessed a fine genius, and had improved his understanding with classical and scientific knowledge; but for want of connections in this southern part of the united kingdom, and A proper opportunity to bring his talents into notice, he was ajways embarrassed, and had occasionally to struggle with great and accumulated distress. He died in the 33d year of his age, at Kentish Town, in Aug. 1790, leaving a wife and infant daughter in a state of extreme indigence. A volume of his” Miscellaneous Works“was published in 1791, in which were comprised,” The fair Apostate,“a tragedy;” Love and Loyalty,“an opera;” Princess of Tarento,“a comedy; and” Vimonda," a tragedy.

, a learned French priest, was born at Paris about 1640, and pursued his divinity studies at the university of his native city, where he took his degrees. About this time he was appointed secretary to the council for managing the domains and finances of the queen, consort to Lewis XIV.; and when he took holy orders, in 1685, he was immediately appointed canon and rector of the church of St. Opportune, at Paris. He was a very diligent student as well in profane as in sacred literature, and was celebrated for his popular talents as a preacher. He died in 1721, leaving behind him a great number of works that do honour to his memory, of which we shall mention “A chronological, historical, and moral abridgment of the Old and New Testament,” in 2 vols. 4to “Scriptural Knowledge, reduced into four tables;” a French version of the apocryphal “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs;” of which Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, gave the first Latin translation, Grabe the first Greek edition, from Mss. in the English universities, and Whiston an English version (S The History of the Four Ciceros,“in which he attempts to prove, that the sons of Cicero were as illustrious as their father. Mace (Thomas), a practitioner on the lute, but more distinguished among lovers of music by a work entitled” Music’s Monument, or a Remembrancer of the best practical Music, both divine and civil, that has ever been known to have been in the world," 1676, folio, was born in 1613, and became one of the clerks of Trinity-college, Cambridge. He does not appear to have held any considerable rank among musicians, nor is he celebrated either as a composer or practitioner on the lute: yet his book is a proof that he was an excellent judge of the instrument; and contains such variety of directions for the ordering and management of it, and for performing on it, as renders it a work of great utility. It contains also many particulars respecting himself, many traits of an original and singular character; and a vein of humour which, far from being disgusting, exhibits a lively portraiture of a good-natured gossiping old man. Dr. Burney recommends its perusal to all who have taste for excessive simplicity and quaintness, and can extract pleasure from the sincere and undissembled happiness of an author, who, with exalted notions of his subject and abilities, discloses to his reader every inward working of self-approbation in as undisguised a manner, as if he were communing with himself in all the plenitude of mental comfort and privacy. There is a print of him prefixed to his book, from an engraving of Faithorne, the inscription under which shews him to have been sixty-three in 1676: how long he lived afterwards, is not known. He had a wife and children.

, was an ancient heretic of the church of Constantinople, whom the Arians made bishop of that see in the year 342, at the same time that the orthodox contended for Paul. This occasioned a contest, which rose at length to such a height, that arms were taken up, and many lives lost. The emperor Constantius, however, put an end to the dispute, by banishing Paul, and ratifying the nomination of Macedonius; who, after much opposition, which ended at the death of Paul, became peaceably and quietly settled in his see, and might have remained so had he been of a temper to be long peaceable and quiet in any situation: he soon fell into disgrace with Constantius, for acting the part of a tyrant, rather than a bishop. What made him still more disliked by the emperor, was his causing the body of Constantine to be translated from the temple of the Apostles to that of Acacius the martyr. This also raised great tumults and confusion among the people, some highly approving, others loudly condemning, the procedure of Macedonius and the parties again taking up arms, a great number on both sides were slain. Macedonius, however, notwithstanding the emperor’s displeasure, which he had incurred by his seditious and turbulent practices, contrived to support himself by his party, which he had lately increased by taking in the Semi-Arians; till at length, imprudently offending two of his bishops, they procured his deposition by the council of Constantinople, in the year 359. He was so enraged at this, as to resolve to revenge the insult by broaching a new heresy. He began to teach, therefore, that the Holy Spirit had no resemblance to either the Father or the Son, but was only a mere creature, one of God’s ministers, and somewhat more excellent than the angels. The disaffected bishops subscribed at once to this opinion; and to the Arians it could not be unacceptable. According to St. Jerome, even the Donatists of Africa joined with them: for he says, that Douatus of Carthage wrote a treatise upon the Holy Ghost, agreeable to the doctrine of the Arians; and the outward shew of piety, which the Macedonians observed, drew over to their party many others. One Maratorus, who had been formerly a treasurer, having amassed vast riches, forsook his secular life, devoted himself entirely to the service of the poor and sick, became a monk; and at last adopted the Macedonian heresy, which he disseminated very extensively. In this he succeeded in most cases by his riches; which, being freely and properly distributed, were found of more force in effecting conversions than all his arguments: and from this man, as Socrates relates, the Macedonians were called Maratorians. They were also called Pneumatomachi, or persons who were enemies of the Holy Ghost. The report of the Macedonian heresy being spread over Egypt, the bishop Serapion advertised Athanasius of it, who then was leading a monastic life, and lay hid in the desert and this celebrated saint was the hrst who confuted it.

Besides the moral pieces mentioned above, he wrote several works to illustrate the laws and customs of his country, to vindicate the monarchy from the restless contrivances and attacks of those whom he esteemed its enemies, and to maintain the honour and glory of Scotland. To illustrate the laws and customs of his country, he published “A Discourse upon the laws and customs of Scotland in matters criminal,” 1674, 4to. “Idea eloquentiae tbrensis hodiernae, una cum actione forensi ex unaquaque juris parte,” 1681, 8vo. “Institutions of the laws of Scotland,” 1684, 8vo. “Observations upon the acts of parliament,” 1686, folio. Besides these, several other treatises of law are inserted in his works, printed at Edinburgh, 1716, in 2 vols. folio. In vindication of monarchy, he wrote his “Jus regium; or the just and solid foundations of monarchy in general, and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland; maintained against Buchanan, Naphthali, Doleman, Milton, &c.” Lond. 16S4, 8vo. This book being dedicated and presented by the author to the university of Oxford, he received a letter of thanks from the convocation. With the same view he published his * Discovery of the fanatic plot,“printed at Edinburgh, in 1684, folio; and his” Vindication of the government of Scotland during the reign of Charles II.“Also the” Method of Proceeding against Criminals and Fanatical Covenanters,“1691, 4to. The pieces which he published in honour of his nation, were as follow:” Observations on the Laws and Customs of Nations as to Precedency, with the science of heraldry, treated as a part of the civil law of nations; wherein reasons are given for its principles, and etymologies for its harder terms,“1680, folio.” A Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland; with a true account when the Scots were governed by the kings in the Isle of Britain,“1685, 8vo. This was written in answer to” An historical Account of Church-Government as it was in Great Britain and Ireland, when they first received the Christian religion,“by Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph. Sir George’s defence was published in June 1685; but before it came out it was animadverted upon by Dr. Stillingfleet, who had seen it in manuscript in the preface to his” Origines Britannicae.“Sir George replied the year following, in a piece entitled” The Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland farther cleared and defended against the exceptions lately offered by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph;" and here the controversy appears to have ended. It is remarkable, however, that sir George’s books were translated into Latin, printed at Utrecht in 1689, and then presented to William-Henry prince of Orange, who wrote two very polite letters of thanks to him for his performance. Among the instances of this author’s zeal for his country, it is necessary to mention his founding of the lawyer’s library at Edinburgh, in 1689. This, which is now known by the name of the advocate’s library, was afterwards stored with variety of manuscripts, relating particularly to the antiquities of Scotland, and with a fine collection of books, in all sciences, classed in that excellent order, which he prescribed in an elegant Latin oration, pronounced upon the opening of it, and printed among his works.

Douglas describes him as a man of singular endowments, great learning, well versed in the laws and antiquities of his country, and an able statesman. Macky, or rather Davis, adds, that “he had a great deal of wit, and was the pleasantest companion in the world; had been very handsome in his person; was tall and fair complexioned; much esteemed by the royal society, a great master in philosophy, and well received as a writer by men of letters.” Bishop Nicolson notices a copy of the continuation of Fordun’s “Scotichronicon” in the hand-writing of this nobleman, whom he terms “a judicious preserver of the antiquities of his country.” He wrote, 1. “A Vindication of Robert, the third king of Scotland, from the imputation of bastardy, &c.” Edin. 1695, 4to. 2. “Synopsis Apocalyptica; or a short and plain Explication and Application of Daniel’s Prophecy, and St. John’s Revelation, in consent with it, and consequential to it; by G. E. of C. tracing in the steps of the admirable lord Napier of Merchiston,” Edin. 1708. 3. “An historical Account of the Conspiracies, by the earls of Gourie, and Robert Logan of Restalrig, against king James VI. of glorious memory, &c.” Edin. 1713, 8vo. Mr. Gough has pointed out three papers on natural curiosities, by lord Cromerty, in the “Philosophical Transactions” and “A Vindication,” by him, of the reformation of the church of Scotland, with some account of the Records, was printed in the Scots’ Magazine, for August 1802, from a ms. in the possession of Mr. Constable, bookseller, of Edinburgh.

, an eminent mathematician and philosopher, was the son of a clergyman, and born at Kilmodan, near Inverary, in Scotland, Feb. 1698. His family was originally from Tirey, one of the western islands. He was sent to the university of Glasgow in 1709, where he continued five years, and applied himself to study in a most intense manner, particularly to the mathematics. His great genius for this science discovered itself so early as at twelve years of age; when, having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid’s Elements in a friend’s chamber, he became in a few days master of the first six books without any assistance: and it is certain, that in his sixteenth year he had invented many of the propositions, which were afterwards published as part of his work entitled “Geometria Organica.” In his fifteenth year, he took the degree of master of arts; on which occasion he composed and publicly defended a thesis “On the power of gravity,” with great applause. After this he quitted the university, and retired to a country-seat of his uncle, who had the care of his education, his parents being dead some time. Here he spent two or three years in pursuing his favourite studies; and such was his acknowledged merit, that having in 1717 offered himself a candidate for the professorship of mathematics in the Marischal college of Aberdeen, he obtained it after a ten days trial against a very able competitor. In 1719 he went to London, where he left his “Geometria Organica” in the press, and where he became acquainted with Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Bangor, Dr. Clarke, sir Isaac Newton, and other eminent men. At the same time he was admitted a member of the royal society; and in another journey in 1721, he contracted an intimacy with Martin Folkes, esq. the president of it, which lasted to his death.

He lived a bachelor to the year 1733; but being formed for society, as well as contemplation, he then married Anne, the daughter of Mr. Walter Stewart, solicitor-general to his late majesty for Scotland. By this lady he had seven children, of which, two sons and three daughters, together with his wife, survived him. In 1734, Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne, published a piece called “The Analyst;” in which he took occasion, from some disputes that had arisen concerning the grounds of the fluxionary method, to explode the method itself, and also to charge mathematicians in general with infidelity in religion. Maclaurin thought himself included in this charge, and began an answer to Berkeley’s book: but, as he proceeded, so many discoveries, so many new theories and problems occurred to him, that, instead of a vindicatory pamphlet, it increased to “A complete system of Fluxions, with their application to the most considerable problems in geometry and natural philosophy.” This work, which was published at Edinburgh in 1742, 2 vols. 4to, cost him infinite pains, and will do him immortal honour, being indeed the most complete treatise on that science that has yet appeared . In the mean time, he was continually gratifying the public with some performance or observation of his own, many of which were published in the fifth and sixth volumes of the “Medical Essays,” at Edinburgh. Some of them appeared likewise in “The Philosophical Transactions” as the following: 1. “Of the construction and measure of Curves.” 2. “A new method of describing all kinds of Curves.” 3. “A letter to Martin Folkes, esq. on Equations with impossible Roots, May 1726.” 4. “Coiir tinuation of the same, March 1729.” 5. “December the 21st, 1732, On the description of Curves; with an account of farther improvements, and a paper dated at Nancy, Nov. 27, 1722.” 6. “An account of the treatise of Fluxions, Jan. 27, 1742.” 7. “The same continued, March 10, 1742” 8. “A Rule for finding the meridional parts of a Spheroid with the same exactness as of a Sphere, Aug. 1741.” 9. “Of the Basis of the Cells wherein the Bees deposit their honey, Nov. 3, 1734.”

, a celebrated preacher and writer, was the son of Martin Madan, esq. of Hertingfordbury near Hertford, member of parliament for Wootton Basset, and groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales. His mother was daughter of Spencer Cowper, esq. and niece of the lord chancellor Cowper, an accomplished lady, and author of several poems of considerable merit. He was born in 1726, and was bred originally to the law, and had been called to the bar; but being fond of the study of theology, well versed in Hebrew, and becoming intimate with Mr. Jones and Mr. Romaine, two clergymen of great popularity at that time, by their advice he left the law for the pulpit, and was admitted into orders. His first sermon is said to have been preached in the church of Allhallows, Lombard -street, and to have attracted immediate attention and applause. Being appointed chaplain to the Lock-hospital, his zeal led him to attend diligently, and to preach to the unfortunate patients assembled in the parlour: his fame also brought many others thither, till the rooms and avenues were crowded. This led to a proposal for a chapel, which was finished in 176.1, and opened with a sermon from the chaplain. He subjected himself to much obloquy, about the year 1767, by the advice he gave to his friend Mr. Havveis, to retain the rectory of Aldwincle, and several pamphlets were written on the subject; but lord Apsley (afterwards Bathurst) did not seem to consider the affair in an unfavourable light, as he afterwards appointed him his chaplain. Mr. Madan became an author in 1761, when he published, 1. “A sermon on Justification by Works.” 2. “A small treatise on the Christian Faith,” 1761, 12mo. 3. “Sermon at the opening of the Lock Hospital, 1762.” 4. “Answer to the capital errors of W. Law,” 1763, 8vo. 5. “Answer to the narrative of facts respecting the rectory of Aldwinckle,” 1767, 8vo. 6. “A comment on the Thirty-nine Articles,” 1772, 8vo. 7.“Thelyphthora,” 1780, 2 vols. -&vo. In this book the author justifies polygamy, upon the notion that the first cohabitation with a woman is a virtual marriage; and supports his doctrine by many acute arguments. The intention of the work was to lessen or remove the causes of seduction; but it met with much opposition, many very severe animadversions, and cost the author his reputation among the religious world. He, however, was not discouraged; and in 1781, published a third volume, after which the work sunk into oblivion, a fate to which the masterly criticism on it in the Monthly Review, by the rev. Mr. Badcock, very greatly contributed. It is somewhat remarkable that Mrs. Manley in the “Atalantis” speaks of lord chancellor Cowper, as maintaining the same tenets on polygamy. Mr. Madan next produced, 8. “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” 1787, 12mo. 9. A literal version of “Juvenal and Persius,” with notes, 1789, 2 vols. 8vo: and some controversial tracts on the subject of his Thelyphthora. Mr. Madan died at Epsom in May, 1790, at the age of 64, after a short illness, and was buried at Kensington. The late Dr. Spencer Madan, bishop of Peterborough, was brother to our author.

, a famous English prelate, born at London, July 27, 1697, of obscure parents, whom he lost while he was young, was taken care of by an aunt, who placed him in a charity-school, and afterwards put him on trial to a pastry-cook; but, before he was bound apprentice, the master told her that the boy was not fit for trade; that he was continually reading books of learning above his (the master’s) comprehension, and therefore advised that she should take him away, and send him back to school, to follow the bent of his inclination. He was on this sent, by an exhibition of some dissenting friends, to one of the universities of Scotland, Cole says, that of Aberdeen; but, not caring to take orders in that church, was afterwards, through the patronage of bishop Gibson, admitted to Queen’s-college, Cambridge, and was favoured with a doctor’s degree at Lambeth. After entering into orders, he first was curate of St. Bride’s, then domestic chaplain to Dr. Waddington, bishop of Chichester, whose niece he married, and was afterwards promoted to the rectory of St. Vedast, in Foster-lane, London. In 1729, he was appointed clerk of the closet to queen Caroline. In 1733, he became dean of Wells, and was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, in 1736. He was translated to the see of Worcester, in 1743. In 1733 he published the first part of the “Review of Neal’s History of the Puritans,” under the title of, “A Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England, established in the reign of queen Elizabeth:” of which the late bishop Hallifax said, “a better vindication of the reformed church of England, I never read.” He was a great benefactor to the London hospitals, and the first promoter of the Worcester Infirmary in 1745, which has proved of singular benefit to the poor, and a great advantage to medical and surgical knowledge in that neighbourhood. He was also a great encourager of trade, engaging in the British fishery, by which he lost some money. He likewise was a strong advocate for the act against vending spirituous liquors. He married Elizabeth daughter of Richard Price, esq. of Hayes in Middlesex, in 1731; and had two daughters and a son, of whom only one daughter survived him, and was afterwards married to the hon. James Yorke, bishop of Gloucester, and late bishop of Ely. He died Sept. 27, 1739. Bishop Madox published fourteen occasional sermons preached between the years 1734 and 1752. Among other instances of his benevolence, we may mention his assigning 200l.perann. during his life, for the augmentation of the smaller benefices of his diocese. He corresponded with Dr. Doddridge with affectionate familiarity, and visited him when at Bristol, offering in the most obliging manner to convey him to the Wells in his chariot, at the stated times of drinking. He used to anticipate any hints respecting his origin by a joke which he was fond of repeating. When tarts wera on his table, he pressed the company to partake, saying “that he believed they were very good, but that they were not of his own making” This he varied, when John Whiston dined with him, into, “some people reckon me a good judge of that article!” Upon the whole he appears to have been an amiable and benevolent man, and to have employed his wealth as well as his talents to the best purposes. His widow survived him thirty years, dying Feb. 19, 1789.

Among the various means to effect this, none seemed to him more eligible than that imposture which he afterwards published with so much success, and so much mischief to the world. The extensive trade which he carried on in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, having made him well acquainted with both Christians and Jews, and given him an opportunity of observing with what eagerness they and the several sects into which the Christians of the Eastwerd then miserably divided, engaged against each other, he concluded that nothing would be more likely to gain a party firm to him for the attaining the ends at which he aimed, than the invention of a new religion. In this, however, he proceeded leisurely; for it was not till his thirty-eighth year that he began to prepare his design. He then withdrew himself from his former way of living, which is said to have been very licentious and wicked; and, affecting an hermit’s life, used every morning to retire into a solitary cave near Mecca, called the Cave of Hira; and there continued all day, exercising himself, as he pretended, in prayers, fastings, and holy meditations. Thus he went on for two years, during which time he gained over his wife Cadiga, who was his first proselyte, by pretending visions which he had seen, and voices which he had heard, in his retirement. It is to be observed, says Dr. Prideaux, that Mahomet began this imposture about the same time that the bishop of Rome, by virtue of a grant from the tyrant Phocas, first assumed the title of universal pastor. Phocas made this grant in the year 606, and Mahomet in the same year retired to his cave to contrive that deception which he began in the year 608 to propagate at Mecca.

As the impostor allowed the divinity of the Old and New Testament, it is natural to suppose that he would attempt to prove his own mission from both; and the texts used for this purpose by those who defend his cause, are these following. In Deuteronomy it is said, “The Lord came down from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from mount Pharan^ and he came with ten thousand of saints: from his right-hand went a fiery law for them.” By these words, according to the Mahometans, are meant the delivery of the law to Mosea, on mount Sinai; of the gospel to Jesus, at Jerusalem; and of the Koran to Mahomet, at Mecca: for, say they, Seir are the mountains of Jerusalem, where Jesus appeared; and Pha-. ran the mountains of Mecca, where Mahomet appeared. But they are here mistaken in their geography; for Pharan is a city of Arabia Petraea, near the Red Sea, towards the bottom of the gulph, not far from the confines of Egypt and Palestine, and above 500 miles distant from Mecca. It was formerly an episcopal see, under the patriarchs of Jerusalem, and famous for Theodorus, once bishop of it, who was the first that published to the world the opinion of the Monothelites. It is at this day called Fara: and hence the deserts, lying from this city to the borders of Palestine, are called the deserts or wilderness of Pharan, and the mountains lying in it, the mountains of Pharan, in holy scripture; near which Moses first began to repeat, and more clearly to explain the law to the children of Israel, before his death: and it is to that, to which the text above mentioned refers.

About the end of 1683, Louis married madam de Maintenon; and certainly acquired an agreeable and submissive companion. He was then in his forty-eighth year, she in her fiftieth. The only public distinction which made her sensible of her secret elevation (for nothing could be conducted more secretly then, or kept a greater secret afterwards, than this marriage) was, that at mass she sat in one of the two little galleries, or gilt doors, which appeared only to be designed for the king and queen: besides this, she had not any exterior appearance of grandeur. That piety and devotion, with which she had inspired the king, and which she had applied very successfully to make herself a wife, instead of a mistress, became by degrees a settled disposition of mind, which age and affliction confirmed. She had already, with the king and the whole court, given herself the merit of a foundress, by assembling at Noisy a great number of women of quality; and the king had already destined the revenues of the abbey of St. Denis, for the maintenance of this rising community. St. Cyr was built at the end of the park at Versailles, in 1686 She then gave the form to this establishment; and, together with Desmarets, bishop of Chartres, made the rules, and was herself superior of the convent. Thither she often went to pass away some hours; and, as we learn from herself, melancholy determined her to this employment. “Why cannot I,” says she in a letter to madam de la Maisonfort, “why cannot I give you my experience? Why cannot I make you sensible of that uneasiness, which wears out the great, and of the difficulties they labour under to employ their time? Do not you see that I am dying with melancholy, in a height of fortune, which once my imagination could scarcely have conceived? I have been young and beautiful, have had a relish for pleasures, and have been the universal object of love. In a more advanced age, I have spent my time in intellectual amusements. I have at lastrisen to favour but I protest to you, my dear girl, that every one of these conditions leaves in the mind a dismal vacuity.” If any thing, says Voltaire, could shew the vanity of ambition, it would certainly be this letter. She could have no other uneasiness than the uniformity of her manner of living with a great king; and this made her say once to the count d'Aubigne, her brother, “I can hold it no longer; I wish I was dead.”

, a scholastic divine and historian, was born, not at Haddington, as is usually said, but at Gleghorn, a village near North Berwick, in 1469. From some passages in his writings, it appears that he resided for a time both at Oxford and at Cambridge. At the former particularly, we learn from the dedication of one of his works to cardinal Wolsey, he resided, not three months, as Wood says, but a year. The cardinal, whom he styles “your majesty,” received him “after the old manner of Christian hospitality, and invited him with a splendid salary to Oxford, where he had lately founded his college, which Major did not accept, on account of the love he bore to his mother university of Paris.” It appears that he went in 1493 to Paris, and studied in the college of St. Barbe, under the famous John Boulac. Thence he removed to the college of Montacute, where he began the study of divinity, under the celebrated Standouk. In 1498 he was entered of the college of Navarre in 1505 he was created D. D. returned to Scotland in 1519, and taught theology for several years in the university of St. Andrew’s. At length, disgusted with the quarrels of his countrymen, he returned to Paris, and resumed his lectures in the college of Montacute, where he had several pupils, afterwards men of eminence. About 1530, he removed once more to Scotland, was chosen professor of divinity at St. Andrew’s, and afterwards became provost. It is usually supposed that he died in 1547, but it is certain that he was alive in 1549; for in that year he subscribed (by proxy, on account of his great age) the national constitutions of the church of Scotland. He died soon after, probably in 1550, which must have been in his eighty-second year. Du Pin says, that of all the divines who had written on the works of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard), Major was the most learned and comprehensive. His History of Scotland is written with much commendable freedom; but in a barbarous style, and not always correct as to facts. Hs was the instructor, but not, as some have said, the patron of the famous George Buchanan. He also had the celebrated John Knox as one of his pupils. Baker in a ms note on the “Athenae,” adds to the mention of this fact, that “a man would hardly believe he ha.d been taught by him.” Baker, however, was not sufficiently acquainted with Major’s character to be able to solve this doubt. Major, according to the very acute biographer of Knox (Dr. M‘Crie) had acquired a habit of thinking and expressing himself on certain subjects, more liberal than was adopted in his native country and other parts of Europe. He had imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson, Peter D’Ailly, and others, who defended the decrees of the council of Constance, and liberties of the Gallican church, against those who asserted the incontroulable authority of the sovereign pontiff. He thought that a general council was superior to the pope, might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes; maintained that ecclesiastical censures and even papal excommunications had no force, it* pronounced on invalid or irrelevant grounds; he held that tithes were merely of human appointment, not divine right; censured the avarice, ambition, and secular pomp of the court of Rome and the episcopal order; was no warm friend of the regular clergy, and advised the reduction of monasteries and holidays. His opinions respecting civil government were analogous to those which he held as to ecclesiastical policy. He taught that the authority of kings and princes was originally derived from the people that the former are not superior to the latter, collectively considered that if rulers become tyrannical, or employ their power for the destruction of their subjects, they may lawfully be controuled by them; and proving incorrigible, may be deposed by the community as the superior power; and that tyrants may be judicially proceeded against, even to capital punishment. The affinity between these and the political principles afterwards avowed by Knox, and defended by the classic pen of Buchanan, is too striking to require illustration. But although Major had ventured to think for himself on these topics, in all other respects be was completely subservient to the opinions of his age; and with a mind deeply tinctured with superstition, defended some of the absurdest tenets of popery by the most ridiculous and puerile arguments. We cannot, therefore, greatly blame Buchanan, who called him in ridicule, what he affected to call himself in humility, “Joannes, solo cognomine, Major.” His works are, 1. “Libri duo fallaciarum,” Lugd. 1516, comprising his “Opera Logicalia.” 2. “In quatuor sententiarum commentarius,” Paris, 1516. 3. “Commentarius in physica Aristotelis,” Paris, 1526. 4. “In primum et secundum sententiarum commentarii,” Paris, 1510. 5. “Commentarius in tertium sententiarum,” Paris, 1517. 6. “Literalis in Matthaeum expositio,” Paris, 1518. From these two last may be collected his sentiments on ecclesiastical polity, mentioned above. 7. “De historia gentis Scotorum, sen historia majoris Britanniae,” Paris, 1521, 4to. Of this a new edition was printed at Edinburgh, 17+0, 4to. 8. “Luculenta in 4 Evangelia expositiones,” &c. Paris, 1529, folio. 9. “Placita theologica.” 10. “Catalogus episcoporum Lucionensium.” He also translated Caxton’s Chronicle into Latin.

, an eminent classical editor, of a foreign family, was born in 1668. He was educated at Westminster school, under Dr. Busby, who kept him to the study of Greek and Latin some years longer than usual. He then gained another powerful friend in Dr. South, for whom he compiled a list of the Greek words falsely accented in Dr. Sherlock’s books. This so pleased Dr. South, who was then a canon of Christ church, Oxford, that he made him a canoneer student (i. e. one introduced by a canon, and not elected from Westminster school), where he took the degree of M. A. March 23, 1696. From 1695 till 1699, he was second master of Westminsterschool which was afterwards indebted to him for “Græcæ Linguæ Dialecti, in usum Scholas Westmonastcriensis,” 1706, 8vo , (a work recommended in the warmest terms by Dr. Knipe to the school over which he presided, “cui se sua omnia debere fatetur sedulus Author”) and for “The English Grammar, applied to, and exemplified in, the English tongue,” 1712, 8vo. In “Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Angliae & Hiberniae,” Oxon. 1697, t. ii. p. 27, is inserted “Librorum Manuscriptorum Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis Catalogus. Accurante viro erudito Michaele Mattaerio.” But before the volume was published, the whole collection, amounting to 230, given by bishop Williams, except one, was destroyed by an accidental fire in 1694. In 1699 he resigned his situation at Westminster-school; and devoted his time solely to literary pursuits. In 1711, he published “Remarks on Mr. Whision’s Account ef the Convocation’s proceedings with relation to himself: in a Letter to the right reverend Father in God, George, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells,” 8vo; and also “An Essay against Arianism, and some other Heresies; or a Reply tp Mr. William Whiston’s Historical Preface and Appendix to his Primitive Christianity revived,” 8vo. In 1709, he gave the first specimen of his great skill in typographical antiquities, by publishing “Stephanorum Historia, vitas ipsorum ac libros complectens,” 8vo; which was followed in 1717, by “Historia Typographorum aliquot Parisiensium, vitas & libros complectens,” 8vo. In 1719, “Annales Typographic! ab artis inventae origine ad annum MD. Hagae Com.” 4to. To this volume is prefixed, “Epistolaris de antiquis Qnintiliani editionibus Disseitatio, clarissimo viro D. Johanni Clerico.” The second volume, divided into two parts, and continued to 1536, was published at the Hague in 1702; introduced by a letter of John Toland, under the title of “Conjectura verosimilis de prima Typographies Inventione.” The third volume, from the same press, in two parts, continued to 1557, and, by an Appendix, to 1564, in 1725. In 1733 was published at Amsterdam what is usually considered as the fourth volume, under the title of “Annales Typographic! ab artis inventae origine, ad annum 1564, opera Mich. Maittaire, A. M. Editio nova, auctior & emendatior, tomi priori pars posterior.” In 1741 the work was closed at London, by “Annalium Typographicorum Tomus Quintus & ultimus; indicem in tomos quatuor praeeuntes complectens;” divided (like the two preceding volumes) into two parts.

, a very learned Spanish Jesuit, was born at Fuente del Maestro, a small village in the province of Estramadura, in 1534. He studied under Dominicus Asoto, a Dominican, and also under Francis Tolet, a Jesuit, who was afterwards a cardinal, and there was no better scholar in the university of Salamanca in his time, than Maldonat. He there taught philosophy, divinity, and the Greek language. He entered into the society of the Jesuits, but did not put on the habit of his order till 1562, when he was at Rome. In 1563, he was sent by his superiors to Paris, to teach philosophy in the college which the Jesuits had just established in that city; where, as the historians of his society tell us, he was so crowded with hearers, that he was frequently obliged to read his lectures in the court or the street, the hall not being sufficient to contain them. He was sent, with nine other Jesuits, to Poictiers, in 1570, where he read lectures in Latin, and preached in French. Afterwards he returned to Paris, where he was not only accused of heresy, but likewise of procuring a fraudulent will from the president de St. Andre, by which the president was made to leave his estate to the Jesuits. But the parliament declared him innocent of the forgery, and Gondi, bishop of Paris, entirely acquitted him of the charge of heresy. He afterwards thought proper to retire to Bourges, where the Jesuits had a college, and continued there about a year and a half. Then he went to Rome, by the order of pope Gregory XIII. to superintend the publication of the “Septuagint'? and after finishing his” Commentary upon the Gospels," in 1582, he died there, in the beginning of 1583.

