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

In 1656, Tillotson left his college, and went upon invitation to Edmund Prideaux, esq. of Ford-abbey in Devonshire, to be tutor to his son. Prideaux had been commissioner of the great seal under the long parliament, and was then attorney-general to the protector Cromwell. How long he continued in this Station does not appear;, but he was in London at the time of Cromwell’s death, Sept. 3, 1658; and was present about a week after at a very remarkable scene in Whitehall palace, which we have already related from Burnet in our account of Dr. Owen. The time of his going into orders, and by whom he was ordained, are particulars not known. Some have supposed, that he was curate to Dr. Wilkins at St. Lawrence Jewry, before the restoration; but Wilkins was not admitted to that vicarage till 1662. The first sermon of his that appeared in print was in Sept. 1661: it was preached at the morning exercise at Cripplegate, on “Matth. vii. 12.” and published among a collection with that title, but not admitted among his works till the edition of 1752. At the time of preaching this sermon he was still among the Presbyterians, whose commissioners he attended, thou. h as an auditor only, at the conference held at the Savoy for the review of the Liturgy, in July 1661 but he immediately submitted to the act of uniformity, which commenced on St. Bartholomew’s-day the year following. Upon thus becoming a preacher in the church, he was very little disposed to follow the patterns then set him, or indeed of former times; and therefore formed one to himself, which was long esteemed as a model. He certainly began his course of divinity with the true foundation of it, an exact study of the Scriptures, on which he spent four or five years. He then applied himself to the reading ol all the ancient philosophers and writers upon ethics, and among the fathers chiefly St. Basil and St. Chry*.ostom, with Episcopius among the moderns, whom he made the pattern both of his principles and eloquence. With these preparations, he set himself to compose the greatest variety of sermons that any divine had yet undertaken.

His first office in the church was the curacy of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, in 16S1 and 1662; where he is said, by his mild and gentle behaviour, which was natural to him, and persuasive eloquence, to have prevailed with an old Oliverian soldier, who preached among the Anabaptists there in a red coat, and was much followed, to desist from that, and betake himself to some other employment. The short distance of Cheshunt from London allowing him often to visit his friends there, he was frequently invited into their pulpits. Accordingly we find that his sermon on Eccles. xii. 1. “Upon the advantages of an early piety,” was preached at St. Lawrence Jewry in 1662; Dec. the 16th of which year, he was elected minister oi the adjoining parish of St. Mary Aldermanbury, upon the deprivation of Mr. Edmund Calamy. He declined this, but did not continue long without the offer of another benefice, which he accepted, being presented, in June 1663, to the rectory of Keddington in Suffolk. His residence there, however, was but short, being called to London by the society of Lincoln’s-Inn, who chose him their preacher the 26th following: his election was owing to his being accidentally heard at St. Lawrence Jewry, by Mr. Atkyns, one of the benchers of that Inn, and afterwards lord chief baron of the Exchequer. He determined to live among them, and therefore immediately resigned his living in Suffolk; but his preaching was so little relished there at first, that he for some time entertained thoughts of leaving them. They maintained, that “since Mr. Tillotson came, Jesus Christ had not been preached among them.” To this accusation, he seems to allude in his sermon against evil-speaking, preached near thirty years after; towards the close of which he says: “I foresee what will be said, because I have heard it so often said in the like case, that there is not one word of Jesus Christ in all this; no more is there in the text: and yet I hope that Jesus Christ is truly preached, when his will and laws, and the duties enjoined by the Christian religion, are inculcated upon us.”

The year after, 1664, he was chosen Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence Jewry: and being now settled in town, and having established the character of an excellent preacher, he contributed his share to oppose the two growing evils of Charles the Second’s reign, atheism and popery. He preached a sermonbefore the lord mayor and court of aldermen at St. Paul’s, in 1663, “On the wisdom of being religious;” which was published in 1664, much enlarged, and has been allowed to be one of the most elegant, perspicuous, and convincing defences of religion, in our own or any other language. In 1664, John Sargrant (see Sargeant), who had deserted from the church of England to that of Rome, published a book, called Sure footing in Christianity; or, Rational Discourses on the rule of Faith.“This being highly praised by the abettors of popery, Tillotson answered it, in a piece entitled” The rule of Faith,“which was printed in 1666, and inscribed to Dr. Stillingfleet, with whom he was intimately acquainted. Sargeant replied to this, and also in another piece attacked a passage in Tillotson’s sermon” On the Wisdom of being religious;“which sermon, as well as his” Rule of Faith," Tillotson defended in the preface to the first volume of his sermons, printed in 1671, 8vo.

The same year, 1666, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and in 1668 preached the sermon at the consecration of Wilkins to the bishopric of Chester. He was related to Wiikins, by having, Feb. 23, 1664, married his daughterin-law, Elizabeth French, who was niece to Oliver Cromwell; for she was the daughter of Dr. Peter French, canon of Christ church in Oxford, by Robina, sister to Cromwell, which Robina was re- married, about 1656, to Dr. Wilkins, then warden of Wad bam college. In 1670, he was made a prebendary of Canterbury; and, in 1672, advanced to the deanery of that church: he had some ti ue before been preferred to a prebend in the church of St. Paul. He had now been some years chaplain to the king, who is yet supposed, by Burnet and others, to have had no kindness for him; his zeal against popery was too great for him to be much of a favourite at court. When a declaration for liberty of conscience was published in 1672, with a view to indulge the papists, the bishops were alarmed, and directed Uieir clergy to preach against popery; the king complained to archbishop Sheldon of this, as done on purpose to inflame the people, and alienate them from himstU and hit government; on which that prelate called together some of the clergy, to consider what he should say to his majesty, if he pressed him any farther on that head. Dr. Tillotson suggested this answer, that, “since his majesty professed the protestant religion, it would be a thing without precedent, that he should forbid his clergy to preach in clefence of it.' 1 In the mean time, he observed great moderation towards the protestant dissenters, and, early in 1668, had joined in a treaty for a comprehension of such as could be brought into the communion of the church; but this attempt proved abortive, as did another made in 1674. In 1675, he published” The Principles of Natural Religion, by bishop Wilkins,“who had died at his house in 1672, and committed all his papers to him, to dispose of as he pleased. The first twelve chapters only having been transcribed by Wilkins for the press, he finished the remainder out of the bishop’s papers, and wrote a preface. In 1630, he published” The Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy, by Dr. Barrow," who dying in 1677, left all his manuscripts to the care of Dr. Tillotson. He had the year before converted Charles earl of Shrewsbury, afterwards created a duke by king William, to whom he was secretary of state, from popery to the protestant religion.

On the 2d of April, 1680, he preached before the king at Whitehall, a sermon on Josh. xxiv. 15, which was soon after published by his majesty’s special command, under the title of “The Protestant Religion vindicated from the charge of singularity and novelty.” But this discourse happened to contain some incidental assertions, which offended all parties, particularly the following passage: “I cannot think, till I be better informed, which I arn always ready to be, that any pretence of conscience warrants any man, that is not extraordinarily commissioned, as the apostles and first publishers of the Gospel were, and cannot justify that commission by miracles as they did, to affront the established religion of a nation, though it be false; and openly to draw men off from the profession of it, in contempt of the magistrate and the law. All that persons of a different religion can in such a case reasonably pretend to, is to enjoy the private liberty and exercise of their own conscience and religion; for which they ought to be very thankful, and to forbear the open making of proselytes to their own religion, though they be never so sure that they are in the right, till they have either an extraordinary commission from God to that purpose, or the providence of God makes way for it by the permission of the magistrate.” Dr. Hickes, who wrote a virulent libel against Tillotson after his death, styles this downright Hobbism; and tells us, that a witty lord, standing at the king’s elbow when it was delivered, said, “Sir, do you hear Mr. Hobbes in the pulpit?” Dr. Calamy’s account is, that the king having slept the most part of the time while the sermon was delivered, a certain nobleman stepped up to him, as soon as it was over, and said, “It is pity your majesty slept, for we have had the rarest piece of Hobbism that ever you heard in your life.” To which the km^ answered, ll Odds fish, he shall print it then;" and immediately gave orders to that purpose. Some animadversions were made upon it, and printed; but it does not appear that the dean took any further notice, except only to apologize privately among his friends, for having advanced an assertion which he savr could not be maintained. He excused himself by the hurry he was in, being called unexpectedly, and out of turn, to preach. It is indeed surprising that a man of Tillotson’s good sense should be hurried, by his zeal against popery, to advance against the papists what equally struck at our first reformers.

In 1682, the dean gave the public, from the manuscript! of bishop Wilkins, a volume in 8vo, of fifteen sermons; which he introduced with a preface, in defence of that prelate’s character, against the reflections cast upon it in the “Historia & antiquitates universitatis Oxoniensis.” Thi* was printed in 1674, under the inspection of bishop Fell; who is supposed to have made the alterations and additions, which are seen in that edition of Anthony Wood’s work. The task of preparing “Dr. Barrow’s Sermons” for the press, which had employed the dean for several years, -and cost him as much pains as would have produced many more of his own, was now finished; and the edition published at London in 1633, folio. The laborious office of an editor of such voluminous writings as those of Barrow, undertaken by one who had many years before appeared to so much advantage as an original writer, was as clear an evidence of modesty, as it was of sincere friendship, in Dr. Tillotson. The discovery of the R\e house plot the same year opened a melancholy scene, in which he had a large share of distress, on account of his friendship for lord Russel. He and Dr. Burnet were sent for by that lord, and both attended him till his death: and it i* remarkable, that they both urged him to disown the principle of resisting the powers above, for which they were severely censured, an<l doubtless afterwards felt reason to censure themselves. He published a discourse against “eransuh-tantiation,” in the Utter end of king Charles’s reign, and another against “purgatory” in the beginning of king James’s. The former debate upon that doctrine gave occasion to several tracts on both sides of the question, pubii>hecl during the controversy with the papists, which subsisted through king James’s reign; and which produced so many pieces, that the vast collection, in three volumes, folio, published many years ago, under the direction of Gibson, bishop of London, is only a part of those written by protestants.

During the cUbate in parliament concerning the settlement of the crown on king William for life, the dean was consulted upon that point by the princess Anne of Denmark; who was pressed by the Jacobites to form an opposition; and who, till lady Russel and Dr. Tillotson had discoursed with her, had refused to give her consent to it, as prejudicial to her own right. He was, afterwards admitted into an high degree of confidence with king William and queen Mary; and their majesties had the greatest reason to confide in him, for he was a true friend to their establishment on the throne of England. The vacancies of some bishoprics soon turned the thoughts of his majesty and his ministers upon the dean; but a bishopric was so far from being agreeable to him, that he used all possible solicitations to avoid it. He had been appointed clerk of the closet to the king, the 27th of March, 1689; in August he was appointed by the chapter of his cathedral, to exercise the archiepiscopal jurisdiction of the province of Canterbury, devolved to himself and that body, on the 1st of that month, by the suspension of Sancroft, for refusing the new oaths; and the king soon fixed upon him to succeed him. Til lotson’s desires and ambition had never extended further than to the exchange of his deanery of Canterbury for that of St. Paul’s, which was granted him in September, upon the promotion of Stillingtieet to the bishopric of Worcester: but, at the very time that he kissed the king’s hand for this, his majesty named the archbishopric to him. There is a letter of his to lady Ilussel, dated April 19, 1689, which shews how he stood affected to this proposal, and also clears bishop Burnet from many a grievous censure, as if he himself had had a view to the archbishopric. After acquainting her ladyship with the disposal of several church preferments, he proceeds: “but now begins my trouble. After I had kissed the king’s hand for the deanery of St. Paul’s, I gave his majesty my most humble thanks, and told him, that now he had set me at ease for the remainder of my life. He replied, No such matter, I assure you, and spoke plainly about a great place, which I dread to think of; and said, it was necessary for his service, and he must charge it upon my conscience. Just as he had said this, he was called to supper, and I had only time to say, that when his majesty was at leisure, I did believe I could satisfy him, that it would be most for his service that I should continue in the station in which he had now placed me. This hath brought me into a real difficulty; for, on the one hand, it is hard to decline his majesty’s commands, and much harder yet to stand out against so much goodness as his majesty is pleased to use towards me: on the other, I can neither bring my inclination nor my judgment to it. This I owe to the bishop of Salisbury, one or the best and worst friends I know; best for his singular good opinion of me, and the worst for directing the king to this method, which I know he did; as if his lordship and I had concerted the matter, how to finish this foolish piece of dissimulation, in running away from a bishopric to catch an archbishopric. This fine device hath thrown me so far into the briars, that, without his majesty’s great goodness, I shall never get off without a scratched face. And now I will tell your ladyship the bottom of my heart. I have of a long time, I thank God for it, devoted myself to the public service, without any regard for myself, and to that end have done the best I could, in the best manner I was able; of late God hath been pleased, by very severe ways, but in great goodness to me, to wean me perfectly from the love of this world;” (he alludes here, not only to the death of his friend lord Russel, but to the loss of two daughters, which were all his children;) “so that worldly greatness is now not only undesirable, but distasteful to me. And I do verily believe, that I shall be able to do as much or more good in my present station, than in a higher, and shall not have one jot less interest or influence upon any others to any good purpose: for the people na r turally love a man that will take great pains and little preferment. But, on the other hand, if I could force my inclination to take this great place, I foresee that I should sink under it, grow melancholy and good for nothing, and, after a little while, die as a fool dies.”

A man of Dr. Tillotson’s disposition and temper, which was mild, gentle, and humane, had certainly the greatest reason to dread the archbishopric; since whoever should succeed Sancroft must be exposed to the attacks of the Nonjurors. Accordingly, he made all the struggle, and all the opposition to it, which a subject could make against his king; and, when all would not do, he accepted it with the greatest reluctance. Of this we have the following account, in another letter to lady Russel, dated October the 25th, 1690; for there was ever a strict intimacy and correspondence between this lady and Dr. Tillotson, after the death of lord Russel, and there passed several letters between them upon this occasion. “I waited upon the king at Kensington, and he took me into his closet, where 1 told him, that 1 could not but have a deep sense of his majesty’s great grace and favour to me, not only to offer me the best thing he had to give, but to press it so earnestly upon me. I said, I would not presume to argue the matter any further, but I hoped he would give me leave to be still his humble and earnest petitioner to spare me in that thing. He answered, he would do so if he could, but he knew not what to do if I refused him. Upon that I told him, that I tendered my life to him, and did humbly devote it to be disposed of as he thought fit: he was graciously pleased to say, it was the best news had come to him this great while. I did not kneel down to kiss his hand, for, without that, I doubt I am too sure of it, but requested of him, that he would defer the declaration of it, and let it be a secret for some time. He said, he thought it might not be amiss to defer it till the parliament was up. I begged further of him, that he would not make me a wedge to drive out the present archbishop; that some time before 1 was nominated, his majesty would be pleased to declare in council, that, since his lenity had not had any better effect, he would wait no more, but would dispose of their places. This I told him I humbly desired, that I might not be thought to do any thing harsh, or which might reflect upon me: for now that his majesty had thought fit to advance me to this station, my reputation was become his interest. He said he was sensible of it, and thought it reasonable to do as I desired. I craved leave of him to mention one thing more, which in justice to my family, especially my wife, I ought to do, that I should be more than undone by the great and necessary charge of coming into this place, and must therefore be an humble petitioner to his majesty, that, if it should please God to take me out of the world, that I must unavoidably leave my wife a beggar, he would not suffer her to be so; and that he would graciously be pleased to consider, that the widow of an archbishop of Canterbury, which would now be an odd figure in England, could not decently be supported by so little as would have contented her very well if I had died a dean. To this he gave a very gracious answer, I promise you to take care of her.” His remark to the king, that “the widow of an archbishop would now be an odd figure in England,” was founded upon this fact, that only two, who had fiiied the see of Canterbury, had hitherto been married, Cranmer and Parker.