The next piece which Malebranche published, was his “Conversations Chretiennes, dans lesquelles sont justifié la verite de la religion & de la morale de J. C.” Paris, 1676. He was moved, it is said, to write this piece, at the desire of the duke de Chevreuse, to shew the consistency and agreement between his philosophy and religion. His “Traité de la nature & de la grace,” 1680, was occaioned by a conference he had with M. Arnaud, about those peculiar notions of grace into which Malebranche’s system had led that divine. This was followed by other pieces, which were all the result of the philosophical and theological dispute our author had with M. Arnaud. In 1688, he published his “Entretien sur la inetaphysique & la religion:” in which work he collected what he had written against M. Arnaud, but disengaged it from that air of dispute which is not agreeable to every reader. In 1697, he published his “Traite de P amour de Dieu.” When the doctrine of the new mystics began to be much talked of in France, father Lamy, a Benedictine, in his book “De la connoissance de soi-mme,” cited some passages out of this author’s “Recherche de la verit6,” as favourable to that party; upon this, Malebranche thought proper to defend himself in this book, by shewing in what sense it may be said, without clashing with the authority of the church or reason, that the love of God is disinterested. In 1708, he published his “Entretiens d‘un philosophe Chretien, & d’un philosophe Chinois sur l'existence & la nature de Dieu:” or, “Dialogues between a Christian philosopher and a Chinese philosopher, upon the existence and nature of God.” The bishop of Rozalie having remarked some conformity between the opinions of the Chinese, and the notions laid down in the “Recherche de la Verite”,“mentioned it to the author, who on that account thought himself obliged to write this tract. Malebranche wrote many other pieces besides what we have mentioned, all tending some way or other to confirm his main system established in the” Recherche," and to clear it from the objections which were brought against it, or from the consequences which were deduced from it: and, if he has not attained what he aimed at in these several productions, he has certainly shewn great ingenuity and abilities.

, was one of the writers in the French Encyclopedic, and one of those whose articles are the most valuable in that work. They are chiefly on the subjects of divinity and belles lettres, and if only men as sound and judicious as the abbe Mallet had been employed, that publication would have proved as useful as it has been, found pernicious. He was born at Melun in 1713, and educated at the college of the Barnabites at Montargis. He was afterwards engaged as tutor in the family of a farmer general. In 1742 he was admitted into the faculty of theology at Paris, and was employed on a cure near his native town till 1751, when he was invited to be professor of divinity in the college of Navarre. The more he was known, the more his merits were perceived; and the charge of Jansenism, which had been circulated against him, was gradually cleared away. Boyer, then bishop of Mirepoix, as a testimony of his regard, presented him to a canonry of Verdun. He died at Paris in 1755. Besides his shara in the Encyclopedie, he wrote several works on the principles of poetry and eloquence. His style is neat, easy, and unaffected; and he has great skill in developing the merits of good writers, and illustrating his precepts by the most apposite examples from their works. He published also a history of the civil wars of France, under the reigns of Francois II. Charles IX. &c. translated from the Italian of D'Avila, and published at Amsterdam in 3 vols. 4to.

, a learned historian and antiquary, first professor of history in his native city, was born at Geneva in 1730, became afterwards professor royal of the belles lettres at Copenhagen, a member of the academies of Upsal, Lyons, Cassel, and of the Celtique academy of Paris. Of his life no account has yet appeared. He joined an extensive acquaintance with history and general literature to great natural talents. The amenity of his disposition caused his company to be much sought, while his solid qualities procured him friends who deeply regretted his loss. The troubles of Geneva during the first revolutionary war deprived him of the greatest part of his fortune; and he was indebted, for the moderate competence he retained, to pensions from the duke of Brunswick and the landgrave of Hesse; but the events of the late war deprived him of both those pensions. The French government is said to have designed him a recompense, but this was prevented by his death, at Geneva, Feb. 8, 1807. His works were: 1. “Histoire de Danernarck,” to the eighteenth century, the best edition of which is that of 1787. 2. A translation of Coxe’s “Travels,” with remarks and additions, and a relation of his own Travels in Sweden, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Translation of the Acts and form of the Swedish government, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de Hesse,” to the seventeenth century, 3 vols. 8vo. 5. “Histoire de la rnaison de Brunswick,” to its accession to the throne of Great Britain, 3 vols. 8vo. 6. “Histoire des Suisses,” from the earliest times to the commencement of the late revolution, Geneva, 1803, 4 vols. 8vo. 7. “Histoire de la Ligne Anseatique,” from its origin to its decline, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo. He had discovered at Rome the chronological series of Icelandic bishops, which had been lost in Denmark. It is published in the third volume of Langebeck’s collection of Danish writers. The late Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, has made us acquainted with professor Mallet’s merit as an antiquary by his excellent translation entitled “Northern Antiquities; or a Description of the manners, customs, religion, and laws, of the ancient Danes, and other northern nations including those of our own Saxon ancestors. With a translation of the Edda, or system of Runic mythology, and other pieces from the ancient Islandic Tongue. Translated from M. Mallet’s Introduction a l'Histoire de Danemarck,” &c. 1770, 2 vols, 8vo. To this Dr. Percy has added many valuable and curious notes, and Goranson’s Latin version of the “Edda.” It was very justly said, at the time, by the Monthly Reviewer, that Dr. Percy had, in this instance, given a translation more valuable than the original.

, dean of the cathedral of Munster, and celebrated for his inquiries into typographical antiquities, was certainly a learned man, but very turbulent and ambitious. Hence it happened that he was named to two bishoprics without taking possession of either, and that he died in prison for his opposition to another prelate. The emperor Ferdinand I. appointed him to the bishopric of Ratzebourg, and he was, a few days after, elected to the see of Minden. But his ambition was to be bishop of Munster, and not succeeding, in 1650, he intrigued and raised seditions against the bishop who had succeeded, till in 1655, he was degraded from his dignity of dean. Nor yet warned, he continued his machinations, and in 1657, the bishop had him arrested and confined in the castle of Otteinzheim. Here he continued till his death, which happened suddenly, March 7, 1664. He wrote in Latin, 1. “De natura et usu Literarum,” Munster, 1638, 4to. 2. “De ortu et progressu artis Typographica;,” Cologne, 1639, 4to, and since reprinted in Wolfs collection of “Monumenta Typographica,” vol. I. 1740. 3. “De Archicancellariis S. R. imperil,” Munster, 1640, 4to. 4. “Paralipomenon de Historicis Gracis,” Cologne, 1656, 4to.

The “Fable of the Bees,” as we have observed, was attacked by several writers; particularly by Dr. Fiddes, in the preface to his “General treatise of morality formed upon the principles of natural religion only,” printed in 1724; by Mr. John Dennis, in a piece entitled “Vice and luxury public mischiefs,” in 1724; by Mr. William Law, in a book entitled “Remarks upon the Fable of the Bees,” in 1724; by Mr. Bluet, in his “Enquiry, whether the general practice of virtue tends to the wealth or poverty, benefit or disadvantage, of a people? In which the pleas offered by the author of The Fable of the Bees, for the usefulness of vice and roguery, are considered; with some thoughts concerning a toleration of public stews,” in 1725; by Mr. Hutcheson, author of the “Inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue, in several papers published at Dublin, and reprinted in the first volume of Hibernicus’s Letters;” and lastly, by Mr. Archibald Campbell, in his “Astoria,” first published by Alexander Innis, D. D. in his own name, but claimed afterwards by the true author. Mandeville’s notions were likewise animadverted upon by Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne in Ireland, in his “Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher,” printed in 1732; in answer to which Mandeville published, the same year, “A Letter to Dion, occasioned by his book called Alciphron.” In this year also a pamphlet appeared, entitled “Some remarks on the Minute Philosopher, in a letter from a country clergyman to his friend in London;” the anonymous author of which, supposed to have been John lord Harvey, interferes in the controversy between Mandeville and Berkeley with an apparent impartiality. It would be very unnecessary now, however, to enter minutely into the merits of a work no longer read. The prevailing error in the “Fable of the Bees” appears to us to be, that the author did not sufficiently distinguish between what existed, and what ought to be; that while he could uicontestibly prove “private vices” to be in some degree “public benefits,” that is, useful to the grandeur and financial prosperity of a state, he did not distinguish between vices properly so called, and superfluities, or articles of luxury, which are the accompaniments, and the usetul accompaniments too, of certain ranks of life. As to his tracing good actions to bad motives, and the general disposition he has to dwell on the unfavourable side of appearances in human nature and conduct, no apology can be offered, and none can be wanted for the contempt into which his writings have fallen.

, an ancient Egyptian historian, who pretends to take all his accounts from the sacred inscriptions on the pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, to whom the Egyptians ascribed the first invention of their learning, and all excellent arts, and from whom they derived their history. Manethos, as Eusebius tells us, translated the whole Egyptian history into Greek, beginning from their gods, and continuing his history down to near the time of Darius Codomannus, whom Alexander conquered; for in Eusebius’s <k Chronica,“mention is made of Manethos’s history, ending in the sixteenth year of Artaxerxes Ochus, which, says Vossius, was in the second year of the third olympiad. Manethos, called from his country Sebennyta, was highpriest of Heliopolis in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, at whose request he wrote his history, and digested it into three tomes; the first containing the eleven dynasties of the gods and heroes, the second eight dynasties, the third twelve, and altogether, according to his fabulous computation, the sum oft 53, 53 5 years. These dynasties are yet preserved, being first epitomized by Julius Africanus, from him transcribed by Eusebius, and inserted in his” Chronica;“from Eusebius by Georgius Syncellus, out of whom they are produced by Joseph Scaliger, and may be seen both in his Eusebius and his” Canones Isagogici.“Manethos, as appears by Eusebius, vouches this as the principal testimony of the credibility of his history, that he took his relations” from some pillars in the land of Seriad, on which they were inscribed in the sacred dialect by the first Mercury Thoth, and after the flood were translated out of the sacred dialect into the Greek tongue in hieroglyphic characters, and are laid up in books among the reveries of the Egyptian temples by Agathodsemon, the second Mercury, the father of Tat.“” Certainly,“says bishop Stillingfleet, in his” Origines Sacroe,“” this fabulous author could not in fewer words have more manifested his own impostures, or blasted his own credit, than he hath done in these."

, a learned English divine, was born at Leeds in 1684, and was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge, where he was admitted to his degrees, that of B. A. in 1707, M. A. 1711, LL.D. 1719, and D.D. 1725. He was also a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and rector of St. Mildred, Bread-street, London. He was early distinguished by his “Practical Discourses upon the Lord’s Prayer, preached before the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn; published by the special order of the Bench,” 1716, 8vo. These discourses were again printed in 1717, and in 1721; and in 1718 he published “Remarks upon Nazarenus; wherein the falsity of Mr. Toland’s Mahometan Gospel, and his misrepresentations of Mahometan sentiments in respect of Christianity, are set forth; the history of the old Nazaraeans cleared up, and the whole conduct of the first Christians, in respect to the Jewish laws, explained and described.” The author then stiled himself “Rector of St. Nicholas’s in Guilford,” to which he was instituted in 1717, and resigned in 1719-20. In, January 1719, he published “Plain Notions of our Lord’s Divinity,” a sermon preached on Christmas-day; in June 1719, “The eternal Existence of our Lord Jesus Christ,” a Visitation-sermon in October that year, “The Holiness of Christian-churches,” a sermon preached at Sunderland, on consecrating a new church there; and in 1720, “The providential Sufferings of good men,” a 30th of January sermon before the House of Commons. In 1719, Dr. Mangey wrote “A Defence of the Bishop of London’s Letter,” 8vo and, besides the sermons already mentioned, published five single ones, in 1716, 1726, 1729, 1731, and 1733. On May 11, 1721, he was presented to a prebend, the fifth stall in the cathedral church of Durham, being at that time chaplain to Dr. Robinson bishop of London, and vicar of Yealing, or Ealing, in the county of Middlesex. He was advanced to the first stall of Durham, Dec. 22, 1722; and, when treasurer of the chapter, greatly advanced the fines upon the tenants, and improved the rents of his prebendal lands nearly a hundred pounds a year. He was one of the seven doctors in divinity created July 6, 1725, when Dr. Bentley delivered the famous oration prefixed to his Terence; and at the end of 1726 he circulated proposals for an edition of “Philo Judaeus,” which he completed in 1742, under the title of “Philonis Judaei Opera omnia quas reperiri potuerunt,” 2 vols. folio. He died March 6, 1755, and was interred in the cathedral of Durham, where is an elegant Latin inscription to his memory, composed by Dr. Sharp, then a prebendary and archdeacon of Northumberland. His manuscript remarks on the New Testament came into the possession of Mr. Bowyer, who extracted from them many short notes, which are printed in his “Conjectures.” A very elegant inscription to Dr. Mangey by Dr. Taylor is prefixed to “Lysias Fragmenta.”

In 1741 he was elected to a fellowship of his college, in right of which he had the living of St. Botolph, in Cambridge, which he held until his marriage, in 1755. He took the degree of M. A. in 1744, and that of B. D. in 1753. In 1760, Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, to whom he was chaplain, gave him the prebend of Milton Ecclesia, in the church of Lincoln, consisting of the impropriation and advowson of the parish of Milton, co. Oxford. In 1763 he was presented by Dr. Greene, dean of Salisbury, to the vicarage of Godalming, in Surrey, and was instituted Dec. 22, he preferring the situation to that of St. Nicholas in Guildford (though a better living) which was offered to him by the same patron. Here he constantly resided till the time of his death, beloved and respected by his parishioners, and discharging his professional duty in the most punctual and conscientious manner. In 1769 he was presented to the rectory of Pepperharrow, an adjoining parish, by viscount Middleton. He was elected F. R. S. in 1767, and F. S. A. in 1770. To the sincere regret of his parishioners, and of all who knew him, Mr. Manning died Sept. 9, 1801, after a short attack of pleurisy, having entered his eighty-first year. By Catherine, his wife, daughter of Mr. Reade Peacock, a quaker, mercer, of Huntingdon, he had three sons and five daughters, all of whom survived him, except his eldest son, George Owen, and one of the daughters.

, one of the most learned and eminent nonconformists of the seventeenth century, was born at Lawrence Lydiard, in Somersetshire, in 1620. His father and grandfather were both clergymen, but of them we have no account, except that his father was settled at Whimpole in Devonshire, and sent his son to the freeschool at Tiverton. Here his progress was such that he was thought qualified to begin his academical studies at the age of fourteen, and about a year after, in 1635, he was entered of Wadham college, Oxford. From thence, in 1639, he removed to Hart-hall, where he took his bachelor’s degree in arts. Wood says, he was accounted in his college, “a hot-headed person,” a character very remote from that which he sustained throughout life, and when all eyes were upon him. After studying divinity, he was admitted to deacon’s orders by the celebrated Dr. Hall, bishop of Exeter, and although this was sooner than Mr. Man ton approved upon maturer thought, bishop Hall appears to have thought him duly qualified, and predicted that “he would prove an extraordinary person.” As he came into public life when principles of disaffection to the church were generally prevalent, it appears that he entered so far into the spirit of the times, as to be content with deacon’s orders, and to deny the necessity of those of the priest

His ministerial functions were exercised in various places, first at Sowton near Exeter, and then at Colyton in Devonshire, where he was much respected. Removing to London, he became more admired for his talents in the pulpit, and about 1643 was presented to the living of Stoke Newington, by colonel Popham, and here preached those lectures on the epistles of St. James and St. Jude, which he afterwards published in 1651 and 1652, 4to. During his residence at Newington, he often preached in London, and is said to have preached the second sermon before the sons of the clergy, an institution then set on foot, chiefly through the influence of Dr. Hall, son to the bishop, who preached the first. He was also one of those who were called occasionally to preach before the parliament, but being a decided enemy to the murder of the king, he gave great offence by a sermon in which he touched on that subject. In 1651 he shewed equal contempt for the tyranny of the usurpers, by preaching a funeral sermon for Mr. Love (see Christopher Love), and in neither case allowed the fears of his friends to prevent what he thought his duty. In 1650 he removed from Stoke-Newington, on being presented to the living of Covent garden by the earl, afterwards duke of Bedford, who had a high respect for him. At this church he had a numerous auditory. Archbishop Usher, who was one of his hearers, used to say that he was one of the best preachers in England, and had the art of reducing the substance of whole volumes into a narrow compass, and representing it to great advantage. Although he had already, by the two sermons above noticed, shewn that he was far from courting the favours, of government, Cromwell, who well knew how to avail himself of religious influence and popular talents, sent for him in 1653, when he assumed the protectorate, and desired him to pray at Whitehall on the morning of his installation; and about the same time made him one of his chaplains. He was nominated also by parliament one of a committee of divines to draw up a scheme of fundamental doctrines. In the same year he was appointed one of the committee for the trial and approbation of ministers, and appears to have acted in this troublesome office with considerable moderation. What influence he had with Cromwell, he employed for the benefit of others, and particularly solicited him to spare the life of Dr. Hewit, a loyalist, whom Cromwell executed for being concerned in a plot to restore Charles II. In 1660, when the days of usurpation were over, Mr. Manton co-operated openly in the restoration of Charles, was one of the ministers appointed to wait upon his majesty at Breda, and was afterwards sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains. In the same year he was, by mandamus, created doctor of divinity at Oxford.

He was then one of the ministers who waited upon the king after his arrival, to beg his majesty’s interposition for reconciling the differences in the church; and afterwards joined several of his brethren, in a conference with the episcopal clergy, at the lord chancellor’s house; preparatory to the declaration of his majesty, who was likewise present. Being satisfied with this declaration, Dr. Manton continued in his living of Covent-garden, and received episcopal institution from Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London, Jan. 16,1661, after having first subscribed the doctrinal articles only of the church of England, and taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and of canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest. He also allowed that the common-prayer should be read in his church. Soon after he was offered the deanery of Rochester, which he might have held until 1662, and enriched himself by letting leases; but, either dissatisfied with the advances he bad already made towards conformity, or foreseeing that greater would soon be expected, he honourably refused to enrich himself by accepting a dignity, the very existence of which he and his brethren were prepared to oppose. In 1661 he was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference, and continued preaching until St. Bartholomew’s day in 1662, when he was obliged to resign his living. After this he preached occasionally, either in private or public, as he found it convenient, particularly during the indulgence granted to the nonconformists from 1668 to 1670, but was imprisoned for continuing the practice when it became illegal. From this time his history is too generally involved with that of his brethren to admit of being separated. He preserved, amidst all vicissitudes, the friendship of the duke of Bedford, the duke of Richmond, lord Wharton, and many other persons of rank. To this they were probably induced by a congeniality of principle; but independent of this, Dr. Manton was a man of great learning and extensive reading, and his conversation as much recommended him to men of the world, as to those who admired his pious services. Waller, the poet, said “that he never discoursed with such a man as Dr. Manton in all his life.” He was also a person of extraordinary charity, and supplicated the assistance of his great friends more for the poor than for himself, being perfectly disinterested. Wood has misrepresented his character in all these respects. His constitution, although a man of great temperance, early gave way; and his complaints terminating in a lethargy, he died Oct. 18, 1677, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. He was buried in the chancel of the church at Stoke Newington, where his intimate friend Dr. Bates preached his funeral sermon, which includes a very copious character of him.

Soon after his marriage he relinquished the practice of physic, and retired, in order to turn his studies to divinity. In March 1682, he took both deacon’s and priest’s orders, and was soon after presented to the rectory of Braybrooke in Northamptonshire, by lord Griffin. In 1684 he was chosen lecturer of Ipswich, and a year after, vicar of St. Lawrence Jewry, and lecturer of St. Christopher’s in London. In 1689 he accumulated his doctor’s degree in divinity, while king William was at Cambridge. In 1707 he was chosen president of Sion college, having been a benefactor to their building and library. He continued to preach in his church of St. Lawrence Jewry till he was turned of eighty; and, when he was thinking of retiring, he printed a book entitled “The principles and duties of the Christian religion,” &c. 1710, 8vo, a copy of which he sent to every house in his parish. He lived the last ten years of his life with his only daughter Elizabeth, the wife of Dr. Gastrell, bishop of Chester, sometimes at Oxford, and in the winter at Westminster, where he died in 1721, in his ninety-first year. He' was a very polite scholar, wrote Latin elegantly, was a great master of the Greek, and understood well the French, Spanish, and Italian languages.

, an English divine, was born at North Thoresby in the county of Lincoln, in the beginning of 1610, of which place his father, Henry Mapletoft, was many years rector. He was educated at the free grammar school of Louth, and admitted of Queen’s college in Cambridge. When he had taken the degree of B. A. he removed to Pembroke hall, and was there made fellow January 6, 1630; and in or about 1633 was appointed chaplain to bishop Wren. He was one of the university preachers in 1641, and was some time after one of the proctors of the university. In 1644 (being then bachelor in divinity) he was ejected from his fellowship for not taking the covenant. After this he retired, and lived privately among his friends, and particularly with sir Robert Shirley in Leicestershire, where he became acquainted with Dr. Sheldon, who became archbishop of Canterbury. He had afterwards a private congregation in Lincoln, where he used to officiate according to the Liturgy of the church of England: this had like to have produced him much trouble; but it being found that he had refused a considerable sum of money offered him by his congregation, he escaped prosecution. On the restoration he returned to Cambridge, and was re-instated in his fellowship, and was presented by the Crown, August 1, 1660, on the death of Dr. Newell, to the prebend of Clifton in Lincoln cathedral, to which he was installed August 23, 1660: and then resigning it, he was also on the same day installed to the sub-deanery of the same church, which he resigned in 1671; and about the same time he became rector of Clayworth in Nottinghamshire, which living he afterwards exchanged for the vicarage of Soham, in Cambridgeshire. In 1661 he resigned his fellowship, and about that time was invited by archbishop Sheldon to be chaplain to the duchess of York, then supposed to be inclining to popery, and in want of a person of Dr. Mapletoft’s primitive stamp to keep her steady to her religion; but he could not be prevailed upon to accept the appointment. In 1664 he was elected master of Pembroke hall, and became doctor in divinity, and was by the king, August 7, 1667, promoted to the deanery of Ely. He served the office of vice-chancellor of the university of Cambridge in 1671, and died at Pembroke hall, August 20, 1677. His remains, according to his own desire, were deposited in a vault in the chapel of that college, near the body of bishop Wren, the founder of it, his honoured friend and patron, without any memorial.

, one of the greatest ornaments of the Gallican church, but a man of great inconsistency of character, was born in 1594, at Gant, in Bearn, of a very ancient family in that principality. He went through his course of philosophy among the Jesuits, and then studied the law for three years; after which he was received a counsellor in 1615, in the supreme council at Pau. In 1621 he was made president of the parliament of Bearn; and going to Paris in 1639, about the affairs of his province, was made a counsellor of state. In 1640 he published “The History of Bearn,” which confirmed the good opinion that was conceived of his knowledge and parts. He was thought, therefore, a very proper person to undertake a delicate and important subject, which offered itself about that time. The court of France was then at variance with the court of Rome, and the book which Peter de Puy published, concerning the liberties of the Gallican church, greatly alarmed the partisans of the court of Rome; some of whom endeavoured to persuade the world that they were the preliminaries of a schism contrived by cardinal Richelieu; as if his eminency had it in his head to erect a patriarchate in that kingdom, in order to render the Gallican church independent of the pope. A French divine, M. Hersent (see Hersent), who took the name of Optatus Gallus, addressed a book to the clergy upon the subject; and insinuated that the cardinal had brought over to his party a great personage, who was ready to defend this conduct of the cardinal; and this great personage was Peter de Marca. But an insinuation of this nature tending to make the cardinal odious, as it occasioned a rumour that he aspired to the patriarchate, the king laid his commands on de Marca to refute Hersent’s work, and at the same time to preserve the liberties of the Gallican church on the one hand, and to make it appear on the other that those liberties did not in the least diminish the reverence due to the holy see. He accepted of this commission, and executed it by his book “De Concordia sacerdotii & imperii, sive, de libertatibus ecclesisæ Gallicæ,” which he published in 1641. He declared in his preface, that he did not enter upon the discussion of right, but confined himself to the settling of facts: that is, he only attempted to shew what deference the Western churches had always paid to the bishop of Rome on the one side; and on the other, what rights and privileges the Gallican churclh had always possessed. But though he had collected an infinite number of testimonies in favour of the pope’s power, the work was of too liberal a cast not to give offence: perhaps even the very attempt to throw the subject open to discussion was not very agreeable and accordingly, the court of Rome made a great many difficulties in dispatching the bulls which were demanded in favour of de Marca, who had, in the end of 1641, been presented to the bishopric of Conserans. That court gave him to understand that it was necessary he should soften some things he had advanced; and caused his book to pass a very strict examination. After the death of Urban VIII. cardinal Bichi warmly solicited Innocent X. to grant the bulls in favour of the bishop of Conserans; but the assessor of the holy office recalled the remembrance of the complaints which had been made against his book “De Concordia,” which occasioned this pope to order the examination of it anew. De Marca, despairing of success unless he gave satisfaction to the court of Rome, published a book in 1646, in which he explained the design of his “De Coocordia,” &c. submitted himself to the censure of the apostolic see, and shewed that kings were not the authors, but the guardians of the canon laws. “I own,” says he, “that I favoured the side of my prince too much, and acted the part of a president rather than that of a bishop. I renounce my errors, and promise for the future to be a strenuous advocate for the authority of the holy see.” Accordingly, in 1647, he wrote a book entitled “De singulari primatu Petri,” in which he proved that St. Peter was the only head of the church; and this he sent to the pope, who was so pleased with it, that he immediately granted his bulls, and he was made bishop of Conserans in 1648. This conduct of de Marca has been noticed by lord Bolingbroke, in his posthumous works, with becoming indignation. He calls him “a time-­serving priest, interested, and a great flatterer, if ever there was one;” and adds, that, “when he could not get his bulls dispatched, be made no scruple to explain away all that he had said in favour of the state, and to limit the papal power.”

, a heretic, who lived in the second century of the church, was born at Sinope, a city of Paphlagonia, upon the Euxine sea, and had for his father the bishop of that city. Eusebius calls him 5 votumg, the mariner; and Tertullian, more than once, Ponticus Nauclerus. Whether he acquired this name from having learned the art of sailing in his youth, or from being born in a sea-port town, ecclesiastical antiquity has not told us. At first he professed continency, and betook himself to an ascetic life; but, having so far forgotten himself as to debauch a young lady, he was excommunicated by his father, who was so rigid an observer of the discipline of the church, that he could never be induced, by all his prayers and vows of repentance, to re-admithim into the communion of the faithful. This exposed him so much to the scoffs and insults of his countrymen, that he privily withdrew himself, and went to Rome, hoping to gain admittance there. But his case being known, he was again unsuccessful, which so irritated him, that he became a disciple of Cerdo, and espoused the opinions of that famous heretic. The most accurate chronologers have not agreed as to the precise time when Marcion went to Rome; but the learned Cave, after considering their reasons, determines it, and with the greatest appearance of probability, to the year 127; and supposes further, that he began to appear at the head of his sect, and to propagate his doctrines publicly, about the year 130. Indeed it could not well be later, because his opinions were dispersed far and wide in the reign of Adrian; and Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the heretics who lived under that emperor, mentions Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, who, he says, “conversed along with them, as a junior among seniors:” and Basilides died in the year 134.

While Marcion was at Rome, he happened to meet Polycarp of Smyrna: and upon asking that bishop, “whether he acknowledged him for a brother?” “I acknowledge you,” says Polycarp, “for the first-born of Satan.” Tertullian relates that Marcion at length repented of all his errors, and would have testified his repentance in public, provided they would have admitted him again into the church. This was agreed to, upon condition that he would bring back all those whom he had seduced from it; which before he could effect, he died. The precise time of his death cannot be collected from antiquity, any more than that of his going to Rome. It is certain, that he lived after Antoninus Pius began to reign; for, although his heresy had spread a great way under Adrian, yet, by his extraordinary vigilance and activity, it spread much further under Antoninus Pius. His first apology for the Christians was presented to Antoninus Pius about the year 140; and Justin Martyr tells us there, in express terms, that “Marcion of Pontus was then living, and taught his disciples at Rome.”

, an English author, who lived in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. but whose private history is involved in much obscurity, was son of Robert Markham, esq. of Gotham, in the county of Nottingham. He bore a captain’s commission under Charles I. in the civil wars, and was accounted a good soldier, as well as a good scholar. One piece of dramatic poetry which he has published will shew, says Langbaine, that he sacrificed to Apollo and the muses, as well as to Mars and Pallas. This play is extant under under the title of “Herod and Antipater,” a tragedy, printed in 1622. Markham published a great many volumes upon husbandry and horsemanship: one upon the latter, printed in quarto, without date, he dedicated to prince Henry, eldest son to James I. In husbandry he published “Liebault’s La Maison rustique, or the country -farm,” in 1616. This treatise, which was at first translated by Mr. Richard Surfleit, a physician, Markham enlarged, with several additions from the French books of Serris and Vinet, the Spanish of Albiterio, and the Italian of Grilli. He published other books of husbandry, particularly “The English Husbandman, in two parts,” Lond. 1613 1635, with the “Pleasures of Princes in the Art of Angling.” Granger mentions “The whole Art of Angling,” 1656, 4to, in which he says Markham very gravely tells us that an angler should “be a general scholar, and seen in all the liberal sciences; as a grammarian, to know how to write or discourse of his art in true and fitting terms. He should have sweetness in speech to entice others to delight in an exercise so much laudable. He should have strength of argument to defend and maintai n his profession against envy and slander,” &c. Markham also wrote a tract entitled “Hunger’s prevention, or the whole Art of Fowling,” 1621, 8vo. In military discipline he published “The Soldier’s Accidence and Grammar,” in 1635. But he appears to have been earliest distinguished by his talents for poetry. In 1597 he published “Devereux Vertues tears for the loss of the most Christian king Henry, third of that name king of France, and the untimely death of the most noble and heroical Walter Devereux, who was slain before Roan, in Fraunce,” a translation from the French, 4to. He was the author also of “England’s Arcadia, alluding his beginning from sir Philip Sydney’s ending,” 1607, 4to. The extracts from Markham in “England’s Parnassus,” are more numerous than from any other minor poet. The most remarkable of his poetical attempts appears to have been entitled “The Poem of Poems, or Sion’s Muse, contaynyng the diuine Song of king Salomon, deuided into eight eclogues,” J 596, 16mo. This is dedicated to “the sacred virgin, divine mistress Elizabeth Sydney, sole daughter of the everadmired sir Philip Sydney.” Bishop Hall, who was justly dissatisfied with much of the spiritual poetry with which his age was overwhelmed, alludes to this piece in his “Satires” (B. I. Sat. VIII.); and says that in Markham’s verses Solomon assumes the character of a modern sonneteer, and celebrates the sacred spouse of Christ with the levities and in the language of a lover singing the praises of his mistress. For this censure, Marston in his “Certayne Satires” (Sat. IV.) endeavours to retort upon Hall.

Mr. Markland found the “Sylvae” of Statins in a very corrupt state, obscure in itself, and mangled by its editors; yet, notwithstanding the want of ms copies, of which there were none in England, he appears to have Accomplished his task by uncommon felicity of judgment and conjecture. It is not very easy to comprehend Ernesti’s objection, that he “sometimes rather indulged his ingenuity and exquisite learning against the expressed authority of books,” since his object was to prove how much those books had failed in exhibiting a pure text. Of the ancient editions, Mr. Markland owns his obligations to that of Venice, 1472, which he found in the duke of Devonshire’s library, and which is also in lord Spencer’s; and that of Parma, 1473, belonging to the earl of Sunderland. The “Statius,” as well as the “Epistola Critica,” was dedicated to his friend bishop Hare.

After his return from France, Mr. Markland again took up his residence at college, and resumed his learned labours. In 1739 we find Mr. Taylor acknowledging his obligations to Mr. Markland for the “Conjecturse” annexed to his “Orationes et Fragmenta Lysiae,” an incomparable edition, on which Taylor’s fame may securely rest. In 1740 Mr. Markland contributed annotations to Dr. Davies’s second edition of Maximus Tyrius. This volume was printed by Mr. Bowyer, uncier the sanction of the society for the encouragement of learning; and such was Mr. Markland’s care, that this society, although on their part not very consistently, complained of the expence which Mr. Markland occasioned by his extreme nicety in correcting the proof-sheets. In an address to the reader, prefixed to his annotations, Mr. Markland brought forward a very singular discovery, that Maximus had himself published two editions of his work. It is very surprizing, therefore, that at this time, when Markland was receiving the thanks and praises of his learned contemporaries, Warburton only should under-rate his labours, and say in a letter to Dr. Birch, “I have a poor opinion both of Markland’s and Taylor’s critical abilities.” Whether this “poor opinion” proceeded from temper or taste, we find that it was afterwards adopted by Warburton’s friend Dr. Kurd, who went a little farther in compliment to his correspondent, and, somewhat luckily for Mr. Markland, involves himself in a direct contradiction, calling Mr. Markland, in the same sentence, a “learned man,” and a man of “slencjer parts and sense.” It cannot be too much regretted that bishop Hurd should have left his Warburtonian correspondence to be printed, after he had, in the republication of his own works, professed to recant many of the harsh opinions of his early days.

A little farther account, however, of this controversy, and its rise, may yet be interesting. In 1741, Mr. Tunstall, public orator of Cambridge, published his doubts on the authenticity of the letters between Cicero and Brutus (which Middleton, in his Life of Cicero, had considered as genuine), in a Latin dissertation. This Middleton called “a frivolous, captious, disingenuous piece of criticism,” answered it in English, and published the disputed epistles with a translation. On this, Tunstall, in 1744, published his “Observations on the Epistles, representing several evident marks of forgery in them, in answer to the late pretences of the Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton.” Markland, the following year, published his arguments on the same side of the question, which called forth a pamphlet, written by Mr. Ross, afterwards bishop of Exeter, entitled “A Dissertation in which the defence of P. Sylla, ascribed to M. Tullius Cicero, is clearly proved to be spurious, after the manner of Mr. Markland; with some introductory Remarks on other writings of the Ancients, never before suspected.” It is written in a sarcastic style, but with a display of learning very inferior to that of the excellent scholar against whom it was directed, and in a disposition very dissimilar to the candour and fairness which accompanied the writings of Markland. It has lately been discovered that Gray, the celebrated poet, assisted Ross in his pamphlet, but at the same time does not seem to have entertained a very high opinion of Ross’s wit. In a manuscript note in the first leaf of his copy of Markland, he writes: “This book is answered in an ingenious way, but the irony is not quite transparent.” Gray’s copy of Markland is now in the possession of his late excellent biographer, the rev. John Mitford, to whom we are indebted for these particulars. Mr. Mitford adds, that the notes which Gray has written in this copy “display a familiar knowledge of the structure of the Latin language, and answer some of the objections of Markland,” who had not then learnt the caution, in verbal criticism and conjectural emendation, which he well knew how to value when an editor of Euripides.“The only other pamphlet which this controversy produced was entitled” A Dissertation in which the observations of a late pamphlet on the writings of the Ancients, after the manner of Mr. Markland, are clearly answered; those passages in Tully corrected, on which some of the objections are founded: with amendments of a few pieces of criticism in Mr. Markland’s Epistola Critica," Lond. 1746, 8vo. At length Gesner defended the genuineness of the orations in question, and they were reprinted by Ernest, and are still believed to be part of Cicero’s works.

These melancholy views of literary patronage and support did not hinder Mr. Markland from hazarding his little property on the more uncertain issue of a law-suit, into which he was drawn by the benevolence of his disposition. His primary object in this affair, which occurred in 1765, was to support the widow with whom he lodged against the injustice and oppression of her son, who, taking advantage of maternal weakness, persuaded her to assign over to him the whole of her property. The consequence was a law-suit , which, after an enormous expence to Mr. Markland, was decided against the widow; and his whole fortune, after this event, was expended in relieving the distresses of the family. Some assistance he appears to have derived from his friends; but such was his dislike of this kind of aid, that he could rarely be prevailed upon to accept it. Yet at this time his whole property, exclusive of his fellowship (about seventy pounds a-year), consisted of five hundred pounds three per cent, reduced annuities; and part of the latter we find him cheerfully selling out for the support of his poor friends, rather than accept any loan or gift from his friends. He appears indeedabout this time to have been weaning himself from friendly connections, as well as his customary pursuits. In October of this year he even declined entering into a correspondence with his old acquaintance bishop Law, who wished to serve him, and desires Mr. Bowyer to write to the bishop, that “Mr. Markland is very old, being within a few days of seventy-three, with weak eyes and a shaking hand, so that he can neither read nor write without trouble: that he has scarce looked into a Greek or Latin book for above these three years, having given over all literary concerns and therefore it is your (Mr. Bowyer’s) opinion that he (the bishop) had much better not write to Mr. Markland, which will only distress him; but that you are very sure that he will not now enter into any correspondence of learning.” At length, in 1768, after much negotiation, and every delicate attention to his feelings, his pupil, Mr. Strode, prevailed on him to accept an annuity of one hundred pounds, which, with the dividends arising from his fellowship, was, from that time, the whole of his income.

It is to be regretted, however, that the splendour of his abilities was obscured by the extreme privacy of his life, and the many peculiarities of his disposition. The latter indeed seem to have been produced by the former, and that by some circumstances in his early life, which prevented him from making a choice among the learned professions. It is well known that bishop Hare would have provided for him, if he would have taken orders; but what his reasons were for dec-lining them, we are not told. It may be inferred from his correspondence that in maturer age he had some scruples of the religious kind, but these do not appear inconsistent with the liberty which many great and good men have thought consistent with subscription to the formularies of the church. By whatever means he was prevented from taking orders, it appears to have been a misfortune to him, as the patrons who were the best judges of his merit had no means of providing for him in any other direction. If he ever fancied that he could make his way through the world by the talents of a mere scholar employed in writing, we have evidence in his letters that he soon found his mistake, and that in his time classical criticism was not an article in great demand. Another reason for his frequent despondency, and love of retirement, appears to have been his interesting himself too much in the politics of the time, which he always viewed through a gloomy medium. We may, however, conclude this article with the striking and just observation made by his pupil Mr. Strode, in a letter to Mr. Nichols, that “Do friend of Mr. Maryland can reflect on his life without great satisfaction, although, for the further benefit of society, one might be led to wish some few circumstances of it had been otherwise.'”

Which rightly should possess a poet’s brain." In 1557 he translated Coluthus’s “Rape of Helen” into English rhyme. He also translated the elegies of Ovid, which book was ordered to be burnt at Stationers’-hall, 1599, by command of the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London. Before 1598 appeared his translation of the “Loves of Hero and Leander,” the elegant prolusion of an unknown sophist of Alexandria, but commonly ascribed to the ancient Musseus. It was. left unfinished by Marlow’s death; but what was called a second part, which is nothing more than a continuation from the Italian, appeared by one Henry Petowe, in 1598. Another edition was published, with the first book of Lucan, translated also by Marlow, and in blank verse, in 160O. At length Chapman, the translator of Homer, completed, but with a striking inequality, Marlow’s unfinished version, and printed it at London in 1606, 4to. His plays were, 1. “Tamerlane the great Scythian emperor, two parts,” ascribed by Phillips erroneously to Newton. 2. “The rich Jew of Maltha.” 3. “The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Dr. John Faustus.” 4. “Lnst’s Dominion,” Lond. 1661, 8vo, from which was stolen the greater part of Aphra Behn’s “Abdelazer, or the More’s Revenge,” Lond. 1677. 5. “The Tragedy of King Edward II.” 6. “The Tragedy of Dido, queen of Carthage,” in the composition of which he was assisted by Thomas Nash, who published it in 1594.

, an exemplary Irish prelate, was descended from a Saxon family, formerly seated in Kent, whence his great-grandfather removed; and was born at Hannington, in Wiltshire, Dec. 20, 1638. He received the first rudiments of learning in his native place; and being there well fitted for the university, was admitted of Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, in 1654. He became B. A. in 1657, master in 16 60, bachelor of divinity in 1667, and doctor in 1671. In the mean time he was made fellow of Exetercollege, in 1658; afterwards chaplain to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Exeter, and then to chancellor Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In 1673, he was appointed principal of Alban-hall, Oxford, by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university; and executed the duties of his office with such zeal and judgment, that, according to Wood, “he made it flourish more than it had done many years before, or hath since his departure.” In 1678 he was removed by the interest of Dr. John Fell, together with that of the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the dignity of provost of Dublin-college. He was promoted to the bishopric of Leighlin and Ferns in 1683, translated to the archbishopric of Cashell in 1690, thence to Dublin in 1699, and then to Armagh in 1703. After having lived with honour and reputation to himself, and benefit to mankind in general, he died Nov. 2, 1713, aged seventy-five, and was buried in a vault in St. Patrick’s church-yard.

Dr. Marsh appears to have employed the greater part of his life and income in acts of benevolence and utility. While he presided over the see of Dublin, he built a noble library, and filled it with a choice collection of books; having for that purpose bought the library of Dr. Stillingfleet, late bishop of Worcester, to which he added his own collection; and to make it the more useful to the public, he settled a handsome provision on a librarian and sublibrarian, to attend it at certain hours. This prelate also endowed an alms-house at Drogheda, for the reception of twelve poor clergymen’s widows, to each of whom he assigned a lodging, and 20l. per annum. He likewise repaired, at his own expence, many decayed churches within his diocese, and hought-in several impropriations, which he restored to the church. Nor did he confine his good actions to Ireland only; for he gave a great number of manuscripts in the oriental languages, chiefly purchased out of Golius’s collection, to the Bodleian library. He was a very learned and accomplished man. Besides sacred and profane literature, he had applied himself to mathematics and natural philosophy: he was deep in the knowledge of languages, especially the oriental; he was also skilled in music, the theory as well as the practice; and he frequently, in the earlier part of his life, had concerts of vocal and instrumental music for his own amusement, both at Exeter-college and Alban-hall. Dean Swift must have been under the influence of the most virulent spleen, when he wrote of such a man as Dr. Marsh, the gross caricature published in his works. As an antidote, we would recommend a letter from this excellent prelate, published in “Letters written by eminent persons,” &c. 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.

, a celebrated preacher at the beginning of the last century, was of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of D. D. in 1717. He was lecturer at Aldermanbury church, and curate of Kentish-town, in Jan. 1715, when, at the recommendation of the princess of Wales, who was pleased with his manner of preaching, he was appointed one of the king’s chaplains in 1717, he was rector of the united parishes of St. Veclast and St. Mich;iel-le-Q.nerne, London and, in Feb. 1731, rector of St. Vedast, lecturer of St. Lawrence Jewry, and St. Martin Ironmonger-lane, prebendary of Windsor, and king’s chaplain. These dates and preferments are collected from his title-pages. He died Feb. 4, 1729. His principal publications are, “The genuine Works of St. Cyprian,” 1717, folio; “A Defence of our Constitution in Church and State,” &c. 1717, 8vo, (on which Dr. Sykes published some “Remarks;” and which was also replied to by Matt. Earbury in a tract added to his “Serious Admonition to Dr. Kennett.” Dr. Marshall’s “Sermons on several occasions” appeared in 1730, 3 vols. 8vo, to which another was added in 1750. These were posthumous, and inscribed to queen Caroline by the author’s widow, who was left with eight children, the eldest of whom was preacher at St. John’s chapel, Bedford-row, which he opened Feb. 10, 1722. He died Aug. 23,. 173 1. Bishop Clayton, in his “Letters to his Nephew,” recommends Dr. Marshall’s Sermons, as preferable to Sherlock’s and Atterbury’s for pathos, and for lively and warm applications.

He produced some writings; as, 1. “Observationes in Evangeliorum versiones perantiquas duas, Gothicas scilicet & Anglo-Saxonicas,” &c. Dordrecht, 1665. 2. “The Catechism set forth in the book of Common Prayer, briefly explained by short notes, grounded upon Holy Scripture/' Oxf. 1679. These short notes were drawn up by him at the desire of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to be used by the ministers of his diocese in catechising their children. 3.” An Epistle for the English reader, prefixed to Dr. Thomas Hyde’s translation into the Malayan language of the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles,“Oxf. 1677. 4. He took a great deal of pains in completing” The Life of Archbishop Usher,“published by Dr. Richard Parr, sometime fellow of Exeter college, Lond. 1686. Wood tells us,” that he was a person very well versed in books, a noted critic, especially in the Gothic and English-Saxon tongues, a painful preacher, a good man and governor, and one every way worthy of his station in the church; and that he Whs always taken to be an honest and conscientious puritan.“Dr. Hickes, in” The Life of Mr. John Kettlewell,“p. 3, styles him” a very eminent person in the learned world; and observes, that what he has published shewed him to be a great man.“Dr. Thomas Smith styles him also a most excellent man,” vir pra’stantissimus," and adds, that he was extremely well skilled in the Saxon, and in the Eastern tongues, especially the Coptic; and eminent for his strict piety, profound learning, and other valuable qualifications.

, a French historian of some credit, was born at Paris in 16*7. He took the habit of a canon regular of St. Gdnevieve, and was sent to regulate the chapter of Usez, where he was made provost. This office he resigned in favour of the abbe Poncet, who was afterwards bishop of Angers. Some time after, he was made archdeacon of Usez, and died in that city Aug. 30, 1724, at the age of 78. Marsollier published several histories, which are still read by his countrymen with some pleasure: the style, though occasionally debased by low and familiar expressions, being in general rather lively and flowing. There are extant by him, 1. “A History of Cardinal Ximenes,” in 1693, 2 vols. 12mo, and since frequently reprinted. The only fault found with this work is, that the author gives up his attention to the public man so much, as almost to forget his private character. 2. “A History of Henry VII. King of England,” reprinted in 1727, in 2 vols. 12mo. Some consider this as the master-piece of the author. 3. “The History of the Inquisition and its origin,” 1693, 12mo. A curious work, and in some respects a bold one. 4. “Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Life of Madame de Chantal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Life of Dom Ranqe, abbe and reformer of La Trappe,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo. Some objections have been made to the veracity of this history, but the journalists de Trevoux seem disposed to prefer it upon the whole to Maupeou’s life of Ranee. 7. “Dialogues on many Duties of Life,” 1715, 12mo. This is rather verbose than instructive, and is copied in a great degree from Erasmus. 8. “The History of Henry de la Tour d'Auvergne, duke of Bouillon,” 3 vols. 12mo. Not much esteemed. 9. “An Apology for Erasmus,” 12mo; whose catholic orthodoxy the author undertakes to prove from passages in his works. 10. “A History of Tenths, and other temporal Goods of the Church,” Paris, 1689, 12mo. This is the most scarce, and at the same time the most curious, of all the works of Marsollier.

, an eminent civilian, the son of Thomas Martin, was born at Cerne, in Dorsetshire, and educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1539. He applied himself chiefly to the canon and civil law, which he likewise studied at Bourges, and was admitted doctor. On entering upon practice in Doctors’ Commons, he resigned his fellowship; and in 1555, being incorporated LL. D. at Oxford, he was made chancellor of the diocese of Winchester. This he owed to the recommendation of bishop Gardiner, who had a great opinion of his zeal and abilities, and no doubt very justly, as he found him a ready and useful assistant in the persecution of the protestants in queen Mary’s time. Among other instances, he was joined in commission with Story in the trial of archbishop Cranmer at Oxford. His proceedings on that occasion may be seen in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments” under the years 1555 and 1556. His conduct probably was not very grosser tyrannical, as, although he was deprived of his offices in Elizabeth’s reign, he was allowed quietly to retire with his family to Ilfield in Sussex, where he continued in privacy until his death in 1584. He wrote two works against the marriage of priests; but that which chiefly entitles him to some notice here, was his Latin “Life of William of Wykeham,” the munificent founder of New college, the ms. of which is in the library of that college. It was first published in 1597, 4to, and reprinted, without any correction or improvement, by Dr. Nicholas, warden of Winchester, in 1690, who does not seem to have been aware how much more might be recovered of Wykeham, as Dr. Lowth has proved. This excellent biographer says that Martin seems not so much to have wanted diligence in collecting proper materials, as care and judgment in digesting and composing them. But it is unnecessary to say much of what is now rendered useless by Dr. Lowth’s work. Dr. Martin bequeathed, or gave in his life-time, several valuable books to New college library.

, a Dominican friar, and eminent orientalist, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born at Sobiras in Catalonia; and was one of those of his order who were appointed, at a general chapter held at Toledo in 1250, to study Hebrew and Arabic, in order to confute the Jews and Mahometans. The occasion of it was this: Raymond de Pennafort, general of the order, having a strong desire to extirpate Judaism and Mahometanism, with which Spain was infected, procured an order from this chapter, that the religious of his society should apply themselves to the study of Hebrew and Arabic. This task he imposed on Martin among others; and he obtained a pension of the kings of Arragon and Castile, for such as should study those languages, pn purpose that they might be able to exert themselves in the conversion of infidels. Martin accordingly applied himself to those studies with great success; and, having sufficiently studied the works of the rabbins, they furnished him with such arguments, as enabled him to combat the Jews very skilfully. This appears from his “Pugio fidei,” which waa finished, as we learn from himself, in 1278, though the first publication of it at Paris was not till 1651. Bosquet, who died bishop of Montpelier, met with the manuscript, while he was with great ardour examining the library of the college de Foix at Toulouse, about 1629, and, after copying some things out of it, he gave it to James Spieghel, a learned German, and his preceptor in the Hebrew tongue. Spieghel advised Maussac to publish it; who, though very able to do it by himself, had however for an assistant Mr. de Voisin, son of a counsellor in the parliament at Bourdeaux, who took upon him the greatest part of the task. Thomas Turc, another general of the Dominicans, was very earnest in spurring on the promoters of this edition; and, not satisfied with soliciting them by letters equally importunate and obliging, he gave orders that they should be provided with all the manuscripts of the “Pugio fidei” that could be recovered, In short, the Dominican order interested themselves so much in it, that they bore the charges of the impression. Some assert, that Martin wrote another book, entitled, “Capistrum Judaeorum,” and also “A Confutation of the Alcoran;” and that a copy of the “Pugio fidei,” written by his own hand in Latin and Hebrew, was preserved at Naples in the convent of St. Dominic. The great knowledge which he has discovered of the books and opinions of the Jews, has made some imagine that he was of that religion; but this is thought to be a mistake. The time of Martin’s death is uncertain.

He continued at Oxford till queen Mary came to the throne; when he was suffered to depart the kingdom, and passed undiscovered through Brabant, and other popish territories, to Strasburg; though it is said, not without considerable risk. Thence he went to Zurich, upon an honourable invitation from the magistrates of that place, to be their divinity professor; and was accompanied thither by Jewel, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, who was then an exile for his religion. At Zurich Martyr lived seven years in high esteem with the inhabitants of the place, and in great friendship with Bullinger, and other learned men. He was afterwards invited to Geneva, to be pastor of the Italian church there; and in queen Elizabeth’s reign, when protestantism was re-established in England, bishop Jewel endeavoured to prevail on him to return, but in vain; he continued at Zurich to the time of his death, Nov. 12, 1562, in his sixty-third year. The year before he died, however, he was prevailed upon by letters from the queenmother of France, the king of Navarre, the prince of Conde", and other peers of that realm, to go over into France to the solemn conference at Poissy, where he disputed against the papists, with Beza and others. Not long after his arrival at Zurich, he took a second wife, who was recommended to him from the Italian church at Geneva, where she lived an exile for religion. He had two children by her, who both died very young, and before him; and he left her with child of a third, which proved a daughter.

Peter Martyr is described to have been a man of an able, healthy constitution, large-boned, well limbed, and of a countenance which expressed an inwardly grave and settled turn of mind. His parts and learning were very uncommon; as was also his skill in disputation, which made him as much admired by the protestants, as hated by the papists. He was very sincere and indefatigable in promoting a reformation in the church; yet his zeal was never known to get the better of his judgment. He was always moderate and prudent in his outward behaviour; nor, even in the conflict of a dispute, did he suffer himself to be transported into intemperate warmth, or unguarded expressions ever to escape him. But his pains and industry were not confined to preaching and disputing against the papists; he wrote a great many books against them, none of which raised his reputation higher, than his “Defence of the orthodox doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” against bishop Gardiner. He wrote also several tracts of divinity, and commentaries on many books of Scripture; for all which he was as much applauded by one party, as he was condemned by the other. Dupin, however, with his usual candour, bestows the highest praise on the learning and critical skill of Martyr as a commentator. It is easy to conceive, that Peter Martyr would be ranked at Rome amongst the heretics of the first class; yet, as bishop Jewel observes in his “Defence of the Church of England,” he “was an illustrious man, and must never be named without the highest respect and honour.”

The body was accordingly taken up and buried in the dunghill near the dean’s stable, and remained there, until queen Elizabeth was settled on the throne, when a singular act of retaliation took place. The archbishop of Canterbury, bishop of London, and others, having ordered some of the society of Christ church to replace the body, Dr. Calfhill, the subdean, not content with this, made search for the relics of St. Frideswyde, and having found them, put them into the coffin along with the remains of Martyr’s wife, that in time they might become (indistinguishable. In this state the coffin was solemnly interred in Christ church. On this occasion one of the Oxford wits proposed by way of epitaph, “Hie jacet religio cum superstitione.” Dr. Calfhiil published in the following year (1562), an account of this affair, entitled “Historia cte exhuumione Katherinee nuper uxoris Petri Martyris,” in 8vo.

The first attack he made with his pen was in 1672, upon Dr. Parker, a man of parts and learning, but a furious partizan, and virulent writer on the side of arbitrary government, who at this time published “Bishop Bramhall’s Vindication of himself, and the rest of the episcopal clergy, from the presbyterian charge of popery, &c.” to which he added a preface of his own. This preface Marvell attacked, in a piece called “The Rehearsal transprosed; or, animadversions on a late book, intituled, A preface, shewing what grounds there are of fears and jealousies of Popery, the second impression, with additions and amendments. London, printed by J. D. for the assigns of John Calvin and Theodore Beza, at the sign of the king’s indulgence, on the south side of the Lake Leman; and sold by N. Ponder in Chancery-lane,” 1672,“in 8vo. The title of this piece is taken in part from the duke of Buckingham’s comedy, called” The Rehearsal;“and, as Dryden is ridiculed in that play under the name of Bayes, Marvell borrowed the same name for Parker, whom he exposed with much strength of argument, and force of humour. Parker answered Marvell in a letter entitled” A Reproof to the Rehearsal transprosed;“to which Marvell replied in,” The Rehearsal transprosed, the second part. Occasioned by two letters: the first printed by a nameless author, entitled A Reproof, &c. the second left for me at a friend’s house, dated Nov. 3, 1673, subscribed J. G. and concluding with these words: If thou darest to print any lie or libel against Dr. Parker, by the eternal God I will cut thy throat. Answered by Andrew Marvell,“Lond. 1673, 8vo. Marveil did not confine himself in these pieces to Parker’s principles, as they appear in the” Preface and the Reproof;“but he exposed and confuted likewise various opinions which the doctor had advanced in his” Ecclesiastical Polity,“published in 1670, and in his” Defence“of it in 167 1. Parker made no reply to Marvell’s last piece:” He judged it more prudent,“says Wood,” to lay down the cudgels, than to enter the lists again with an untowardly combatant, so hugely well versed and experienced in the then but newly refined art, though much in mode and fashion almost ever since, of sporting and buffoonery. It was generally thought, however, by many of those who were otherwise favourers of Parker’s cause, that the victory lay on Marvell’s side; and it wrought this good effect on Parker, that for ever after it took down his high spirit.“Burnet, speaking of Parker, says that,” after he had for some years entertained the nation with several virulent books, he was attacked by the liveliest droll of the age, who wrote in a burlesque strain; but with so peculiar and entertaining a conduct, that from the king down to the tradesman, his books were read with great pleasure. That not only humbled Parker, but the whole party; for the author of the Rehearsal transprosed had all the men of wit on his side.“Swift likewise, speaking of the usual fate of common answerers to books, and how short-lived their labours are, adds, that” there is indeed an exception, when any great genius thinks it worth his while to expose a foolish piece: so we still read MarvelPs answer to Parker with pleasure, though the book it answers be sunk long ago." Several other writers fell with great fury and violence upon Marvell; but Parker being considered as the principal, Marvell took but slight notice of the others.

A few years after, another divine fell under the cognizance of MarvfclPs pen. In 1675, Dr. Herbert Croft, bishop of Hereford, published without his name, a discourse in 4to, entitled, “The Naked Truth; or the true state of the Primitive Church. By an humble Moderator.” This was immediately answered by several persons, and among the rest by Dr. Turner, master of St. John’s-colJege, Cambridge, in a book called “Animadversions upon a late pamphlet, entitled, The Naked Truth,” &c. This animadverter being against moderation, which the author of “Naked Truth” had written his book on purpose to recommend, provoked Marvell to take him to task, in a piece entitled “Mr. Smirke, or the divine in mode; being certain annotations upon the animadversions on The Naked Truth, together with a short historical essay concerning general councils, creeds, and impositions in matters of religion, fiy Andreas Rivetus, junior. Anagrammatised, Res nuda veritas” 1676, 4to. The “Historical Essay” was afterwards printed by itself in folio. The last work of our author, which was published during his life, was “An account of the growth of Popery and arbitrary government in England; more particularly, from the long prorogation of Nov. 1675, ending the 15th of Feb. 1676, till the last meeting of parliament the 16th of July, 1677; _1678,” folio: and reprinted in State tracts in 1689. In this the author, having imputed the Dutch war to the corruption of the court, asserts, that the papists, and particularly the French, were the true springs of all the councils at this time: and these, and other aspersions upon the king and ministry, occasioned the following advertisement to be published in the Gazette: “Whereas there have been lately printed and published several seditious and scandalous libels against the proceedings of both houses of parliament, and other his majesty’s courts of justice, to the dishonour of his majesty’s government, and the hazard of public peace; these are to give notice, that what person soever shall discover unto one of the secretaries of state the printer, publisher, author, or hander to the press, of any of the said libels, so that full evidence may be made thereof to a jury, without mentioning the informer; especially one libel, intituled, An account of the growth of Popery, &c. and another called, A seasonable argument to all the grand juries, &c. the discoverer shall be rewarded as follows: he shall have fifty pounds for such discovery, as aforesaid, of the printer or publisher of it from the press and for the hander of it to the press, \00l. &c.”

King Edward her brother dying the 6th of July, 1553, she was proclaimed queen the same month, and crowned in October, by Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester. In July 1754, she was married to Philip prince of Spain, eldest son of the emperor Charles the Fifth; and now began that persecution against the Protestants, for which her reign is so justly infamous. Until her marriage with that tyrant, she appears to have been merciful and humane, for Holinshed tells us, that when she appointed sir Richard Morgan chief justice of the Common Pleas, she told him, “that notwithstanding the old error, which did not admit any witness to speak, or any other matter to be heard, (her majesty being party,) her pleasure was, that whatsoever could be brought in favour of the subject should be admitted to be heard; and moreover, that the justices should not persuade themselves to put in judgment otherwise for her highness than for her subject.” Hence some have carried their good opinion of her so far, as to suppose that most of those barbarities were transacted by her bishops, without her knowledge or privity; but as this was impossible, it would be a better defence, if she must be defended, to plead that a strict adherence to a false religion, and a conscientious observance of its pernicious and cruel dictates, overruled and got the better of that goodness of temper, which was natural to her. Yet neither this can be reasonably admitted when we consider her unkind and inhuman treatment of her sister, the lady Elizabeth; her admitting a council for the taking up and burning of her father’s body; her most ungrateful and perfidious breach of promise with the Suffolk men; her ungenerous and barbarous treatment of judge Hales, who had strenuously defended her right of succession to the crown; and of archbishop Cranmer, who in reality had saved her life. These actions were entirely her own; her treatment of Cranmer becomes aggravated by the obligations she had been under to him. Burnet says, “that her firm adherence to her mother’s cause and interest, and her backwardness in submitting to the king her father, were thought crimes of such a nature by his majesty, that he came to a resolution, to put her openly to death; and that, when all others were unwilling to run any risk in saving her, Cranmer alone ventured upon it. In his gentle way he told the king, That she was young and indiscreet, and therefore it was no wonder if she obstinately adhered to that which her mother and all about her had been infusing into her for many years; but that it would appear strange, if he should for this cause so far forget the father, as to proceed to extremities with his own child; that, if she were separated from her mother and her people, in a little time there might be ground gained on her; but that to take away her life, would raise horror through all Europe against him;” by which means he preserved her. Queen Catharine, hearing of the king’s bloody intention, wrote a long letter to her daughter, in which she encouraged her to suffer cheerfully, to trust to God, and keep her heart clean. She charged her in all things to obey the king’s commands, except in the matters of religion. She sent her two Latin books; the one, “De vita Christi, with the Declaration of the Gospels;” the other, “St. Jerome’s Episles to Paula and Eustochium.” This letter of Catharine may be seen in the Appendix to Burnet’s second volume of the “History of the Reformation.” She fell a sacrifice, however, at last to disappointed expectations, both of a public and domestic kind, and especially the absence and unkindness of Philip; which are supposed, by deeply affecting her spirits, to have brought on that fever of which she died, Nov. 7, 1558, after a reign of five years, four months, and eleven days. “It is not necessary,” says Hume, “to employ many words in drawing the character of this princess. She possessed few qualities either estimable or amiable, and her person was as little engaging, as her behaviour and address. Obstinacy, bigotry, violence, cruelty, malignity, revenge, tyranny; every circumstance of her character took a tincture from her bad temper and narrow understanding. And amidst that complication of vices, which entered into her composition, we shall scarcely find any virtue but sincerity; a quality which she seems to have maintained throughout her whole life; except in the beginning of her reign, when the necessity of her affairs obliged her to make some promises to the Protestants which she certainly never intended to perform. But in these cases a weak bigoted woman, under the government of priests, easily finds casuistry sufficient to justify to herself the violation of a promise. She appears also, as well as her father, to have been susceptible of some attachments of friendship; and even without the caprice and inconstancy which were so remarkable in the conduct of that monarch. To which we may add, that in many circumstances of her life she gave indications of resolution and vigour of mind, a quality which seems to have been inherent in her family.”

There are some of her writings still extant, Strype has preserved three prayers or meditations of her composition the first, “Against the assaults of vice” the second, “A Meditation touching adversity;” the third, “A prayer to be read at the hour cf death.” In Fox’s “Acts and Monuments” are printed eight of her letters to king Edvvard and the lords of the council, on her nonconformity, and on the imprisonment of her chaplain Dr. Mallet. In the “Sylloge epistolarum,” are several more of her letters, extremely curious: one on the subject of her delicacy in never having written but to three men; one of affection for her sister; one after the death of Anne Boleyn; and one very remarkable of Cromwell to her. In “Haynes’s State papers,” are two in Spanish, to the emperor Charles the Fifth. There is also a French letter, printed by Strype from the “Cotton library,” in answer to a haughty mandate from Philip, when he had a mind to marry the lady Elizabeth to the duke of Savoy, against the queen and princess’s inclination: it is written in a most abject manner, and a wretched style. Bishop Tanner ascribes to her “A History of her own life and death,” and “An Account of Martyrs in her reign,” dated 1682; but this is manifestly an error.