The king’s nomination of him to the archbishopric was agreed between them, as it appears, to be postponed till after the breaking up of the session of parliament, which was prorogued the 5th of January 1691; and then it was thought proper to defer it stiil longer, till the king should return from Holland, whither he was then going. He arrived at Whitehall the 13th of April, and nominated Tiilotson to the council on the 23d, who was consecrated the 31st of May, being Whitsunday, in Bow-church, by Mews, bishop of Winchester, Lioyd, bishop of St. Asaph. Burnet, bishop of Sarurn, Stillingrleet, bishop of Worcester, Iron* side, bishop of Bristol, and Hough, bishop of Oxford, in the presence of the duke of Norfolk, the marquis of Carmarthen, lord-president of the council, the earl of Devonshire, the earl of Dorset, the earl of Macclesfield, the carl of Fauconberg, and other persons of rank; and four days after his consecration was sworn of the privycouncil. His promotion was attended with the usual compliments of congratulation, out of respect either to himself or his station, which, however, were soon followed by a very opposite treatment froai the nonjuring party; the greatest part of whom, from the moment of his acceptance of the archbishopric, pursued him with an unrelenting rage, which lasted during his life, and was by no means appeased after his death. Before his consecration, the learned Mr. Dndwell, who was afterwards deprived of Camden’s historical lecture at Oxford, wrote him a letter, dated the 12th of May, to dissuade him from being, says he, “the aggressor in the new-designed schism, in erecting another altar against the hitherto acknowledged altar of your deprived fathers and brethren. If their places be not vacant, the new consecration must, by the nature of the spiritual monarchy, he null and invalid, and schisnuitical.” This letter of Mr. Dodwell was written with much greater mildness and moderation than another which was sent to the archbishop’s lady for him, and a copy of it to the countess of Derby, for the queen; and printed soon after. It called upon him to reconcile his acting since the Revolution with the principles either of natural or revealed religion, or with those of his own letter to lord iiussel, which was reprinted upon this occasion. The writer of it is said, by Dr. Hickes, to be a person of great candour and judgment, and once a great admirer of the archbishop, though he became so much prejudiced against him as to declare after his death to Dr. Hickes, that he thought him “an atheist, as much as a man could be, though the gravest certainly,” said he, “that ever was.” But these and other libels were so far from exasperating the archbishop against those who wt re concerned in dispersing them, that wht n some were seized on that account, he used all his interest with the government to screen them from punishment.

After he had been settled about a year in his see, he found himself confirmed in the notion he had always entertained, that the circumstances attending grandeur make it not near So eligible, with regard to the possessor’s own ease and happiness, as persons at a distance from it are apt to imagine. To this purpose he entered reflections in short-hand in his common-place book, under the title of “Some scattered thoughts of my own upon several subjects, and occasions, begun this 15th of March, 1(191-2, to be transcribed:” and his remarks concerning a public and splendid way of living, compared with a private and retired life, deserve to be inserted, as they did not result from spleen and disappointment, but from the experience ofonfe who at the time actually possessed the highest honours of his country, in his own profession. “One would be apt to wonder,” says he, “that” Nehemiah should reckon a huge bill of fare, and a vast number of promiscuous guests, among his virtues and good deeds, for which he desires God to remember him; but, upon better consideration, besides the bounty, and someiimes charity of a great table, provided there be nothing of vanity or ostentation in it, there may be exercised two very considerable virtues; one in temperance, and the other self denial, in a man’s being contented, for the sake of the public, to deny himself so much, as to sit down every day to a feast, and to eat continually in a crowd, and almost never to be alone, especially when, as it often happens, a great part of the company that a man must have is the company that a man would not have. I doubt it will prove but a melancholy business when a man comes to die, to have made a great noise and bustle in the world, and to have been known far and near, but all this while to have been hid and concealed from himself. It is a very odd and fantastical sort of life, for a maa to. be continually from home, and most of all a stranger at his own ho use. It is surely an uneasy thing to sit always in a frame, and to be perpetually upon a man’s guard, not to be able to speak a careless word, or to use a negligent posture, without observation and censure. Men are apt to think that they who are in the highest places, and have the most power, have most liberty to say and do what they please; but it is quite otherwise, for they have the least liberty, because they are must observed. It is not mine own observation: a much wiser man, I mean Tully, says, * In maxima quaque fortuna minimum licere;' that is, they that are in the highest and greatest condition have, of all others, the least liberty." All these, and many more, are the evils which attend on greatness; and the envy that pursues it is generally -the result of ignorance and vanity.

Dr. Tiilotsun, from his first advancement to the archiepiscopal see, had begun to form several designs for the good of the church and religion in general; and in these he was encouraged by their majesties. With this view he joined with the queen it) engaging the bishop of Salisbury to draw ii:> his “Discourse of the Pastoral Care,” in order to prepare the way for perfecting some parts of our ecclesiastical constitution. This was bishop Burnet’s favourite tract, anJ it was published in 1692. In the lew moments ofh s i.-i“;?'<*, Tiliotson revised his own sermons; and, in 1693, published four of them, concerning the divinity and incarnation of our blessed Saviour His chief design in this was to remove the imputation of Socinianism, which had long been, and was then more than ever, fixed upon him by those who did not love his principles, and thought that his defending religion upon what were called rational grounds, and his holding friendship and correspondence with Locke, Limborch, Le Clerc, and others who did the same, were circumstances liable to suspicion. Of this he indirectly complains in one of his sermons:” 1 know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that every one that offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to establish religion upon rational principles, is presently branded for a Socinian; of which we have a sad instance in that incomparable person, Mr. Chillingworth, the glory of this age and nation, who for no other cause that 1 know of, but his worthy and successful attempts to make Christian religion reasonable, and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon which our faith is built, hath been requited with this black and odious character. But if this be Socinianism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I know no way but that all considerate inquisitive men, that are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or Atheists.

The good of the church, and the reformation of all abuses among the clergy, were the constant object of the archbishop’s thoughts, and, among other resolutions and projects for this purpose, one was, to oblige the clergy to a more strict residence upon their cures: but there was such an evil and active spirit at work against him, that fault was found with every thing he said or did, and all opportunities were taken to blast and defame him; which tu*de a considerable impression on his spirits, so that he frew very uneasy in his high post. The malice and party rage, which he had felt in some measure before, broke out, after his advancement, in all forms of open insult. One day, while a gentleman was with him, who came to pay his jlompiiments, a packet was brought in, sealed and directed to him, upon opening which there appeared a mask, but nothing written. The archbishop, without any signs of moiion, threw it carelessly among his papers on the table; but on the gentleman’s expressing great surprise at the iHront, he only smiled, and said, that “this was a gentlci rebuke, compared with some others, that lay there in black and white,” pointing to the papers upon the table. Yet all this injurious treatment, and all the calumnies spread against him, could never provoke him to the least temper of revenge; noc did he ever indulge himself in any of those liberties of speaking about others, which were to so immeasurable a degree made use of against himself: and upon a bundle of libels found among his papers after his death, he put no other inscription than this, “These are libels, I pray God forgive them, I do *.”

He concurred again with the queen, in engaging the bishop of Salisbury to undertake his “Exposition of the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England 5” which that indefatigable prelate performed in less than a year, though it was not published till 169y. He sent the manuscript to the archbishop, who, having revised and altered it in several pi-aces, returned it, with his judgment, in the following letter:

"I have, with great pleasure and satisfaction, read over the great volume you sent me, and am astonished to see so vast a work begun and finished in so short a time. In the article of the Trinity you have said all that, I think, can be said upon so obscure and difficult an argument. The Socinians have just now published an answer to us all, but I have not had a sight of it. The negative articles against the church of Rome you have very fully explained, and with great learning and judgment: concerning thes^ you will meet with no opposition among ourselves. The greatest danger was to be apprehended from the points’ in difference between the Calvinists and Remonstrants, in which you have shewn not only great skill and moderation, but great prudence, in contenting yourself to represent both sides impartially, without any positive declaration of your own judgment. The account given of Athanasius’s cree4 seems to me no wise satisfactory; I wish we were well ri^ of it. I pray God to preserve your lordship, to do more such services to the church. I am, my lord,

Hichardsoniana will farther confirm the friends; and, which is more, wboni

he observed in his library one shelf malice hath suggested to me, and ftcjf

f books of various forms and sizes, which I have received more profit tha^

all rich;r bound, and finely gilt and from the advice of my best and most

lettered; and asked, what extraordinary eordial friends; and therefore you se&

authors they were so remarkably dis- I have rewarded them accordingly.‘ 3 tinguished by his grace.- * Those,’ said He did not long survive the writing of this letter; for, Nov. I 8th following, he was suddenly seized with an illness, which, turning to a dead palsy, put an end to his life on the 24th, in the sixty-fifth year of his age. He was attended the two last nights of his illness by his dear friend Mr. Nelson, in whose arms he expired. The sorrow for his death was more universal than ever was known for a subject: anil his funeral was attended by a numerous train of coaches, filled with persons of the first quality, who went voluntarily to assist at the solemnity. His funeral-sermon was preached by th^ bishop of Salisbury; and, being soon after published, was remarked on by Dr. Hickes, in a piece entitled, “Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson, &c.” The acrimony of this piece is scarce to be matched among the invectives of any age or language: bishop Burnet, however, gave a strong and clear answer to these discourses, in some Reflections on them; and shewed them to be, what they really are, a malicious and scurrilous libel. But whatever attempts were made against archbishop Tillotson, his character may safely be trusted to posterity; for his life was not only free from blemishes, but exemplary in all parts of it, as appears from facts founded on indisputable authority. In his domestic relations, friendships, and the whole commerce of business, he was easy and humble, frank and open, tender-hearted and bountiful to such an extent, that, while he was in a private station, he laid aside two tenths of his income for charitable uses. He despised money too much, insomuch that if the king had not forgiven his first-fruits, his debts could not have been paid; and he left nothing to his family but the copy of his posthumous sermons, which were sold for 2500 guineas; a poor maintenance for the widow of an archbishop, if the king had not increased it by an annuity of 400l. in 16‘jo, and the addition of ’200l. more in 1C98.

The death of the archbishop was lamented by Mr. Locke, in a letter to Limborch, not only as a considerable loss to himself of a zealous and candid inquirer after truth, whom he consulted freely upon all doubts in theological subjects, and of a friend, whose sincerity he had experienced for many years, but likewise as a very important one to the English nation, and the whole body of the reformed churches. He had published in his life-time as many sermons as, with his ' Rnle of faith,“amounted to one volume in folio: am a* many wore published after his death, by his chaplain, Dr. Barker, as amounted to* two more. They have been often printed, and translated into several languages; and the reputation of them in foreign countries was partly owing to M. Le Clerc, who, in his” Bibliotheque Choisse for 1705,“gave an account of the second edition, in 1699, folio, of those that were published in his life-time. Ha declares there, that” the archbishop’s merit was above any commendation which he could give; that it was formed from the union of an extraordinary clearness of head, a great penetration, an exquisite talent of reasoning, a profound knowledge of true divinity, a solid piety, a most singular perspicuity and unaffected elegance of style, with every other quality that could be desired in a man of his order; and that, whereas compositions of this kind are commonly merely rhetorical and popular declamation, and much better to be heard from the pulpit, than to be read in print, his are for the most part exact dissertations, and capable of bearing the tesjt of the most rigorous examination.' 7

As good sense, sound reasoning, and profound knowledge, justly entitled archbishop Tillotson to the character of a great and excellent divine, so copiousness of style, and ease of composition, have made him also esteemed and admired as an orator. Yet a polite writer of our own country, Melmoth, in “Fitzosborne’s Letters,” cannot allow this to him, but, on the contrary, “thinks that no man had ever less pretensions to genuine oratory, than this celebrated preacher. One cannot indeed but regret,” says he, “that Dr. Tillotson, who abounds with such noble and generous sentiments, should want the art of setting them off with all the advantage they deserve; that the sublime in morals should not be attended with a suitable elevation of language. The truth, however, is, his words are frequently ill chosen, and almost always ill placed; his periods are both tedious and unharmonious; as his metaphors are generally mean, and often ridiculous.” He imputes this chiefly to his “having had no sort of notion of rhetorical numbers,” which seems, indeed, to have been in some measure the case and, as far as this can detract from the character of a complete orator, it is necessary to make some abatement: yet there is certainly great copiousness, and, as this gentleman allows, “a noble simplicity,” in his discourses. As for his language, notwithstanding some exceptionable passages with regard to the use of metaphors, incident to the best authors, Dryden frequently owned with pleasure, that, if he had any talent for English prose (as certainly he had a very great one), it was owing to his having often read the writings of archbishop Tillotson. Addison likewise considered Tiltotson’s writings as the chief standard of our language and accordingly marked the particular pbrases in the sermons published during his life-time, as the ground-work of an English dictionary, which he had projected. But there are some very just sentiments of Tillotson in one of Warbiirton’s letters, which deserve more attention. Tillotson, Warburton says, “was certainly a virtuous, pious, humane, and moderate man, which last quality was a kind of rarity in those times. His notions of civil society were but confused and imperfect, as appears in the affair of lord Russel. As to religion, he was among the class of latitudinarian divines. I think the sermons published in Iris life-time are fine moral discourses. They bear indeed the character of their author, simple, elegant, candid, clear, and rational. No orator in the Greek and Roman sense of the word, like Taylor; nor a discourser in their sense, like Barrow: free from their irregularities, but not able to reach their heights. On which account I prefer them infinitely to him. You cannot sleep with Taylor; you cannot forbear thinking with Barrow. But you may be much at your ease in the mi^lst of a long lecture from Tillotson: clear, and rational, and equable as he is. Perhaps the last quality may account for it.”

Tillotson’s sermons have been often reprinted in folio and 16mo: to the last edition in folio is prefixed a good life of him, compiled with care and judgment, by the rev. Dr. Birch, from which we have extracted the present account.

, son of Martin Tzerclais, hereditary sénéchal of the county of Namur, was descended from an ancient and illustrious family, which was one of the seven patrician families of Brussels. It is said that he was originally a Jesuit; but, going into the army, he commanded the Bavarian troops under the duke Maximilian. He had a great share in the victory gained at Prague, November 8, 1620, over the unfortunate elector palatine Frederic V. and afterwards defeated successively the armies of count Mansfeldt, the duke of Brunswick, and the margrave of Baden Dourlach. At the battle of Lutter in Luneuburg, 1626, he conquered the Danish army, which their king commanded in person. In 1629, he was sent to Lubeck, as plenipotentiary for concluding a peace with Denmark, had the sole command of the imperial forces the following year, instead of Walstein, and took the city of Magdeburg by storm, in 1631, where his soldiers committed the most horrid cruelties, barbarities, and ravages during three days. This unhappy city, after having been given up to pillage, was destroyed by fire, and almost all the inhabitants,.men, women, and children, murdered in the most inhuman manner; a barbarous massacre, which will for ever tarnish the glory of this celebrated general. He then invaded Saxony, and took Leipsic; but was defeated three days after, Sept. 17, the same year, 1631, by Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden. Having rallied his forces he repulsed Horn, chief of the protestant party General Tilly was at length wounded by a cannon ball while defending the passage of Lech against the Swedes, and died of his wound, April 30, 1632. Tilly is said to have been remarkable for two virtues, seldom found in his profession, the strictest chastity and temperance. He was likewise very popular with his troops, to whom he was always kind and liberal, and at last bequeathed sixty thousand crowns to the old regiments which had served under him.

, the Locrian, was a philosopher of the Italic school, during the time of Plato, who was indebted to him, among other Pythagoreans, for his acquaintance with the doctrine of Pythagoras, and who wrote his dialogue, entitled “Timaeus,” on the ground of his book, “On the Nature of Things.” A small piece, which he wrote concerning the “Soul of the World,” is preserved by Proclus, and is in some editions prefixed to Plato’s “Timseus.” In this treatise, though generally following Pythagoras, he departs from him in two particulars; the first, that instead of one whole, or monad, he supposes two independent causes of nature, God, or mind, the fountain of intelligent nature, and necessity, or matter, the source of bodies; the second, that he explains the cause of the formation of the world, from the external action of God upon matter, after the pattern or ideas existing in his own mind. From comparing this piece with Plato’s dialogue, it will be found that the Athenian philosopher has obscured the simple doctrine of the Locrian with fancies drawn from his own imagination, or from the Ægyptian schools.

, a celebrated Grecian painter, was horn at Sicyon, or, according to some writers, at Cithnus, one of the Cyclades. He flourished towards the close of Alexander the Great’s rei^n, had a fertile invention, and the art of conveying ideas to the spectators beyond what his pictures represented. All the ancients bestow the highest encomiums on that of Iphigenia prepared to be sacrificed. In this celebrated picture the princess appeared with all the charms and grace belonging to her sex, age, and rank, with the dignity of a great soul devoting itself for its country, yet with the agitation which the approach of the sacrifice must necessarily cause. She was standing before the altar, the high priest Chalcis attending, whose countenance expressed that majestic sorrow becoming his office. Menelaus, Iphigenia’s uncle, Ulysses, Ajax, and the other Grecian princes were present at the sad spectacle, and the painter seemed to have so entirely exhausted every different species of grief, that he had no way left to describe that of the father, Agamemnon; but, by a stroke equally ingenious and touching, he covered the face of this prince with a veil, thus leaving the pitying spectator’s imagination to paint the dreadful situation of the unhappy parent. His idea has been several times adopted with success, and it has been the theme of unlimited praise from the orators and historians of antiquity, but the justice of this praise has been questioned by modern criticism, by sir Joshua Reynolds, in his “Eighth Discourse,” and by Mr. Fuseli, in his “First Lecture,” in which last the question is examined elaborately and scrupulously.