They were married at St. James’s, Nov. 4, 1677; and, after receiving the proper congratulations from those who were concerned to pay them, embarked for Holland about a fortnight after, and made their entrance into the Hague with the utmost pomp and magnificence. Here she lived with her consort, practising every virtue and every duty; till, upon a solemn invitation from the states of England, she followed him thither, and arrived at Whitehall, Feb. 12, 1689. The prince of Orange had arrived Nov. 5 preceding; and the occasion of their coming was to deliver the kingdom from that popery and slavery which were just ready to oppress it. King James abdicated the crown; and it was put on their heads, as next heirs, April 11, 1689. They reigned jointly till Dec. 28, 1694, when the queen died of the small-pox at her palace of Kensington. It would lead to an excursion of too much extent, to describe the many virtues and excellences of this amiable princess; a picture of her, however, may be seen in Burnet’s Essay on her memory, printed in 1695, which contains a delineation of every female virtue, and of every female grace. He represents her saying, that she looked upon idleness as the great corrupter of human nature, and as believing, that if the mind had no employment given it, it would create some of the worst to itself: and she thought that any thing which might amuse and divert, without leaving a dreg and impression behind it, ought to fill up those vacant hours that were not claimed by devotion or business. When her eyes, adds the bishop, were endangered by reading too much, she found out the amusement of work; and in all those hours that were not given to better employments, she wrought with her own hands, and that sometimes with so constant a diligence, as if she had been to earn her bread by it. It is said by another writer, that when reflections were once made before queen Mary of the sharpness of some historians who had left heavy imputations on the memory of certain princes, she answered, “that if these princes were truly such as the historians represented them, they had well deserved that treatment and others who tread their steps might look for the same for truth would be told at last.” This excellent princess was so composed upon her deathbed, that when archbishop Tillotson, who assisted her in her last moments, stopped, with tears in his eyes, on coming to the commendatory prayer in the office for the sick, she said to him, “My lord, why do you not go on? I am not afraid to die.”

, an eminent French preacher, the son of a celebrated advocate to the parliament of Aix, was born, 1634, at Marseilles. He entered early among the priests of the oratory, was employed at the age of twentytwo to teach rhetoric at Mans, and preached afterwards with such applause at Saumur and Paris, that the court engaged him for Advent 1666, and Lent 1667. Mascaroa was so much admired there, that his sermons were said to be formed for a court; and when some envious persons would have made a crime of the freedom with which he announced the truths of Christianity to the king, Louis XIV. defended him, saying, “He has done his duty, it remains for us to do our’s.” P. Mascaron was appointed to the bishopric of Tulles, 1671, and translated to that of Agen in 1678. He returned to preach before the king in Advent 1694, and Louis XIV. was so much pleased, that he said to him, “Your eloquence alone, neither wears out nor grows old.” On going back to Agen, he founded an hospital, and died in that city, December 16, 1703, aged sixty-nine. None of his compositions have been printed, but “A collection of his Funeral Orations,” among which, those on M. de Turenne and the chancellor Seguier, are particularly admired. It may be proper to mention, that M. Mascaron having been ordained priest by M. de Lavardin, bishop of Mans, who declared on his death-bed, that he never intended to ordain any priest, the Sorbonne was consulted whether this prelate’s ordinations were valid. They decided “That it was sufficient if he had the exterior intention to do what the church does, and that he certainly b.ad it, because he did so: therefore it was not needful to ordain those priests again, which this bishop had ordained.” But notwithstanding this decision, M. Mascaron chose to be ordained again; which proves, says L'Avocat, that he was a better preacher than casuist, and that his conscience was more scrupulous than enlightened on this point.

, a French theologian, was at first only a rector in the diocese of Amiens, but afterwards a person in great confidence with the bishop, and by him placed at the head of the seminary of that district. He was deeply skilled in languages, particularly the Oriental. The virtuous bishop de Brou made him also a canon of Amiens; but when that prelate died, in 1706, he was not equally in favour with his successor, as they did not agree on the subject of Jansenism, then an object of great contention. He was now removed from the seminary, and every other public function, but consoled himself by his studies, which he pursued with new ardour. He died in November, 1728, at the age of sixty-six. His principal works are, 1. “A Hebrew Grammar,” according to a new method, in which the points are discarded, printed in 1716; improved and reprinted in 2 vols. 12mo, by M. de la Bletterie, in 1730. 2. “Ecclesiastical Conferences of the diocese of Amiens.” 3. “The Catechism of Amiens,” 4to. He left also in manuscript a system of philosophy and of theology, which would have been published, had they not been thought to contain some seeds of Jansenism. Masclef was no less respectable by his character than by his learning.

, or Dumas, born in 1516, at Linnich, near Brussels, was one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century. He was secretary to John de Weze, bishop of Constance, after whose death he was sent as an agent to Rome. He married at Cleves in 1558, and was appointed counsellor to William duke of Cleves. He died in April 1573. He was a master of the ancient and oriental languages to such a degree, that Sebastian Minister said he seemed to have been brought up in ancient Rome, or ancient Jerusalem. He produced, 1. “A Collection of various pieces, ancient and modern, translated from the Syriac,” Antwerp, 1569. 2. “Syrorum Peculium,” 1571, folio. This is a Syriac lexicon. 8. “Grammatica Linguae Syricae,” 1571, folio. 4. “A Commentary on the Book of Joshua,” Antwerp, 1574, folio, and also in the Critici Sacri. Dr. Henry Owen, who published a “Critical Disquisition” on this work in 1784, observes, that v although Masius’s professed design was to correct and restore the Greek text, yet his latent intention was merely to confirm the authority of the Septuagint. 5. “Disputatio de Ccena Domini,” Antwerp, 1575. 6. Commentaries on some chapters of Deuteronomy. He was in possession of the famous Syriac ms. written in the year 606, which afterwards belonged to D. E. Jablonsky. This manuscript is the only one that preserves the readings of Joshua as given by Origen.

Dr. Maskelyne’s private character was likewise truly estimable. He was indeed exemplary in the discharge of every duty. In his manners he was modest, simple, and unaffected. To strangers he appeared distant, or rather diffident; but among his friends he was cheerful, unreserved, and occasionally convivial. He was fond of epigrammatic thoughts and classical allusions; and even somelimes indulged in playful effusions of this kind, at an advanced period of life. He maintained a regular correspondence with the principal astronomers of Europe. He was visited also by many illustrious foreigners, as well as eminent characters of his own country, but his warmest attachments were always manifested to the lovers of astronomy. Among his most intimate friends may be reckoned Dr. Herschel, Dr. Hutton, Messrs. Wollastons, Mr. Aubert, bishop Horsley, sir George Shuckburgh, baron Maseres r professor Robertson; and also professor Vince, whose publications so ably illustrate Dr. Maskelyne’s labours, and whom he appointedthe depositary of his scientific papers.

, an English divine, and able vindicator of his church, was born in 1566, in the county of Durham, and was educated in grammar learning at home. In 1583, he entered of Merton-college, Oxford, where, after taking his bachelor’s degree, he was chosen probationerfellow in 1586. He then received orders, and, besides teing presented to the rectory of Orford, in Suffolk, was made chaplain to king James I. who, in his punning humour, usually styled him a “wise builder (Mason) in God’s house.” In 1619, he was installed archdeacon of Norfolk. He died 1621, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Orford, where is a monument to his memory; and was lamented as a man of learning and piety. His writings in defence of the church of England, are, 1. “The authority of the Church in making canons and constitutions concerning things indifferent,” a Sermon, Lond. 1607, Oxon. 1634, 4to. 2. “Vindication of the Church of England concerning the consecration and ordination of Priests and Deacons, in five books,” Lond. 1613, folio. This is, among other things, a complete refutation of the falsehood propagated about that time, respecting archbishop Parker, who, it was said, had been consecrated at the Nag’s- head, a tavern in Cheapside. So successful was he in this work, that the story was no more heard of for thirty years, when it was again revived by some of the Roman Catholic writers at Doway, but with as little proof as before. 3. Two Sermons preached at court. Lond. 1621, 8vo. The rev. Henry Mason, rector of St. Andrew Undershaft, London, was, according to Walker, a brother of the preceding, and was chaplain to Dr. King bishop of London. Having been ejected from his living, or, as Wood says, vexed out of it, he retired to his native place, Wigan in Lancashire, where he became a great benefactor to the poor, and to the school of that place. He died in 1647. Wood gives a list of some pious tracts by him.

His father died in 1753, and in 1754- he went into orders; and through the interest of the earl of “Holdernesse, whose patronage he had obtained, he was preferred to be one of the king’s chaplains, and received about the same time the living of Aston. The reputation he had acquired by the odes of his” Elfrida,“encouraged him to publish, in 1756, four compositions of that class on <c Memory, Independency, Melancholy, and the Fate of Tyranny,” which were not received with favour or kindness. Both ridicule and legitimate criticism seem to have been employed on this occasion to expose the wanton profusion of glittering epithets, and the many instances of studied alliteration scattered over these odes. Colman and Lloyd, who were now beginning to look for satirical prey, published two excellent parodies Oh one of them, and on one of Gray’s. His praise of Andrew Marvell, and attack on bishop Parker, produced about the same time a dull letter of cet>sure, which probably gave him less uneasiness than the cool reception of his “Odes,” by those who then dispensed the laonours of literary fame. On the death of Gibber, he was proposed to succeed him as poet laureat; but, instead of an offer of this place, an apology was made to him by lord John Cavendish, that “being in orders, he was thought merely on that account, less eligible for the office than a layman.*' The notice of this circumstance in his life of W. Whitehead is followed by a declaration of his indifference.” A reason so politely put, I was glad to hear assigned; and if I had thought it a weak one, they who know me, will readily believe that I am the last man in the world who would have attempted to controvert it.“The probability, indeed^ is that Mr. Mason would not have thought himself honoured bv the situation, if compelled to fulfil its duties; for though by his mediation the office was tendered to Gray, it was” with permission to hold it as a mere sinecure."

, an eminent French preacher, was born in 1663, the son of a notary at Hieres in Provence In 1681, he entered into the congregation, of the Oratory, and wherever he was sent gained all hearts by the liveliness of his character, the agreeableness of his wit, and a natural fund of sensible and captivating politeness. These advantages, united with his great talents, excited the envy of his brethren, no less than the admiration of others, and, on some ill-founded suspicions of intrigue, he was sent by his superiors to one of their houses in the diocese of Meaux. The first efforts of his eloquence were made at Vienne, while he was a public teacher of theology; and his funeral oration ou Henri de Villars, archbishop of that city, was universally admired. The fame of this discourse induced father de la Tour, then general of the congregation of the Oratory, to send for him to Paris. After some time, being asked his opinion of the principal preachers in that capital, “they display,” said he, “great genius and abilities; but if I preach, I shall not preach as they do.” He kept his word, and took up a style of his own, not attempting to imitate any one, except it was Bourdaloue, whom, at the same time, the natural difference of his disposition did not suffer him to follow very closely. A touching and natural simplicity is the characteristic of his style, and has been thought by able judges to reach the heart, and produce its due effect, with much more certainty than all the logic of the Jesuit Bourdaloue. His powers were immediately distinguished when he made his appearance at court; and when he preached his first advent at Versailles, he received this compliment from Louis XIV. “My father,” said that monarch, “when I hear other preachers, I go away much pleased with them; but whenever I hear you, I go away much displeased with myself.” On one occasion, the effect of a discourse preached by him “on the small number of the elect,” was so extraordinary, that it produced a general, though involuntary murmur of applause in the congregation. The preacher himself was confused by it; but the effect was only increased, and the pathetic was carried to the greatest height that can be supposed possible. His mode of delivery contributed not a little to his success. “We seem to behold him still in imagination,” said they who had been fortunate enough to attend his discourses, “with that simple air, that modest carriage, those eyes so humbly directed downwards, that unstudied gesture, that touching tone of voice, that look of a man fully impressed with the truths which he enforced, conveying the most brilliant instruction to the mind, and the most pathetic movements to the heart.” The famous actor, Baron, after hearing him, told him to continue as he had began. “You,” said he, “have a manner of your own, leave the rules to others.” At another time he said to an actor who was with him “My friend, this is the true orator; we are mere players.” Massillon was not the least inflated by the praises he received. His modesty continued unaltered; and the charms of his society attracted those who were likely to be alarmed at the strictness of his lessons. In 1717, the regent being convinced of his merits by his own attendance on his sermons, appointed him bishop of Clermont. The French academy received him as a member in 1719. The funeral oration of the duchess of Orleans in 1723, was the last discourse he pronounced at Pans. From that time he resided altogether in his diocese, where the mildness, benevolence, and piety of his character, gained all hearts. His love of peace led him to make many endeavours to conciliate his brethren of the Oratory and the Jesuits, but he found at length that he had less influence over divines than over the hearts of any other species of sinners. He died resident on his diocese, Sept. 28, 1742, at the age of 79. His name has since been almost proverbial in France, where he is considered as a most consummate master of eloquence. Every imaginable perfection is attributed by his countrymen to his style. “What pathos” says one of them, “what knowledge of the human heart What sincere effusions of conviction What a tone of truth, of philosophy, and humanity! What an imagination, at once lively and well regulated Thoughts just and delicate conceptions brilliant and magnificent; expressions elegant, select, sublime, harmonious; images striking and natural; representations just and forcible; style clear, neat, full, numerous, equally calculated to be comprehended by the multitude, and to satisfy the most cultivated hearer.” What can be imagined beyond these commendations? Yet they are given by the general consent of those who are most capable of deciding on the subject. His works were published complete, by his nephew at Paris, in 1745 and 1746, forming fourteen volumes of a larger, and twelve of a smaller kind of 12mo. They contain, 1. A complete set of Sermons for Advent and Lent. 2. Several Funeral Orations, Panegyrics, &c. 3, Ten discourses, known by the name of “Le petit Care'me.” 4. “Ecclesiastical Conferences.” 5. Some excellent paraphrases of particular psalms Massillon once stopped short in the middle of a sermon, from defect of memory; and the same happened from apprehension in different parts of the same day, to two other preachers whom he went to hear. The English method of readitfg their discourses would certainly have been very welcome to all these persons, but the French conceive that all the fire of eloquence would be lost by that method: this, however, seems by no means to be necessary. The most striking passages and beauties of Massiilon’s sermons were collected by the abbe de la Porte, in a volume which is now annexed as a last volume to the two editions of his works; and a few years ago, three volumes of his “Sermons” were translated into English by Mr. William Dickson.

, a reformed minister, who died in Holland about 1750, was originally of France, but fled into England to enjoy that liberty in religion which his country refused him, and was employed as tutor in bishop Burnet’s family. In 1710 he travelled with his pupils, through Holland, and thence to France and Italy, according to Saxius, though we doubt whether the bishop had at that time any sons so young as to be only beginning their education. Be this as it may, he soon became known in. the literary world, and we should suppose must have often resided in Holland, as most of his publications were printed there. The first we can trace with certainty is his “Jani templum Christo nascente reseratum, seu Tractatus Chronologico-historicus vulgarem refellens opinionem existimantium, pacem toto terrarum orbe sub tempus Servatoris natale stabilitam fuisse,” &c. Rotterdam, 1700, 4to and 8vo. We are also indebted to him for, 1. “Histoire critique de la Republique des Lettres, from 1712 to 17 17,” in 15 vols. 12mo. 2. “Vitae Horatii, Oviciii, et Plinii junioris,” 3 vols. small 8vo, and printed abroad, though dedicated to Englishmen of rank: the first at Leyden, 1708, to lord Harvey; the second at Amsterdam, 1708, to sir Justinian Isham; the third at Amsterdam, 1709, to the bishop of Worcester. These lives are drawn up in a chronological order, very learnedly and very critically; and serve to illustrate the history, not only of these particular persons, but of the times also in which they lived. In the “Life of Horace,” Masson found occasion to interfere with M. Dacier; who, however, defended his own opinions, and prefixed his defence to the second edition of his Horace. 3. “Histoire de Pierre Bayle & de ses ouvrages,” Amsterdam, 1716, 12mo. This at least is supposed to be his, though at first it was given to M. la Monnoye. Many other critical dissertations by Masson are enumerated by Saxius.

, a divine and antiquary, probably a relative of the preceding, was the great-grandson of sir William Masters of Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. His father, William, was a clergyman, who among other livings, held that of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, London, where the subject of this article was born in 1713. He was admitted of Corpus-Christi college, Cambridge, in 1731, took his degree of B. A. in 1734, that of M. A. in 1738, and that of S. T. B. in 1746. He also obtained a fellowship of the college, and was tutor from 1747 to 1750. In 1752 he was chosen a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and was presented by Corpus college, in 1756, to the rectory of Landbeach in Cambridgeshire. He was also presented to the vicarage of Linton, which he resigned for that of Waterbeach in 1759; but this last he afterwards, by leave of the bishop of Ely, resigned tr his son. In 1797 he resigned, by consent of the respective colleges, the living of Landbeach to one of his sons-in-law, the rev. T. C. Burroughs, but continued to reside there. He was in the commission of the peace for the county of Cambridge. He died at Landbeach July 5, 1798, in his eightythird year.

, the first of a family of nonconformist divines, of considerable reputation both in the new and old world, was born at Lowton, in the parish of Winwick, in Lancashire, in 1596. After some education at Winwick-school, he was, in 1611, at the early age of fifteen, appointed master of a public school at Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, where, as Wood says, “he was converted to godliness.” In 1618, however, he was admitted a student of Brazenose college Oxford, where his stay must have been short, as the same year we are told he preached his first sermon at Toxteth, having been ordained by Dr. Morton, bishop of Chester, and chosen minister of that place. Here he officiated until 1633, when he was suspended for nonconformity; and although this suspension was soon taken off, his prejudices against the church establishment became so strong, that he was again suspended, and then determined to seek the kind of church-government which he fancied the most pure, in New England. The year after his arrival there, in 1635, he was chosen minister of a congregation newly formed at Dorchester, where he remained until his death April 22, 1669, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was the author of one or two pious treatises, but of more respecting church government. He had four sons, Samuel, Nathanael, Eleazer, and Increase, who all imbibed their father’s principles, and became sufferers for nonconformity. Of these, the eldest and youngest seem entitled to some notice.

, an English historian, who flourished, according to some, in 1377; while Nicolson thinks he did not outlive 1307, was a Benedictine of the abbey at Westminster, and thence has taken his name. From the title of his history, “Flores historiarum,” he has often been called Florilegus. His history commences from the foundation of the world, but the chief object of which is the English part. It is entitled, “Flores Historiarum, per Matthoeum Wesmonasteriensem collecti, prsecipue de Rebus Britannicis, ab exordio mundi, usque ad annum 1307,” published at London in 1567, and at Franckfort in 1601, both in folio. It is divided into six ages, butis comprised in three books. The first extends from the creation to the Christian aera; the second, from the birth of Christ to the Norman conquest; the third, from that period to the beginning of Edward the Second’s reign. Seventy years more were afterwards added, which carried it down to the death of Edward III. in 1377. He formed his work very much upon the model and plan of Matthew Paris, whom he imitated with great care. He wrote with so scrupulous a veracity/ that he is never found to wander a tittle from the truth; and with such diligence, that he omitted nothing worthy of remark. He is commended also for his acuteness in tracing, and his judgment in selecting facts, his regularity in the method or his plan, and his skill in chronological computations. He is, on the whole, except by bishop Nicolson, very highly esteemed, as one of the most venerable fathers of English history.

In 1579, he served the office of Vice-chancellor of the university. At a convocation held in 1580, archbishop Grindal being then under the queen’s displeasure, it was agreed, that our prelate, then dean of Christ-church, should, in the name of that assembly, draw up an humble address to her majesty, for the archbishop’s restitution; but it was not favourably received. June 22, 1583, he was collated to the precentorship of Salisbury; and Sept. 3 following, was made dean of Durham, being then thirtyseven years of age, on which he resigned his precentorship. From this time, says Le Neve, to the twenty-third Sunday after Trinity in 1622, he kept an account of all the sermons he preached, the place where, the time when, the text what, and if any at court, or before any of the prime nobility; by which it appears, that he preached, while dean of Durham, seven hundred and twenty-one; while bishop of Durham five hundred and fifty; and while archbishop of. York, to the time above mentioned, seven hundred and twenty-one; in all one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two sermons; and among them several extempore. This prelate, adds Le Neve, certainly thought preaching to be the most indispensible part of his duty; for in the diary before quoted, wherein, at the end of each year, he sets down how many sermons he had preached at the end of 1619, “Sum. Ser. 32, eheu! An. 1620, sum. ser. 35, eheu! An. 1621, sore afflicted with a rheume and coughe diverse months together, so that I never could preach until Easter-daye. The Lord forgive me!” On the 28th of May, 1590, he was inducted to the rectory of Bishopwearmouth, co. Durham; and in 1595, April 13, was consecrated bishop of Durham, and resigned Bishopwearmouth.

Our prelate was much engaged in political matters: Strype gives a letter of his, dated April 9, 1594, whilst dean of Durham, to lord Burleigh, touching Bothwell’s protection; in which he says, “I pray God the king’s protestations be not too well believed, who is a deep dissembler, by all men’s judgement that know him best, than is thought possible for his years.” Such was the character he gave of the prince who was shortly to come to the throne of England. In 1596, commissioners were appointed by the queen to treat with Scotland, and redress grievances on the borders: the English commissioners were the bishop of Durham, sir William Bowes, Francis Slingsby, esq. and Clement Colmer, LL.D. The place of convention was Carlisle, and many months were spent on that duty; but the good effect of their assiduous application to the work of peace was much retarded, and almost rendered abortive, by the outrages repeatedly committed on the eastern and middle marches. The first article of this treaty, however, says Ridpath, in his “Border History,” does honour to the character of the prelates of the church, one of whom stood first in the list of commissioners from each nation. In this article it was resolved, “that the sovereigns of each king should be addressed, to order the settlement of ministers at every border-church, for the sake of reforming and civilizing the inhabitants, by their salutary instructions and discipline: and for this purpose, the decayed churches should be repaired: and for the safety of the persons of their pastors, and due respect to be paid them in the discharge of their offices, the principal inhabitants of each parish should give security to their prince.”

Notwithstanding the unfavourable opinion he had formed of king James VI. when that monarch was on his journey to take possession of the throne of England, our prelate met him at Berwick, and preached a congratulatory sermon before him. He was also at the Hampton -court conference, in January 1603, of which he gave an account at large to archbishop Button. On the 26th of July, 1606> he was translated to York, and enjoyed that dignity till March 29, 1628, on which day he died, at Cawood, and was buried in our lady’s chapel, at the east of York cathedral, with a very prolix Latin epitaph inscribed on his tomb. He married Frances Barlow, daughter of Barlow bishop of Chichester, who was first married to Matt. Parker, son of Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury. She has also a monument in York cathedral, the inscription upon which is too remarkable to be omitted. “Frances Matthew, first married to Matt. Parker, &c. afterwards to Tobie Matthew, that famous archb. of this see. She was a woman of exemplary wisdom, gravity, piety, beauty, and indeed all other virtues, not only above her sex, but the times. One exemplary act of hers, first devised upon this church, and through it flowing upon the country, deserves to live as long as the church itself. The library of the deceased archbishop, consisting of about 3000 books, she gave entirely to the public use of this church: a rare example that so great care to advance learning should lodge in a woman’s breast; but it was the less wonder in her, because herself was of kin to so much learning. She was the daughter of Will. Barlow, bp. of Chichester, and in k. Henry VIII.'s time ambassador into Scotland, of the ancient family of the Barlows in Wales. She had four sisters married to four bishops, one to Will. Whickham, bishop of Winchester, another to Overton bp. of Coventry and Litchf. a third to Westphaling bp. of Hereford, and a fourth to Day, that succeeded Whickham in Winchester; so that a bishop was her father, an archbishop her father-in-law; she had four bishops her brethren, and an archbishop her husband.” She died May 10, 1629, in the seventy-sixth year of her age.

In 1606 he returned to London, and wrote to sir Francis Bacon, a kinsman, friend, and servant of secretary Cecil, desiring him to acquaint the secretary of his conversion, and to assure him at the same time of his loyalty to the king. This intelligence, he tells us, was graciouslyaccepted by the secretary, and no harm threatened him from that quarter. He then waited on archbishop Bancroft, to make his apology for changing his religion, and to request his grace’s interference with his friends. The archbishop received him courteously, but blamed him for so sudden a change without hearing both sides, and appointed certain days when he should come to Lambeth and canvass the matter. Several interviews accordingly took place, in all which Mr. Matthew would have us believe he held the better argument. At length the archbishop, by the king’s order, tendered him the oath of allegiance; and, upon Matthew’s refusal, committed him to the Fleet prison. Here he remained six months, visited by several people of rank: bishop Morton, sir Maurice Berkeley, sir Edwin Sandys, sir Henry Goodyear, &c. &c. Some of these endeavoured to argue with him, but, according to his own account, he was able to answer them. The plague raging in London, his friend sir Francis Bacon procured him a temporary release; and some time after he was finally released, on condition of going abroad, and not returning without the king’s leave. Such is his own account. Mr. Lodge adds another circumstance, that he was a member of parliament, and that the House of Commons silentlyacquiesced in a precedent (his banishment) so dangerous to their privileges. Be this as it may, he went abroad, and remained on the continent about twelve years. When in France he became acquainted with Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham, who, when he came into favour with king James, obtained leave for Mr. Matthew to return to England, which he did in 1617; and in 1622, by the king’s command, followed prince Charles into Spain. On their return, he was received into full favpur with the king, who, he adds, “managed his parents also to forgive him, and to take proper notice of him. They rather chose,” he says, “to attack me with sighs and short wishes, and by putting now and then some books into my hands, rather than by long discourses.” Yet these efforts of paternal affection appear to have had no effect on him.

, There are two saints of this name, of whom some notice may be taken; the oldest Maximus, of Turin, so called because he was bishop of that city in the fifth century, was eminent for his learning and piety. Many of his “Homilies” remain, some of which bear the name of St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, and Eusebius of messa, in the Library of the fathers. The other St. Maximus was an abbot, and confessor in the seventh century, born of an ancient and noble family at Constantinople. He warmly opposed the heresy of the Monothelites, and died in prison, August 13, 662, in consequence of what he had suffered on that occasion. We have a commentary of his on the books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and several other works, which father Combesis published, 1675, 2 vols. folio; and they are also in the Library of the fathers.

Serjeant Maynard was esteemed a very able advocate, and has been called the best old book lawyer of his time. All parties, says Mr. Lysons, seem to have been willing to employ him, and he seems to have been equally willing to be employed by all. Some of his reports and speeches have been printed. There is also a report of his of a very singular case of murder, in “The Works of the Learned,” for August 1739, communicated by Dr. Rawlinson. Bishop Warburton has not inaptly characterised serjeant Maynard by a comparison with Whitlocke. They were both lawyers of family, and in the long parliament; both of the presbyterian faction; both learned and eminent in their profession; moderate, sage, and steady. So far they agreed. In this they differed: Maynard had strong parts with a serious modesty; Whitlocke was weak and vain: and by these defects only, more self-interested. A sense of honour made Maynard stick to the presbyterian faction, and to fall with them; but, as he had much phlegm and caution, not, like Hollis and Stapleton, to fall for them. So that he was never marked out by the independents for their first sacrifices. On the contrary, Whitlocke forsook his party in distress but as he had the other’s moderation, it was by slow and gentle degrees and so, as it happened, decently. Maynard, by adhering steadily, but not violently, to the party he set out with, was reverenced by all and had he not been more intent on the affairs of his profession, than on public business, might have become considerable by station. “He went,” adds Warburton, “through the whole reign of Charles and James II. with the same steady pace, and the same adherence to his party; but by his party, 1 rather mean presbytery for the sake of civil liberty, than to civil liberty for the sake of presbytery.”

Besides the writings above-mentioned, Mayne published “A Poem upon the Naval Victory over the Dutch by the duke of York,” and four sermons one “Concerning unity and agreement, preached at Oxford in 1646;” another “Against schism, or the separations of these times, preached it) the church. of Watlingtoti in Oxfordshire, in 1652,” at a public dispute held there, between himself and an eminent Anabaptist preacher, the same year; a “Concio ad academiam Oxoniensem, in 1662,” and “A Sermon at the consecration of Herbert lord bishop of Hereford, in 1662.” He translated some of “Lucian’s Dialogues,” in 1638; and also “Donne’s Latin epigrams,” in 1652, which he entitled “A sheaf of miscellany epigrams.”

, esq. a political and miscellaneous writer, descended from an ancient family in Shropshire, was born at Ightfield in that county in 166S. He was instructed in grammar learning at Shrewsbury, and thence removed, at seventeen, to Christ-church, Oxford; where he was placed under the care of Smalridge, afterwards bishop of Bristol. He staid several years at Oxford, and then went into the country, where he prosecuted his studies in polite literature with great vigour; and afterwards, coming to London, applied himself to the law. During his residence in the country, he had contracted from an uncle, with whom he lived, an extreme aversion to the government of king William, which he displayed in a satire against king William and queen Mary, entitled “Tarquin and Tullia,” printed in the “State Poems,” vol. III. p. 319. He also wrote several pieces in favour of James the Second’s party but, upon being introduced to the acquaintance of the duke of Somerset, and the earls of Dorset and Burlington, he began to entertain very different notions in politics. He studied the law till he was five-and-twenty; and, upon the conclusion of the peace of Ryswick, went to Paris, where be became acquainted with Boileau. That poet invited him to his country-house, gave him a very handsome entertainment, and spoke much to him of the English poetry; but all by way of inquiry: for he affected to be as ignorant of the English Muse, as if the English were as barbarous as Laplanders. Thus a gentleman, a friend of Maynwaring’s, visiting him some time after, upon the death of Dryden, Boileau said that he was wonderfully pleased to see, by the public papers, that the English nation had paid such extraordinary honours to a poet in England, burying him at the public charge; and then asked the gentleman who that poet was, with as much indifference as if he had never heard of Dryden’s name.

, an English critic, was born in Staffordshire in 1697, and was educated at Mertoncollege in Oxford, of which he became a fellow. In 1732, hepublished notes on Milton’s Paradise Regained, and in the following year was promoted to a canonry in the church of Worcester. He was author of several small tracts, containing critical remarks on the English poets; and his notes were not neglected by the late bishop Newton, in publishing his edition of Milton He was greatly esteemed by the learned in general, and died at Worcester in 1769, aged 72. Dr. Newton thus speaks of him in his preface to the Paradise Regained. After enumerating the assistance given by friends, he adds, “I had the honour of all these for my associates and assistants before, but I have been farther strengthened by some new recruits, which were the more unexpected, as they were sent me by gentlemen with whom. I never had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance. The Rev. Mr. Meado-vcourt, canon of Worcester, in 1732 published a critical dissertation, with notes, upon the Paradise Regained, a second edition of which was published in 1748; and he likewise transmitted to me a sheet of his manuscript remarks, wherein he hath happily explained a most duficult passage in Lycidas, better than any man had done before him” The passage alluded to is the 160th line of that poem, in which Mr Mtad.nvcourt explained the words “Bellerus,” and “Bayonu’s hold.” He was author also of eleven printed sermons, which are enumerated in Cooke’s Preacher’s Assistant.