, the Phliasian, one of the chief disciples of Pyrrho, flourished in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He early visited Megara, to be instructed by Stilpo in dialectics, and afterwards removed to Elea, that he might become a hearer of Pyrrho. He first professed philosophy at Chalcedon, and afterwards at Athens, whe r e he remained till his death. He took so little pains to invite disciples to his school, that it has been said of him, that, as the Scythians bhot flying, Timon gained pupils by running from them. This indifference to the profession which he had assumed was probably owing to his love of ease and indulgence; for he w is fond of rural retirement, and was so much addicted to wine, that he held a successful contest with several eelebratfd champions in drinking. It was this disposition, probably, which tempted him to embrace the indolent doctnne of scepticism, Tmion appears to have viewed the opinions and Jisputes of the philosophers in the same ludicrous point of light, in whici) Luciant'terwards contemplated them; for, like him, he wrote with sarcastic humour against the whole body. His poem, entitled “Silli,” oiten quoted by the ancients, was a keen satire, full of bitter invective both against men and doctrines. The remaining fragments o thi* poem have I); eti industriously collected by Henry Step!) ens, in his " Poesis Philosophical* This Timon (-.vho is not to be confounded witn Timon the misanthrope) lived to the age of ninety years.

, an English deistical writer, was the son of a clergyman of Beer-ferres, in Devonshire, and born about 1657. He became a commoner of Lincoln college, m Oxford, in 1672, where he had the famous Dr. Hickes for his tutor, and thence removed to Exeter college. In 1676 he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and was afterwards elected fellow of All Souls college In 1679 he took a bachelor of laws degree; and in July 1685, became a doctor in that faculty. In the reign of James II. he declared himself a Roman catholic, but afterwards renounced that religion. Wood says that he did not return to the protestant religion till after that king had left the nation; but, according to his own account, he returned to it before that memorable epocha. In 1694 he published, at London, in 4to, “An Esay concerning obedience to the supreme powers, and the duty of subjects iti all revolutions; with some considerations touching the present juncture of affairs;” and “An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations and the right of sovereigns,” &c. He published also some other pamphlets on the same subjects, particularly one concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the Athanasian. creed; but was first particularly noticed for a publication which came out in 1706, v\itn this title, “The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other priests, who claim an independent power over it; with a preface concerning the government of the Church of England, as by law established,” 8vo. Tindal was aware of the. offence this work would give, and even took some pleasure in it; for, as Dr. Hickes relates, he told a gentleman who found him at it with pen in hand, that “he was writing a book which would make the clergy mad.” Perhaps few books were ever published which they more resented; and, accordingly, numbers among them immediately wrote against it. 'Among the most distinguished of his answerers were, I. “The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted in a sermon preached at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, Sept. 2, 1706, at the primary visitation of the right reverend father in God, William lord bishop of Lincoln; by W. Wotton, B. D.” II. “The second pa/t of the Wolf stripped of Shepherd’s cloa thing, in answer to a late book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, published at London in March,” 1707. III. “Two treatises, one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the Episcopal Order, formerly written, and npw published to obviate the erroneous opinions, fallacious reasonings, and bold and false assertions, in a late book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church; with a large prefatory discourse, wherein is contained an Answer to the said book; all written by George Hickes, D. D.” London, 1707. IV. “A thorough examination of the false principles and fallacious arguments advanced against the Christian Church, Priesthood, and Religion, in a late pernicious book, ironically entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. in a dialogue between Demas and Hierarcha: humbly offered to the consideration of the nobility and gentry of England; by Samuel Hill, rector of Kilmington, and archdeacon of Wells.” London, 1707, 8vo. V. “Three short treatises, viz. 1. A modest plea for the Clergy, &c. 2. A Sermon of the Sacerdotal Benediction, &c. 3. A Discourse published to undeceive the people in point of Tithes, &c. formerly printed, and now again published, by Dr. George Hickes, in defence of the priesthood and true rights of the church against the slanderous and reproachful treatment of The Rights of the Christian Church,” London, 1709, 8vo. VI. “Adversaria; or truths opposed to some of the falsehoods contained in a book called The Rights of the Christian Church asserted,” c.; by Conyers Place, M. A. London, 1709, 8vo. VII. “A Dialogue between Timothy and Philatheus in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. are fairly stated, and answered in their kinds, &c. written by a layman,” London, 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Oldisworth was the author. Swift also wrote “Remarks” on Tindal’s book, which are in his works, but were left unfinished by the author. But, whatever disturbance this work might create at home, and whatever prejudices it might raise against its author, among the clergy of the church of England, some of the protestants abroad judged very differently, and even spoke of it in terms of approbation and applause. Le Clerc gave an account of it in his “Bibliotheque choisie,” which begins in these words: “We hear that this book has made a great noise in England, and it is not at all surprising, since the author attacks, with all his might, the pretensions of those who are called highchurchmen; that is, of those who carry the rights of bishops so far as to make them independent in ecclesiastical affairs of prince and people, and who consider everything that has been done to prevent the dependence of the laity on bishops, as an usurpation of the laics against divine right. I am far from taking part in any particular disputes, which the learned of England may have with one another, concerning the independent power and authority of their bishops, and farther still from desiring to hurt in any way the church of England, which I respect and honour as the most illustrious of all protestant churches; but I am persuaded that the wise and moderate members of this church can never be alarmed at such a book as this, as if the church was actually in danger. I believe the author, as himself says, had no design against the present establishment, which he approves^ but only against some excessive pretensions, which are even contrary to the laws of the land, ana* to the authority of the king and parlialiament. As I do not know, nor have any connection with him, I have no particular interest to serve by defending him, and I do not undertake it. His book is too full of matter for me to give an exact abridgment of it, and they who understand English will do well to read the original: they have never read a book so strong and so supported in favour of the principles which protestants on this side the water hold in common.”

The lower house of convocation, in queen Anne’s reign, thought that such a character of “The Rights of the Christian Church,” &c. from a man of Le Clerc’s reputation for parts and learning, must have no small influence in recommending the book, and in suggesting favourable notions of the principles advanced in it; and therefore, in their representation of the present state of religion, they judged it expedient to give it this turn, namely, “that those infidels” (meaning Tindal and others) “have procured abstracts and commendations of their own profane writings, and probably drawn up by themselves, to be inserted in foreign journals, and that they have translated them into the English tongue, and published them here at home, in order to add the greater weight to their wicked opinions.” Hence a notion prevailed in England, that Le Clerc had been paid for the favourable account he gave of Tindal’s book; upon which he took occasion to declare, in a subsequent journal, that there never was a greater falsehood, and protests as an honest man before God, “that, for making mention of that or any other hook, he had never had either promise or reward.*' It will easily be imagined that, in the course of this controversy, Dr. Tindal’s antagonists would object to him his variableness and mutability in matters of religion, and insult him not a little upon his Hrst apostatizing to the chjirch of Rome, upon the prospect of a national conversion to Popery, and then, at the revolution, reverting to Protestantism. To <his he replied, that” Coming, as most boys do, a rasa tabula to the university, and believing (his country education teaching him no better) that all human and divine knowledge was to be had there, he quickly fell into the then prevailing notions of the high and independent powers of the clergy; and meeting with none, during his long stay there, who questioned the truth of them, they by degrees became so fixed and riveted in him, that he no more doubted of them than of his own being: and he perceived not the consequence of them, till the Roman emissaries (who were busy in making proselytes in the university in king James*s time, and knew how to turn the weapons of high church against them) caused him to see, that, upon these notions, a separation from the church of Rome could not be justified; and that they who pretended to answer them as to those points, did only shuffle, or talk backward and forward. This made him, fur some small time, go to the Popish mass-house; till meeting, upon his going into the world, with people who treated that notion of the independent power as it deserved, and finding the absurdities of Popery to be much greater at hand than they appeared at a distance, he began to examine the whole matter with all the attention he was capable of; and then he quickly found, and was surprised at the discovery, that all his till then undoubted maxims were so far from having any solid foundation, that they were built on as great a contradiction as can be, that of two independent powers in the same society. Upon this he returned, as he had good reason, to the church of England, which he found, by examining into her constitution, disclaimed all that independent power he had been bred up in the belief of; Candlemas 1687-8 being the last time he saw any of the Popish tricks, the very next opportunity (namely, Easter) he publicly received the sacrament (the warden giving it him first) in his college chapel, &c. And thus having made his escape from errors which prejudice of education had drawn him into, he resolved to take nothing on trust for the future; and, consequently, his notions concerning our civil, as well as religious liberties, became very different from those in which he was educated.“What Dr. Tindal says here may be true; yet it is observable, that his conversion to Popery, and re-conversion to Protestantism, lay between February 1685, and February 1688, that is, between the twenty-seventh and thirtieth, year of his age; and many will be ready to suspect, that a man of his reasoning and inquiring turn must, before then, have been too much fixed and settled in his principles, either to be a dupe of Popish missionaries, or then to discover first the absurdity and falsehood of fundamental principles. In the mean time he endeavoured to defend his work, in a” Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church against a late visitation sermon, entitled The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted, preached at Newport- Pagnell in the county of Bucks by W. Wotton, B. D. and made public at the command and desire of the bishop of Lincoln, and the clergy of the deaneries of Buckingham and Newport,“London, 1707, in 8vo, and in his” Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, occasioned by two late indictments against a bookseller and his servant for selling one of thf said books. In a Letter from a- gentleman in London to a clergyman in the country. To which are added two tracts of Hugo Grotius on these questions; I. Whether the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may be administered where there are no pastors? II. Whether it be necessary at all times to communicate with the Symbols? As also some tracts of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, viz. Of the Lord’s Supper, the Power of the Keys, of Schism, &c.“London, 1707, in 8vo. In 1709 he published at London in 8vo, a pamphlet entitled,” New High Church turned old Presbyterian“and in 1710 several pamphlets, viz.” An High Church Catechism;“” The jacobitism, perjury, and popery of High Church Priests;“”The merciful judgments of 'High Church-triumphant on offending clergymen and others in the reign of Charles I.“In 1711 and 1712 he published at London in 8vo,” The Nation vindicated from the aspersions cast on it in a late pamphlet entitled, A representation of the present State of Religion, with regard to the late excessive growth of infidelity, heresy, and profaneness, as it passed the Lower House of convocation,“in two parts. In 1713, and some following years he published several other pamphlets, mostly political, which attracted more or less attention, but are now forgotten. He had hitherto passed for an enemy to the church of England, but was soon determined to show himself equally hostile to revealed religion, and in 1730, published in 4to, his” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature.“It might have been expected from the title of this book, that his purpose was to prove the Gospel perfectly agreeable to the law of nature; to prove, that it has set the principles of natural religion in the clearest light, and was intended to publish and confirm it anew, after it had been very much obscured and defaced through the corruption ct mankind. We should be further confirmed in this supposition from his acknowledging, that” Christianity itself, stripped of the additions which policy, mistake, and the circumstances of time, have made to it, is a most holy religion, and that all its doctrines plainly speak themselves to be the will of an infinitely wise and good God:“for this, and several declarations of a similar nature, he makes in his work; and accordingly distinguishes himself and his friends with the title of” Christian Deists.“Yet whoever examines his book attentively will find, that this is only plausible appearance, intended to cover his real design; which was to set aside all revealed religion, by showing, that there neither is, nor can be, any external revelation at all, distinct from what he calls” the external revelation of the law of nature in the hearts of all mankind;“and accordingly his refuters, the most considerable of whom was Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, Foster, and Leland, have very justly treated him as a Deist. It appears from a letter written by the rev. Mr. Jonas Proast to Dr. Hickes, and printed in Hickes’s” Preliminary Discourse“cited above, that Tindal espoused this principle very early in life; and that he was known to espouse it long before even his” Rights of the Christian Church" was published. The letter bears date the 2d of July, 1708, and is in the following terms:

"It is now, as I guess, between eleven and twelve years since Dr. Tindal expressed himself to me at All-souls-college in such a manner as I related to Mr. F concerning religion. At which I was the less surprised, because I knew at that time both his own inclination, and what sort of company he frequented when at London, which was usually a great part of the year: but not foreseeing then any occasion there might be for my remembering all that 1 was then said about that matter, I took no care to charge my memory with it. However, it could not be much, having passed in our walking but a very few turns in the college quadrangle just before dinner, where I then unexpectedly met with the doctor, newly returned after a pretty long absence from the college. What occasion the doctor took for so declaring himself, whether the mention of some book or pamphlet then newly come forth, or somewhat else, I am not able at this distance to recollect: but the substance and effect of what he said I do very clearly and distinctly remember to have bee$, that there neither is nor can be any revealed religion; that God has given man reason for his guide; that this guide is sufficient for man’s directions without revelation; and that therefore, since God does nothing in vain, there can be no such thing as revelation: to which he added, that he made no doubt but that within such a number of years as he then mentioned, and I do not now distinctly remember, all men of sense would settle in natural religion. Thus much I do so perfectly remember, that I can attest it, riot with my hand only, as I now do, but upon my oath likewise, if required; which yet I should not so forwardly offer against a person, who, for aught I know, never did any personal injury, were I not convinced of the need there is of it, in respect to some weak persons, who, having entertained too favourable an opinion of the doctor and his principles, are upon that account the more apt to be misled by him.

He died in London, August 16, 1733, fellow of All Souls college, and it appears that the faculties of his mind wore well; for, although he was about seventy-three when he published his “Christianity as old as the Creation,” yet he left a second volume of that work in manuscript, by way of general reply to all his answerers, the publication of which was prevented by Gibson bishop of London. He was, indisputably, a man of great reasoning powers and much learning, but had all the trick and disingenuousness of writers on his side of the question.

He was interred in Clerkenwell church, and was followed, among others, by Eustace Budgell, who is thought to have forged his will, and thus defrauded his nephew, the subject of our next article.

, nephew to the preceding, was born in 1687, and was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in June 1713. He was presented to the rectory of Alverstoke in Hampshire, by the bishop of Winchester, and to the vicarage of Great Waltbam, near Chelmsford, Essex, 1722, by Trinity college, Oxford, of which he had become a fellow. He quitted this last living in 1740, on being presented to the rectory of Colbourne in the Isle of Wight. He had previously, in 1738, being appointed by sir Charles Wager, chaplain to Greenwich hospital, where he died June 27, 1774, at: the advanced age of eighty-seven.

In 1724, he published in monthly numbers, “Antiquities sacred and profane, being a Dissertation on the excellency of the history of the Hebrews above that of any other nation,” &c. a translation from Calmet. He also began a history of Essex, of which he published a small part, in two quarto numbers, proposing to complete it in three quarto volumes, at one guinea each; but left this undertaking, in 1726, for the translation of Rapin’s “History of England,” which has served to perpetuate his name, and was indeed a work of great utility, and success. This translation, originally published in 1726, 8vo, and dedicated to Thomas lord Howard baron of Effingham, was reprinted in weekly numbers, in 1732 and 1733, 2 vols. folio; the first of which was inscribed, in a manly dedication, to Frederick prince of Wales, who rewarded Mr. Tindal with a gold medal worth forty guineas. The second volume of the 8vo edition had been inscribed to sir Charles Wager, when the translator was chaplain on board the Torbay in the Bay of Revel in the Gulph of Finland. Vol. IV. is dedicated to the same, from the same place, 1727. Vol. VI. from Great Waltham, 1728, to the English factors at Lisbon, where the translator officiated as chaplain five months in the absence of Mr. Sims. The “Continuation” was likewise published in weekly numbers, which began in 1744, and was completed March 25, 1747, which is the date of the dedication to the late duke of Cumberland. When the “History” was published, Mr. Tindal was “Vicar of Great Waltham.” In the “Continuation” he is called “Rector of Alverstoke, and chaplain to the royal hospital at Greenwich.” This last was printed in two volumes, but is accompanied with a recommendation to bind it in three; vol. III. to contain the reign and medals of king William; vol. IV. the reign of queen Anne; and vol. V the i\ ign of king George I. with the medals of queen Anne and king George; a summary of the History of England, and the index. A second edition of the “Continuation” appeared in 1751; and anew edition of the whole, in 1757, 21 vols. 8vo. Both in the Translation and Continuation he was materially assisted by Mr. Morant; and the sale of both so far exceeded the expectations of Messrs. Knapton, the booksellers, that they complimented Tindal with a present of 200l. In 1727, he translated the text printed uith Mr. Morant’s translation of the notes of Mess, de Beausobre and L'Enftmt on St. Matthew’s Gospel. On the discovery of the imposition practised on his uncle, he entered into a controversy with Budgell who had cheated him; and published, among other things, a pamphlet entitled “A Copy of the Will of Dr. Matthew Tindal, with an account of what passed concerning the same between Mrs. Lucy Price, Eustace Budgell, esq. and Mr. Nicholas Tindal,” 1733, 8vo. By this will 2000 guineas, and the ms. of a second volume of “Christianity as old as the Creation,” were bequeathed to Mr. Budgell; and only a small residue to his nephew, whom, by a regular will, he had riot long before appointed his sole heir. The transaction is alluded to in the well-known lines of Pope:

And write whatever he please, except my Will."

Indeed no person at that time seems to have entertained any doubt of the will being a forgery and perhaps Budgeli’s guilt became more obvious from the awkward attempts he made to defend himself in his periodical publication called “The Bee.” Mr. TindaPs last publication was a translation of “Prince Cantemir’s History of the Othmaii Empire,” folio. He was also editor of “A Guide to Classical Learning, or Polymetis abridged, for Schools;” a publication of mueh use, and which has passed through several editions. A portrait of him is prefixed to the second volume of his translation of Rapin. He had been elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in Feb. 1736, but resigned it in June 1740.

, a celebrated Italian painter, called Tintoretto, because he was a dyer’s son, for his real name was Robusti, was born at Venice in 1512. He was a disciple of Titian, who, having observed something extraordinary in his genius, dismissed him from his family, lest he should become his rival. He still, however, pursued Titian’s manner of colouring, as the most natural, and studied Michael Angelo’s style of design, as the most correct. Venice was the place of his constant abode, where he was made a citizen, and wonderfully beloved. He was called the Furious Tintorer, for his bold manner of painting with strong lights and deep shades, and for the rapidity of his genius. Our information respecting his personal history, detached from his public character, is but scanty; we are told that he was extremely pleasant and affable, and delighted so much in painting and music, his beloved studies, that he would hardly suffer himself to taste any other pleasures. He died in 1594, aged eighty-two.

It might be wished, says Mr. Fuseli, whose elaborate opinion of Tintoretto, we shall now transcribe, that the mean jealousy of Titian, and its meaner consequence, the expulsion of Tintoretto from his school, had been less authenticated. What has been said of Milton, that at certain periods he was but one of the people, might be true of Titian whenever he was not before his canvas. Folly, always a principal, if not the chief, ingredient in the character of jealousy and ambition, generally runs into the extremes it wishes to avoid, and accelerates the effects it labours to repress. The genius of Tintoretto was not to be circumscribed by the walls of his master’s study; and to one who, under his eye, had the hardiness to think, and to choose for himself what he should adopt or not of his method, dismission was in fact emancipation. He now boldly aimed at erecting himself into the head of a new school, which should improve the principles of that established by Titian, and supply its defects: he wrote over the door of his apartment, “the design of Michael Angelo and the colour of Titian;” and this vast idea, the conception of an ardent and intrepid mind, he strove to substantiate by a course of studies equally marked by discretion and obstinate perseverance. The day was given to Titian, the night to Michael Angelo. The artificial light of the lamp taught him those decided masses, that energy of chiaroscuro, which generally stamps each group and single figure in his works. Whether he enjoyed the personal friendship of Michael Angelo (as Dot* tari thinks) may be doubted; that he procured casts from his statues, and copies from his frescoes, is evident from the incredible number of his designs after the former, and the various imitations and hints with which his works abound, from the latter. He modelled in wax and clay, and studied anatomy and the life to make himself master of the body, its proportions, its springs of motion, its foreshortenings, and those appearances which the 1 Italians distinguish by the phrase of “di sotto in su.” Add to this, exuberant fertility of ideas, glowing fancy, and the most picturesque eye; and what results might not have been expected from their union with such methods of study, had uniformity of pursuit, and equal diligence in execution, attended his practice?

That it did for some time, the “Miracle of the Slave,” formerly in the Scuola di S. Marco, and lately at Paris, which he painted at the age of thirty-six, and the “Crucifixion” in the Albergo of the Scuola di S. Rocco, are signal instances. The former unites, with equal ardour and justness of conception, unexampled fierceness and rapidity of execution, correctness and even dignity of forms, powerful masses of light and shade, and a more than Titianesque colour with all the fury of a sketch it has all the roundness and decision of finish; the canvas trembles this is the vivid abstract of that mossa which Agostino Caracci exclusively ascribes to the Venetian school; and here Tintoretto has, as far perhaps as can be shewn, demonstrated what he meant by wishing to embody with the forms and breadth of Michael Angelo the glow and juice of Titian. If this stupendous picture have any flaw, it is perhaps that, in beholding it, the master appears to swim upon his work, and that S. Marc, and the miracle he descends to perform, are eclipsed by the ostentatious power of the artist. This is not what we feel when we contemplate the Capello Sistina, the “Pietro Martire” of Titian, or the “Crucifixion” mentioned before, by Tintoretto himself. The immediate impression which it makes on every one who for the first time casts a glance on its immense scenery, is that of a whole whose numberless parts are connected and subdued by a louring, mournful, minacious tone. All seems to be hushed in silence round the central figure of the Saviour suspended on the cross, with his fainting mother, and a group of male and female mourners at his feet; an assemblage of colours that less imitate than rival nature, a scale of hues for which Titian himself seldom offers a parallel, yet all tinged by grief, all equally overcast by the lut id tone that stains the whole, and like a meteor hangs in the sickly air: whatever inequalities or derelictions of feeling, whatever improprieties of common-place, of modern and antique costume, the master’s rapidity admitted to fill his space (and they are great), all vanish in the power which compresses them into a single point, and we do not detect them till we recover from our terror. With these the “Resurrection” too in the Scuola di S. Rocco may be placed, of which the magic chiaroscuro, the powerful blaze of the vision contrasted with the dewy distant light of dawn, and the transparence of the dark massy foreground, are but secondary beauties. If the “Resurrection” preserved among the arrazzi of Raphael be superior in extent of thought, in the choice of the characters admitted, the figure of Christ himself is greatly surpassed by the ideal forms and the serene dignity united to that resistless velocity which characterise Christ in the work of Tintoretto; whilst the celestial airs and graces of the angels balance by sublimity the dramatic variety displayed by Raphael.

But if Tintoretto, when he chose to exert his power, was equal to the greatest names, it is to be lamented with Agost. Caracci that he was too often inferior to himself, when, goaded on by the rage of doing singly the work of all, perverted by a false ornamental principle, and debauched by unexampled facility of execution, he gave himself neither time to conceive, to judge, or to finish; when, content to snatch a whim if it had novelty, he turned his subject into a farce, or trampled its parts into undistinguished masses, and sacrificed min;!, design, character, and sense, to incongruous imagery, fugitive effect, and puerile allurements: it was in such a fit that, in the “Temptation of the Desert,” he placed Christ on a tree; hid him in a crowd in the picture of the “Pool of Bethesda;” and in another turned the “Salutation of the Virgin” into profane irruption. It has already been observed that Tintoretto was a learned designer, but his style was rather muscular and robust than select and characteristic; in his male forms we every where recognize the Venetian model: the gondoliers of the canal furnished his heroes and apostles with limbs and attitudes, In his females he aimed at something ideal; the ruling principle of their forms is agility, though they are often too slender for action, and too contrasted for grace. The principle of dispatch which generally ruled him, equally influenced his colour. Now he gives us all the impasto the juice and glow of Titian; now little more than a chiaroscuro tinged with fugitive glazings. The dark primings which he is said to have preferred, as they assisted his effects, perhaps accelerated the ruin of his tints. In his touch, if he was ever equalled, he certainly has never been excelled; his work as a whole and in parts seems to have been done at once.

Tintoretto had a son and a daughter, who both excelled in the art of painting; Marietta, the daughter, particularly. She was so well instructed by her father in his own profession, as well as in music, that in both arts she acquired great reputation; and was especially eminent for an admirable style in portraits. She married a German, and died in 1590, aged thirty, equally lamented by her husband and father; and so much beloved by the latter, that he never would consent she should leave him, though she had been invited by the emperor Maximilian, by Philip II. king of Spain, and several other princes, to their courts.

Dominico, his son, gave great hopes in his youth, that he would one day render the name of Tintoretto yet more illustrious than his father had made it; but, neglecting to cultivate by study the talent which nature had given him, he fell short of what was expected from him. 4 He was more considerable for portraits than historical compositions; and died in 1637, aged seventy-five.

, Earl of Worcester, a patron of learning, and one of the few literary ornaments of England in the fifteenth century, was born at Everton, or Eversten, in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Baliol college, Oxford. He was son of the lord Tibetot, or Tiptoft, and Powys, and was created a viscount and earl of Worcester by king Henry VI. and appointed lord deputy of Ireland. By Edward IV. he was made knight of the garter, and constituted justice of North Wales for life. Dugdale says, he was soon after made constable of the Tower for life, and twice treasurer of the king’s exchequer, but other historians say he was twice lord high constable, and twice lord treasurer: the first time, according to Lud. Carbo, at twenty-five years old; and again deputy of Ireland for the duke of Clarence. But whatever dispute there may be about his titles in the state, there is no doubt that he was eminently at the head of literature, and so masterly an orator, that he drew tears from the eyes of pope Pius II. otherwise Æneas Sylvius, a munificent patron of letters. This was on pronouncing an oration before the pontiff when he visited Rome, through a curiosity of seeing the Vatican library, after he had resided at Padua and Venice, and made great purchases of books. He is said to have given Mss. tonne value of 500 marks to duke Humphrey’s library at Oxford. He was about this time on his return from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which expedition is partly attributed to the suspence of his lordship’s mind between gratitude to king Henry and loyalty to king Edward; but he seems not to have been much influenced by the former, in the opinion of lord Orford. It is certain that Richard Nevil, earl of Warwick, did not ascribe much gratitude to him, nor did Worcester confide much in any merit of that sort; for, absconding during the short restoration of Henry, and being taken concealed in a tree in Wey bridge-forest in Huntingdonshire, he was brought to London, accused of cruelty in his administration of Ireland, particularly towards two infant sons of the earl of D^mon.il, and condemned and beheaded at the Tower in 1470. For his imputed offences, some authors are inclined to allow a foundation, but in these turbulent times malice and political intrigue are supposed to have frequently had a share in fallen greatness. Pennant, however, is of opinion that all his love for the sciences did not protect him from imbibing the temper of the unhappy times he lived in.

Caxton, who was his printer, says that he “in his tyme flowred in vertue and cunnyng, and to whom he knew none lyke emong the lordes of the temporalite in science and moral vertue.” He translated “Cicero de Amicitia,” and “Two Declarations made by Publius Cornelius Scipio, and Gayus Flamyneus, competitors for the love of Lucrece,” which he dedicated to Edward IV. He also wrote some other orations and epistles, and Englished “Ceaser’s Commentaries, as touching British affairs,” published without the name of printer, place, or date, but supposed to be printed by Rastell, from its type. The margin contains the original Latin in Roman character. In the reign of Edward IV. he drew up “Orders for placing the nobility in all proceedings,” and “Orders and Statutes for justs and triumphs,” both Mss. in the Cotton library. In the Ashmolean collection are “Ordinances, statutes, and rules, made by John Tiptoft, earle of Worcester, and constable of England, by the king’s commandment, at Windsor, to be observed in all manner of justes of peirs within the realm of England, &c.” These ordinances were again revived in the 4th of> Elizabeth, and are printed in Mr. Park’s edition of Harrington’s “Nugge Antique.” He is also said to have written “A petition against the Lollards,” and an “Oration to the citizens of Padua” In the Mss. belonging to the cathedral of Lincoln, lord Orford mentions a volume of some twenty epistles, of which four are written by our earl, and the rest addressed to him; but the late MrGough, after a careful search, could not find them in that collection.

, one of the most valuable Italian writers of the last century, was born at Bergamo, in the Venetian states, Dec. Js, 1731. He was sent to the Jesuits’ college at Monza; and when his course of education was completed in 1746, he entered into the order of that society. In 1754, when in his twenty-third year, he was appointed preceptor of grammar, and afterwards of rhetoric, in the college of Brera, in Milan. In that station, in 1755, he republished, for the use of his pupils, the well-known vocabulary of his late colleague, father Mandosio, “Vocabolorio Italiano e Latino del P. Mandosio accrescinto e corretto” and, from 1756 to 1760, he wrote several orations and other fugitive pieces, in which inight be perceived the bent of his mind towards civil and literary history. Of these Fabroni mentions only one as having been published, “DePatriae Oratio,” Milan, 1759. During his professorship he was appointed assistant keeper of the copious and valuable library of the college of Brera, and began to collect original and curious records from printed books and manuscripts. His knowledge of books had already recommended him to the esteem of the illustrious count Firaiian, then Austrian plenipotentiary in Lombardy; and it is not improbable that he might have a share in the compilation of the catalogue of the vast and curious library of that justly renowned patron of letters, which was afterwards printed at Milan in 1783, in nine parts or volumes, 4to.

The first remarkable work of Tiraboschi, and that which procured him a great reputation, was his “Vetera H.umiliatorum monumenta annotationibus ac dissertationibus, prodromis illustrata,” Milan, 1766, 3 vols. 4to; a work which throws much light on the ecclesiastical, civil, and literary history of the middle ages. -Soon after this publication, he was appointed librarian of the ducal library at Modena, to which he accordingly removed in 1770, and in the following year published the first volume of his justly celebrated “History of Italian Literature,” which was continued by successive publications, and the twelfth and last volume Appeared in 17 8:2. The plan of this woik was very extensive; schools, academies, museums, libraries, printing-offices, travellers, patrons, collectors, artists, and, in short, whatever was directly or indirectly connected with the history of the sciences and literature in Italy, had their appropriate places in this elaborate undertaking, in which, it has been ju^lysaid, that the author discovers uncommon penetration, prodigious learning, great industry, a refined spiru oi criticism, with much facility of composition and elegance of style. Its importance was therefore soon felt ah over Europe. In ttie same order as they appeared at Motlc-na, the sexcral volumes were soon republished in Florence, Home, and Naples; two abridgments also were made of the work, one in France, by Landi, another in Germany; and the literary reviews in every part of Europe seemed to want words to express their applause. Among other effects, not very remote, this work has tended to revive, in this country, a taste for Italian literature, which has been successfully cultivated of late years by Messrs. Matthias, Roscoe, and others. Mr. Matthias, it is weil known, has lately republished what regards Italian poetry, from Tiraboschi, in four volumes, judiciously divided into seven chapters the first of these explains the common principles of Italian and Provencalpoetry the second relates the state and vicissitudes of the Provencal poetry from the year 1183 to 1300; the third gives the progress of Italian poetry during the same period; the fourth exhibits its history from 1300 to 1400; the fifth, a similar account of the improvements which took place from 1400 to 1,500; and the sixth and seventh are devoted to the description of the two subsequent periods from 1500 to 1600, and from 1600 to 1700, the latterof which constituted the limits of Tiraboschi' s general history. This elegant work is a suitable companion to Mr. Matthias’s former publications, his “Select Sonnets and Canzonets” from Petrarch; his “Lyric Productions of the most celebrated poets of Italy,” and his new edition of Crescembini.

Tiraboschi’s work encountered some criticisms during the progress of publication; and it would not be surprizing to find many blemishes in such a vast undertaking. Of these criticisms, where just, he availed himself in his second edition, but entered into no controversy, unless with the Spanish ex-Jesuit Lampillas. Tiraboschi was of opinion, that the Spaniards had been greatly instrumental in the corruption of taste in Italy; and on this principle he had, in his work, severely criticised Martial, Seneca, and Lucan, all Spaniards by birth. This excited the patriotic zeal of some of the Spanish ex- Jesuits settled in Italy, and especially of Lampillas, who wrote an “Apologetic Essay on Spanish Literature,” which Tiraboschi answered.

Before this great work had been completed, Tiraboschi began his “Modenese Library,” or memoirs of the Modenese writers, in 6 vols. 4to, the last of which appeared in 1786. This work alone might have secured him the reputation of one of the ablest bibliographers in Europe; but unfortunately, for the sake of rendering it more complete, he joined to it, in the sixth volume, several notices of painters, sculptors, engravers, architects, and even musicians, born in that state, and as he possessed neither accurate information, nor a sound judgment on these subjects, his work, in this part, proved notoriously defective. While it was in progress, he published the “History of the celebrated abbey of Nonantula,” 2 vols. fol. His last voluminous work.was the “Memorie Storiche Modanesi,” 3 vols. 1793, 4to, containing a judicious collection of records relative to the bishops of Modena and Reggio, to the family of Pio, lords of Carpi, and that of Pico, princes of Mirandula. These works met with public approbation; but that, from the nature of the subjects, must be supposed limited to his own country.

Between the years 1771 and 1793, when his great work appeared, he published many lesser performances; and, in 1773, undertook a literary magazine and review, under the title of “Nuovo Giornale de‘ Letterati d’ Italia,” and acted as editor from that time to 1790, when the whole series amounted to forty-three volumes, octavo. In this miscellany he inserted numberless very valuable papers; the most remarkable of which were, perhaps, his “Inquiries concerning the primitive discoverers of the Copernican system” “The manuscript code of the Poetics of Vida;” “The origin of the Art of Printing;” and “The origin of Rhyme.” Among his lesser separate works, were his “Life of the poet and statesman Fulvio Testi” his “Life of S. Olympia;” and some “Reflections on Genealogical Writers.”

It was likewise during the same interval that he was promoted to higher literary and even civil honours, both by the duke and the city of Modena. In 1780 the duke appointed him superintendant of the cabinet of medals, and gave him the order of knighthood-, and in 1781 the city sent him the diploma of Modenese nobility, and declared him one of the conservatori, with as many prerogatives and privileges as were enjoyed by the natives themselves. The city of Bergamo also, in 1785, ordered that his portrait, with a proper inscription, should be placed in the hall of the great council. It is almost superfluous to add, that during the same period he was nominated a member of the most distinguished academies in Italy. It is seldom that literary merit is so amply rewarded, but his country owed him much, for no man had done so much for its honour. His last labours were 011 a new edition of his “History of Italian Literature,” published at Modena from 1787 to 1794, 15 vols. 4to, the only one which is novr complete. This immediately preceded his death, at Modena, June 3. 1794, in the sixty-third year of his age.