By the time he had taken the degree of master of arts, which was in 1610, he had made such progress in all kinds of academical study, that he was universally esteemed an accomplished scholar. He was an acute logician, an accurate philosopher, a skilful mathematician, an excellent anatomist, a great philologer, a master of many languages, and a good proficient in history and chronology. His first public effort was an address that he made to bishop Andrews, in a Latin tract “De sanctitate relativa;” which, in his maturer years, he censured as a juvenile performance, and therefore never published it. That great prelate, however, who was a good judge and patron of learning, liked it so well, that he not only was the author’s firm friend upon an occasion that offered soon after, but also then desired him to be his domestic chaplain. This Mede very civilly refused; valuing the liberty of his studies above any hopes of preferment, wnd esteeming that freedom which he enjoyed in his cell, so he used to call it, as the haven of all his wishes. These thoughts, indeed, had possessed him. betimes: for, when he was a school-boy, he was invited by his uncle, Mr. Richard Mede, a merchant, who, being then without children, offered to adopt him for his son, if he would live with him: but he refused the offer, preferring, as it should seem, a life of study to a life of gain.

He was not chosen fellow of his college till after he was master of arts, and then not without the assistance of his friend bishop Andrews: for he had been passed over at several elections, on account of a groundless suspicion which Dr Cary, then master of the college, afterwards bishop of Exeter, had conceived of him, that “he looked too much towanis Geneva;” that is, was inclined to the tenets of that church. Being made fellow, he became an eminent and faithful tutor. After he had well grounded his pupils in classics, logic, and philosophy, his custom was to set every one his dnily task; which he rather chose, than to confine himself and them to precise hours for lectures. In the evening they all came to his chamber; and the first question he put to each was, “Quid dubitas? What doubts have you met with in your studies to-day?” For he supposed, that to doubt nothing and to understand nothing was the same thing. By this method he taught the young men to exercise their reasoning powers, and not acquiesce in what they learn mechanically, with an indolence of spirit, which prepares them to receive implicitly whatever is offered them. In the mean time he was appointed reader of the Greek lecture of Sir Walter Mildmay’s foundation; an office which he held during the remainder of his life. While at college, he was so entirely devoted to study that he made even the time he spent in his amusements serviceable to his purpose. He allowed himself little or no exercise but walking; and often, in the fields or college garden, would take occasion to speak of the beauty, distinctions, virtues, or properties, of the plants then in view: for he was a curious florist, an accurate herbalist, and thoroughly versed in the book of nature. The chief delight he took in company was to discourse with learned friends; and he used to spend much time with his worthy friend Mr. William Chappel, afterwards provost of Trinity-college, Dublin, and bishop of Cork and Ross, a man of great learning, and who had a high regard for Mr. Mede.

In 1618 he took the degree of bachelor in divinity, but his modesty restrained him from proceeding to that of doctor. In 1627, a similar motive induced him to refuse the provostship of Trinity-college, Dublin, into which he had been elected at the recommendation of archbishop Usher, who was his particular friend; as he did also when it was offered him a second time, in 1630. The height of his ambition was, only to have had some small donative sinecure added to his fellowship, or to have been preferred to some place of quiet, where, retired from the noise and tumults of the world, and possessed of a competency, he might be entirely at leisure for study and acts of piety. When, therefore, a report was spread that he was made chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, he thus expressed himself in a letter to a friend: that “he had lived, till the best of his time was spent, in tranquillitate et secessu; and now, that there is but a little left, should 1,” said he, “be so unwise, suppose there was nothing else, as to enter into a tumultuous life, where I should not have time to think my own thoughts, and must of necessity displease others or myself? Those who think so, know not my disposition in this kind to be as averse, as some perhaps would be ambitious.” In the mean time, though his circumstances were scanty, for he had nothing but his fellowship and the Greek lecture, his charity was diffusive and uncommon; and, extraordinary as it may now seem, he devoted the tenth of his income to pious and charitable uses. But his frugality and temperance always afforded him plenty. His prudence or moderation, either in declaring or defending his private opinions, was very remarkable; as was also his freedom from partiality, prejudice, or prepossession, pride, anger, selfishness, flattery, and ambition. He died Oct. 1, 1638, in his 52d year, having spent above two-thirds of his time in college, to which he bequeathed the residue of his property, after some small legacies. He was buried next day in the college chapel. As to his person, he was of a comely proportion, and rather tall than otherwise. His eye was full, quick, and sparkling-; his whole countenance sedate and grave; awful, but at the same time tempered with an inviting sweetness: and his behaviour was friendly, affable, cheerful, and upon occasion intermixed with pleasantry. Some of his sayings and bon mots are recorded by the author of his life; one of which was, his calling such fellow-commoners as came to the university only to see it, or to be seen in it, “the university tulips,” that made a gaudy shew for a while; but, upon the whole, his biographers have made a better estimate of his learning than of his wit. In his life-time he produced three treatises only: the first entitled “Clavis Apocalyptica ex innatis & insitis visionum characteribus eruta et demonstrata,” Cant. 1627, 4to; of which he printed only a few copies, at his own expence, and for the use of friends. To this he added, in 1632, “In sancti Joannis Apocalypsin. commentarius, ad amussim Clavis Apocalypticse.” This is the largest and the most elaborate of any of his writings. The other two were but short tracts: namely, “About the name vtriao-lyfiov, anciently given to the holy table, and about churches in the apostles’ times.” The rest of his works were printed after his decease; and in the best edition published by Dr. Worthington, in 1672, folio, the whole are divided into five books, and disposed in the following order. The first book contains fifty-three “Discourses on several texts of Scripture' the second, such” Tracts and discourses as are of the like argument and design“the third, his” Treatises upon some of the prophetical Scriptures, namely, The Apocalypse, St. Peter’s prophecy concerning the day of Christ’s second coming, St. Paul’s prophecy touching the apostacy of the latter times, and three Treatises upon some obscure passages in Daniel:“the fourth, his” Letters to several learned men, with their letters also to him :“the fifth,” Fragmenta Sacra, or such miscellanies of divinity, as could not well come under any of the aforementioned heads.“ These are the works of this pious and profoundly learned man, as not only his editor calls him in the title-page, but the best livin: s have allowed him to be. His comments on the book of Revelation, are still considered as containing the mo-t satisfactory explanation of those obscure prophecies, so far as they have been yet fulfilled: and, in every other [>a< t of iiis works, the talents of a sound and learned divine are eminently conspicuous. It is by no means the least considerable testimony toiis merit, that he has been highly and frequently commended by Jortin but the writer of our times who has bestoweJ most pains on the character and writings of Mr Mede, and who has done the most honour to both, is the late learned bishop Hurd. This prelate has devoted the greater part of his tenth sermon” On the Study of the Prophecies“to the consideration of the” Clavis Apocalyptica.“It would be superfluous to extract at much length from a work so well known; but we may be permitted to conclude with Dr. Kurd’s manner of introducing Mr. Mede to his hearers. Sjie iking of the many attempts to explain the Apocalypse, in the infancy of the reformed church, he says,” The issue of much elaborate enquiry was, that the book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators, and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when a Sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and surprized the learned world with that great desideratum, a * Key to the Revelations’." 1

In 1520, Meiancthon read lectures on St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which were so much approved by. Luther, that he caused them to be printed for the good of the church, and introduced them by a preface. In the following year, hearing that the divines of Paris had condemned the works and doctrine of Luiher by a formal decree, Meiancthon opposed them with great zeal and force of argument, and affirmed Luther’s doctrine to be sound and orthodox. In 1527 he was appointed by the elector of Saxony, to visit all the churches within his dominions. He was next engaged to draw up, conjointly with Luther, a system of laws relating to church government, public worship, the ranks, offices, and revenues of the priesthood, and other matters of a similar nature, which the elector promulgated in his dominions, and which was adopted by the other princes of the empire, who had renounced the papal supremacy and jurisdiction. In 1529 he accompanied the elector to the diet at Spire, in which the princes and members of the reformed communion acquired the denomination of Protestants, in consequence of their protesting against a decree, which declared unlawful every change that should be introduced into the established religion, before the determination of a general council was known. He was next employed by the protestant princes assembled at Cobourg and Augsburgh to draw up the celebrated confession of faith, which did such honour to his acute judgment and eloquent pen, and is known by the name of the Confession of Augsburgh, because presented to the emperor and German princes at the diet held in that city in June 1530. The princes heard it with the deepest attention: it confirmed some in the principles they had embraced, and conciliated those who from prejudice or misrepresentation, had conceived more harshly of Luther’s sentiments than they deserved. The style of this confession is plain, elegant, grave, and perspicuous, such as becomes the nature of the subject, and such as might be expected from Melancthon’s pen. The matter was undoubtedly supplied by Luther, who, during the diet, resided at Cobourg; and even the form it received from the eloquent pen of his colleague, was authorized by his approbation and advice. This confession contains twentyeight chapters) of which twenty-one are employed in representing the religions opinions of the protestants, and the other seven in pointing out the corruptions of the church of Rome. To the adherents of that church it could not therefore be acceptable, and John Faber, afterwards bishop of Vienne in Dauphine“, with Eckius and Cochlaeus, were selected to draw up a refutation, to which Melancthon replied. In the following year he enlarged his reply, and published it with the other pieces that related to the doctrine and discipline of the Lutheran church, under the title of” A Defence of the Confession of Augsburgh."

Melancthon made a very distinguished figure in the many conferences which followed this diet. It was in these that the spirit and character of Melancthon appeared in their true colours; and it was here that the votaries of Rome exhausted their efforts to gain over to their party this pillar of the reformation, whose abilities and virtues added a lustre to the cause in which he had embarked. His gentle spirit was apt to sink into a kind of yielding softness, under the influence of mild and generous treatment. Accordingly, while his adversaries soothed him with fair words and flattering promises, he seemed ready 1 to comply with their wishes; but, when they so far forgot themselves as to make use of threats, Melancthon appeared in a very different point of light, and showed a spirit of intrepidity, ardour, and independence. It was generally thought that he was not so averse to an accommodation with the church of Rome as Luther, which is grounded upon his saying that they “ought not to contend scrupulously about things indifferent, provided those rites and ceremonies had nothing of idolatry in them; and even to bear some hardships, if it could be done without impiety.” But there is no reason to think that there was any important difference between him and Luther, but what arose from the different tempers of the two men, which consisted in a greater degree of mildness on the part of Melancthon. It was, therefore, this moderation and pacific disposition which made him thought a proper person to settle the disputes about religion, which were then very violent in France; and for that purpose he was invited thither by Francis I. Francis had assisted at a famous procession, in Jan. 1535, and had caused some heretics to be burnt. Melancthon was exhorted to attempt a mitigation of the king’s anger; he wrote a letter therefore to John Sturmius, who was then in France, and another to Du Bellai, bishop of Paris. A gentleman, whom Francis had sent into Germany, spoke to Melancthon of the journey to France; and assured him, that the king would write to him about it himself, and would furnish him with all the means of conducting him necessary for his safety. To this Melancthon consented, and the gentleman upon his return was immediately dispatched to him with a letter. It is dated from Guise, June 28, 1535, and declares the pleasure the king had, when he understood that Melancthon was disposed to conie into France, to put an end to their controversies. Melancthon wrote to the king, Sept. 28, and assured him of his good intentions; but was sorry, he could not as yet surmount the obstacles to his journey. The truth was, the duke of Saxony had reasons of state for not suffering this journey to the court of Francis I. and Melancthon could never obtain leave of him to go, although Luther had earnestly exhorted that elector to consent to it, by representing to him, that the hopes of seeing Melancthon had put a stop to the persecution of the protestants in France; and that there was reason to fear, they would renew the same cruelty, when they should know that he would not come. Henry VIII. king of England, had also a desire to see Melancthon, but neither he nor Francis I. ever saw him.

, bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who is known in church history as the chief of the sect of Mdctiansy was convicted of sacrificing to idols, during the Dioclesian persecution, and imprisoned and degraded by a council held by Peter, bishop of Alexandria. Upon his release, Meletius caused a schism about the year 301, separating himself from Peter, and the other bishops, charging them, but particularly Peter, with too much indulgence in the reconciliation of apostates. By the council of Nice, A. D. 325, he was permitted to remain in his own city, Lycopolis, but without the power either of electing, or prdaining, or appearing upon that account either in the country or city; so that he retained only the mere title of bishop. His followers at this time were united with the Arians. Meletius resigned to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the churches over which he had usurped superiority, and died some time after. When he was dying, be named one of his disciples his successor,- Thus the schism began again, and the Meletians subsisted as far as the fifth century, but were condemned by the first council of Nice.

, an ancient Christian father, was bishop of Sardis in Asia, and composed several works upon the doctrine and discipline of the church; of which we have nothing now remaining but their titles, and some fragments preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical Hist, book IV. The most valuable of these is part of an humble petition, which he presented to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; in which he beseeches him, “to examine the accusations which were brought against the Christians, and to stop the persecution, by revoking the edict which he had published against them.” He represents to him, that “the Roman, empire was so far from being injured or weakened by Christianity, that its foundation was more firmly established, and its bounds considerably enlarged, since that religion had taken footing in it;” that “the Christian religion had been persecuted by none but the worst emperors, such as Nero and Domitian that Adrian and Antoninus had granted privileges in its favour and that he hoped from his clemency and goodness, that they should obtain the same protection of their lives and properties from him.” This petition was presented, according to Eusebius, in the year 170; but other authors give it the date of 175 or 177, and Dupin 182. Melito died before the pontificate of Victor, probably about the year 192, as we learn from a letter of Polycrates to that pope, where he speaks of Melito as of a man dead, and in the following terms: “What shall I say of Melito, whose actions were all guided by the operations of the Holy Spirit? who was interred at Sardis, where he waits the resurrection and the judgment.” He passed, it seems, for a prophet in his day; that is, for a man inspired by God; according to the testimony of Tertullian, as Jerome represents it. The same Tertullian observes also, that he was an elegant writer and a good orator; which, however, it would not be easy to discover from the fragments that remain of him.

, called, from his great learning, the Varro of his times, was born at Angers, Aug. 15, 1613. He was the son of William Menace, the king’s advocate at Angers; and discovered so early an inclination to letters, that his father was determined to spare no cost or pains in his education. He was accordingly taught the belles lettres and philosophy, in which his progress fully answered the expectations of his father, who, however, thought it necessary to divert him from too severe application, by giving him instructions in music and dancing; but these were in a great measure thrown away, and he had so littie genius for music, that he never could learn a tune. He had more success in his first profession, which was that of a barrister at law, and pleaded various causes, with considerable eclat, both in the country, and in the parliament of Paris. His father had always designed him for his profession, the law, and now resigned his place of king’s advocate in his favour, which Menage, as soon as he became tired of the law, returned to him. Considering the law as a drudgery, he adopted the vulgar opinion that it was incompatible with an attention to polite literature. He now declared his design of entering into the church, as the best plan he could pursue for the gratification of his love of general literature, and of the company of literary men; and soon after he had interest to procure some benefices, and among the rest the deanery of St. Peter at Angers. In the mean time his father, displeased at him for deserting his profession, would not supply him with the money which, in addition to what his livings produced, was necessary to support him at Paris. This obliged him to look out for some means of subsistence there, independent of his family; and at the recommendation of Chapelain, a member of the French academy, he was taken into the family of cardinal de Retz, who was then only coadjutor to the archbishop of Paris. In this situation he enjoyed the repose necessary to his studies, and had every day new opportunities of displaying his abilities and learning. He lived several years with the cardinal; but having received an affront from some of his dependants, he desired of the cardinal, either that reparation might be made him, or that he might be suffered to depart. He obtained the latter, and then hired an apartment in the cloister of Notre Dame, where he held every Wednesday an assembly, which he called his “Mercuriale.” Here he had the satisfaction of seeing a number of learned men, French and foreigners; and upon other days he frequented the study of Messieurs du Puy, and after their death that of Thuanus. By his father’s death, which happened Jan. 18, 1648, he succeeded to an estate, which he converted into an annuity, for the sake of being entirely at leisure to pursue his studies. Soon after, he obtained, by a decree of the grand council, the priory of Montdidier; which he resigned also to the abbe de la Vieuville, afterwards bishop of Rennes, who procured far him, by way of amends, a pension of 4000 livres upon two abbeys. The king’s consent, which was necessary for the creation of this pension, was not obtained for Menage, till he had given assurances to cardinal Mazarin, that he had no share in the libels which had been dispersed against that minister and the court, during the troubles at Paris. This considerable addition to his circumstances enabled him to prosecute his studies with more success, and to publish la great many works, which he generally did at his own expence. The excessive freedom of his conversation, however, and his total inability to suppress a witty thought, whatever hiight be the consequence of uttering it, created him many enemies; and he had contests with several men of eminence, who attacked him at different times, as the abbe d'Aubignac, Boileau, Cotin, Salo, Bohours, and Baillet. But all these were not nearly so formidable to him, as the danger which he incurred in 1660, by a Latin elegy addressed to Mazarin; in which, among his compliments to his eminence, it was pretended, that he had satirized a deputation which the parliament had sent to that minister. It was carried to the grand chamber by the counsellors, who proposed to debate upon it; but the first president, Lamoignon, to whom Menage had protested that the piece had been written three months before the deputation, and that he could not intend the parliament in it, prevented any ill consequences from the affair. Besides the reputation his works gained him, they procured him a place in the academy della Crusca at Florence; and he might have been a member of the French academy at its first institution, if it had not been for his “Requete des dictionnaires.” When the memory of that piece, however, was effaced by time, and most of the academicians, who were named in it, were dead, he was proposed, in 1684, to fill a vacant place in that academy, and was excluded only by the superior interest of his competitor, M. Bergeret: there not being one member, of all those who gave their votes against Menage, who did not own that he deserved the place. After this he would not suffer his friends to propose him again, nor indeed was he any longer able to attend the academy, if he had been chosen, on account of a fall, which had put his thigh out of joint; after which he scarcely ever went out of his chamber, but held daily a kind of an academy there. In July 1692, he began to, be troubled with a rheum, which was followed by a defluxion on the stomach, of which he died on the 23d, aged seventy- nine.

He composed several works, which had much reputation in their day 1. “Origines de la langue Franchise,” 1650, 4to a very valuable work, reprinted in folio after his death, in 1694, enlarged by himself, but this has sunk under the much improved edition by Jault, Paris, 1750, 2 vols. fol. 3. “Miscellanea,” 1652, 4to; a collection of pieces in Greek, Latin, and. French, prose as well as verse, composed by him-at different times, and upon different subjects; among which is “La requete des dictionnaires,” an ingenious piece of raillery, in which he makes all the dictionaries complain that the academy’s dictionary will be their utter ruin, and join in an humble petition to prevent it. It was not written from the least malignity against the academy, but merely to divert himself, and that he might not lose several bon mots which came into his head upon that occasion. He suppressed it for a long time; but at last it was stolen from him, and published by the abbé Montreuil, without his knowledge, and prevented him, as we have observed, from obtaining a place in the academy, at its first institution; which made de Monmor say, “that he ought to be obliged to be a member, on account of that piece, as a man, who has debauched a girl, is obliged to marry her.” 3. “Osservazioni sopra TAminta del Tasso,” 1653, 4to. 4. “Diogenes Laertius Graece et Latine cum commentario,” Lond. 1664, in folio. Menage published his first edition at Paris, in 8vo, 1662, and sent it to bishop Pearson in London, who wrote him a complimentary letter of thanks, which is inserted in the London edition, which is now a rare and expensive book. Meibom’s edition of 1692 contains Menage’s annotations, &c. 5. “Poemata,” 1656, 12mo. They were often reprinted; and what is remarkable, his Italian poetry has been said to be esteemed even in Italy, although Menage could not speak two wordsin Italian. Baretti, however, condemns without mercy the Italian verses both of Menage and lleignier. MorhohY pretends that he has borrowed greatly from the Latin poems of Vincent Fabriciusj and several have accused him of plundering the ancients. We ought not, perhaps, to omit here, tbat having, according to the custom of poets, chosen mademoiselle de la Vergne, afterwards countess de la Fayette, for his poetical mistress, he gave lieu in Latin, inadvertently we may suppose, the name of Laverna, the goddess of thieves and this gave occasion to the following epigram:

, an Augustine friar of the province of Castille, was chosen by the king of Spain to be ambassador to the emperor of China, in 1584. He was made bishop of Lipari in Italy in 1593, bishop of Chiapi in New Spain in 1607, and bishop of Propajan in the West Indies in 1608. He wrote “A History of China,” in Spanish, which has been translated into several languages. A general idea of it may be taken from the mere title of the French translation, published at Paris, in 1589, which runs thus “The history of the great kingdom of China, in the East Indies, in two parts the first containing the situation, antiquity, fertility, religion, ceremonies, sacrifices, kings, magistrates, manners, customs, laws, and other memorable things of the said kingdom; the second, three voyages to it in 1577, 1579, and 1581, with the most remarkable rarities either seen or heard of there; together with an itinerary of the new world, and the discovery of New Mexico in 1583.”

, an English divine and poet, whom bishop Lowth characterised as one of the best of men and most eminent of scholars, was the second son of John Merrick, M. D. He was born Jan. 8, 1720, and was educated at Reading school. After being opposed, (very unjustly according to his biographer) as a candidate for a scholarship at St. John’s, on sir Thomas White’s foundation, he was entered at Trinity-college, Oxford, April 14, 1736, and admitted a scholar June 6, 1737. He took the degree of B. A. in Dec. 1739, of M. A. in Nov. 1742, and was chosen a probationer fellow in May 1 744. The celebrated lord North, and the late lord Dartmouth, were his pupils at this college. He entered into holy orders, but never engaged in any parochial duty, being subject 10 acute pains in his head, frequent lassitude, and feverish complaints; but, from the few manuscript sermons which he left behind him, appears to have preached occasionally in 1747, 1748, and 1749. His life chiefly passed in study and literary correspondence, and much of his time and property were employed on acts of benevolence. Few men have been mentioned with higher praise by all who knew him*. He had an extraordinary faculty of exact memory; had great good nature, and a flow of genuine wit; his charity was extensive, and his piety most exemplary. He died after a short illness at Reading, where he had principally resided, Jan. 5, 1769; and was buried at Caversham church, near the remains of his father, mother, and brothers.

Mr. Merrick occasionally composed several small poems, inserted in Dodsley’s Collection; and some of his classical effusions may be found among the Oxford gratulatory poems of 1761 and 1762. In the second volume of Dodsley’s “Museum,” is the “Benedicite paraphrased” by him. Among his Mss. in the possession of the Loveday family at Williamscot, near Banbury, are his ms notes orj the whole of St. John’s Gospel, being a continuation 'of what he published during his life. He had begun an elaborate and ingenious account, in English, of all the Greek authors, in alphabetical order, which was left unfinished at his death. It extends as far as letter H: the manuscript ending with “Hypsicles.” The late rev. William Etwall, editor of three dialogues of Plato, with various ind exes, in 1771, mentions, in his preface, his obligation,^ to Mr. Merrick, who was always happy to communicate information *, and encourage genius. The indexes of. that work were composed according to the plan recopjmended by him in his letter to Dr. Warton, whose broUier, Thomas, in his edition of “Theocritus,” in various passages, expresses his obligations to Mr. Merrick, an d pays a just compliment to his skill in the Greek language. His knowledge both of the Greek and Hebrew was truly critical; and was applied with great success to the ill ustration of the sacred writings; as his annotations on the P'salms, and his notes upon St. John, abundantly testify. It remains to be mentioned that in the former of these works, the “Annotations,” he was assisted by Dr. Lowth, then bishop of

tbor, with whom h appears to have th same work, p. 310. Oxford, who supplied many of the observations, and by a person whom he described 'as “virum summa eruditione, summo loco” who was afterwards known to have been archbishop Seeker. Some remarks introduced here in opposition to Dr. Gregory Sharpe’s criticism on the 1-1 Oth Psalm, produced from that gentleman “A Letter to the right rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford, from the Master of the Temple, containing remarks upon some strictures made by his grace the late archbishop of Canterbury, in the rev. Mr. Merrick’s Annotations on the Psalms,” 1769, 8vo.

, the illustrious founder of Merton college, Oxford, which became the model of all other societies of that description, was bishop of Rochester and chancellor of England in the thirteenth century. Of his personal history very little is known. From a pedigree of him, written about ten years after his death, we learn, that he was the son of William de Merton, archdeacon of Berks in 1224, 1231, and 1236, by Christina, daughter of Walter Fitz-Oliver, of Basingstoke. They were both buried in the church of St. Michael, Basingstoke, where the scite of their tomb has lately been discovered. Their son was born at Merton, in Surrey, and educated at the convent there. So early as 1239 he was in possession of a family estate, as well as of one acquired. From his mother he received the manor of St. John, with which he commenced a public benefactor, by founding, in 1261, the hospital of St. John, for poor and infirm clergy; and after the foundation of Merton college, it was appointed in the statutes, that the incurably sick fellows or scholars of that college should be sent thither; and the office of master was very early annexed to that of warden of Merton. Not many years ago, part of the chapel roof of this hospital remained, pannelled with the arms of Merton college in the intersections, and one of the gothic windows stopped up; but all this gave way to a new brick building in 1778.

According to Mr. Denne (Custumale Roffense, p. 193), he occurs prebendary of Kentish town, and afterwards had the stall of Finsbury, both of them in the church of St. Paul’s, London. He held in 1259 a prebend in Exeter cathedral; and, according to Browne Willis, was vicar of Potton in Bedfordshire at the time of his promotion to the see of Rochester. Other accounts say, that he was first canon of Salisbury, and afterwards rector of Stratton. He became eminent in the court of Chancery, first as king’s clerk, then as prothonotary, and lastly rose to be chancellor of England in 1258. Of this office he was deprived in the same year by the barons, but restored in 1261, with a yearly salary of four hundred marks; and held it again in 1274, in which year he was consecrated bishop of Rochester. He appears to have been of high credit in affairs of state, and consulted on all matters of importance, as a divine, a lawyer, and a financier. His death was occasioned by a fall from his horse, in fording a river in his diocese; soon after which accident he died, Oct. 27th, 1277. Notwithstanding his liberality, at his death he was possessed of goods valued by inventory at 5110l. of which he left legacies to the amount of 2126l. His debts amounted to 746l., and he had owing to him about 622l. He was interred on the north side of St. William’s chapel, at the north end of the cross aile in Rochester cathedral, with a marble monument, which had probably been injured or decayed, as in 1598, the present beautiful alabaster monument was erected by the society of Merton college, at the suggestion of the celebrated sir Henry Savile, then warden of the college.

, a father of the church, bishop of Olympus, or Patara, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, suffered martyrdom at Chalcis, a city of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian’s persecution in the year 302 or 303. Epiphanius says “that he was a very learned man, and a strenuous assertor of the truth.” St. Jerome has ranked him in his catalogue of church writers; but Eusebius has not mentioned him; which silence is attributed by some, though merely upon conjecture, to Methodius’s having written very sharply against Origen, who was favoured by Eusebius. Methodius composed in a clear and elaborate style several works i a large one “Against Porphyry the philosopher;” “A Treatise on the Resurrection,” against Origen; another on “Pythonissa,” against the same a book entitled “The banquet of Virgins” one on “Free-will” “Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles” and several other pieces extant in St. Jerome’s time. Father Combesis collected several considerable fragments of this author, cited by Epiphanius, Photius, and others, and printed them with notes of his own at Paris, in 1644, together with the works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis, in folio. But afterwards Possinus, a Jesuit, found “The Banquet of Virgins” entire, in a manuscript belonging to the Vatican library; and sent it, with a Latin version of his own, into France, where it was printed in 1657, folio, revised and corrected by another manuscript in the library of cardinal Mazarin. We cannot doubt that this is the true and genuine work of Methodius; as it not only carries all the marks of antiquity in it, but contains word for word all the passages that Photius had cited out of it. It is written in the way of dialogue, after the manner of “Plato’s Banquet of Socrates;” with this difference, that the speakers here are women, who indeed talk very learnedly and very elegantly.