His death was highly regretted by every friend of learning. After a solemn funeral, performed in the ducal church of St. Dominic, his remains were transferred to the parish church of St. Faustina, in the suburbs, in which a monument was erected by his heirs. His moral character is said to have been worthy of his literary fame. He left behind him some manuscript writings, and had maintained an extensive correspondence with some of the most eminent among his contemporaries, all whose letters were digested by him in twenty-eight volumes, which are said to be full of valuable matter.

, or Tiraquellus, a learned French lawyer of the sixteenth century, was a native of Poitou, and became a counsellor in the parliament of Bour­*Jeaux, and afterwards in that of Paris. He laboured very diligently to drive chicanery from the bar, and being employed by Francis I. and Henry II. in many affairs of consequence, approved himself in all things a man of strict and singular integrity. Though he must have been much employed in public business, he was so diligent with his pen that his works amount to seven volumes in folio. Frank. 1597. Tiraqueau died, at a very advanced age, in 1574. Among his numerous works, those particularly noticed are, 1. “Commentaries on Alexander ab Alexandro,” published separately, in two volumes folio, Leyden, 1673. 2. “Commentarius de Nobilitate et jure primogenitorum,” Leyden, 1617, folio. He was a married man, and it is said that he produced a book and a child every year, till there were twenty of each, or as some say thirty. This, with the circumstance of his being a water-drinker, occasioned the following jocular epitaph: “Hie jacet, qui aquam bibendo viginti liberos suscepit, viginti libros edidit. Si merum bibisset, totum orbem implevisset.”

The world would scarce have held his books and brats.

, called IL Garofalo, an Italian artist, was born at Ferrara in 1481. He left his masters at Ferrara and Cremona, to go to Home, where he entered the school of Raphael. He imitated his design, the character of his faces, the expression, and much of his colour, though he added something of a more inflamed and stronger cast derived from the Ferrarese school. His pictures of evangelic subjects abound at Home, Bologna, and other cities of Italy; they are of different merit, and not painted all by him. His large pictures, many of which are in the Chigi gallery, are more genuine and more singular. The visitation of Mary in the palace Doria, is one of the master-pieces in the collection. Tisi used to mark his pictures with a painted violet, which the vulgar in Italy call Garofalo, a flower allusive to his name. It does not appear from Vasari, and others, that Garofalo had any share in the works which were executed by the scholars of Raphael under his direction. He returned to Ferrara, and became the head of that school, and died there in 1559, aged seventy-eight.

, the great master of colour, was born at the castle of Caclor in Friuli, 1480. His education under Sebastiano Zuccati, of Trevigi, and afterwards under Giovanni Bellini, rendered him a diligent and subtle observer of every object that strikes the senses: so that when at a inaturer age he entered into a competition of finish with Albert Durer, and painted at Ferrara the picture of “Christ with the tribute-mon^y,” now at Dresden, he excelled, in nicety of penciling, that master of minuteness; with this difference of result, that though the hairs on the heads and hands of his figures might be counted, though every pore of the flesh was discriminated, and the objects reflected in the pupils of the eyes, the effect of the whole was not diminished, but seemed to gain more breath and grandeur by distance. To this work, however, he made no companion, and at an early period appears to have adopted that freer and less anxious method found by Giorgioue, his. fellow-scholar first, and then his rival. Some portraits painted by Titian during that short period cannot be distinguished from those of Giorgione himself; but he soon found a new style, perhaps less vapoury, not so fiery nor so grand; but sweeter a style which ravishes the beholder less by the novelty of its effect than by a genuine representation of truth. The first work of this style, all his own, is the “Archangel Raphael leading Tobiah, in the sacristy of S. Marziale,” painted in his thirtieth year; and the “Presentation of the Virgin” at the Carita, one of his richest and most numerous compositions remaining (for many perished by fire), is said by Ridolft to have followed it at a very short interval.

To no coiourist, before or after him, did Nature unveil herself with that dignified familiarity in which she appeared to Titian. His organ, universal, and equally fit for all her exhibitions, rendered her simplest to her most compound appearances with equal purity and truth. He penetrated the essence and the general principle of the substances before him, and on these established his theory of colour. He invented that breadth of local tint which no imitation has attained; by taking the predominant quality of colour in an object, for the whole, painting flesh which abounded in demitints, entirely in demitints; and depriving of all demitints, what had but few. He first expressed the negative nature of shade. Perfect master of contrast, of warm and cold tints, he knew by their balance, diffusion, and recall, to tone the whole. His are the charms of glazing, and the mystery of reflexes, by which he detached, rounded, connected, or enriched, his objects. He was the first who changed stuffs to drapery, gave it local value, and a place, subordination, and effect. His harmony is less indebted to the force of light and shade, than to true gradation of tone. His tone springs out of his subject, grave, solemn, gay, minacious, or soothing. His eye tinged Nature with gold, without impairing her freshness. She dictated his scenery. Landscape, whether it be considered as the transcript of a spot, or the rich combination of congenial objects, or as the scene of a phenomenon, as subject and as back-ground, dates, if not its origin, its real value, from him. He is the father of portrait-painting; of resemblance with form, character with dignity, grace with simplicity, and costume with taste.

In design Titian had a style, and in composition and expression occasionally excelled, though on the whole they were little more for him than vehicles of colour. That he possessed the theory of the human frame, needs not to be proved from the doubtful designs which he is said to hare furnished for the anatomical work of Vesalio; that he had familiarised himself with the line of Michael Angelo, and burned with ambition to emulate it, is less evident from adopting some of his attitudes in the pictures of “Pietro Martire,” and the battle of Ghiaradadda, than from the elemental conceptions, the colossal style, and daring foreshortenings, which astonish on the cieling of the Salute. In general, however, his male forms have less selection than sanguine health; often too fleshy for character, Jess elastic than muscular, and vigorous without grandeur. His females are the fair, dimpled, Venetian race, soft without delicacy, too full for elegance, for action too plump. Titian was abundantly honoured in his life-time. He made three several portraits of the emperor Charles V. who honoured him with knighthood, created him count palatine, made all his descendants gentlemen, and assigned him a considerable pension out of the chamber at Naples. The respect of Charles V. for Titian was as great as that of Francis I. for Leonardo da Vinci; and many particulars of it are recorded. It is said, that the emperor one day took up a pencil, which fell from the hand of this artist, who was then drawing his picture; and that, upon the compliment which Titian made him on this occasion, he replied, “Titian has merited to be served by Caesar.” And when some lords of the emperor’s court, not being able to conceal their jealousy of the preference he gave of Titian’s person and conversation to that of all his other courtiers, the emperor freely told them, “that he could never want courtiers, but could not have Titian always with him.” Accordingly, he heaped riches on him; and whenever he sent him money, which was usually a large sum, it was with the compliment, that “his design was not to pay him the value of his pictures, because they were above any price.” He painted also his son Philip II. Soliman emperor of the Turks, two popes, three kings, two empresses, several queens, and almost all the princes of Italy, together with the famous Ariosto and Peter Aretine, who were, his intimate friends. Nay, so great was the name and reputation of Titian, that there was hardly a person of any eminence then living in Europe, from whom he did not receive some particular mark of esteem: and his house at Venice was the constant rendezvous of all the virtuosi and people of the best quality. That he had his weaknesses, we have already noticed in our account of Tintoretto. He was so happy in the constitution of his body, that he had never been sick till 1576 and then he died of the plague, at the extraordinary age of ninety-nine. It has been remarked that we have many instances of the longevity of painters. Ninety is an extraordinary age for any man, but Spinello lived beyond it. Carlo Cignani died at ninetyone; Titian at the same age; M. Ang. Buonarotti at ninety; Leonardo da Vinci at seventy-five; Calabrese at eighty-six; Claude Lorraine at eighty-two; Carlo Maratti at eighty-eight, and prodigious numbers of eminent painters from sixty upwards.

Titian left behind him two sons and a brother, of whom Pomponio, the eldest, obtained preferment in the church. Horatio, the youngest, painted several portraits, which might stand in competition with those of his father. He was celebrated also for many history pieces, which he painted at Venice, in concurrence with Paul Veronese and Tintoret. But bewitched at last with chemistry, and the hopes of finding the philosopher’s stone, he laid aside the pencil; and having reduced what he got by his father to nothing, died of the plague in the same year with him. Francesco Vecelli, Titian’s brother, was trained to arms in the Italian wars; but peace being restored, applied himself afterwards to painting. He became so great a proficient in it, that Titian grew jealous of him; and fearing, lest in time he should eclipse his reputation, sent him upon pretended business to Ferdinand king of the Romans. Afterwards he followed another profession, and made cabinets of ebony adorned with figures; which, however, did not hinder him from painting now and then a portrait far a friend.

, a polite scholar, was born in 1700, and received his education at Westminster- school, where he was much befriended by bishop Atterbury, who chose him for his son’s tutor, in which capacity he resided in the bishop’s family about the time of the supposed plot in 1722. From Westminster Mr. Titley went off to Trinitycollege, Cambridge, in 1719, in which he for many years held the lay-fellowship founded for a civilian. He was early in life sent envoy extraordinary to the court of Copenhagen, where he died Feb. 1768, after a long residence, very highly esteemed on account of his many amiable qualilies. Of his productions as an author, which were rather little elegant trifles than elaborate performances, a good specimen may be seen in his celebrated “Imitation of Horace,*' book IV. Ode 2. And some of his Latin \erses are in the” Reliquiae. Galeanae.“He bequeathed iOOo/. to Westminster-school, Iooo/. to Trinity-college, Cambridge, and Iooo/. to the university of Cambridge, part of which was to be applied to the public buildings. This sum in 1768, when sir James Marriot, master of Trinity-hall, was vice-chancellor, was voted to erect a music-room, of which a plan was engraved to solicit a further aid from contributions, but failed of success. It would have given us pleasure to have given more particular memoirs of this ingenious gentleman, of whom so little has yet been said. Bishop Newton characterises him, among his contemporaries at Westminster, as” a very ingenious young man, at first secretary to the embassy at Turin, afterwards for many years his majesty’s envoy to the court of Denmark. During the time that he was a king’s scholar, he lived with bishop Atterbury as tutor to his son, and his taste and learning were much improved by the bishop’s conversation. His plan of life, as laid down by himself, was, to prosecute his studies at Cambridge till he should be thirty, from thirty to sixty to be employed in public business, at sixty to retire and return to college, for which purpose he would keep his fellowship. This plan he nearly pursued; he kept his fellowship; he resigned his public employment; but, instead of returning to college, where in a great measure there was a new society, and few or none were left of* his own age and standing, he remained at Copenhagen, where, by his long residence, he was in a manner naturalized, and there lived and died, greatly respected and lamented by all ranks of people."

, the projector of a French Parnassus, was the son of one of the king’s secretaries, and born at Paris in 1677. He studied at the Jesuits’ college in Paris, where he acquired a taste for the belles lettres that predominated during the whole of his life. Being destined for the military profession, he had in his fifteenth year a company of 100 fuzileers, which bore his name; and was afterwards a captain of dragoons. After the peace of Ryswick, he purchased the place of maitre d‘hotel to the dauphiness, the mother of Louis XV. Losing this situation at her death, he took a trip to Italy, and there improved his taste in painting, of which he was esteemed a connoisseur. On his return he was appointed provincial commissary at war, an office in which he conducted himself with uncommon generosity. His attachment to Louis XIV. and his admiration of the men of genius of that monarch’s time, induced him, in 1708, to project a Parnassus, in bronze, to commemorate the glories of his sovereign, and the genius of the most celebrated poets and musicians. This was no hasty performance, however, for he did not complete his plan before 1713. This Parnassus was nothing else than a mountain, with a good elevation, on which appeared Louis XIV. in the character of Apollo, crowned with laurels, and holding a lyre in his hand. Beneath him were the three French graces, madame de la Suze, madame des Houlieres, and mademoiselle de Scuderi. Round this Parnassus was a grand terras, on which were eight poets and a musician; namely, Peter Corneille, Moliere, Racan, Segrais, La Fontaine, Chapelle, Racine, Boileau, and Lully. Inferior poets were commemorated by medallions. Boileau is said to have been Tillet’s adviser in some part of this scheme, and, his biographer says, it were to be wished that celebrated poet had likewise advised him as to the selection of those on whom he was conferring immortality. His next object was to get this Parnassus erected in some public place or garden. He proposed the scheme therefore to Desforts, the minister then at the head of the ’finances, and asked only, by way of bonus, the place of farmer-general; but Desforts contented himself with praising his disinterestedness. Disappointed in this, he published, in 1727, a description of his work under the title of “Le Parnasse Francois,” 1732, fol. and afterwards three supplements, the last in 1760, containing the lives of the poets down to the last date; but the grand scheme remained unexecuted. Titon, who is represented as a generous patron of literary merit, died Dec. 26, 1762, at the advanced age of eighty- five. Besides the description of his Parnassus, he published an “Essai sur les honneurs accordés aux Savaiis,” 12mo.

, generally known by his assumed name Ravisius Textor, was lord of Ravisy, in the district of Nivernois, whence he took the former of his latinized names. He was esteemed as a scholar in his own time, which was the commencement of the sixteenth century, and taught polite literature in the college of Navarre, at Paris, with considerable success. He died in 1522, and, as some say, in great poverty. His writings were chiefly, if not entirely, in Latin; and there are extant of them, 1. “Epistles,” Lyons, 1569, 8vo. 2. “Dialogues,” Rott. 1651, 12mo, published also with the epistles. 3. “Epigrams,” 4. “Epithetorum Opus,” Bas. 1592, 4to. There is an epitome of this work published at London in 1657, 12mo. 5. “Expositio Nominum.” 6. An edition of the “Opera Scriptorurn de claris Mulieribus,” Paris, 1651, fol. This, however, as is evident, must have been a republication from his edition.

, a learned Italian meteorologist, was born in 1719, at Pianez^a, in Vincenza, and educated at Padua, where he took a degree as doctor of theology, but was principally attached to mathematical studies. He obtained in the mean time some ecclesiastical preferment, and in 1762 was appointed professor of astronomy and meteorology in the university of Padua, where his talents were well known. Here he procured an observatory to be built, which was completed in 1774, and furnished with some instruments from England. About three years after, he was elected an honorary member of our royal society, and had contributed some articles to the Philosophical Transactions. He was first known throughout Europe by an ingenious work on the influence of the heavenly bodies on the weather and atmosphere, “Delia vera Influenza,” &c. 1770, 4to, and became afterwards yet more known by his “Meteorological Journal,” which he began in 1773, and continued till his death. His reputation was afterwards extended by a variety of publications, separate, or in the literary Journals, on meteorological subjects, of which Fabroni has given a large list. He died in Nov. 1797, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, and his private character is said to have been no less estimable than his public.

, D.D. a learned English divine, was born in 1658, at Blencow in Cumberland, became a poor scholar of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1672, and when B. A. taberdar of that house. He was elected fellow of University college, Dec. 23, 1678; and proceeding M. A. July 2, 1679, became chaplain to Dr. Smith, bishop of Carlisle. He was appointed one of the four canon residentiaries of Carlisle, in 1635; and the same year obtained the vicarage of Stanwix, which he resigned in 1688. He accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. Dec. 12, 1692. By a petition presented to the House of Commons by Dr. Todd, requesting to be heard by counsel before the bill “to dvoid doubts and questions touching statutes, &c.” should pass, it appears that “the bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Nicolson) had cited the dean and chapter before him in his visitation held at Carlisle in September 1707, and exhibited articles tof inquiry against them; and the petitioner appeared, and entered his protest against the bishop’s power, being informed, the right of local visitor was in the crown; but the said bishop, in an illegal manner, suspended the petitioner ab officio et beneficio, and afterwards excommunicated him.” The apprehensions of Dr. Todd were, that, if the bill should pass, it would “subject him to further inquiries and arbitrary censures of the bishop in his visitations.” The bill passed the Commons, with some amendments, March 17, and received the royal assent March 20, 1708. He resigned his residentiaryship in 1720, which was then given to Dr. Tullie, and died vicar of Penrith in 1728. He was also rector of Arthuret at the time of his death. His publications are, “The description of Sweden,” 1680, folio; “An Account of a Salt-spring and another medicinal spring on the banks of the river Weare, or Ware, in the bishopric of Durham,” 1684, Phil. Trans. No. 163; and “The Life of Phocion,” 1684. He left also in ms “Notitia EcclesiiE Cathedralis Carliolensis una cum Catalogo Priorum, dum Conventualis erat, & Decanorum & Canonicorum quum Collegiata. Notitia Prioratus de Wedderhall cum Catalogo omnium Benefactorum qui ad ambas has sacras Ædes stfuendas, dotandas, & ornandas, pecuniam, terras & ornamenta, vel aliqua alia beneficia, pie & munifice contulerunt.” These two were written in 1688, and dedicated by the author to the dean and chapter of Carlisle. They are now in the Lambeth library. He left also in ms. “A History of the Diocese of Carlisle, containing an. account of the Parishes, Abbeys, Nunneries, Churches, Monuments, Epitaphs, Coats of Arms, Founders, Benefactors, &c. with a perfect catalogue of the Bishops, Priors, Deans, Chancellors, Arch-deacons, Prebendaries, and of all Rectors and Vicars of the several Parishes in the said Diocese,” 1689. He was also one of the translators of Plutarch’s Morals, and of Cornelius Nepos. By Ballard’s ms letters in the Bodleian library it appears, that Dr. Todd sent achartulary of Fountains Abbey to the University college library and that he was solicited by Dr. Hickes to assist in publishing some Saxon books.

, an English writer, one of the founders of modern Deism, was born Nov. 30, 1669, in the most northern peninsula of Ireland, in the isthmus of which stands Londonderry. His Christian name was Janus funius; but, the boys at school making a jest of it, the master ordered him to be called John, which name he retained ever after. Some say he was of a good family, but that his parents were Papists. This last particular we learn from himself; for he tells us, that he “was educated from his cradle in the grossest superstition and idolatry; but God was pleased to make his own reason, and such as made use of theirs, the happy instruments of his conversion for he was not sixteen years old when he became as zealous against Popery, as he ever since continued.” Others have affirmed, that his father was a Popish priest; and this seems to be the general opinion, although one of his biographers has somewhat hardily asserted, that “the contrary is notorious, and has been proved.”

From the school at Redcastle near Londonderry, he went in 1687 to the college of Glasgow in Scotland; and, after three years stay there, visited the university of Edinburgh, where he was created master of arts in June 1690, and received the usual diploma or certificate from the professors. He then went back to Glasgow, where he made but a short ttay, and intended to have returned to Ireland; but he altered his mind, and came into England, “where, he tells us, he lived in as good Protestant families as any in the kingdom, till he went to the famous university of Leyden in Holland, to perfect his studies.” There he was generously supported by some eminent Dissenters in England, who had conceived great hopes from his uncommon parts, and might flatter themselves that in time he would be serviceable to them in the quality of a minister; for he had lived in their communion ever since he forsook Popery, as he himself owns in effect in his “Apology.” In 1692, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams, a very eminent Dissenting minister, having published a book entitled “Gospel truth stated and vindicated,” Mr. Toland sent it to the author of the “Bibliotheque universelle,” and desired him to give an abstract of it in that journal: at the same time he related to him the history of that book, and of the controversy it referred to. The journalist complied with his request (vol. XXIII); and to the abstract of Mr. Williams’ s book he prefixed the letter he received from Mr. Toland, whom he styles “student in divinity.”

After having remained about two years at Leyden, he came back to England, and soon after went to Oxford, where, besides the conversation of learned men, he had the advantage of the public library. He collected materials upon various subjects, and composed some pieces; among others, a Dissertation to prove the received history of the tragical death of Regulus, a fable; the substance, however, of which he owns he took from Palmerius, who had examined the subject in his “Observationes in optimos fere Authores Graecos.” Toland began likewise a work of greater consequence, in which he undertook to show, that there are no mysteries in the Christian religion; but he left Oxford in 1695, before it was finished, and went to London, where he published it the next year in 12mo with this title, “Christianity not mysterious: or, a treatise shewing, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it, and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery.” For the foundation of this proposition, Mr. Toland defines mystery, as ha says it is always used in the New Testament, to be a thing intelligible in itself, but which could not be known without a special revelation; contending, as those do who have since called themselves rational Christians, that there is nothing in the New Testament either against or above reason. His treatise was no sooner abroad, than the public were very much alarmed, and several books came out against it. It was even presented by the grand-jury of Middlesex; but, as usual, without any effect in preventing the sale.

This book being sent by the London booksellers into Ireland, made no less noise there than it had made in England; and the clamour wa much increased when he went thither himself in 1697. Many particulars concerning this affair are related in the correspondence hetween Mr. Locke and Mr. Molyneux, which will serve also to illustrate the temper and character of Toland himself, who was certainly a very extraordinary man. In a letter, dated Dublin, April the 6th, 1697, Mr. Molyneux writes thus to Mr. Locke: “In my last to you, there was a passage relating to the author of * Christianity not mysterious.' I did not then think that he was so near me as within the bounds of this city; but I find since that he is corne over hither, and have bad the favour of a visit from him. I now understand, as I intimated to you, that he was born in this country; but that he hath been a great while abroad, and his education was for some time under the great Le Clerc. But that for which I can never honour him too much, is his acquaintance and friendship to you, and the respect which on all occasions he expresses for you. I propose a great deal of satisfaction in his conversation: I take him to be a candid free thinker, and a good scholar. But there is a violent sort of spirit that reigns here, which begins already to shew itself against him; and, I believe, will increase daily; for I 6nd the clergy alarmed to a mighty degree against him; and last Sunday he had his welcome to this city, by hearing himself harangued against out of the pulpit, by a prelate of this country.” In a letter, dated May the 3d, Mr. Locke replies to Mr. Molyneux: “I am glad to hear that the gentleman does me the favour to speak well of me on that side the water; I never deserved *tfoer of him, but that he should always have done so on this. If his exceeding great value of himself do not deprive the world of that usefulness that his parts, if rightly conducted, might be of, I shall be very glad. I always value men of parts and learning, and I think I cannot do too much in procuring them friends and assistance: but there may happen occasions that may make one stop one’s hand; and it is the hopes young men give, of what use they will make of their parts, which is to me the encouragement of being concerned for them: but if vanity increases with age, I always fear, whither it will lead a man. I say this to you, because you are my friend, for whom I have no reserves, and think 1 ought to talk freely, where you inquire, and possibly may be concerned; but I say it to you alone, and desire it may go no farther. For the man I wish very well, and could give you, if it needed, proofs that I do so, and therefore I desire you to be kind to him; but I must leave it to your prudence in what way, and how far. If his carriage with you gives you the promises of a steady useful man, I know you will be forward enough of yourself, and I shall be very glad of it; for it will be his fault alone, if he prove not a very valuable man, and have not you for his friend.” Mr. Molyneux thanks Mr. Locke for these hints concerning Mr. Toland, in a letter -dated May the 27th, and says, that “they perfectly agree with the apprehensions he had conceived of him. Truly,” says he, “to be free, I do not think his management, since he came into this city, has been so prudent. He has raised against him the clamours of all parties; and this not so much by his difference of opinion, as by his unseasonable way of discoursing, propagating, and maintaining it. Coffee-houses and public tables are not proper places for serious discourses, relating to the most important truths: but when also a tincture of vanity appears in the whole cours.e of a man’s conversation, it disgusts many that may otherwise have a due value for his parts and learning.-. Mr. ToJand also takes here a great liberty on all occasions, to vouch your patronage and friendship, which makes many, that rail at him, rail also at you. I believe you will not approve of this, as far as I am able to judge, by your shaking him off, in your letter to the bishop of Worcester.” The reader is requested to keep in mind these early discoveries of Toland’s vanity. They unfold his whole character. Vanity was predominant with him from first to last; and if the lives of other infidels are examined with Care, from Toland to the last garbler of Toland in our own days, it will be found that vanity was the ruling passion, and the inspirer of those paradoxical opinions which they maintained with obstinacy even when, it is to be feared, they did not believe them themselves. It is with good reason, and certainly with shrewdness and ability, that in a late ingenious work, the life of Toland is sketched as an instance of one of the “victims of immoderate vanity.”

Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, in his “Vindication of the doctine of the Trinity,” had taken occasion to animadvert on Mr. Toland' s “Christianity not mysterious;” and, as he supposed that Toland had borrowed some principles from Locke’s “Essay on human understanding,” in support of his heretical doctrines, he bestowed some animadversions also on that work. This, and Mr. Toland’s persisting to represent him as his patron and friend, together with his very exceptionable conduct, made Locke renounce all regard for him, and almost disclaim the little countenance he had given him. To this purpose he expresses himself, in a letter dated the 15th of June: “As to the gentleman to whom you think my friendly admonishments may be of advantage for his conduct hereafter, I must tell you, that he is a man to whom 1 never writ in my life; and, I think, I shall not now begin: and as to his conduct, it is what I never so much as spoke to him of; that is a liberty to be taken only with friends and intimates, for whose conduct one is mightily concerned, and in whose affairs one interests himself. I cannot but wish well to all men of parts and learning, and be ready to afford them all the civilities and good offices in my power: but there must be other qualities to bring me to a friendship, and unite me in those stricter ties of concern; for I put a great deal of difference between those whom I thus receive into my heart and affection, and those whom I receive into my chamber, and do not treat there with a perfect strangeness. I perceive you think yourself under some obligation of peculiar respect lo that person, upon the account of my recommendation to you; but certainly this comes from nothing but your over-great tenderness to oblige me. For if I did recommend him, you will find it was only as a man of parts and learning for his age; but without any intention that they should be of any other consequence, or lead you any farther, than the other qualities you shall find in him shall recommend him to you; and therefore whatsoever you shall, or shall not do, for him, I shall no way interest myself in.” At that time Mr. Peter Brown, senior fellow of Trinity college near Dublin, afterwards bishop of Cork, having published a piece against Mr. “Poland’s book, Mr. Molyneux serit it to Mr. Locke, with a letter dated the 20th of July:” The author, says he, “is my acquaintance but two things I shall never forgive in his book one is the foul language and opprobrious names he gives Mr. Toland; the other is upon several occasions calling in the aid of the civil magistrate, and delivering Mr. Toland up to secular punishment. This indeed is a killing argument; but some will be apt to say, that where the strength of his reasoning failed him^ there he flies to the strength of the sword.” At length the storm rose to such a height that Toland was forced to retire from Ireland; and the account which Mr. Molyneux gives of the manner of it, in a letter dated the llth of September, would excite pity, were it not considered as representing the natural consequences of his vanity. “Mr. Toland is at last driven out of our kingdom: the poor gentleman, by his imprudent management, had raised such an universal outcry, that it was even dangerous for a man to have been known once to converse with him. This made all wary men of reputation decline seeing him, insomuch that at last he wanted a meal’s meat, as I am told, and none would admit him to their tables. The little stock of money which he brought into this country being exhausted, he fell to borrowing from any one that would lend him half a crown; and ran in debt for his wigs, cloatbs, and lodging, as I am informed. And last of all, to complete his hardships, the parliament fell on his book; voted it to be burnt by the common hangman, and ordered the author to be taken into custody of the sergeant at arms, and to be prosecuted by the attorney-general at law. Hereupon he is fled out of this kingdom, and none here knows where he has directed his course.” Many in Englan-o approved this conduct in the Irish parliament; and Dr. Gonth in particular was so highly pleased with it, that he complimented the archbishop of Dublin upon it, in the dedication of his third volume of “Sermons,” printed in 1698. After having condemned our remissness here in England, for bearing with Dr. Sherlock, whose notions of the Trinity he charges with heresy, he adds, “but, on the contrary, among you, when a certain Mahometan Christian (no new thing of late) notorious for his blasphemous denial of the mysteries of our religion, and his insufferable virulence against the whole Christian priesthood, thought to have found shelter among you, the parliament to their immortal honour presently sent him packing, and, without the help of a faggot, soon made the kingdom too hot for him.” As soon as Poland was in London, he published an apologeticai account of the treatment he had received in Ire-< land, entitled “An Apology for Mr Toland, &c. 1697” and was so little discouraged with what had happened to him there, that he continued to write and publish his thoughts on all subjects, without regarding in the least who might, or who might not, be offended at him. He had published, in 1696, “A discourse upon Coins,” translated from the Italian of signior Bernardo Davanzati, a gentleman of Florence: he thought this seasonable, when clipping of money was become a national grievance, and several methods were proposed to remedy it. In 1698, after the peace of Hyswick, during a great dispute among politicians, concerning the forces to be kept on foot for the quiet and security of the nation, many pamphlets appeared on that subject, some for, others against, a standing army; and Toland, who took up his pen among others, proposed to reform the militia, in a pamphlet entitled “The Militia Keformed, &c.” The same year, 1698, he published “The Life of Milton,” which was prefixed to Milton’s prose works, then collected in three volumes folio. In this he asserted that the “Icon Basilike” was a spurious production. This being represented by Dr. Blackall, afterwards bishop of Exeter, as affecting the writings of the New Testament, Toland vindicated himself in a piece called, “Amyntor; or, a Defence of Milton’s Life, 1699,” 9vo. This Amyntor however did not give su< h satisfaction, but that even Dr. Samuel Clarke and others thought it necessary to animadvert on it, as being an attack on the canon of the scriptures. Yet Toland had the confidence afterwards (in the preface to his “Nazarenus”) to pretend that his intention in his “Amyntor” was not to invalidate-, but to illustrate and confirm the canon of the New Testanunt; which, as Leland justly observes, may serve as one instance, among the many that might be produced, of the vfriter’s sincerity. The same year, 1699, he published “The Memoirs of Denzil lord Holies, baron of IfieJd in Sussex, from 1641 to 1648,” from a manuscript communicateJ to him by the late duke of Newcastle, who was ono of his patrons and benefactors.

In 1700 he published Harrington’s “Oceana,” and his other works, with his life in folio; and about the same time came out a pamphlet, entiiled “Clito, a poem on the force of eloquence.” In this piece, under the character of Atieisidaemon, which signifies unsuperstitious, he promises in effect not to leave off writing till he had detected knavery and imposture of every kind. In 1701 he published two political pieces, one called “The Art of governing by Parties;” the other “Propositions for uniting the two East India Companies.” The same year, being informed that the lower house of convocation had appointed a committee to examine impious, heretical, and immoral books, and that his “Christianity not mysterious,” and his “Amyntor,” were under their consideration, he wrote two letters to Dr. Hooper, the prolocutor, either to give such satisfaction as should induce them to stop their proceedings, or desiring to be heard in his own defence, before they passed any censure on his writings but, without paying any regard to this application, the committee extracted five propositions out of his “Christianity not mysterious,” and re-“solved, that,” in their judgment, the said book contained pernicious principles, of dangerous consequence to the Christian religion; that it tended, and (as they conceived) was written on a design, to subvert the fundamental articles of the Christian faith; and that the propositions extracted from it, together with divers others of the same nature, were pernicious, dangerous, scandalous, and destructive of Christianity.“This representation was sent to the upper house, which likewise appointed a committee to examine Toland’s book, and, upon receiving their report, unanimously determined to proceed (as far as they legally might) against the. work and the author: but, having taken the opinions of some able lawyers upon the point, they were obliged to declare, that they did not find, how, without a licence from the king (which they had not yet received), they could have sufficient authority to censure judicially any such books. This declaration of the bishops gave occasion to several pamphlets on the subject, and Toland published a defence of himself, under the title of” Vindieiqs Liberius, or Mr. Toland’s defence against the lower house of convocation, &c." in which he gave full scope to his vanity, and removed much of the disguise with which he had hitherto covered some of his principles both religious and political.

Upon the passing of an act of parliament, in June 1701, for settling the crown, after the decease of king William and the princess Anne, and in default of their issue, upon the princess Sophia, electress dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, Toland published his “Anglia libera, or, the limitation and succession of the crown of England explained and asserted, c.” 8vo; and when the earl of Macclesfield was sent to Haribver with this act, Toland attended him. He presented his “Anglia libera' 7 to her electoral highness, and was the first who had the honour of kissing her hand upon the act of succession. The earl recommended him particularly to her highness, and he stayed there five or six weeks; and on his departure he was presented with gold medals and pictures of the electress dowager, the elector, the young prince, and the queen of Prussia. He then made an excursion to the court of Berlin, where he had a remarkable conversation with M. Beausobre, upon the subject of religion, in the presence of the queen of Prussia. Beausobre communicated an account of it to the authors of the” Bibliotheque Germanique,“who printed it in that journal; and from thence we learn, that it was concerning the authority of the books of the New Testament, which Mr. Toland, with his usual self-sufficiency, undertook to question and invalidate. On the llth of November, 1701, a proclamation was issued out, for dissolving the parliament, and calling another to meet in December. While the candidates were making interest in their respective countries, Toland published the following advertisement in the Post-man:” There having been a public report, as if Mr. Toland stood for Blechingly in Surrey, it is thought fit to advertise, that sir Robert Clayton has given his interest in that borough to an eminent citizen, and that Mr. Toland hath no thoughts of standing there or any where else.“This advertisement afforded matter of pleasantry to an anonymous writer, who published a little pamphlet, entitled” Modesty mistaken: or, a Letter to Mr. Toland, upon his declining to appear in the ensuing parliament."