, a celebrated biblical critic, and professor of divinity and the oriental languages, was born at Halle, in Lower Saxony, in 1717. His first education was private, but in 1729 he was sent to the public school of the orphan-house, where he studied diviniiy and philosophy, and at the same time he occasionally attended the lectures of his father, who was professor of divinity and the oriental languages. During the latter part of his time at school, he acquired a great facility in speaking Latin, and in thinking systematically, from the practice of disputation, in which one of the masters frequently exercised him. In 1733, he entered into the university of Halle, where he applied himself to the study of mathematics, metaphysics, theology, and the oriental languages. He also prepared himself for pulpit services, and preached with great approbation at Halle and other places. In 1739 he took a degree in philosophy, and soon after was appointed assistant lecturer under his father, having shewn how well qualified he was for that situation, by publishing a small treatise “De Antiquitate Punctorum Vocalium.” In 1741 he left his own country with a view of visiting England, and passing through Holland, became acquainted with the celebrated Schultens, from whom he received many marks of the most friendly attention. Upon his arrival in England, he engaged to officiate for the German, chaplain to the court, who was at that time in an infirm state of health, and continued to preach at the palace-chapel nearly a year and a half. During this period he visited the university of Oxford, greatly increased his knowledge of the oriental languages, and formed an intimacy with some of the first literary characters of that age, particularly with Dr. Lowth, afterwards bishop of London, on some of whose lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum” he attended. Upon his return to Halle, he resumed his labours as assistant to his father, and delivered lectures on the historical books of the Old Testament, the Syriac and Chaldee languages, and also upon natural history, and the Roman classics; but seeing no prospect of a fixed establishment, he left Halle in 1745, and went to Gottingen, in the capacity of private tutor. In the following year he was made professor extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Gottingen, and, in 1750, professor in ordinary in the same faculty. In 1751 he was appointed secretary to the newly instituted Royal Society of Gottingen, of which he afterwards became director, and about the same time was made aulic counsellor by the court of Hanover. During 1750, he gained the prize in the Royal Academy of Berlin, by a memoir “On the Influence of Opinions on Language, and Language on Opinions.” While the seven years’ war lasted, Michaelis met with but little interruption in his studies, being exempted,in common with the other professors, from military employment; and when the new regulations introduced by the French in 1760, deprived them of that privilege, by the command of marshal Broglio it was particularly extended to M. Michaelis. Soon after this, he obtained from Paris, by means of the marquis de Lostange, the manuscript of Abulfeda’s geography, from, which he afterwards edited his account of the Egyptians; and by the influence of the same nobleman, he was chosen correspondent of the “Academy of Inscriptions at Paris,” in 1764, and elected one of the eight foreign members of that institution. In 1760, the professor gave great offence to the orthodox clergy, by publishing his “Compendium of dogmatic Theology,” consisting of doctrinal lectures which he had delivered by special licence from the government. Shortly after this, Michaelis shewed his zeal for the interests of science and literature, by the part which he took in the project of sending a mission of learned men into Egypt and Arabia, for the purpose of obtaining such information concerning the actual state of those countries, as might serve to throw light on geography, natural history, philology, and biblical learning. He first conceived the idea of such a mission, which he communicated by letter to the privy counsellor Bernstorf, who laid it before his sovereign Frederic V. king of Denmark. That sovereign was so well satisfied of the benefits which might result from the undertaking, that he determined to support theexpence of it, and he even committed to Michaelis the management of the design, together with the nomination of proper travellers, and the care of drawing up their instructions. Upow the death of Gesner in 1761, Michaelis succeeded in the office of librarian to the Royal Society, which he held about a year, and was then nominated to the place of director, with the salary for life of the post, which he then resigned. Two years afterwards he was invited by the king of Prussia to remove to Berlin, but his attachment to Gottingen led him to decline the advantages which were held out to him as resulting from the change. In 1766 he was visited at Gottingen by sir John Pringle, whom he had known in England, and Dr. Franklin. With the first he afterwards corresponded on the subject of the leprosy, spoken of in the books of Moses, and on that of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks. The latter subject was disscussed in the letters which passed between them during 1771, and was particularly examined by the professor. This correspondence was printed by sir John Pringle in 1773, under the title of “Joan. Dav. Michaelis de Epistolse, &c. LXX. Hebdomadibus Danielis, ad D. Joan. Pringle, Baronettum; primo privatim missse, nunc vero utriusque consensu publice editae.” In 1770, some differences having arisen between Michaelis and his colleagues in the Royal Society, he resigned his directorship. In 1775 his well-established reputation had so far removed the prejudices which had formerly been conceived against him in Sweden, that the count Hbpkin, who some years before had prohibited the use of his writings at Upsal, now prevailed upon the king to confer upon him the order of the polar star. He was accordingly decorated with the ensignia of that order, on which occasion he chose as a motto to his arms, “libera veritas.” In 1782 his health began to decline, which he never completely recovered; in 1786 he was raised to the rank of privy counsellor of justice by the court of Hanover; in the following year the academy of inscriptions at Paris elected him a foreign member of that body; and in 178S he received his last literary honour by being elected a member of the Royal Society of London. He continued his exertions almost to the very close of life, and a few weeks before his death, he shewed a friend several sheets in ms. of annotations which he had lately written on the New Testament. He died on the 22d of August, 1791, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. He was a man of very extensive and profound erudition, as well as of extraordinary talents, which were not less brilliant than solid, as is evident from the honours which were paid to his merits, and the testimony of his acquaintance and contemporaries. His application and industry were unwearied, and his perseverance in such pursuits as he conceived would prove useful to the world, terminated only with the declension of his powers. His writings are distinguished not only by various and solid learning, but by a profusion of ideas, extent of knowledge, brilliancy of expression, and a frequent vein of pleasantry. In the latter part of his life he was regarded not only as a literary character, but as a man of business, and was employed in affairs of considerable importance by the courts of England, Denmark, and Prussia. His works are very numerous, and chiefly upon the subjects of divinity and oriental languages. A part of them are written in Latin, but by far the greater number in German. Of the Conner class there are these 1. “Commentatio de Battologia, ad Matth. vi. 7.” Bremen, 1753, 4to. 2. “Paralipomena contra Polygamiam,” ibid. 1758, 4to. 3. “Syntagma commentationum,” Goett. 1759 1767, 4to. 4. “Curse in versionem Syriacam Actuurn Apostolorum,” Goett, 1755, 4to. 5. “Compendium Theologize dogmatics?,” ib. 1760, 8 vo. 6. “Commentationes resize soc. Scientiarum Goettingerrsis, per annos 1758 1762,” Bremen, 1775, 4to. 7. “Vol. II. Ejusdem, 1769.” 8. “Spicilegium Geographies Hebrseorum exterae, post Bochartum,” Goett. 1769 1780, 2 torn. 4to. 9. “Grammatica Chaldaica,” ib. 1771, 8vo. 10. “Supplementa ad Lexicon Hebraicum,” 1784 1792, 6 torn. 4to. 11. “Grammatica Syriaca,” Halae, 1784, 4to. The following are in German: 12. “Hebrew Grammar,” Halle, 1778, 8vo.13. “Elements of Hebrew accentuation,” ib. 1741, 8vo. 14. “Treatise on the Law of Marriage, according to Moses,” Goett. 1768, 4to. 15. “Paraphrase and Remarks on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus, Timothy, and Philemon,” Bremen, 1769, 4to. 16. “Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament,” Bremen, 1750, 8vo. 17. “Prophetical plan of the preacher Solomon,” ib. 1762, 8vo.18. “Thoughts on the Doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin,” Hamb. 1752, 8vo. 19. “Plan of typical Divinity,” Brem. 1763, 8vo. 20. “Criticism of the means employed to understand the Hebrew language.” 21. “Critical Lectures on the principal Psalms which treat of Christ,” Frankf. 1759, 8vo. 22. “Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Frankf. 1784, 2 vols. 4to, 2$. “Questions proposed to a society of learned Men, who went to Arabia by order of the king of Denmark,” ib. 1762, 8vo. 24. “Introduction to the New Testament,' 7 a second edition, Goett. 1788, 2 vols. 4to. 25.” Miscellaneous Writings,“two parts, Frankf. 1766 8, 8vo. 26.” Programma concerning the seventy-two translators,“Goett. 1767, 8vo. 27.” Dissertation on the Syriac language, and its use,“Goett. 1768, 8vo. 28.” Strictures concerning the Protestant Universities in Germany,“Frankf. 1775, 8vo. 29.” Translation of the Old Testament,“Goett. 1769 83, 13 parts. 30.” Fundamental Interpretation of the Mosaic Law,“Frankf. 1770-5, 6 parts, with additions, 8vo. 31.” Of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel,“Goett. 1772, 8vo. 32.” Arabic Grammar and Chrestomathy,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 33.” Oriental and exegetical Library,“Frankf. 1771—89, 24 parts, and two supplements, 8vo. 34.” New Oriental and exegetical Library,“Goett. 1786 91, 9 parts. 35.” Of the Taste of the Arabians in their Writings,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 36.” Dissertation on the Syriac Language and its uses, together with a Chrestomathy,“ib. 1786, 8vo. 37.” On the Duty of Men to speak Truth,“Kiel, 1773, 8vo. 38.” Commentary on the Maccabees,“Frankfort, 1777, 4to. 39.” History of Horses, and of the breeding of Horses in Palestine,“&c. ib. 1776, 8vo. 40.” Thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin and Satisfaction,“Bremen, 1779, 8vo. 41.” Illustration of the History of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ,“Halle, 1783, 8vo. 42.” Supplement, or the fifth Fragment of Lessing’s Collections,“Halle, 1785, 8vo. 43.” German Dogmatic Divinity,“Goett. 1784, 8vo. 44.” Introduction to the Writings of the Old Testament,“Hamb. 1787, 1st vol. 1st part, 4to: 45.” Translation of the Old Testament, without remarks,“Goett. 1789, 2 vols. 4to. 46.” Translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790, 2 vols. 4to 47.” Remarks for the unlearned, relative to his translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790 92, 4 parts, 4to. 48.” Additions to the third edition of the Introduction to the New Testament,“ibid. 1789, 4to. 49.” Ethics," a posthumous work, published by C. F. Steudlin, Goett. 1792, 2 parts, 8vo.

The first edition of the “Lusiad,” consisting of a thousand copies, had so rapid a sale, that a second edition, with improvements, was published in June 177S. About the same time, as he had yet no regular provision, some means were employed, but ineffectually, to procure him a pension from the crown, as a man of letters. Dr. Lowth, then bishop of London, had more than once intimated, that he was ready to admit him into holy orders, and provide for him; but Mickle refused the offer, lest his hitherto uniform support of revealed religion should be imputed to interested motives. This offer was highly honourable to him, as it must have proceeded from a knowledge of the excellence of his character, and the probable advantages which the church must have derived from the accession of such a member. Nor was his rejection of it less honourable, for he was still poor. Although he had received nearly a thousand pounds from the sale and for the copyright of the “Lusiad,” he appropriated all of that sum which he could spare from his immediate necessities to the payment of his debts, and the maintenance of his sisters, He now issued proposals for printing an edition of his original poems, by subscription, in quarto, at one guinea each copy. For this he had the encouragement of many friends, and probably the result, would have been very advantageous, but the steady friendship of the late commodore Johnstone relieved him from any farther anxiety on this account.

, a celebrated English divine, was the son of William Middleton, rector of Hinderwell near Whitby in Yorkshire, and born at York Dec. 27, or, as Mr. Cole says, Aug. 2, 1633. His father, who possessed an easy fortune, gave him a liberal education; and at seventeen he was admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge, and two years after was chosen a scholar upon the foundation. After taking his degree of A. B. in 1702, he took orders, and officiated as curate of Trumpington, near Cambridge. In 1706 he was elected a fellow of his college, and next year commenced master of arts. Two years after he joined with other fellows of his college in a petition to Dr. John More, then bishop of Ely, as their visitor, against Dr. Bentley their master. But he had no sooner done this, than he withdrew himself from Bentiey’s jurisdiction, by marrying Mrs, Drake, daughter of Mr. Morris, of Oak-Morris in Kent, and widow of counsellor Drake of Cambridge, a lady of ample fortune. After his marriage, he took a small rectory in the Isle of Ely, which was in the gift of his wife; but resigned it in little more than a year, on account of its unhealthy situation.

Upon the great enlargement of the public library at Cambridge, by the addition of bishop Moore’s books, which had been purchased by the king at 6000l. and presented to the university, the erection of a new office there, that of principal librarian, was first voted, and then conferred upon Dr. Middleton: who, to shew himself worthy of it, published, in 1723, a little piece with this title,

About the beginning of 1730, was published Tindal’s famous book called “Christianity as old as the Creation:” the design of which was to destroy revelation, and to establish natural religion in its stead. Many writers entered into controversy againsMt, and, among the rest, the wellknown Waterland, who published a “Vindication of Scripture,” &c. Middleton, not lik.ng his manner of vindicating Scripture, addressed, 11. “A letter to him, containing some remarks on it, together with the sketch, or plan, of another answer to TindaPs book,” 1731. Two things, we are told, contributed to make this performance obnoxious to the clergy; first, the popular character of Waterland, who was then at the head of the champions for orthodoxy, yet whom Middleton, instead of reverencing, had ventured to treat with the utmost contempt and severity; secondly, the very free things that himself had asserted, and especially his manner of saying them. His name was not put to the tract, n'or was it known for some time who was the author of it. While Waterland continued to publish more parts of “Scripture vindicated,” &c. Pearce, bishop of Rochester, took up the contest in his behalf; which drew from Middleton, 12. “A Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland against the false and frivolous Cavils of the Author of the Reply,” 1731. Pearce replied to this “Defence,” and treated him, as he had done before, as an infidel, or enemy to Christianity in disguise; who, under the pretext of defence, meant nothing less than subversion. Middleton was now known to be the author of the letter; and he was very near being stripped of his degrees, and of all his connections with the university. But this was deferred, upon a promise that he would make all reasonable satisfaction, and explain himself in such a manner, as, if possible, to remove every objection. This he* attempted to do in, 13. “Some Remarks on Dr. Pearce’s second Reply, &c. wherein the author’s sentiments, as to all the principal points in dispute, are fully and clearly explained in the manner that had been promised,” 1732: and he at least effected so much by this piece, that he was suffered to be quiet, and to remain in statu quo; though his character as a divine ever after lay under suspicion, and he was reproached by some of the more zealous clergy, by Venn in particular, with downright apostacy. There was also published, in 1733, an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, “Observations addressed to the author of the Letter, to Dr. Waterland” which was written by Dr. Williams, public orator of the university and to which Middleton replied in, 14. “Some remarks,” &c. The purpose of Williams was to prove Middleton an infidel that his letter ought to be burnt, and himself banished and he then presses him to confess and recant in form.“But,” says Middleton, “I have nothing to recant on the occasion nothing to confess, but the same four articles that I have already confessed first, that the Jews borrowed some of their customs from Egypt secondly, that the Egyptians were possessed of arts and learning in Moses’s time; thirdly, that the primitive writers, in vindicating Scripture, found it necessary sometimes to recur to allegory; fourthly, that the Scriptures are not of absolute and universal inspiration. These are the only crimes that I have been guilty of against religion: and by reducing the controversy to these four heads, and declaring my whole meaning to be comprised in diem, I did in reality recant every thing else, that through heat or inadvertency had dropped from me; every thing that could be construed to a sense hurtful to Christianity.”

Before Middleton thought proper to take notice of any of his antagonists, he surprised the public with, 24. “An Examination of the lord bishop of London’s Discourses concerning the use and intent of Prophecy: with some cursory animadversions on his late Appendix, or additional dissertation, containing a farther enquiry into the Mosaic account of the Fall, 1750.” He tells his reader in the beginning of this “Examination,” that though these discourses of Dr. Sherlock had been “published many years, and since corrected and enlarged by him in several successive editions, yet he had in truth never read them till very lately; or otherwise these animadversions might have made their appearance probably much earlier.” To this assertion, from a man so devoted to study, it is not easy to give credit; especially when it is remembered also that Midclleton and Sherlock had been formerly in habits of intimacy and friendship; were ofthe same university, and nearly of the same standing and that, however severely and maliciously Middleton treated his antagonist in the present Examination, there certainly was a time when he triumphed in him as “the principal champion and ornament of church and university.” Different principles and different interests separated them afterwards: but it is not easy to conceive that Middleton, who published his Examination in 1750, should never have read these very famous discourses, which were published in 1725*. There is too great reason, therefore, to suppose, that this publication was drawn from him by spleen and personal enmity, which he now entertained against every writer who appeared in defence of the belief and doctrines of the church. What other provocation he might have is unknown. Whether the bishop preferred, had not been sufficiently mindful of the doctor unpreferred, or whether the bishop had been an abettor and encourager of those who opposed the doctor’s principles, cannot be ascertained; some think that both causes concurred in creating an enmity between the doctor and the bishop f. This “Examination” was refuted by Dr. Rutherforth, divinity professor at Cambridge: but Middleton, having gratified his animosity against Sherlock, pursued the argument no further. He was, however, meditating a general answer to all the objections made against the “Free Inquiry;” when being seized with illness, and imagining he might not be able to go through it, he singledout Church and Dodwell, as the two most considerable of his adversaries, and employed himself in preparing a particular answer to them. This, however, he did not live to finish, but died of a slow hectic fever and disorder in his liver, on the 28th of July, 175O, in his sixty-seventh 1 year, at Hildersham. He was buried in the parish of St.

* “Sherlock told me that he pre- bably from the same authority, sented Dr. M. with this book when first f It is said by bishop Newton, that published in 1725, and that he soon when Middleton applied for the Charafterwards thanked him for it, and ex- terhouse. Sir Robert Walpole told him pressed his pleasure in the perusal.” that Sherlock, with the other bishops, ms note by Whiston the bookseller, in was against his being chosen. This to his copy of the first edition of this Die- a man who, as Warburton, his friend, ­tionary. The same fact occurs in the declared, “never could bear contraGent. Mag. 1773, 385, 387, but pro- diction,” was sufficient provocation. Michael, Cambridge. As he died without issue, he left his widow, who died in 1760, in possession of an estate which was not inconsiderable: yet we are told that a little before his death, he thought it prudent to accept of a small living from sir John Frederick, bart *. A few months after was published, his 25. “Vindication of the Free enquiry into the Miraculous powers, &c. from the objections of Dr. Dodwell and Dr. Church.” The piece is unfinished, as we have observed, but correct, as far as it goes, which is about fourscore pages in quarto.

, the learned editor of the Greek Testament, was the son of Thomas Mil!, of Banton or Bampton, near the town of Snap in Westmoreland, and was born at Shap about 1645. Of his early history our accounts are very scanty; and as his reputation chiefly rests on his Greek Testament, which occupied the greater part of his life, and as he meddled little in affairs unconnected with his studies, we are restricted to a very few particulars. His father being in indifferent circumstances, he was, in 1661, entered as a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, where we may suppose his application soon procured him respect. Bishop Kennet tells us, that in his opinion, he “talked and wrote the best Latin of any man in the university, and was the most airy and facetious in conversation — in all respects a bright man.” At this college he took the degree of B. A. in May 1666, and while bachelor, was selected to pronounce an “Oratio panegyrica” at the opening of the Sheldon theatre in 1669. In November of the same year he took his master’s degree, was chosen fellow, and became an eminent tutor. He then entered into holy orders, and was, according to Kennet, a “ready extempore preacher.” In 1676 his countryman and fellowcollegian, Dr. Thomas Lamplugh, being made bishop of Exeter, he appointed Mr. Mill to be one of his chaplains, and gave him a minor prebend in the church of Exeter. In July 1680 he took his degree of B. D.; in August 1681 he was presented by his college to the rectory of Blechingdon, in Oxfordshire; and in December of that year he proceeded D. D. about which time he became chaplain in ordinary to Charles II. by the interest of the father of one of his pupils. On May 5, 1685, he was elected and admitted principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, a station particularly convenient for his studies. By succeeding Dr. Crossthwaite in this office, bishop Kennet says he had the advantage of shining the brighter; but “he was so much taken up with the one thing, ‘his Testament,’ that he had not leisure to attend to the discipline of the house, which rose and fell according to his different vice-principals.” In 1704 archbishop Sharp obtained for him from queen Anne, a prebend of Canterbury, in which he succeeded Dr. Beveridge, then promoted to the see of St. Asaph. He had completed his great undertaking, the new editiuu of the Greek Testament, when he died of an apop'ectie fit, June 23, 1707, and was buried in the chancel of Blechingdon church, where, in a short inscription on his monument, he is celebrated for what critics have thought the most valuable part of his labours on the New Testament, his “prolegomena marmore perenniora.”

Of this edition of the Greek Testament, Michaelis remarks, that “the infancy of criticism ends with the edition of Gregory, and the age of manhood commences with that of Mill.” This work is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent publications that ever appeared, and ranks next to that of Wetstein, in importance and utility. It was published only fourteen days before his death, and had been the labour of thirty years. He undertook it by the advice of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford; and the impression was begun at his lordship’s charge, in his printing-house near the theatre. But after the bishop’s death his executors were not willing to proceed; and therefore Dr. Mill, perhaps hurt at this refusal, and willing to shew his superior liberality, refunded the sums which trie bishop had paid, and finished the impression at his own expence. The expectations of the learned, foreigners as well as English, were raised very high in consequence of Dr. Mill’s character, and were not disappointed. It was, however, atacked at length by the learned Dr. Daniel Whitby, in his “Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Milli, S. T. P. &c. in 1710, or, an examination of the various readings of Dr. John Mill upon the New Testament; in which it is shewn, I. That the foundations of these various readings are altogether uncertain, and unfit to subvert the present reading of the text. II. That those various readings, which are of any moment, and alter the sense of the text, are very few; and that in all these cases the reading of the text may be defended. III. That the various readings of lesser moment, which are considered at large, are such as will not warrant us to recede from the vulgarly received reading. IV. That Dr. Mill, in collecting these various readings, hath often acted disingenuously; that he abounds in false citations, and frequently contradicts himself.” The various readings which Mill had collected, amounted, as it was supposed, to above 30,000; and this alarmed Dr. Whitby, who thought that the text was thus made precarious, and a handle given to the free-thinkers; and it is certain that Collins, in his “Discourse upon Free-thinking,” urges a passage out of this book of Whitby’s, to shew that Mill’s various readings of the New Testament must render the text itself doubtful. But to this objection Bentley, in his Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, has given a full and decisive answer, the substance of which will bear transcription “The 30,000 various lections then,” says Bentley, “are allowed and confessed and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what is the inference from this? why one Gregory, here quoted, infers, that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time, as the New Testament has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false, and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common, and in equal proportion, in all classics whatever, I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If,” says he, “there had been but one ms. of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable: besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, to have more anchors than one; and another ms. to join with the first, would give more authority, as well as security. Now chuse that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable that, by a joint and mutual help, all the faults may be mended some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you: every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is a fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. It is a good providence, and a great blessing,” continues he, “that so many Mss. of the New Testament are still among us; some procured from Egypt, otheri from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of the places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering or interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors, as they are called, whereof one ms. only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. It is plain, therefore, to me, that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all, what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several Mss. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful, and, generally speaking, accurate edition, has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text, in your doctor’s notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes, by the various readings, rendered uncertain; nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writer does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any single ms. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst ms. now extant: nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; chuse as aukwardly as you can, chuse the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions, the very words of the writer must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular ms. or edition; but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged wherever they are met with. Not frighted therefore with the present 30,000, I for my part, and, as I believe, many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched, 10,000 more were faithfully collected; some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact; though of no consequence to the main of religion, nay, perhaps, wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, t and quite insensible in any modern version,” p. 88, &c.

The emoluments of his preferment, however, being not very considerable, he was encouraged, by the success of his first play, above mentioned, to have recourse to dramatic writing. This step being thought inconsistent with his profession, produced some warm remonstrances from a prelate on whom he relied for preferment, and who, finding him resolute, withdrew his patronage. Our author greatly aggravated his offence afterwards by publishing a ridiculous character, in a poem, which was universally considered as intended for the bishop. He then proceeded with his dramatic productions, and was very successful, until he happened to offend certain play-house critics, who from that time regularly attended the theatre to oppose any production known to be his, and finally drove him from the stage. About this time he had strong temptations to employ his pen in the whig interest; but, being in principle a high church-man, he withstood these, although the calls of a family were particularly urgent, and all hopes of advancement in the church at an end. At length, however, the valuable living of Upcerne was given him by Mr. Carey of Dorsetshire, and his prospects otherwise began to brighten, when he died April 23, 1744, at his lodgings in Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, before he had received a twelvemonth’s revenue from his new benefice, or had it in his power to make any provision for his family. As a dramatic writer, Baker thinks he has a right to stand in a very estimable light; yet the plays he enumerates are now entirelyforgotten. Besides these, he wrote several political pamphlets, particularly one called “Are these things so” which was much noticed. He was author also of a poem called “Harlequin Horace,” a satire, occasioned by some ill treatment he had received from Mr. Rich, the manager of Covent- Garden theatre; and was likewise concerned, together with Mr. Henry Baker, F. R. S. in a complete translation of the comedies of Moliere, primed together with the original French, and published by Mr. Watts. After his death was published by subscription a volume of his “Sermons,” the profits of which his widow applied to the satisfaction of his creditors, and the payment of his debts; an act of juctice by which t>he left herself and family almost destitute of the common necessaries of life.

, an English divine and antiquary, was the grandson of the rev. Isaac Milles, rector of High Clear in Hampshire, probably by his second son Jeremiah. His eldest son was Dr. Thomas Milles, bishop of Waterford and Lismore, of whom it may be necessary to give some account, as Mr. Harris the editor and continuator of Ware has admitted a few mistakes, calling him Mills, and stating that he was the son of Joseph Mills. He was educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1692, and that of M. A. in 1695. He was ordained by bishop Hough. In 1704 he took the degree of B. D. and in 1706 was appointed Greek professor of Oxford. In 1707 he attended the earl of Pembroke, lord lieutenant of Ireland, into that kingdom, and by him was promoted to the see of Waterford and Lismore. He died at Waterford May 13, 1740. He published a few controversial tracts, enumerated by Harris, but is best known by his valuable edition of the works of St. Cyril, published at Oxford in 1703, folio.

Bishop Milles left his fortune to his nephew, Jeremiah, who was born in 1714, and educated at Eton school, when he entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, and took his degrees of M. A. in 1735, and B. and D. D. in 1747, on which occasion he went out grand compounder. He was collated by his uncle to a prebend in the cathedral of Waterford, and to a living near that city, which he held but a short time, choosing to reside in England. Here he married Edith, a daughter of archbishop Potter, by whose interest he obtained the united rectories of St. Edmund the King and St. Nicholas Aeon in Lombard-street, with that of Merstham, Surrey, and the sinecure rectory of West Terring, in Sussex. To Merstham he was inducted in 1745. From the chantorship of Exeter he was promoted to the deanery of that cathedral, in 1762, on the advancement of Dr. Lyttelton to the see of Carlisle, whom he also succeeded as president of the society of antiquaries in 176.5. He had been chosen a fellow of this society in 1741, and of the Royal Society in 1742. His speech, on taking upon him the office of president of the Society of Antiquaries, was prefixed to the first volume of the Archoeologia. In other volumes of that work are some papers communicated by him, one of which, “Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the year 1483, wherein are contained the deliveries made for the coronation of king Richard III. and some other particulars relative to the history,” was answered by Mr. Walpole, afterwards lord Orford, in a paper or essay, very characteristic of his lordship’s ingenuity and haughty petulance. In the early part of his life, Dr. Milles had made ample collections for a history of Devonshire, v*hich are noticed by Mr. Gough in his Topography. Ha was also engaged in illustrating the Da ish coinage, and the Domesday Survey, on both which subjects, it is thought, he left much valuable matter. His worst attempt was to vindicate the authenticity of Rowley’s poems, in an edition which he printed in 1782, 4to. After what Tyrwhitt and Warton had advanced on this subject, a grave answer to this was not necessary; but it was the writer’s misiortune to draw upon himself the wicked wit of the author of “An Archaeological Epistle,” and the more wicked irony of George Steevens in the St. James’s Chronicle. The dean died Feb. 13, 1784, and was buried in the church of St. Edmund, which, as well as his other preferments, he retained until his death, with the exception of the rectory of West Terring, which he resigned to his son Richard. His character is very justly recorded on his monument, as one conspicuous for the variety and extent of his knowledge, and for un remitted zeal and activity in those stations to which his merit had raised him; nor was he in private life less distinguished for sweetness of disposition, piety, and integrity.

His works are, 1. “Conjectanea in Isaiam ix. 1, 2. Item in parallela quaedam veteris ac novi testament), in quibus versionibus LXX interpretum cum textu Hebræo conciiiatio,” &c. Lond. 1673, 4to. Dr. Castel, the Arabian professor, called this “a most excellent essay, wherein the author shewed incredible reading and diligence, in perusing so many copies, versions, and various lections, with the best interpreters of sacred writ.” 2. “A collection of the Church History of Palestine, from the birth of Christ, to the beginning of the empire of Diocletian,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 3. “A short Dissertation concerning the four last Kings of Judah,” Lond. 1689, 4to. This was occasioned by Joseph Scaliger’s “Judicium de Thesi Chronologica,” &c. 4. “De Nethinim sive Nethinaeis, &c. et de iis qui se Corban Deo nominabant, disputatiuncula, adversus Steuch. Eugubinum, Card. Baronium,” &c. Camb. 1690, 4to. 5. “An Answer to the vindication of a Letter from a person of quality in the North, concerning the profession of John, late bishop of Chichester,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 6. “A Defence of the Profession of John (Lake) lord bishop of Chichester, made upon his death-bed, concerning passive obedience, and the new oaths; with some passages of his lordship’s life,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 7. “A Defence of archbishop Usher against Dr. Cary and Dr. Is. Vossius, with an Introduction concerning the uncertainty of Chronology, and an Appendix touching the signification of the words, &c. as also the men of the great Synagogue,” Camb. 1694, 8vo. 8. “A Discourse of Conscience, &c. with reflexions upon the author of Christianity not mysterious,” &c. Lond. 1697, 8vo. 9. “A View of the Dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, Themistocles, &c. lately published by the rev. Dr. Bentley. Also, of the examination of that Dissertation by the hon. Mr. Boyle,” ibid. 1698, 8vo. 10. “A brief Examination of some passages in the Chronological part of a Letter written to Dr. Sherlock, in his vindication. In a letter to a friend.” 11. “A further Examination of the Chronological part of that Letter. In a second letter to a friend.” 12. “An Account of Mr. Locke’s religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words: together with observations, and a two-fold appendix,” Lond. 1700, 8vo. 13. “Animadversions upon Mons. Le Clerc’s Rejections upon our Saviour and his Apostles, &c. primitive fathers, &c.” Camb. 1702. He left also several manuscripts enumerated in our principal authority, on subjects of chronology, biblical criticism, &c.

evening, I surprised my wife, by send- send both" Life by Dr. Milner. ing hom.e a Greek book for my son JoLaw, the late bishop of Elphin, and to Joseph Milner. Several members of the university are still alive, who well remember the general surprise caused by the success of the latter; and how his humorous and spirited translations of Terence and Plutarch, shown by the examiners to their friends, were handed about through the colleges, and excited general admiration.

John Miltcrti was born at his father’s house in Breadstreet, Cheapside, Dec. 9, 1608. From his earliest years his father appears to have discerned and with great anxiety cultivated his talents. He tells us himself that his father destined him when he was yet a child to the study of polite literature, and so eagerly did he apply, that from his twelfth year, he seldom quitted his studies till the middle of the night; this, however, he adds, proved the first cause of the ruin of his eyes, in addition to the natural weakness of which, he was afflicted with frequent headachs. Some part of his early education was committed to the care of Mr. Thomas Young, a puritan minister; and he was also placed for some time at St. Paul’s school, thea under the direction of Mr. Alexander Gill, with whose son, Alexander, Milton seems to have contracted a warm and lasting friendship. In February 1625, when in his seventeenth year, he was entered a pensioner at Christ’s-college, Cambridge, where he had for his tutor Mr. William Chappel, afterwards bishop of Cork and Ross. Of his conduct and the treatment which he experienced in his college, much has been made the subject of dispute. The most serious charge brought against him is, that he wasexpelledy for which there seems no reasonable foundation whatever. The register of the college proves that he regularly kept his terms, and as regularly took both his degrees. A charge of less consequence, that he had once received corporal punishment, seems scarcely worth the pains that have been bestowed in refuting it, if, according to the latest of his zealous apologists, no injury to his reputation would be the necessary result of its admission. It is allowed, however, to be probable that he might offend the governors of his college by the dislike, early instilled into his mind by his tutor Young, of the discipline of the church, or the plan of education then observed. Whateyer may be in this, he passed -seven years at the university, and after taking his master’s degree, retired to his father’s house, at Horton in Buckinghamshire.

The time, however, was now come when, as Johnson says, he was to lend “his breath to blow the flames of contention.” In 1641 he published a treatise of “Reformation,” in two books, against the established church; and soon after one, “Of Prelatical Episcopacy,” Against the learned Usher, who had written a confutation of “Smectymnuus,” which was intended as an answer to bishop Hall’s “Humble Remonstrance,” in defence of Episcopacy. His next work was “The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy,” 1642. In this book, says Johnson, he discovers, not with ostentatious exultation, but with calm confidence, his high opinion of his own powers; and promises to undertake something, he yet knows not what, that may be of use and honour to his country. “This,” says Milton, “is not to be obtained but by devout prayer to the eternal Spirit that can enrich with all utterance and knowledge, and sends out his Seraphim with the hallowed fire of his altar, to touch and purify the lips of whom he pleases. To this must be added, industrious and select reading, steady observation, and insight into all seemly and generous arts and affairs; till which in some measure be compast, I refuse not to sustain this expectation.” From a promise like this, adds Johnson, at once fervid, pious, and rational, might be expected the “Paradise Lost.” He published the same year two more pamphlets on the same question, with which the controversy appears to have ended, and episcopacy was 'soon afterwards overwhelmed by the violent meanj for which the press had long prepared.

The immediate cause, however, of the interruption given to his “History,” was his being appointed Latin secretary to the new council of state, which was to supply all the offices of royalty. He had scarcely accepted this appointment, when his employers called upon him to answer the famous book entitled “Icon Basihk^, or the portraiture of his cacred majesty in his solitudes and sufferings.” This was then understood to be the production of Charles I. and was published unquestionably with the view to exhibit him to the people in a more favourable light than he had been represented by those who brought him to the block. It probably too was -beginning to produce that effect, as the government thought it necessary to employ the talents of Milton to answer it, which he did in a work entitled “Iconoclastes,” or Image-breaker, In this he follows the common opinion, that the king was the writer, although he sometimes seems to admit of doubts, and makes his answer a. sort of review and vindication of all the proceedings against the court. This has been praised as one of the ablest of all Milton’s political tracts, while it is at the same time confessed that it did not in the least diminish the popularity of the “Icon,” of which 48,500 are said to have been sold, and whether it was the production of the king or of bishop Gauden, it must have harmonized with the feelings and sentiments of a great proportion of the public. The story of Milton’s inserting a prayer taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” and imputing the use of it to the king as a crime, appears to have no foundation; but we know not how to vindicate this and other petty objections to the king’s character, from the charge of personal animosity.

, regular canon and procurator general of the congregation of St. Genevieve, and one of the most learned antiquaries of the seventeenth century, was born in 1620, at Chalons sur Marne, of a nohle and ancient family. He collected a large cabinet of curiosities, and placed the library of St. Genevieve at Paris in the state which has rendered it so celebrated. He died September 2, 1687, aged sixty-seven. His principal works are, an edition of the “Epistles of Stephen, bishop of Tournay,” with learned notes; “History of the Popes by Medals,” from Martin V. to Innocent XI. 1679, folio, Latin “Reflexions sur l'origine et Pantiquit6 des Chanoines séculiers et réguliers,” 4to “Dissertation sur ra Mitre des Anciens;” another “Dissertation sur une Tete d'Isis,” &c. “Le Cabinet de la Bibliotheque de Ste. Genevieve,” 1692, folio, a curious book. He was the author also of some dissertations in the literary Journals, and left several Mss. on subjects of history and antiquities. He was a man of vast research but, as his countrymen say, he was “plus rempli d'erudition que de critique,” and certainly in some cases took little pains to discriminate between the true and the fabulous.

, an English lady of distinguished talent, by marriage related to the Sandwich family, was the eldest daughter of Evelyn Pierrepoint, duke of Kingston, and the laoy Mary Fielding, daughter of William earl of Denbigh. She was born about 1690, and lost her mother in 1694. Her capacity for literary attainments was such as induced her father to provide her with the same preceptors as viscount Newark, her brother; and under their tuition, she made great proficiency in the Greek, Latin, and French languages. Her studies were afterwards superintended by bishop Burnet, and that part of life which by females of her rank is usually devoted to trifling amusements, or more trifling “accomplishments,” xvas spent by her in studious retirement, principally at Thoresby and at Acton, near London. Her society was confined to a few friends, among whom the most confidential appears to have been Mrs. Anne Wortley, wife of the hon. Sidney Montagu, second son of the heroic earl of Sandwich. In this intimacy originated her connection with Edward Wortley Montagu, esq. the eldest son of this lady; and after a correspondence of about two years, they were privately married by special licence, which bears date August 12, 1712. Mr. Wortley was a man possessed of solid rather than of brilliant parts, but in parliament, where at different periods of his life he had represented the cities of Westminster and Peterborough, and the boroughs of Huntingdon and Bossiney, he acquired considerable distinction as a politician and a speaker. In 1714 he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and on this occasion his lady was introduced to-the court of George I. where her beauty, wit, and spirit were universally admired. She lived also in habits of familiar acquaintance with two of the greatest geniuses of the age, Addison and Pope; but it did not require their discernment to discover that, even at this time, she was a woman of very superior talents.

The peculiarities of this sect of Christians are explicitly set forth by St. Jerome. They are said to have been very heterodox in regard to the Trinity; inclining to Sabellianism, “by crowding,” as Jerome expresses it, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into the narrow limits of one person.” Epiphanius, however, contradicts this, and affirms them to have agreed with the church in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Montanists held all second marriages to be unlawful, asserting that although the apostle Paul permitted them, it was because he “only knew in part, and prophesied in part;” but tnat, since the Holy Spirit had been poured upon Montanus and his prophetesses, they were not to be permitted any longer. But the capital doctiines of the Montanists are these “God,” they say, “was first pleased to save the world, under the Old Testament, from eternal damnation by Moses and the prophets. When these agents proved ineffectual, he assumed flesb. and blood of the Virgin Mary, and died for us in Christ, under the person of the Son. When the salvation of the world was not effected yet, he descended lastly upon Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, into whom he infused that fulness of his Holy Spirit*, which had not been vouchsafed to the apostle Paul; for, Paul only knew in part, and prophesied in part.” These doctrines gained ground very fast;, and Montanus soon found himself surrounded with a tribe of people, who would probably have been ready to acknowledge his pretensions, if they had been higher. To add to his influence over their minds, he observed a wonderful strictness and severity of discipline, was a man of mortification, and of an apparently most sanctified spirit. He disclaimed all innovations in the grand articles of faith; and only pretended to perfect what was left unfinished by the saints. By these means he supported for a long time the character of a most holy, mortified, and divine person, and the world became much interested in the visions and prophecies of him and his two damsels Priscilla and Maximilla; and thus the face of severity and saintship consecrated their reveries, and made real possession pass for inspiration. Several good men immediately embraced the delusion, particularly Tertullian, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, who, however, did not wholly approve of Montanus’s extravagancies; but the churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other churches, grew divided upon the account of these new revelations; and, for some time, even the bishop of Rome cherished the imposture. Of the time or manner of Montanus’s death we have no certain account. It has been asserted, but without proof, that he and his coadjutress Maximilla were suicides.

, a very learned Spaniard, was born at Frexenel, in Estremadura, in 1527, and was the son of a notary. He studied in the university of Alcala, where he made great proficiency in the learned languages. Having taken the habit of the Benedictines, he accompanied, in 1562, the bishop of Segovia to the council of Trent, where he first laid the foundation of his celebrity. On his return to Spain, he retired to a hermitage situated on the top of a rock, near Aracena, where it was his intention to have devoted his life to meditation, but Philip It. persuaded him to leave this retreat, and become editor of a new Polyglot, which was to be printed by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp. On this employment he spent four years, from 1568 to 1572, and accomplished this great work in 8 volumes folio. The types were cast by the celebrated William Lebe, whom Plantin had invited from Paris for this purpose. This Polyglot, besides what is given in the Alcala Bible, contains the Chaldaic paraphrases, a Syriac version of the New Testament, in Syriac and Hebrew characters, with a Latin translation, &c. While Montanus was beginning to enjoy the reputation to which his labours in this work so well entitled him, Leo de Castro, professor of oriental languages at Salamanca, accused him before the inquisitions of Rome and Spain, as having altered the text of the holy Scriptures, and confirmed the prejudices of the Jews by his Chaldaic paraphrases. In consequence of this, Montanus was obliged to take several journies to Rome, to justify himself, which he did in the most satisfactory manner. Being thus restored, Philip II. offered him a bishopric; but he preferred his former retirement in the hermitage at Aracena, where he hoped to finish his days. There he constructed a winter and a summer habitation, and laid out a pleasant garden, &c. but had scarcely accomplished these comforts, when Philip II. again solicited him to return to the world, and accept the office of librarian to the Escurial, and teach the oriental languages. At length he was permitted to retire to Seville, where he died in 1598, aged seventy-one.

In 1709 Montfaucon published Philo-Juda&us an a contemplative life, in French, “Le Livre de Philon de la vie contemplative, &c.” translated from the Greek with notes, and an attempt to prove that the Therapeutee of whom Philo- speaks were Christians. Having sent a copy of this to president Bouhier, the latter returned him a polite letter of thanks, but stated that he could not agree with, him in his opinion respecting the religion of the Therapeutse. This brought on a correspondence which was published at Paris in 17 12, 12mo, under the title of “Lettres pour & contre sur la fameuse question, si les solitaires appelles Therapeutes etoient Chretiens.” The learned Gisbert Cuper was also against the opinion of Montfaucon on this question; and it is, we believe, now generally thought that his arguments were more ingenious than convincing. In 1710^ Montfaucon published an “Epistola” on the fact, mentioned by Rufinus, that St. Athanasius baptised children when himself a child. In this work he investigates the date of the death of St. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and that of the death of St. Athanasius. This was followed in 1713 by an edition of what remains of the “Hexapla of Origen,” 2 vols. folio, and a fine edition of the works of St. Chrysostom, begun in 1718, and completed in 1738 in 13 vols. folio.

, born in 1686, at Paris, was the son of Guy Carre“, maitre des requetes. He was but twenty-five when he purchased a counsellor’s place in the parliament, and acquired some degree of credit in that situation by his wit and exterior accomplishments. He had, by his own account, given himself up to all manner of licentiousness, for which his conscience frequently checked him, and although he endeavoured to console himself with the principles of infidelity, his mind was still harassed, when accident or design led him to visit the tomb of M. Paris the deacon, September 7, 1731, with the crowd which, from various motives, were assembled there. If we may believe his own account, he went merely to scrutinize, with the utmost severity, the (pretended) miracles wrought there, but felt himself, as he says, suddenly struck and overwhelmed by a thousand rays of light, which illuminated him, and, from an infidel, he immediately became a Christian, but in truth was devoted from that moment to fanaticism, with the same violence and impetuosity of temper which had before led him into the most scandalous excesses. In 1732 he was involved in a quarrel which the parliament had with the court, and was, with others, banished to Auvergne. Here he formed a plan for collecting the proofs of the miracles wrought at the tomb of the abbe Paris, making them clear to demonstration, as he called it, and presenting them to the king. At his return to Paris, he prepared to put this plan in execution, went to Versailles, July 29, 1737, and presented the king with a quarto volume magnificently bound, which he accompanied with a speech. In consequence of this step Montgeron was sent to thebastile, then confined some months in a Benedictine abbey belonging to the diocese of Avignon, removed soon after to Viviers, and carried from thence to be shut up in the citadel of Valence, where he died in 1754, aged sixty-eight. The work which he presented to the king is entitled” La Verite des Miracles operes par l'Intercession de M. de Paris,“&c. 4to. This first volume by M. Montgeron has been followed by two more, and he is said also to have left a work in ms. against the incredulous, written while he was a prisoner. De Montgeron would, however, have scarcely deserved a place here, if bishop Douglas, in his” Criterion," had not bestowed so much pains on examining the pretended miracles which he records, and thus rendered his history an object of some curiosity.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of Thomas Moore of Market- Harborough in Leicestershire, where he was born. He was admitted June 28, 1662, of Clare-hall college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1665, M. A. in 1669, and D. D. in 1681. He was also fellow of that college, and afterwards became chaplain to Heneage Finch, earl of Nottingham, by whose interest he rose to considerable preferments, and in particular, was promoted to the first prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Ely. His next preferment was the rectory of St. Austin’s, London, to which he was admitted Dec, 3, 1687, but he quitted that Oct. 26, 1689, on his being presented by king William and queen Mary (to whom he was then chaplain in ordinary) to the rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Stillingfleet to the see of Worcester. On the deprivation of Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, for not taking the oaths to their majesties, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated July 5, 1691, and was thence translated to Ely, July 31, 1707, in which he remained until his death f He died'at Ely-house, in Holborn, July 31, 1714, in his sixty-eighth year. He was interred on the north side of the presbytery of his cathedral church, near his predecessor bishop Patrick, where an elegant monument was erected to his memory.

, rector of Kirkbride, and chaplnin of Douglas in the Isle of Mann, a gentleman well known in the literary world, by his correspondence with men of genius in several parts of it, and by them eminently distinguished as the divine and scholar, was born in 1705. In the earlier part of a life industriously employed in promoting the present and future happiness of mankind, he served as chaplain to the right reverend Dr. Wilson, the venerable bishop of Mann, whose friend and companion he was for many years: at his funeral he was appointed to preach his sermon, which is affixed to the discourses of that prelate, in the edition of his works printed at Bath, 1781, in two volumes, quarto, and that in folio. At the request of the society for promoting Christian knowledge, he undertook the revision of the translation into Manks of the Holy Scriptures, the book of Common Prayer, bishop Wilson on the Sacrament, and other religious pieces, printed for the use of the diocese of Mann; and, during the execution of the first of these works, he was honoured with the advice of the tw*o greatest Hebrseans of the age, bishop Lowth and Dr. Kennicott. In the more private walks of life, he was not less beloved and admired; in his duty as a clergyman, he was active and exemplary, and pursued a conduct (as far as human nature is capable) “void of offence towards God and towards man.” His conversation, prompted by an uncommon quickness of parts, and refined by study, was at once lively, instructive, and entertaining; and his friendly correspondence (which was very extensive) breathes perhaps as much original humour as can, be met with in any writer who has appeared in public, Sterne not excepted, to whom he did not yield even in that vivid philanthropy, which the fictitious Sterne could so often assume. All the clergy in the island at the time of his death, had been (except four) educated by him, and by them he was always distinguished with peculiar respect and affection. His conduct operated in the same degree amongst all ranks of people, and it is hard to say, whether he won more by his doctrine or example; in both, religion appeared most amiable, and addressed herself to the judgments of men, clothed in that cheerfulness which is the result of firm conviction and a pure intention. It is unnecessary to add, that though his death, which happened at Douglas, Jan. 22, 1783, in his 78th year, was gentle, yet a retrospect of so useful and amiable a life made it deeply regretted. His remains were interred with great solemnity in Kirk Braddon church, attended by all the clergy of the island, and a great number of the most respectable inhabitants. In 1785, a monument was erected to his memory, at the expence of the rev. Dr. Thomas Wilson, son of the bishop, and prebendary of Westminster, &c.

, M. A. and F. S. A. a learned and indefatigable antiquary and biographer, the son of Stephen Morant, was born at St. Saviour’s in the isle of Jersey, Oct. 6, 1700; and, after finishing his education at Abingdon-school, was entered Dec. 16, 1717, of Pembrokecollege, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. June 10, 1721, and continued till Midsummer 1722; when he was preferred to the office of preacher of the English church at Amsterdam, but never went to take possession. He took the degree of M. A. in 1724, and was presented to the rectory of Shellow Bowells, April 20, 1733; to the vicarage of Bromfield, Jan. 17, 1733-4; to the rectory of Chicknal Smeley, Sept. 19, 1735; to that of St. Mary’s, Colchester, March 9, 1737; to that of Wickham Bishops, Jan. 21, 1742-3; and to that of Aldham, Sept. 14, 1745. All these benefices are in the county of Essex. In 1748 he published his “History of Colchester,” of which only 200 copies were printed at the joint expence of Mr. Bowyer and himself. In 1751, Mr. Morant was elected F. S. A. In February 1768, he was appointed, by the lords subcommittees of the House of Peers, to succeed Mr. Blyke, in preparing for the press a copy of the rolls of parliament; a service to which he diligently attended to his death, which happened Nov. 25, 1770, in consequence of a cold, caught in returning by water from the Temple to Vauxhall, in his way to South Lambeth, where he resided for the convenience of attending to his parliamentary labours; for which, as a native of Jersey, and excellently skilled in the old Norman French, he was particularly well qualified. This work, after his death, devolved on Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. Ss. who had married his only daughter, and who communicated to Mr. Nichols the following exact account of Mr. Morant’s writings, from a list of them drawn up by himself. 1. “An Introduction to the Reading of the New Testament, being a translation of that of Mess, de Beausobre and Lenfant, prefixed to their edition of the New Testament,” 1725, 1726, 4to. 2. “The Translation of the Notes of Mess, de Beausobre and Lenfant on St. Matthew’s Gospel,” 1727, 4to. N. Tindal translated the text printed therewith. 3. “The Cruelties and Persecutions of the Romish Church displayed, &c.” 1728, 8vo, translated into Welsh by Thomas Richards, curate of Coy church in Glamorganshire, 1746, with the approbation of Dr. Gilbert, the bishop of Landaff. 4. “1 epitomised those Speeches, Declarations, &c. which Rapin had contracted out of Rushworth in the Life of King James I. King Charles I. &c.” 1729, 1730. 5. “Remarks on the 19th Chapter of the Second Book of Mr. Selden’s Mare Clausum.” Printed at the end of Mr. Fallens “Account of Jersey,” 1731. 6. “1 compared Rapin’s History with the 20 volumes of Rymer’s Fcedera, and Acta Publica, and all the ancient and modern Historians, and added most of the notes that were in the folio edition,” 1728, 1734. This is acknowledged at the end of the preface in the first volume of Rapin’s History. 7. “Translation of the Notes in the Second Part of the Othman History, by Prince Cantemir,” 1735, fulio. 8. Revised and correeled “The History of England, by way of Question and Answer,” for Thomas Astley, 1737, 12mo. 9. Revised and corrected “Hearne’s Ductor Historicus,” and made large additions thereto, for J. Knapton. 10. “Account of the Spanish Invasion in 1588, by way of illustration to the Tapestry Hangings in the House of Lords and in the King’s Wardrobe. Engraved and published by J. Pine,” 1739, folio. 11. “Geographia Antiqua & Nova; taken partly from Dufresnoy’s ‘ Methode pour etudier la Geographic;’ with Ceilarius’s Maps,” 1742, 4to. 12. “A Summary of the History of England,” folio, and “Lists at the end of Mr. TindaPs Continuation of Rapin’s History, in vol. III. being 55 sheets. Reprinted in three volumes,” 8vo. 13. “The History and Antiquities of Colchester,” 1748, folio; second edition, 1768. 14. “All the Lives in the Biographia Britannica marked C. 1739, 1760, 7 vols. folio. I also composed Stiliingfleet, which hath no mark at the end.” 15. “The History of P:ssex,” 1760, 1768, 2 vols. folio. 16. “I prepared the Rolls of Parliament for the Press” (as far as the 16 Henry IV.) Other works in ms.: 17. “An Answer to the first Part of the Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, in a Letter to a Friend, 1724. Presented in ms. to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London.” Never printed. This was the beginning of Mr. Morant’s acquaintance with the bishop, whom he acknowledged as his only patron, and who gave him several livings in the county of Essex. 18. “The Life of King Edward the Confessor.” 19. About 150 Sermons.

The merit of sir Robert. Moray, with regard to the Royal Society, was very eminent. Bishop Burnet asserts, that he was the first former of the society, and that, while he lived, he was the life and soul of that body. He was undoubtedly one of the first framers of it; and he was uncommonly assiduous in promoting its valuable purposes *. In this view, we meet with his name in almost every page of Dr. Birch’s. circumstantial History of tlxe Society; in which, likewise, are inserted some of sir Robert’s papers. Another of his papers, concerning the mineral of Liege, is printed in the early part of the Philosophical Transactions. Besides sir Robert Moray’s aids.and communications, relative to the scientific views and experiments of the Royal Society, he was singularly useful to it in other respects.

In 1675, he accepted a prebend in the church of Gloucester, being collated to it by lady Conway’s brother, lord Finch, who was then chancellor of England, and afterwards earl of Nottingham; but soon resigned it to Dr. Edward Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, on whom it was conferred at his request. It was thought to be with this view that Dr. More accepted of this preferment, it being the only one he could ever be induced to accept, after he liad devoted himself to a college life, which he did very early for, in 1642, he resigned the rectory of Ingoldsby in Lincolnshire, soon after he had been presented to it by his father, who had bought the perpetual advowson of it for him. Here he made himself a paradise, as he expresses it; and he was so fearful of hurting it by any change in his present situation, that he even declined the mastership of his own college, into which, it is said, he might have been elected in 1654, in preference to Dr. Cudworth. After this, we cannot be surprised that he withstood various solicitations, particularly to accept the deanery of Christ church in Dublin, and the provostship of Trinity college, as well as the deanery of St. Patrick’s; but these he persisted in refusing, although he was assured they were designed only to pave the way to something higher, there being two bishoprics in view offered to his choice, one of which was valued at 1500l. per annum. This attempt to draw him into Ireland proving insufficient, a very good bishopric was procured for him in England; and his friends got him as far as Whitehall, in order to kiss his majesty’s hand for it; but as soon as he understood the business, which had hitherto been concealed from him, he could not be prevailed on to stir a step farther.

With these opinions, he was accounted a man of the most ardent piety, and of an irreproachable life. Dr. Outram said “that he looked upon Dr. More as the holiest person upon the face of the earth.” His temper was naturally grave and thoughtful, but at some times, he could relax into gay conversation and pleasantry. After finishing some of his writings, which had occasioned much fatigue, he said, “Now, for these three months, I will neither thiuk a wise thought, nor speak a wise word, nor do any ill thing.” He was subject to fits of extacy, during which he seemed so entirely swallowed up in joy and happiness, that Mr. Norris styles him the “intellectual Epicure.” He was meek and humble, liberal to the poor, and of a very kind and benevolent spirit. He once said to a friend, “that he was thought by some to have a soft head, but he thanked God he had a soft heart,” and gave at that time the sum of 50l. to a clergyman’s widow. Bishop Burnet calls him “an open-hearted and sincere Christian philosopher, who studied to establish men in the great principles of religion against atheism, which was then beginning to gain ground, chiefly by reason of the hypocrisy of some, and the fantastical conceits of the more sincere enthusiasts.” His writings have not of late years been in much request, although all of them were read and admired in his day. Addison styles his “Enchiridion Ethicum” an admirable system of ethics but none of his works appear to have been more relished than his “Divine Dialogues” concerning the attributes and providence of God. Dr. Blair says of this work, that though Dr. More’s style be now in some measure obsolete, and his speakers marked with the academic stiffness of those times, yet the dialogue is animated by a variety of character, and a sprightlmess of conversation, beyond what are* commonly met with in writings of this kind.

At the age of twenty-one, he had a seat in parliament, and shewed great independence of spirit, in 1503, by opposing a subsidy demanded by Henry VII. with such strength of argument, that it was actually refused by the parliament: on this Mr. Tyler, one of the king’s privycouncil, went presently from the house, and told his majesty, that a beardless boy had defeated his intention. The king resented the matter so highly, that he would not be satisfied, till he had some way revenged it: but as the son, who had nothing, could lose nothing, he devised a causeless quarrel against the father; and, sending him to the Tower, kept him there till he had forced a fine of 100l. from him, for his pretended offence. It happened soon after, that More, coming on a suit to Fox, bishop of Winchester, one of the king’s privy-council, the bishop called him aside, and with much apparent kindness, promised, that if he would be ruled by him, he would not fail to restore him to the king’s favour. It was conjectured, perhaps unjustly, that Fox’s object was to draw from him some confession of his offence, so that the king might have an opportunity of gratifying his displeasure against him. More, however, if this really was the case, had too much prudence to be entrapped, and desired some time to consider the matter. This being granted, he obtained a conference with Mr. Whitford, his familiar friend, then chaplain to the bishop, and afterwards a monk of Sion, and related what the bishop proposed. Whitford dissuaded him from listening to the bishop’s motion: “for,” says he, “my lord and master, to serve the king’s turn, will not stick to consent to the death of his own father.” After receiving this opinion, which Fox does not seem to have deserved, More became so alarmed, as to have some thoughts of visiting the continent. With this view he studied the French tongue, and cultivated most of the liberal sciences, as music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and history; but the death of Henry VII. rendered the precaution unnecessary, and he again resumed his profession.

Before More entered into the service of Henry VIII. he had been twice employed, with his majesty’s consent, at the suit of the English merchants, as their agent in some considerable disputes between them and the merchants of the Steel-yard; and, about 1516, he went to Flanders with Tonstal, bishop of Durham, and Dr. Knight, commissioners for renewing the treaty of alliance between Henry VIII. and Charles V. then only archduke of Austria. While at Bruges, a conceited scholar issued a challenge, that he would answer any question which could be proposed to him in any art whatsoever: upon which More caused this to be put up, “An averia capta in withernamia sint irreplegiabiliar” adding, that there was one of the English ambassador’s retinue, who was ready to dispute with him upon it. But the challenger, not understanding those terms of our common law, knew not what to answer, and so was made a laughing-stock to the whole city.

In 1523, he was chosen speaker of the House of Commons; and, soon after, shewed great intrepidity in frustrating a motion for an oppressive subsidy, promoted by cardinal Wolsey, who came to the house thinking that his presence would intimidate the members. On the contrary, the members refused to speak in his presence, and sir Thomas as speaker, gave him such an evasive answer as made him leave the house in a violent passion. This behaviour, the cardinal afterwards, in the gallery at Whitehall, complained of to him, and said, “Would to God you had been at Rome, Mr. More, when I made you speaker.” To which sir Thomas answered, “Your grace not offended, so would I too.” There was at this time no great cordiality between Wolsey and More, which has been attributed to the cardinal’s being jealous of More’s favour with the king. More, however, does not appear to have been afraid of him, and made him, on a remarkable occasion, the subject of one of his keenest witticisms. During a dispute in the privycouncil, Wolsey so far forgot himself as to call sir Thomas a fool, to which he immediately answered, “Thanks be to God, that the king’s majesty has but one fool in his right honourable council.” At length, to get rid of this rival, -in the gentlest way he could, and even under the mask of honouring his political talents, the cardinal persuaded the king to send him on the embassy into Spain in 1526: but against this sir Thomas pleaded the unfavourable climate of Spain, and the actual state of his health, which his majesty accepted as a sufficient plea, saying, “It is not our meaning, Mr. More, to do you any hurt, but to do you good; we will think of some other, and employ your service otherwise.” The following year he was joined, with several other officers of state, to cardinal Wolsey, in a splendid embassy to France. After his return he was appointed chancellor of the dutchy of Lancaster, and in July 1529, he and his friend bishop Tonstal were appointed ambassadors, to negociate a peace between the emperor, king Henry, and the king of France, which was accordingly concluded at Cambray. Sir Thomas acquitted himself in this negociation, in a manner which procured him the approbation of the king. It was sir Thomas’s custom, when in the course of these embassies he came to any foreign university, to desire to be present at their readings and disputations’, and he would sometimes dispute among them himself, and with so much readiness and learning, as to excite the admiration of the auditors; and when the king visited our own universities, where he was received with learned speeches, sir Thomas More was always appointed to make an extempore answer for the king, as the man of all his court the best qualified for the undertaking.

Sir Thomas’s zeal for the Romish church led him, as we have noticed, to write some treatises in defence of popery. He was thought by these to have done great service to the church: and as it was well known that he had had few opportunities of amassing riches, and that the emoluments of his office were no adequate reward for his merit, the clergy, in convocation, voted him a present of five thousand pounds; a vast sum in those days, which was liberally contributed by the whole body of the clergy, superior and inferior. When, however, his friend bishop Tonstal, with two other prelates, waited on him with this present, he peremptorily declined accepting it, telling them, that “as it was no small comfort to him, that such wise and learned men so well accepted of his works, for which be never intended to receive any reward but at the hand of God, so he heartily thanked this honourable body for their bountiful consideration.” The prelates then requested, that he would allow them to present the money to his family but in this he was equally resolute—“Not so, indeed, my lords: I had rather see it all cast into the Thames, than that I or any of mine should have a penny of it. For though your lordships’ offer is very friendly and honourable to me, yet I set so much by my pleasure, and so little by my profit, that in good faith I would not for a much larger sum have lost the rest of so many nights’ sleep as was spent upon these writings. And yet, notwithstanding that, upon condition that all heresies were suppressed, I wish that all my books were burnt, and my labour entirely lost.” There was something new and peculiar in every expression of sir Thomas’s thoughts; and on one occasion, while conversing on public affairs, at Chelsea, he told his son-in-law Roper, that he would be content to be thrown into the river, provided three things were established in Christendom: “universal peace—uniformity of religion—and a safe conclusion of the king’s marriage,” at that time in agitation.

He now resigned himself to that plan of retirement, study, and devotion, which had always been most agreeable to him; but he could no longer expect to enjoy this without interruption. He knew the capricious and arbitrary temper of his royal master, who had already divorced queen Catherine, married Anne Boleyn, and expected that what he had done should be approved with more than silent acquiescence. The coronation of the new queen being fixed for May 31, 1533, sir Thomas received an invitation to attend the ceremony; but this he declined, as he still retained his former opinions on the unlawfulness of the divorce. This, which Henry would naturally construe into an insult, provoked him extremely, conscious as he was that the opinions of sir Thomas would have great weight with the people. Various means were therefore tried to gain him over, and when these proved ineffectual, a more ^harsh, but in those days, not a very extraordinary proceeding took place. In the ensuing parliament a bill was : brought into the House of Lords, attainting sir Thomas, bishop Fisher, and some others, of misprision of treason, for countenancing and encouraging Elizabeth Barton, tlje maid of Kent (See Eliz. Barton, vol. IV.) in her treasonable practices. When this bill came to be read a third time, the House of Lords addressed the king to know his pleasure, whether sir Thomas might not be suffered to speak in his own defence; but Henry would not consent to this, nor when he desired to be admitted into the House of Commons, to defend himself there, would the king permit him: but he assigned a committee of the privycouncil to hear his justification. The affair of Barton, however, was a mere pretence, the object of this committee being to draw from him, either by fair words or threatenings, an assent to the divorce and the second marriage. When the commissioners, who were Cranmer, now archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Audley, the duke of Norfolk, and secretary Cromwell, found that their persuasions were of no avail, they told him, that their instructions were to charge him with ingratitude, and “to inform him, that his majesty thought there never was a servant so villainous, or a subject so traitorous to his prince, as he was;” and, ft in support of this heavy charge against him, they were to allege his subtle and sinister devices, in procuring his majesty to set forth a book to his great dishonour throughout all Christendom: by which he had put a sword into the pope’s hand to fight against himself."

The same year he was taken into the family of the bishop of Apt, in Provence, whom he attended the year following to Paris; and was soon introduced to the prelates, who held their assembly in St. Germain en Laye, and to the learned men in the metropolis. While he was engaged in the second edition of his “Dictionary,” his friends recommended him to M. de Pompone, secretary of state, who invited him to his house, in 1678. He might have expected great advantages from the patronage of that minister; but his intense application to his “Dictionary” injured his health in such a manner that he never recovered it. M. de Pompone having resigned his post in 1679, Moreri took the opportunity of retiring to his own house, in order to complete his work, but his health declining rapidly, he died July 10, 1680, aged 37. Besides the writings above mentioned, he put the “Lives of the Saints” into more elegant French, and added methodical tables for the use of preachers, with chronological tables; and, in 1671, be published at Lyons the following book, “Relations nouvelles du Levant, ou Traités de la Religion, du Gouvernment, & des Coutumes, des Parses, des Anneniens, & des Gaures, composés par le P. G. D. C. C. (P. Gabriel du Chinon, Capuchin), & donnés au public par le sieur L. M. P. D. E. T.” (that is, Louis Moreri, Pretre, Docteur en Theologie.)

gered till 1770, when the first volume early minute-books, offices; but it does not appear that he received ordination from the bishop of London. Thus much, however, is certain-, that in the letters of administration granted to his son, on his dying intestate, he is styled “the Reverend Edward-Rowe Mores, doctor in divinity,” but, at what time, or by which of the bishops, he received ordination, we have not yet discovered. Mr. Nichols was assured by a very intimate friend of Mr. Mores, that he received the honorary title of D. D. in consequence of a literary favour which he had conferred on some foreign Roman catholic ecclesiastics, who wished to repay him by a pecuniary acknowledgment, which he politely declined accepting. Mr. Mores was as ambitious of singularity in religion as in other pursuits and if he could.be said to be a member of any particular church, it was that of Erasmus, whom he endeavoured to imitate. He thought the Latin language peculiarly adapted to devotion, and wished, for the sake of unity, that it was universally in use. He composed a creed in it, with a kind of mass on the death of his wife, of which he printed a few copies, in his own house, under the disguised title of“Ordinale Quotidianum, 1685. Ordo Tngintalis.” Of his daughter’s education he was particularly careful. From her earliest infancy he talked to her principally in Latin. She was sent to Rouen, for education, but without the least view to her being a Roman catholic: on the contrary, he was much displeased when he found she had been perverted. Two original letters to the superior of the house under whose care she was placed, which are printed in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” contain a sufficient refutation of the report of his being himself a member of the church of Rome.