In 1702 he published three pieces: “Paradoxes of state, &c.” in 4to; “Reasons for addressing his majesty to invite into England the electress dowager and elector of Hanover; 7 ' and his” Vindicius liberius,“already mentioned. After the publication of this book, he went to the courts of Hanover and Berlin, where he was received very graciously by the princess Sophia, and by the queen of Prussia, both ladies who delighted in conversing with men of learning and penetration, whose notions were new or uncommon. He had the honour to be often aumitted to their conversation; and, as he made a longer stay at Berlin than at Hanover, so he had frequent opportunities of waiting upon the queen, who took a pleasure in asking him questions, and hearing his paradoxical opinions. After his return therefore into England, he published in 1704? some philosophical letters; three of which were inscribed td Serena, meaning the queen of Prussia, who, he assures us> was pleased to ask his opinion concerning the subject of them. The title rr.ns thus:” Letters to Serena, containing, 1. The origin and force of prejudices. 2. The history of the soul’s immortality among the heathens. 3. The origin of idolatry, and reasons of heathenism; as also, 4. A letter to a gentleman in Holland, shewing Spinoza’s system of philosophy to be without any principle or foundation. 5. Motion essential to matter, in answer to some remarks by a noble friendon the confutation of Spinoza. To which is prefixed a preface, declaring the several occasions of writing them,“8vo. About the same time he published an” English translation of the Life of Æsop, by M. de Meziriac,“and dedicated it to Anthony Collins, esq. It was prefixed to” The fables of;sop," with the moral reflections of M. Baudoin.

In 1705 he published several pamphlets’. “Socinianism truly stated, &c.” to which is prefixed, “Indifference in disputes recommended by a Pantheist to an orthodox friend,” in 4to; “An account of the courts of Prussia and Hanover,” in 8vo; “The ordinances, statutes, and privileges of the* academy erected by the king of Prussia in the city of Berlin,” translated from the original, in 8vo; “The memorial of the state of England, in vindication of the queen, the church, and the administration, &c.” This last was published, without the name of the author, by the direction of Mr. Harley, secretary of state; and afterwards a defence of it was written, by order of the same person, but for some reasons suppressed, after six or seven sheets Of it were printed. Mr. Harley was one of Toland’s chief patrons and benefactors, and used to employ him as a spy, Harley having accidentally found, among other manuscripts, a Latin oration, to excite the English to war against the French, communicated it to Toland, who published it in 1707, with notes and a preface, under this title, “Oratio Philippica ad excitandos contra Galliam. Britannos; maxime vero, ne de pace cum victis pra; matur& agatur: sanctiori Anglorum concilio exhibita, anno Christi 1514.” Soon after he published, at the request of the elector’s minister, “The elector Palatine’s declaration in favour of his Protestant subjects.”

He set out for Germany in the spring of 1707, and went first to Berlin; but an incident too ludicrous to be mentioned, says Mr. Des Maizeaux, obliged him to leave that place sooner than he expected. What that incident was cannot now be gathered from his correspondence. From thence he went to Hanover, on the territories of a neighbouring prince. He proceeded to Dusseldorp, 'and was very graciously received by the elector Palatine; who, in consideration of the English pamphlet he had published, presented him with a gold chain and medal, and a purse of an hundred ducats. He went afterwards to Vienna, being commissioned by a famous French banker, then in Holland, who wanted a powerful protection, to engage the Imperial ministers to procure him the title of count of the empire, for which he was ready to pay a good sum of money; but they did not think fit to meddle with that affair, and all his attempts proved unsuccessful. From Vienna he visited Prague in Bohemia; and now, his money being all spent, he was forced to make many shifts to get back to Holland. Being at the Hague, he published, in 1709, a small volume, containing two Latin dissertations: the first he called “Adeisidaemon sive, Titus Livius a superstitione vindicatus” the second, “Origines Judaicse; sive, Strabonis de Moyse & religione Judaica historia breviter illustrata.” In the first of these pieces, he endeavours to vindicate Livy from the imputation of superstition and credulity, although his history abounds with relation* of prodigies and portents; in the second, he seems inclined to prefer Strabo’s account of Moses and the Jewish religion to the testimony of the Jews themselves. In this dissertation, also, he ridicules Huetius for affirming, in his “Demonstratio evangelica,” that many eminent persons in the “Old Testament” are allegorized in the heathen mythology, and that Moses, for instance, is understood by the name of Bacchus, Typho, Silenus, Priapus, Adonis, &c. and, if he had never done any thing worse than this, it is probable that the convocation would not have thought him an object of their censure. Huetius, however, was greatly provoked with this attack; and expressed his resentment in a French letter, published in the “Journal of Trevoux,” and afterwards printed with some dissertations of Huetius, collected by the abbé Tilladet.

He continued in Holland till 1710; and, while he was there, had the good fortune to get acquainted with prince Eugene, who gave him several marks of his generosity. Upon his return to England, he was for some time sup* ported by the liberality of Mr. Harley, and by his means was enabled to keep a country-house at Epsom in Surrey. He published, in 1711, “A Description of Epsom, with the Humours and Politics of that Place.” He afterwards lost the favour of this minister, and then wrote pamphlets against him. He published in 1710, without his name, a French piece relating to Dr. Sacheverell, “Lettre d'urt Anglois a un Hollandois an sujet du docteur Sacheverell:” and the three following in 1712: “A Letter against Popery, particularly against admitting the authority of fathers or councils in controversies of religion, by Sophia Charlotte, the late queen of Prussia;” “Queen Anne’s reasons for creating the electoral prince of Hanover a peer of this realm, by the title of duke of Cambridge;” and, “The grand Mystery laid open, viz. by dividing the Protestants to weaken the Hanover succession, and, by defeating the succession, to extirpate the Protestant religion.” At that time he also undertook to publish a new edition of Cicero’s works by subscription, and gave an account of his plan in a “Latin dissertation,” which has been printed among his posthumous pieces.

In 1713 he published “An Appeal to honest People, against wicked Priests,” relating to Sachevereirs affair; aixi another pamphlet called “Dunkirk or Dover, or, the queen’s honour, the nation’s safety, the liberties of Europe, and the peace of the world, all at stake, till that fort and port be totally demolished by the French.” In 1714- he published a piece which shewed that he was very attentive to times and seasons, for it ran through ten editions within a quarter of a year: the title is, “The art of Restoring, or, the piety and probity of general Monk in bringing about the last restoration, evidenced from his own authentic letters; with a just account of sir Roger, who runs the parallel as far as he can.” This sir Roger was intended for the earl of Oxford, who was supposed to be then projecting schemes for the restoration of the Pretender. The same year, 1714, he produced “A collection of Letters by general Monk, relating to the restoration of the royal family;” “The Funeral Elegy of the princess Sophia,” translated from the Latin; and “Reasons for naturalizing the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland, on the same foot with all other nations; with a defence of the Jews against all vulgar prejudices in all countries. He prefixed to this an ingenious, but ironical dedication to the superior clergy. In 1717 he published” The State Anatomy of Great Britain," &c. which being answered by Dr. Fiddes, chaplain to the earl of Oxford, and by )aniel De Foe, he produced 9 second part, by way of vindication of the former.

He seems now to have quitted politics, and to have betaken himself, in a great measure, to learned and theological inquiries; for, in 1718, he published a work of about one hundred and fifty pages in 8vo, with this long title, “Nazarenus or Jewish, Gentile, or Mahometan Christianity containing the history of the ancient Gospel of Barnabas, and the modern Gospel of the Mahometans, attributed to the same apostle, this last Gospel being now first made known among Christians. Also, the original plan of Christianity occasionally explained in the Nazarenes, whereby divers controversies about this divine (but highly perverted) institution may be happily terminated. With the relation of an Irish manuscript of the four Gospels, as likewise a summary of the ancient Irish Christianity, and the reality of the Keldees (an order of lay religious) against the two last bishops of Worcester.” We make no observation upon this work: the reader knows enough of Toland to conclude that it was not written with any friendly view to revelation. He published the same year “The Destiny of Rome; or, the speedy and final destruction of the Pope,” &c.

In 1720 Dr. Hare, then dean of Worcester, published a fourth edition of his visitation sermon, entitled “Church authority vindicated,” &c, and subjoined a postscript, in which, speaking of bishop Hoadly’s writings, he has the following stroke at Mr. Toland: “It must be allowed his lordship judges very truly, when he says they are faint resemblances of Mr. Chillingworth for envy itself must own his lordship has some resemblance to that great man, just such a one as Mr. Toland has to Mr. Locke, who, in 4 Christianity not mysterious,' is often quoted to support notions he never dreamed of.” Toland, upon this, advertised against Dr. Hare, that he never named Locke in any edition of that book, and was so far from often quoting him, that he had not so much as brought one quotation out of him. This was true, and Hare immediately corrected himself by another advertisement, in which he directs, “makes great use of Mr. Locke’s principles,” to be read, instead of, “is often quoted to support notions he never dreamed of.” Dr. Hare’s advertisement occasioned the publishing of a pamphlet with this title, “A short essay upon Lying, or, a defence of a reverend dignitary, who suffers under the persecution of Mr. Toland, for a lapsus calami.”

Upon a dispute between the Irish and British houses of lords, with respect to appeals, when the latter ordered a bill to be brought in for the better securing the dependency of the kingdom of Ireland upon the crown of Great Britain, Mr. Toland published “Reasons most humbly offered to the House of Commons, why the bill sent down to them should not pass into a Law,” 1720. About this time he printed a profane Latin tract, entitled “Pantheisticon: sive, formula celebrandae sodalitatis Socraticae, in tres particulas divisa: quae Pantheistarum, sive sodalium, continent; I. Mores et axiomata. 2. Numen et philosophiam. 3. Libertatem et non fallen tern legem neque fallendam. Prsemittitur de antiquis et novis eruditorum sodalitatibus, ut et de universo infinito et seterno, diatriba. Subjicitur de duplici Pantheistarum philosophia sequenda, ac de viri optirni et ornatissimi idea, dissertatiuncula. Cosmopoli, MDCCXX.” He had subscribed himself a Pantheist, as we have seen, in a pamphlet published in 1705, and here we have his doctrines and his creed explicitly set forth: “In. mundo omoia sunt unum, unumque est omne in omnibus. Quod omne in omnibus, Deus est; geternus ac imraensus, neque genitus, neque interiturus. In eo vivimus, movein ur, et existimus. Ab eo natum est unumquidque, in eumque denuo revoluturum; omnium ipse principium et finis.” This is Pantheism, that is, it is atheism, or there is no such thing. The author knew it very well; and fear* ing lest he migh; have gone too far, he got it printed se-< cretly, at his own charge, and but a few copies, which he distributed with a view of receiving presents for thent. There is a short preface to this piece, under the name of Janus Junius Eoganesius; which, though it was his true Christian name, and the name of his country, luis-Eogan being the place of his birth, yet served for as good a cover as any whatever, nobody in England being acquainted with these particulars.

Some time after, but in the same year, 1720, he published another learned work, of about 250 pages in 8vo, including the preface, entitled “Tetradymus.” This is divided into four parts, each of which has a distinct title. The first is called “Hodegus; or, the pillar of cloud and fire that guided the Israelites in the Wilderness, not miraculous, but, as faithfully related in Exodus, a thing equally practised by other nations, and in those places not only useful, but necessary/' The second is called” Clydophoras; or, of the exoteric and esoteric philosophy;“that is, of the external and internal doctrine of the ancients; the one open and public, accommodated to popular prejudices and the established religions; the other private and secret, wherein, to the few capable and discreet, was taught the real truth, stripped of all disguises. There is more display of learning in this dissertation than in any work produced by Toland; though they all of them display learning where the subject admits it. The title of the third is,” Hypatia; or, the history of the Philosophic Lady, who was murdered at Alexandria, as was supposed at the instigation of the clergy. “The fourth is called” Mangoneutes;" or, A defence of Nazarenus against Dr. Mangey, who had attacked it. In the last of these tracts he inserted his advertisement against Dr. Hare, with the doctor’s answer.

In 1721, Dr. Hare published a book, entitled“Scripture vindicated from the Misrepresentations of the lord bishop of Bangor;” in the preface of which, speaking of the Constitutions of Carolina, he observes, that, by one of the articles, none are excluded from settling in that country upon account of their opinions, “but downright atheists,” says he, “such as the impious author of the Pantheisticon;” and, at the bottom of the page, he refers us to a profane prayer, composed by T6!and, a more perfect copy of which he afterwards, upon farther intelligence, inserted in the errata. The prayer runs in these terms: “Omnipotens & sempiterne Bacche, qui humanam societatem max u me in bibendo cotisiiumii; concede propitius, ut istorum capita, qui hestern& compotatione gravantur, hodierna leventur; idque fiat per pocula poculorum. Amen.” Des Maizeaux, however, affirms, that it was not composed by To­)and, who knew nothing of it; but by a persoo whose name he forbears, on account of his profession; though he believes he only designed it as a ridicule on Mr. Toland' s club of Pantheistic philosophers, whom he injuriously imagined to be all drunkards, whereas they are grave, sober, and temperate men. This year, 1721, Toland published, and it was the last thing he published, “Letters of lord Shaftesbury to Robert Moles worth, esq.” afterwards lord Molesworth, with a large introduction by himself, 8vo.

He had, for above four years past, lived at Putney, from whence he could conveniently go to London, and come back the same day; but he used to spend most part of the winter in London. Being in town about the middle of December, he found himself very ill, having been out of order for some time before: his appetite and strength failed him; and a physician, who was called to him, made him worse, by bringing a continual vomiting and looseness upon him. He made a shift, however, to return to Putney, where he grew better, and had some hopes of recovery. In this interval, he wrote “a dissertation to prove the uncertainty of physic, and the danger of trusting our lives to those who practise it.” He was preparing some other things, but death put an end to all his purposes, the llth of March, 1722, in his fifty-second year. We are told that he behaved himself, throughout the whole course of his sickness, with a true philosophical patience, and looked upon death without the least perturbation of mind, bidding farewell to those about him, and telling them, “he was going to sleep.” Some few days before he died, he wrote his own epitaph.

Toland was a man of uncommon abilities, and, perhaps, the most learned of all the infidel writers; but his system being atheism, if to own no God but the universe be atheism^ he was led to employ those great parts and learning, very much to the offence and injury of society. Vanity, and an immoderate desire to distinguish himself, were predominant qualities in his composition, and his character in many other respects was far from being a desirable one, for neither were his morals pure, npr his manners amiable. In his political career, he had all the selfishness of the common hireling.

His “Posthumous Works” were published in 1726, 2 vols. 8vo, and republished in 1747, with an account of ins life and writings by Des Maizeaux, the title of which runs as follows: “The Miscellaneous Works of Mr. John Tolaud, now first published from his original manuscripts, containing, I. An history of the British Druids, with a criii al Essay on the ancient Celtic customs, literature, &c. to whic li is added, An account of some curious British Antiquities. 2. An account of Jordano Bruno, and his celebrated book on the innumerable worlds. 5. A disquisition concerning those writings which by the ancients were, truly or falsely, ascribed to Jesus Christ and his Apostles. 4. The secret History of the South-Sea scheme. 5. A plan for a National Bank. 6. An essay on the Roman Education. 7. The tragical death of Attilius Regulus proved to be a fiction. 8. Select Epistles from Pliny, translated into English, y. A diverting description of Epsom and its amusements. 10. Four Memorials to the Earl of Shaftesbury, relating to affairs of state in 1713 and 1714. 11. Physic without physicians. 12. Letters on various subjects. 13. Cicero illustratus, dissertatio Philologico-critica; sive, Consilium de toto edendo Cicerone, alia plane methodo quam hactenus unquam factum. 14. Conjectura de prima typographic origine.”

At the end of Des Maizeaux’s life there is “An Elegy on the late ingenious Mr. Toland,” which, that biographer says, was published a few days after his death; and be adds, that it was a matter of doubt with some, whether the author intended to praise or ridicule him. Few things can be more weak than Des Maixcaux’s own defence of Toland. There is a considerable collection of To land’s Mss. in the British Museum (Ayscough’s Catalogue), but of little real Talue.

, a learned cardinal, was born in 1532, at Cordova, and appointed professor of philosophy in the university of Salamanca at the early age of fifteen, which is not remarkable if, according to Dominic Soto, who was his master, he was a “monster of genius.” Having afterwards entered the Jesuits’ order, he was sent to Rome, where he taught theology and philosophy with reputation, and philosophised after the genuine manner of the Peripatetic school. Paul V. chose father Tolet for his preacher, and he held the same office under the succeeding pontiffs, with that of theologian in ordinary, besides being entrusted with several important commissions. Pope Gregory XIII. appointed him judge and censor of his own works, and Clement VIIL raised him to the cardinalate in 1594, being the first Jesuit who held that dignity. He is said to have been a lover of justice and equity, and laboured with great zeal and success to reconcile Henry IV. with the court of Rome. He died in that city in 1596, aged sixty-four. Henry IV. out of gratitude, ordered a solemn service to be performed for him at Paris and at Rouen. This learned cardinal left several works, the principal are “Commentaries on St. John,” Lyons, 1614, fol.; “On St. Luke,” Rome, 1600, folio “On St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Rome, 1602, 4to “A Summary of cases of conscience, or instruction for priests,” Paris, 1619, 4to, translated into French, 4to, and a great number of other treatises.