, physician and regius professor of mathematics at Paris, was born at Villefranche in Beaujolois, Feb. 23, 1583. After studying philosophy at Aix in Provence, and physic at Avignon, of which he commenced doctor in 1613, he went to Paris, and lived with Claude Dormi, bishop of Boulogne, who sent him to examine the nature of metals in the mines of Hungary. This gave occasion to his “Mundi sublunaris Anatomia,” which was his first production, published in 1619. Upon his return to his patron the bishop, he took a fancy to judicial astrology, and began to inquire, by the rules of that art, into the events of 1617. Among these he found, that the bishop of Boulogne was threatened with the loss of either liberty or life, of which he forewarned him. The bishop laughed at Morin’s prediction; but, engaging in state-intrigues, and taking the unfortunate side, he was treated as a rebel, and actually imprisoned that very year. After the fall of his prelate, he lived with the abbe de la Bretonniere, in quality of his physician, for four years; and, in 1621, was taken into the family of the duke of Luxemburg, where he lived eight years more, Jn 1630, he was chosen professor royal of mathematics.

, a learned English bishop, first of Worcester and afterwards of Winchester, was sou of Francis Morley, esq. by a sister of sir John Denham, one of the barons of the Exchequer, and born in Cheapside, London, Feb. 27, 1597. He lost his parents when very young, and also his patrimony, by his father being engaged for other people’s debts. However, at fourteen, he was elected a king’s scholar at Westminster-school, and became a student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1615; where he took the first degree in arts in 1618, and that of M. A. in 1621. After a residence of seven years in this college, he was invited to be chaplain to Robert earl of Carnarvon and his lady, with whom he lived till 1640, without seeking any preferment in the church. At the end of that time, and in his forty-third year, he was presented to the rectory of Hartfield in Sussex, which being a sinecure, he exchanged for the rectory of Mildenhall in Wiltshire; but, before this exchange, Charles I. to whom he was chaplain in ordinary, had given him a canonry of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1641, the only preferment he ever desired; and of which he gave the first year’s profit to his majesty, towards the charge of the war, then begun. In 1642 he took his degree of D. D. and preached one of the first solemn sermons before the House of Commons; but so little to their liking, that he was not commanded to print it, as all the preachers had been. Yet he was nominated one or the assembly of divines, but never appeared among them, as he preferred to remain with the king, and promote his majesty’s interest. Among other services the king employed him to engage the university of Oxford not to submit to the parliamentary visitation; and such was his success, that the convocation had the spirit to pass an act for that purpose, with only one dissenting voice, although they were then under the power of the enemy. Afterwards he was appointed by the university, with other assistants named by himself, to negociate the surrender of the Oxford garrison to the parliamentary forces, which he managed with great address. Such a decided part, however, could not fail to render him obnoxious; and accordingly in 1647, the committee for reforming the university voted his cauonry vacant. He was offered at the same time to hold it and what else he had, if he would give his word not to appear openly against them and their proceedings; but he preferred suffering with his celebrated colleagues Fell, Sanderson, Hammond, &c. Accordingly in 1648 he was deprived of all his preferments, and imprisoned for some little time. Some months before, he ha been permitted to attend upon the king at Newmarket, a one of his chaplains, and he was one of the divines who as sisted the king at the treaty of Newport in the Isle of Wight. In March 1648-9, he prepared the brave lord Capel for death, and accompanied him to the scaffold on Tower-hill. In 1649 he left England, and waited upon king Charles II. at the Hague, who received him very graciously, and carried him first into France, and afterwards to Breda, with him. But, the king not being permitted to take his own divines with him, when he set out upon his expedition to Scotland, in June 1650, Morley withdrew to the Hague; and, after a short stay there, went and lived with his friend Dr. John Earle at Antwerp, in the house of sir Charles Cotterel. After they had thus continued about a year together, sir Charles being invited to be steward to the queen of Bohemia, and Dr. Earle to attend upon James duke of York in France, Morley then removed into the family of the lady Frances Hyde, wife of sir Edward Hyde, in the same city of Antwerp; and during his residence there, which was three or four years, he read the service of the Church of England twice every day, catechised once a week, and administered the communion once a month, to all the English in that city who would attend; as he did afterwards at Breda, for four years together, in the same family. But, betwixt his going from Antwerp and his coming to Breda, he officiated at the Hague about two years, as chaplain to the queen of Bohemia, without expecting or receiving any reward. As he had been happy at home in the acquaintance and friendship of many eminent men, such as lord Falkland, sir Edward Hyde, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sanderson, Mr. Chillingworth, Dr. Sheldon, Waller, with whom he had resided at Beaconsfield, &c. so he was also abroad, in that of Bochart, Salmasius, Daniel Heinsius, Rivet, &c.

He was a very hard student, usually rising about five o'clock in the morning both in winter and summer, though he never went to bed till about eleven in the severest season of the year; nor did he eat more than once in the twenty-four hours. By this means he passed his life without ever being obliged to keep his bed for any sickness more than twice. Bishop Burnet tells us, that he had been first known to the world as a friend of lord Falkland’s; a circumstance sufficient to raise any man’s character. He had continued for many years in the lord Clarendon’s family, and was his particular friend. He was a Calvinist with relation to the Arminian points, and was thought a friend to the puritans before the wars; and although in the Savoy conference he would not admit of any concessions to that party, Calamy records several instances of his moderation towards dissenters. He was a pious and charitable man, of a very exemplary life, but occasionally passionate, and obstinate. He was in many respects an eminent man, zealous against popery, and considerably learned, with an uncommon vivacity of thought.

In 1596 he published a piece entitled “The just Procedures of those of the Reformed Religion;” in which he removes the imputation of the present troubles and dissentions from the protestants, and throws the blame on those who injuriously denied them that liberty, which their great services had deserved. In 1598 he published his treatise “upon the Eucharist;” which occasioned the conference at Fontainbleau in 1600, between Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and M. du Plessis; and raised his reputation and credit among the protestants to so great a height, that he was called by man)* “the Protestant Pope.” In 1607 he published a work entitled “The Mystery of Iniquity, or the History of the Papacy;” which was written, as most of his other works were, first in French, and then translated into Latin. Here he shews by what gradual progress the popes have risen to that ecclesiastical tyranny, which was foretold by the apostles; and what opposition from time to time all nations have given them. This seems to have been a work of prodigious labour; yet it is said, that he was not above nine months in composing it. About this time, also, he published “An Exhortation to the Jews concerning the Messiah,” in which he applies a great deal of Hebrew learning very judiciously; and for this he was complimented by the elder Buxtorf. There are several other lesser pieces of his writing; but his capital work, and for which he has been most distinguished, is his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion;” in which he employs the weapons of reason and learning with great force and skill against Atheists, Epicureans, Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and other Infidels, as he tells us in his title. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. while he was king of Navarre only, in 1582; and, the year after, was translated by himself into Latin. “As a Frenchman,” says he, in his preface tp the reader, “I have endeavoured to serve my own country first; and, as a Christian, the universal kingdom of Christ next.” Baillet observes, with justness, that “the Protestants of France had great reason to be proud of having such a man as Mornay du Plessis of their party; a gentleman, who, besides the nobleness of his birth, was distinguished by many fine qualities both natural and acquired.”

In 1473 he was appointed master of the rolls, and in 1474 archdeacon of Winchester; in both which offices he was succeeded by his nephew Robert Morton, afterwards bishop of Worcester. In May of the same year, 1474, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Chester, and not to that of Chichester, as Browne Willis has inadvertently said. In March 1475 he was installed by proxy archdeacon of Huntingdon; and the same year collated to the prebend of St. Decuman in the cathedral of Weils. In April 1476 he was installed prebendary of South Newbald in the metropolitan church of York, which he resigned the same year, in which he was also further promoted to the archdeaconry of Berkshire; and in January 1477 to that of Leicester. This list of promotions, in various quarters of the kingdom, and from various patrons, may serve to shevr the high esteem in which he was held. His eminent abilities, as a civilian, during his practice as an advocate in the Court of Arches, recommended him to the notice of cardinal Bourchier, who, besides conferring many of the above preferments on him, introduced him to Henry VI. who made him one of his privy council. To this unfortunate prince he adhered with so much fidelity, while others deserted him, that even his successor Edward IV. could not but admire and reward his attachment; took him into his council, and was much guided by his advice. He also, ' in the same year, 1478, made him both bishop of Ely and lord chancellor of England; and at his death appointed him one of his executors.

On this account, however, he was considered in no very favourable light by the protector, afterwards Richard III. who had no hopes of alluring him to his interests. When bishop Morton and others were assembled in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to consult about the coronation of Edward V. the protector came among them, and after some general discourse turned to the bishop of Ely, and said, “My lord, you have very good strawberries in your garden at Holborn, I require you let me have a mess of them.” “Gladly, my lord,” the bishop answered; “I wish I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that.” Yet, notwithstanding this apparent civility, Morton, with archbishop Rotheram, lord Stanley, and others, were the same day taken into custody, as known enemies to the measures then in agitation. As soon as this was known, the university of Oxford, to which Morton had been a benefactor, sent a petition in Latin to Richard, pleading for his liberty; whether with effect does not appear; but it is certain that for this or some other reason he was soon released from prison, and given in ward to the duke of Buckingham, then a warm partizan of Richard, but completely brought over to the other side by conversation with the bishop. He was sent to th.e duke’s castle at Brecknock, whence he escaped to the isle of Ely, and soon after, disguising himself, went to the Continent to Henry earl of Richmond; and it was agreed among the friends of the late king’s family and the well-wishers to the peace and harmony of the kingdom, that king Edward’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth, should be pnited to Henry by marriage; and thus, by joining the interests of the white and red rose in one, a coalition might be formed between the jarring parties of York and Lancaster. All this is said to have been the plan recommended by Morton, and he lived to see it happily accomplished. It is indeed that transactiou of his life which gives him a very honourable place in English history. Horace Walpole only, in his “Historic Doubts,” has obliquely accused him. of violating his allegiance to Richard III.; but to Richard III. no allegiance was either due, or paid. As Morton was imprisoned before Richard was crowned, and never set at liberty until he made his escape, it seems highly probable that no oath of allegiance was ever tendered to him. by the usurper.

Among the public-spirited schemes which his liberality induced him to execute, was the famous cut or drain from Peterborough to Wisbeche, a track of upwards of twelve miles across a fenny country, which proved of great benefit to his diocese and to the public, and was completed entirely at his expence. This still is known by the name of Morton’s Leame, As soon as Henry VII. was seated on the throne, after the death of Richard III. he sent for Morton, who was still abroad, and immediately on his arrival made him one of his privy council; and on the death of cardinal Bourchier, in 1486, he was, probably on the king’s recommendation, elected by the prior and convent of Canterbury to be archbishop. In the mean time the king granted him. the whole profits of the see, until the pope’s confirmation could be obtained, and the disposal of all the preferments annexed to it; and having received the pope’s bull, dated Oct. 6, 1436, he was, by the king, admitted to the temporalities on Dec. 6 following In August 1487 he was constituted lord chancellor of England, which office he retained to his death. In a ms. in the British Museum, (Mss. Harl. 6100. fol. 54.) he is said to have been made chancellor in 1485, which was the first year of Henry VII.; and we have already mentioned, from another authority, that he filled that office while bishop of Ely. In 1493 he was creiited a cardinal by pope Alexander VI. by the title of St. Anastasia. In Hall’s Chronicle this promotion is placed in 1489, which is a mistake.

, a learned English bishop in the seventeenth century, was of the same family with cardinal Morton, and was the sixth son of nineteen children of Mr. Richard Morton, an eminent mercer and alderman of York, by Elizabeth Leedale his wife. He was born at York, March 20, 1564, and was 6rst educated there under Mr. Pullen, and afterwards at Halifax under Mr. Maud. In 1582 he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge, and placed under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Higgon, afterwards dean of Rippon, who left him to the care of Mr. Henry Nelson, afterwards rector of Hougham ia Lincolnshire, who lived to see his pupil bishop of Durham, and many years after. In the beginning of November 1584, he was chosen to a scholarship of Constable’s foundation, peculiar to his native county of York; and in 1586 took the degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1590 that of master, having performed the exercises requisite to each degree with great applause. He continued his studies at his father’s charge until March 17, 1592, when he was admitted fellow, of the foundation of Dr. Keyson, merely on account of his merit, against eight competitors for the place. About the same time he was chosen logic lecturer of the university, which, office he discharged with ^reat skill and diligence, as appeared from his lectures found among his papers. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following priest by Richard Rowland, bishop of Peterborough. He continued five years after this in the college, pursuing his private studies, and instructing pupils. In 1598 he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and ahout the same year was presented to the rectory of Long Marston four miles from York. He was afterwards made chaplain to the earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North, who selected him for his zeal and acuteness in disputing with the Romish recusants. It was queen Elizabeth’s command to his lordship, to prefer arguments to force with these people: and this she expressed, as the earl used to say, in the words of scripture, “Nolo mortem peccatoris.” Afterwards, when lord Huntingdon was dead, and lord Sheffield was appointed lord president, Morton held a public conference before his lordship and the council, at the manor-, house at York, with two popish recusants, then prisoners in the castle. In 1602, when the plague raged in that city, he behaved with the greatest charity and resolution. The year following, the lord Eure being appointed ambassador-extraordinary to the emperor of Germany, and king of Denmark, Morton attended him as chaplain, along with Mr. Richard Crakenthorp, and took this opportunity to make a valuable collection of books, as well as to visit the universities of Germany. At his return he became chapJain to Roger earl of Rutland, and was afterwards presented by archbishop Matthews to a prebend in the cathedral of York. In 1606 he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and about the same time was sworn chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and preferred to the deanery of Gloucester, June 22, 1607. While he was dean there, the lord Eure above mentioned, then lord president of Wales, appointed him one of his majesty’s council for the marches. In 1609, he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and while there, the bishop (Bilson) collated him to the rectory of Alesford. In the same year, Dr. Sutcliff, dean of Exeter, founding a college at Chelsea, for divines to be employed in defending the protestant religion against the papists, he was appointed one of the fellows. About this time, he became acquainted with Isaac Casaubon. In 1615, he was advanced to the see of Chester and, in 1618, to that of Lichfield and Coventry about which time he became acquainted with Antonio de Dominis, abp. of Spalato, whom he endeavoured to dissuade from returning to Rome. The archbishop’s pretence for going thither was, to attempt an unity between the church of Rome and that of England, upon those terms which he had laid down in his book entitled “De Repnblica Christiana.”

While Morton sat in the see of Coventry and Lichfield, which was above fourteen years, he educated, ordained, and presented to a living, a youth of excellent talents and memory, who was born blind . He also acquired no little reputation by detecting the imposture of the famous boy of Bilson in Staffordshire, who pretended to be possessed with a devil; but who, in reality, was only suborned by some Romish priests, to assume the appearance of possession, according to the common notions of it, for the sake of promoting their own private purposes. In 1632, he was translated to the bishopric of Durham, which he held with great reputation till the opening of the Long-parliament, when he met with great insults from the common people, and was once in extreme hazard of his life at Westminster, some crying, “Pirll him out of his coach” others, “Nay, he is a good man” others, “But for all that he is a bishop.” He used often to say that he believed he should not have escaped alive, if a ringleader among the rabble had not cried out, “let him go and hang himself.” He was then committed to the custody of the usher of the black rod; and, as Whitlocke tells us, “April 1645, was brought before the Commons for christening a child in the old way, and signing it with the sign of the cross, contrary to the directory; and, because he refused to deliver up the seal of the county-palatine of Durham, he was committed to the Tower.” Here he continued six months, and then returned to his lodgings at Durham-house; the parliament, upon the dissolution of the bishoprics, voted him an annuity. Whitlocke informs us, that, in May 1649, an ordinance passed for 800l. per annum to bishop Morton; but Barwick observes, that, while he^vas able to subsist without it, he never troubled himself with looking after it; and, at last, when he had no alternative but to claim this, or be burthcnsome to his friends, he determined upon the former, and procured a copy of the vote, but found it to contain no more than that such a sum should be paid, but no mention either by whom or whence. And before he could obtain an explanation of the order to make the pension payable out of the revenues of his own bishopric, all the lands and revenues of it were sold or divided among members of parliament themselves. Only by the importunity of his friends he procured an order to have a thousand pounds out of their treasury at Goldsmitbs’-hall, with which he paid his debts, and purchased to himself an annuity of 200l. per annum, during life; which annuity was

out of the Old and New Testament, he over to him. He died at about twentycotnmitted them perfectly to memory, six years of a$e, iipon his uncle’s twice reading them granted at first by the lady Saville, in the minority of her son sir George, and afterwards confirmed by himself when he came to be of age. At last he was obliged to quit Durham-yard, by the soldiers who came to garrison it, a little before the death of Charles I.; and then went to Exeter-house in the Strand, at the invitation of the earl of Rutland, where he continued but a short time. After several removals, he took up his abode with sir Henry Yelverton, at Easton Mauduit in Northamptonshire, where he died Sept. 22, 1659, in his ninety-fifth year. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. John Barwick, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and printed at London, in 1660, under this title, “Ιερονικησ: or, The Fight, Victory, and Triumph, of St. Paul, accommodated to the Right Rev. Father in God, Thomas, late Lord Bishop of Duresme.”

Bishop Morton was of low stature, but of an excellent constitution, which he preserved to the last. Dr. Barwick represents him as a man of extensive learning, great piety, hospitality, and charity, and of great temperance and moderation in matters of controversy. He carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and was himself distinguished for his liberal patronage of such. He was particularly the friend and patron of the celebrated Dr. Donne. On one occasion he gave Donne a sum of money, saying, “Here Mr. Donne, take this, gold is restorative:” Donne replied, “Sir, I doubt I shall never restore it back again.” Bishop Morton! s greatest blemish seems to have been his acceding to, or, in truth, in some measure drawing up, king James’s declaration, usually called the "Book of Sports/' allowing and enjoining public amusements on Sunday, by way of counteracting the endeavours of the popish party, who countenanced such amusements in order to draw the people from the church, By this declaration, the appearing at church was made a qualification for the sports, an absurdity so gross, as to be equalled only by the injustice of compelling clergymen to proclaim it in the pulpit. The readers will find this curious law in the note*, and we are sorry to add, on the

tpaen or women, as abstained from though conformists in religion, are not uthority of Dr. Barwick, that all the articles but one, which he thinks was the first, were originally drawn up by bishop Morton.

judgment as the bishop, observes; on no other bottom for the most pait,

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

, a celebrated Armenian archbishop, who flourished about the year 462, was esteemed one of the most learned men of his nation, having studied Greek at Athens, from which language he made many versions into the Armenian. His principal work is “A History of Armenia,” from the deluge to the middle of the fifth century, first published in Armenian in 1695, by Thomas Vanandensis, an Armenian bishop, from one single manuscript, and that f a very faulty one. It was reprinted with a Latin version, in 1736, by William and George, the sons of the famous William Whiston, with a preface concerning the literature of the Armenians, and their version of the Bible; and an appendix containing two epistles, the one of the Corinthians to Paul the Apostle, the other of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, entire, from a ms. 4to. Of Moses, Messrs. Whiston say that he appears to have been a man of probity, simplicity, and sincerity, but of moderate learning, and rather too credulous. They think it was written in the latter end of the fifth century. They speak also of “An Abridgment of Geography,” published at Amsterdam in 1668; and some “Sacred Canticles,” to be sung in the Armenian language on the anniversary of Christ’s presentation at the temple. His history was the first book published in England in the Armenian language, at a time when no person here understood that language, and but two on the continent, La Croze, librarian to the king of Prussia, and Schroder, professor of the Oriental languages at Marpurg in Germany. It is a work now of rare occurrence.

His first remove from the university was in consequence of his being appointed preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s. Inn, July 11, 1698, which preferment he enjoyed till 1714. In the following year, January 1699, he was named preacher-assistant of St. James’s, Westminster, by the rector, Dr. Wake, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In April 1701 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to king William, and continued in the same office in the following reign. He was one of the chaplains in waiting, when queen Anne, in April 1705, visited the university of Cambridge, and he was on that occasion created D. D. In 1708 he was chosen, by the parish, Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence’s Jewry, near Guildhall, in the room of Dr. Stanhope, who then resigned it, and supported the credit and character of that lecture with great approbation until 1727, when his growing infirmities induced him to resign it. In 1708-9 he was involved in a dispute with Dr. Thomas Greene, afterwards bishop of Norwich, but then master of Bene't college, who expected Dr. Moss to resign his fellowship on account of his non-residence and preferments in town. The debate was carried on by letter, and with too much warmth on both sides; but it appears, without ultimately creating any breach of friendship. On the death of Dr. Roderick, in 1712, Dr. Moss was appointed by her majesty to the deanery of Ely, and on this occasion quitted his fellowship in the college, and about 1714- resigned the preachership of Gray’s Inn, and at the same time was collated by Dr. Robinson, bishop of London, to the living of Gilston, alias Geddleston, a small rectory on the Eastern side of Hertfordshire, which, though of no great value, was of great service to him when incapacitated from taking long journeys, being a convenient distance between London and Ely, and an agreeable retirement.

In 1717 he is supposed to have been the author of “The Report vindicated from Misreports; being a defence of my lords the bishops, as well as the clergy of the lower house of convocation, in a letter from a member of that house to the prolocutor, concerning their late consultations about the bishop of Bangor’s writings; with a postscript, containing some few remarks upon the letter to Dr. Sherlock.” Dr. Moss did not meddle much in the controversies of the times, yet took some part in that which arose from the Ban'gorian dispute, and that on the validity or invalidity of lay-baptism. Concerning the latter he published a sermon entitled “The extent of Christ’s commission to baptize; with a preface, addressed to the dissenters.” Except these, we know not of any separate publications from his pen.

This “promising youth” was afterwards a fellow of his college, B. A. 1731, M. A. 1735, and D. D. 1747. He became archdeacon of Colchester, prebendary of Salisbury, rector of St. Andrew Under.shaft, of St. James’s, Westminster, 1750, and of St. George’s, Hanover-square, in 1759. He was elected bishop of St. David’s in 1766, and translated to Bath and Wells in 1774. He died April 13, 1802. Besides four or five sermons preached on public occasions, he printed “A Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Colchester, occasioned by the uncommon Mortality and quick succession of Bishops in the see of London, at a visitation holden in May 1764;” and twenty years before, an admirable tract in defence of bishop Sherlock’s celebrated “Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus.” This tract was entitled, “The Evidence of the Resurrection cleared from the exceptions of a late pamphlet, entitled * The Resurrection of Jesus considered by a moral philosopher, in answer to the Tryal of the Witnesses,'” &c. Lond. 1744. It afterwards appeared with the following title “The Sequel of the Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection being an answer to the exceptions of a late pamphlet, &c. &c. revised by the author of the Tryal of the Witnesses,” ibid. 1749. “The title-page, however, alone is new; as the impression is identically the same as in 1744; but the inscription signed” C. M." is omitted in 1749. It was to Sherlock he owed his promotions, to whom he had been chaplain. His son, Dr. Charles Moss, to whom he left a vast property, was educated at Christ Chnrch, Oxford, of which diocese he became bishop in 1807, and died in 1811.

, was a learned and pious Irish prelate, of whose early history we find no account. Mr. Nichols, in his “Anecdotes,” says that he “appears to have been appointed to be minister of St. Peter’s, Paul’s Wharf, London, after the sequestration of Edward Merbury;” but this is quite, inconsistent with bishop Kenn’s account of him, in his funeral sermon on lady Margaret Maynard. There he says that Dr. Mossom, during the usurpation, was silenced, plundered, and persecuted. After the restoration we can trace him more exactly. He was made, in 1660, dean of Christ Church, Dublin, and in 1662, prebendary of Knaresborough in the cathedral of York. From thence he was promoted to the see of Derry in March 1666, with which he held his deanery of Christ Church, but resigned his prebend. He died at Londonderry, Dec. 21, 1679, and was buried in the cathedral. Harris mentions his book entitled “The Preacher’s Tripartite,” Lond. 1657; fol. and another, “Variae colloquendi Formulas, in usum condiscipulorum in palaestra literaria sub paterno moderamine vires Minervales exercentium, parthn collects, partim composite a Roberto Mossom,” Lond. 1659, by which it appears that his father taught a school in London. Mr. Nichols enumerates a, few single sermons and speeches, a “Narrative panegyrical on the life, &c. of George Wild, bishop of Derry,” 1665, 4to; and “Zion’s prospect in its first view, in a summary of divine truths, viz. of God, Providence, decrees,” &c. 1654, 4to, reprinted at least twice, the last in 1711.

, in Latin Molinæus, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Paris in 1500. His family was noble, and Papyrius mentions “that those of the family of Moulin were related to Elizabeth queen of England;” which she acknowledged herself in 1572, when conversing with Francis duke of Montmorency, marshal of France and ambassador to England. This relation probably came by Thomas Bullen, or Boleyn, viscount of Rochefort, the queen’s grandfather by the mother’s side; for Sanderus and others say, “that this Rochefort being ambassador to France, gave his daughter Anne of Bulloigne to a gentleman of Brie, a friend and relation of his, to take care of her education; and this gentleman is supposed to be the lord of Fontenay in Brie, of the family of du Moulin.” This branch came from Denys du Moulin, lord of Fontenay in Brie, archbishop of Thoulouse, patriarch of Antioch, and bishop of Paris, where he died in 1447. The subject of our memoir was at first educated at the university of Paris, and afterwards studied law at Poitiers and Orleans, at the latter of which cities he gave lectures on the subject in 1521. In the following year he was received as an advocate of parliament; but, owing to a defect in his speech, was obliged to give up pleading, and confine himself to chamber practice, and the composition of those works which gained him so much reputation. He was an indefatigable student, and set such a value on time, that, contrary to the custom of his age, he had his beard close shaven, that he might not lose any precious moments in dressing it; but in his latter days he permitted it again to grow. From the same love of study, he refused some valuable employments, and even took the resolution never to marry; and that he might be equally free from every other incumbrance, he gave the whole of his property to <rn elder brother, reserving only for his maintenance the profits of his studies. It was not long, however, before he had cause to repent of this uncommon liberality, as his brother behaved to him in a brutal and unnatural way. To revenge himself, he had recourse to an expedient suggested by his professional knowledge. He married, and having children, he resumed, according to the law, the possession of that property with which he had parted so freely when a bachelor. It was in 1538 that he married Louise de Beldon, daughter of the king’s secretary, a lady of a most amiable and affectionate temper, who, instead of being an incumbrance, as he once foolishly thought, proved the great comfort of his life, and in some respect, the promoter of his studies, by her prudent care of those domestic affairs of which literary men are generally very bad managers. She was also his consolation in the many difficulties in which he soon became embroiled. He was a man of an ardent mind and warm temper, totally incapable of concealing his sentiments, particularly in the cause of truth and justice, or regard to his country. Like many other eminent men of that age, he embraced the principles of the reformed religion, first according to the system of Calvin, but afterwards he adopted that of Luther, as contained in the Augsburgh confession. On this account it is said that the Calvinists endeavoured to make him feel their resentment, and even suspended their animosity against the Roman catholics, that they might join with the latter in attacking Du Moulin.

In this work many of the acknowledged doctrines of the church of England are undoubtedly maintained with great force of argument, but there are other points in which he afforded just ground for the suspicions alleged against him; and that this was the opinion of many divines of that period appeared from the answers to his “Appeal” published by, It Dr. Matthew Sutcliffe, dean of Exeter. 2. Mr. Henry Burton in his “Plea to an Appeale,” Lond. 1626, 4to. 3. Mr. Francis Rous, afterwards provost of Eton college, in his “Testis Veritatis,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 4. Mr. John Yates, B. D. formerly fellow of Emanuel college in Cambridge, afterwards minister of St. Andrew’s in Norwich, in his book entitled “Ibis ad Caesarem,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 5. Mr. Anthony Wotton, professor of. divinity in Gresham college. 6. Dr. Daniel Featly, in his “Pelagius Redivivus; or, Pelagius raked out of the ashes by Arminius and his scholars,” ibid. 1626, 4to. This book contains two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians; the other between the church of Rome, the appealer, Mr. Mountagu, and the church of England, in three columns; together with a writ of error sued against the appealer. 7. Dr. George Carleton, bishop of Chichester, in his “Examination of those things, wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the doc-” trines of the church of England," ibid. 1626, 4to.

The controversy, however, was not to be left to divines, who may be supposed judges of the subject. The parliament which met June 18, 1625, thought proper to take up the subject, and Mr. Mountagu was ordered to appear before the House of Commons, and being brought to the bar July 17, the speaker told him, that it was the pleasure of the House, that the censure of his books hould be postponed for some time; but that in the interim he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. He was afterwards obliged to give the security of 2000l. for his appearance. The king, however, was displeased with the parliament’s proceedings against our author and bishop Laud applied to the duke of Buckingham in his favour Mr. Mountagu also wrote a letter to that duke, entreating him to represent his case to his majesty; and this application was seconded some few days after by a letter of the bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and St. David’s, to the duke. In the next parliament, in 1626, our author’s Appello Ca3sarem“was referred to the consideration of the committee for religion, from whom Mr. Pym brought a report on the 18th of April concerning several erroneous opinions contained in it. Upon this it was resolved by the House of Commons, 1.” That Mr. Mountagu had disturbed the peace of the church, by publishing doctrines, contrary to the articles of the church of England, and the book of homilies. 2. That there are clivers passages in his book, especially against those he calleth puritans, apt to move sedition betwixt the king and his subjects, and between subject and subject. 3. That the whole frame and scope of his books is to discourage the well-affected in religion from the true religion established in the church, and to incline them, and, as much as in him lay, to reconcile them to popery." And accordingly articles were exhibited against him; but it does not appear, that this impeachment was laid before the House of Lords, or in what manner the Commons intended to prosecute their charge, or how far they proceeded. Rush worth, after much inquiry, could not find that Mr. Mountagu was brought to his defence, or that he returned any answer to the articles.

This prosecution from the parliament seems to have recommended him more strongly to the court, for, in 1628, he was advanced to the bishopric of Chichester, on the death of one of his opponents, Dr. Carleton. On August 22, 1628, the day appointed for his confirmation, a singular scene took place. On such occasions it is usual to give a formal notice, that if any person can object either against the party elected, or the legality of the election, they are to come and offer their exceptions at the day prefixed. This intimation being given, one Mr. Humphreys, and William Jones, a stationer of London, excepted against Mountagu as a person unqualified for the episcopal function, charging him with popery, Arrninianism, and other heterodoxies, for which his books had been censured in the former parliament. Fuller tells us, “that exception was taken at Jones’s exceptions (which the record calls 4 prætensos Articulos)' as defective in some legal formalities. I have been informed,” continues he, “it was alledged against him for bringing in his objections viva vocc, and not by a proctor, that court adjudging all private persons effectually dumb, who speak not by one admitted to plead therein. Jones returned, that he could not get any proctor, though pressing them importunately,” and profering them their fee to present his exceptions, and therefore was necessitated ore tenus there to alledge them against Mr. Mountagu. The register mentioneth no particular defects in his exceptions; but Dr. Rives, substitute at that time for the vicar- general, declined to take any notice of and concludeth Jones amongst the contumacious, e quod nullo modo legitime comparuit, nee aliquid in hac partejuxta Juris exigentiam diceret, exciperet, vel opponeret.' Yet this good Jones did bishop Mountagu, that he caused his addresses to the king to procure a pardon, which was granted unto him, in form like those given at the coronation, save that some particulars were inserted therein, for the pardoning of all errors heretofore committed either in speaking, writing, or publishing, whereby he might hereafter be questioned."