, an ingenious English poetess, was the daughter of George Toilet, esq. commissioner of the navy in the reigns of king William and queen Anne. She was born in 161H, and her father, observing her extraordinary genius, gave her so excellent an education that, besides great skill in music and drawing, she spoke fluently and correctly the Latin, Italian, and French languages; and well understood history, poetry, and the mathematics. These qualifications were dignified by an unfeigned piety, and the moral virtues, which she possessed and practised in an eminent degree. The former part of her life was spent in the Tower of London, where her father had a house; the latter at Stratford and Westham. She died on the 1st of February, 1754, aged sixty years, and was buried at the latter place. In 1755, a volume of her poems was printed, some of the best of which may be seen in Mr. Nichols’s Collection.

She was honoured with the friendship of sir Isaac Newton, who was much pleased with some of her first essays. It has been observed, that a few of her poems have such a philosophical cast, and so great a depth of thought, that they will scarce be understood by common readers. Her Latin poems are also written in a truly classical taste. She would not suffer her works to appear till she herself was beyond the reach of envy or applause. They abound with sentiment and simplicity, and yet are far from being destitute of spirit and poetical ornament.

Her estate, which was a considerable one, she left to her youngest nephew. Her eldest nephew, Gkorge Toilet, of Betley, in Staffordshire, but formerly of Lincoln’s-inn, who was well known for his valuable notes on Shakspeare, died Oct. 21, 1779. “He was,” says Mr. Cole, " a fellow-commoner of King’s college, and my contemporary about 1745; ashy, reserved man, and of no genteel appearance or behaviour.

, a physician and very learned man, was a native of Ingra, in the territory of Utrecht; and taught the belles lettres in his own country with great reputation and profit for some time. In 1684, the marquis of Brandenburg appointed him professor of eloquence and the Greek tongue. He made several journeys into different parts of Germany, Hungary, and Italy; of which he has given some account in a posthumous work, published under the title of “Epistolae Itinerant, by Henninius, at Amsterdam, 1700, in 4to. It is said there are some useful and curious things in these epistles. Tollius was the editor of two ancient authors, of” Ausonius, cum notis variorum, 1671,“8vo; and of” Longinus, 1694,“4to, with a Latin version in the same page, and Boileau’s French version in the opposite. On reading this excellent edition Gibbon pronounced Tollius to be,” though a commentator, a man of taste and genius.“Much, however, cannot be said for his judgment, as the title of the following work may shew:” Fortuita sacra, in quibus prseter critica nonnulla tola fabularis historia Grasca, Phoenicia, Ægyptiaca, ad chymiam pertinere asseritur, 1687," 8vo. He pushed this extravagant notion so far as to seek for the secrets of chymistry and the philosopher’s stone in the fables of Paganism. This does not shew a very sound judgment; yet there is a great deal of learning, and some curious things, in his book. He died in 1696.

He had a brother, named Cornelius Tollius, who was also a very learned man. He was born at Utrecht, and in the beginning of his life was an amanuensis to Isaac Vossius: he was afterwards professor of eloquence and the Greek tongue at Harderwic, and secretary to the curators of the academy. He published an “Appendix to Pierius Valerian us’s treatise De Infelicitate Literatorum,” Amst. 1707, 12mo; and an edition of “Palaephatus,” which last is a scarce and valuable work. Alexander Tollius was also brother to the two persons above mentioned, and is known in the literary world by an edition of “Appian,” 1670, 2 vols. 8vd, which is much esteemed.

, a brave English officer, was descended of a family said to be more ancient than the Norman conquest. He was the son of sir Lionel Tolmach of Helmingnam in the county of Suffolk, bart. by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Murray, earl of Dysart, afterwards married to John, duke of Lauderdale. His talents and education were improved by his travels, in which he spent several years, and after he entered into the army, distinguished himself so much by skill and bravery, as very soon to acquire promotion. But L| the reign of James If. whose measures he thought hostile to the true interests of the kingdom, he resigned his commission, and went again abroad. The same political principles inclining him to favour the revolution, he was, on the accession of William III. appointed colonel of the Coldstream regiment, which had been resigned by William, carl of Craven, on account of his great age and infirmities; and was soon advanced to the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1691, he exerted himself with uncommon bravery in the passage over the river Shannon, at the taking of Athlone in Ireland, and in the battle of Aghrim. In 1693, he attended king William to Flanders, and at the battle of Landen against the French, commanded by marshal Luxemburg, when his majesty himself was obliged to retire, the lieutenant-general brought off the English foot with great prudence, resolution, and success. But, in June the year following, he fell in the unfortunate attempt for destroying the harbour of Brest in France. He had formed this desigrt, and taken care to be well instructed in every circumstance relating to it. Six thousand men seemed to be more than necessary for taking and keeping Cameret, a small neck of land, which lies in the mouth of and commands the river of Brest. The project and the preparations were kept so secret, that there was not the least suspicion till the hiring of transport-ships discovered it. A proposition for that purpose had indeed been made two years before to the earl of Nottingham; who, among other things, charged admiral Russel with having neglected that scheme, when it was laid before him by some persons who came from Brest. Whether the French apprehended the design from that motion, or whether it was now betrayed to them by some who were in the secret; it is certain, that they had such timely knowledge of it, as put them upon their guard. The preparations were not quite ready by the day that had been fixed; and when all was ready, they were stopt by a westerly wind for some time; so that they arrived a month later than was intended. They found the place well fortified with many batteries, which, were raised in different lines upon, the rocks, that lay over the place of descent; and great numbers were posted there to dispute their landing. When the English fleet came so near as to see all this, the council of officers declared against making the attempt; but the lieutenant-general was so possessed with the scheme, that he could not be diverted from it. He imagined, that the men they saw were only a rabble brought together to make a shew; though it proved, that there were regular bodies among them, and that their numbers were double to his own. He began with landing of six hundred men, and put himself at the head of them, who followed him with great courage; but they were so exposed to the enemies’ fire, and could do them so little harm, that the attempt was found absolutely impracticable. The greatest part of those, who landed, were killed or taken prisoners; and not above an hundred of them came back. The lieutenant-general himself was shot in the thigh, of which he died in a few days, extremely lamented. Thus failed a design, which, if it had been undertaken before the French were so well prepared to receive it, might have been attended with success, and followed with very important effects. In this manner bishop Burnet represents the affair, who styles the lieutenant-general a brave and generous man, and a good officer, very fit to animate and encourage inferior officers and soldiers. Another of our historians speaks of this affair in somewhat a different strain, declaring, that the lieutenantgeneral “fell a sacrifice in this desperate attempt, being destined, as some affirmed, to that fall by the envy of some of his pretended friends.” His body was brought to England, and interred on the 30th of June, 1694, at Helmingham in Suffolk.

According to Dr. Brady, general Tolmach was “singularly remarkable for all the accomplishments of a gentleman; his conversation familiar and engaging, his wit lively and penetrating, his judgment solid and discerning; and all these adorned with a graceful person, a cheerful aspect, and an inviting air. And if we consider him as a soldier, he was vigorous and active; surprisingly brave in the most dangerous emergencies, and eagerly catching at all opportunities, in which he might signalize his courage without forfeiting his judgment. But with all this ardour of an invincible courage, he was not of an uneasy turbulent disposition, or apt to be engaged in idle quarrels; for as the sweetness of his nature, and the politeness of his education, hindered him from offering an affront to any man; so the modest sense which he had of his own merit, would not suffer him to suspect that any was intended him. In short, he may justly be characterized under the titles of a complete gentleman, a zealous lover of his country, and an excellent general.”

, an Italian prelate and biographer, was born at Padua, Nov. 17, 1597, of a noble family, originally of Lucca. He was instructed in Greek, Latin, and logic, by the learned divine and lawyer, Benedetti, of Legnano, and afterwards entered the congregation of the regular canons of St. George, in Alga, where he studied philosophy and theology, and received the degree of doctor in the latter faculty at Padua, in 1619. He would then have made profession, but the rules of the congregation not permitting it, he employed himself in the composition of his various works. At length his merit advanced him to the first situations in his order; and when he went to Rome, as visitor, he was very favourably received by many persons of eminence, and especially by pope Urban VIII. who would have appointed him to a bishopric in the island of Candy, but at his own request this was exchanged for the see of Citta Nuova, in Istria, to which he was consecrated in 1642. Study and the care of his diocese occupied the whole of his time until his death in 1654, in the fifty-seventh year of his age.

He wrote, 1. “Illustrium viror.ucn Elogia iconibus exornata,” Padua, 1630, 4to. Th portraits in this volume (which is by no means uncommon in this country) amounting to forty-five, are well engraven, and taken from pictures in his collection. The lives or eloges are short, but accurate. He published a second volume in 1644, but this is less common. 2. “Titus Livius Patavinus,” ibid. 1630, 4to; a life of Livy, of which a much improved edition was published at Amsterdam in 1670. He published also other single lives, and had intended a biography of all the authors of Padua, but published only a “Prodromus Athenarum Patavinarum,” 1633, 4 to. 3. “Petrarcha redivivus integratn Poetae celeberrimi vitam iconibus aere cselatis exhibens,” ibid. 1635, 4to, and reprinted with additions in 1650. 4. Clarissimae fceminae Cassandra Fidelis Venetae epistolae et orationes posthumae,“&c. ibid. 1636, 12mo. 5.” De Donariis ac Tabellis votivis liber singulari.*,“Utin. 1639, 4to, reprinted and enlarged, at Padua, 1654, 4to, and inserted by Graevius in the 12th volume of his Roman antiquities. 6.” Laurae Ceratae Epistolae, cum notis et vita,“&c. Padua, 1640, 12mo. 7.” Bibliothecae Patavinac Manuscriptae publicae et privatae, quibus diversi scriptores hactenus incogniti recensentur,“ibid. 1639, 4to. 8.” BibJiothecae Venetae Mss. publicae et privatae,“Utin. 16.50, 4to. He wrote some other works on the antiquities of Padua, and closed his labours with his” Gymnasium Pat.ivinum," 1654, 4to, a kind of history of the university of Padua.

, one of the most learned Baptist divines of the seventeenth century, was born at Bewdley in Worcestershire in 1603 and, being intended for the church, was educated at the grammar-school, where he made such proficiency as to be thought fit for the university at the age of fifteen. He was accordingly sent to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, at that time, and William Pcmble was his tutor. Here he acquired such distinction for talents and learning, that on his tutor’s death in 1624, he was chosen to succeed him in the catechetical lecture in Magdalen-hall. This he held with great approbation for about seven years, during which he was, amongst other pupils, tutor to Mr. Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester. He then, we may presume, took orders, and went to Worcester, and after that to Leominster in Herefordshire, of which he had the living, and became a very popular preacher, and when the living was found insufficient for a maintenance, lord Scudamore. made some addition to it. Tombes was, says his biographer, among the first of the clergy of those times who endeavoured a reformation in the church, that is, was an enemy to the discipline or ceremonies, for which he suffered afterwards, when the king’s forces came into that country; and being in 1641 obliged to leave it, he went to Bristol, where the parliamentary general Fiennes gave him the living of All Saints. When Bristol was besieged by prince Rupert, the year following, he removed again to London with his feu mily, and there first communicated to some of the West* minster divines, his scruples as to infant-baptism, and held conferences with them on the subject, the result of which was, that he made no converts, but was more confirmed in his own opinions, and a sufferer too, for, being appointed preac-her at Fenchurch, his congregation not only refused to hear him, but to allow him any stipend. From this dilemma he was relieved for a time by a call to be preacher at the Temple-church, provided he would abstain, in the pulpit, from the controversy about infant-baptism. To this he consented on these terms: first, that no one else should preach for the baptising of infants in his pulpit; and, secondly, that no laws should be enacted to make the denial of infant-baptism penal. All this being agreed upon, he continued to preach at the Temple for four years, and was then dismissed for publishing a treatise against infant-baptism. This was construed into a breach of his engagement, but he endeavoured to defend it as necessary to his character, he being often attacked in the pulpit for those opinions. on the subject which he had communicated to the Westminster assembly, although they had neither been published, or answered, by that learned body.

After this he accepted an invitation from the people of Bewdley, his native place, to be their minister; and there he not ojily publicly avowed his sentiments, but formed a biptist church, or sect, while he continued minister of tho parish, and had also the parsonage of Ross given to him. This last he resigned on being made master of Ledbury hospital, and his parishioners at Bewdley having forsaken him on account of his opinions on baptism, he was restored to his first living at Leominster; and that and Bewdley, amidst all the disaffection of the parishioners, he held till the Restoration. Notwithstanding his differing in opinion with the generality of his brethren, he was, in 1653, ap-. pointed one of the triers, or those appointed to examine and approve candidates for the ministry. In this office he appears to have procured a sort of toleration for the baptists, for at the restoration several of that persuasion were found in possession of livings.

In the mean time he was often called to defend his prin-% ciples in public disputations, which were then much the fashion, and it is said that Baxter and others who differed most from him, paid due respect to his learning and argumentative powers. At the restoration, he gladly hailed the monarchical government, and wrote a treatise to justify the taking the oath of supremacy; but being disappointed in his expectations from the new government, he resigned his livings, and the exercise of his ministry altogether, which he could do without personal inconvenience, as he had married an opulent widow at Salisbury, by whom he enjoyed a good estate. Offers were made to him, if he would conform, but his sentiments on the subject of baptism were insuperable. In all other fespects, he not only conformed to the church as a lay communicant, but wrote a treatise to prove the lawfulness of so doing. He appears to have had the good opinion of eminent men of his time, of all ranks and persuasions, of lord Clarendon, and the bishops Barlow, Sanderson, and Ward, and of Baxter and Calamy. Wood says “that there were few better disputants in his age than he was;” and Nelson, in his Life of bishop Bull, says, *' It cannot be denied but that he was esteemed a person of incomparable parts.“In 1702 a singular compliment was paid to him by the House of Lords, in their conference with the Commons relative to the bill for preventing occasional conformity. In proving that receiving the sacrament in the church does not necessarily import an entire conformity, they bring him as an instance,” There was a very learned and famous man that lived at Salisbury, Mr. Tombes, who was a very zealous conformist in all points but one, infant -baptism" He died at Salisbury, May 22, 1676, and was buried in St. Edmund’s church-yard. Aubrey has several anecdotes creditable to his learning and liberality. His works are numerous, but chiefly in defence of his opinions on infant baptism. He wrote also some tracts against the quakers, the papists, and the Socinians.

, a learned Italian scholar, was born at Venice, of an Albanian family, in 1456. He studied Greek at Florence, and made such progress, that be became able to explain Aristotle in the original language. For this purpose he was invited to Padua in 1497. He was brought up to the church, and taught the learned languages at Venice, but in 1520 he returned to Padua, where he gave instructions to cardinal Pole. He was much attached to the Platonic philosophy, and passed his time remote from worldly pursuits, and solely intent upon his studies. Bembo, Jovius, and others, speak of him with great esteem, and Erasmus mentions him with honour, as a man equally respectable for the purity of his morals and the profundity of his erudition. He died in 1531, and was buried in the church of St. Francis, at Padua. He translated several of the works of Aristotle, Proclus’s Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato, and other treatises of the ancient philosophers. He wrote ten dialogues on subjects, philosophical and moral, a work “De Varia Historia,” and some Italian poems.

, a learned cardinal, son of Julius Tommasio, or Tomrnasi, duke of Palma, was born at Alicata in Sicily, Sept. 14, 1649. Having from his infancy placed himself under the protection of the holy virgin, he assumed in the greater part of his works the name of Joseph Mariacarus. The same veneration led him to imitate the virtues of his protectress by taking the vow of chastity, and although the eldest son of an illustrious house, he chose to follow the example of an uncle and four sisters, who had renounced the world and all its honours. He entered the society of the Theatins, and became distinguished by his austere piety and mortifications. He did not neglect human learning however, but applied with great diligence to the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldaic languages, as well as to philosophy and ancient literature, but his favourite study was theology, church history, and especially the history of the offices and liturgies, valuable editions and collections of which he published from time to time. Cardinal Albani, who had a great regard for him, when he became pope appointed him first, qualificator of the holy office, then consultor of the congregation of the rites, and lastly cardinal in May 18, 1712; but this last honour he did not long enjoy, dying Jan. 1, 17 13, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.

In the Vatican and other libraries, Tommasi discovered many manuscripts of importance in ecclesiastical history, and in 1680 published, in 4to, a collection of ms formularies of the Latin and Greek churches in the administration of the sacraments, under the title of “Codices sacramentorum nongentis annis vetustiores,” and to each ms. he prefixed a learned preface. In 1686 he published the “Responsoria & Antipbonaria,” used in ancient times, and particularly in the church of Rome, likewise accompanied with prefaces and curious notes. He then published various missals, psalters, and rubrics of the eastern church, and other liturgical antiquities; and three volumes of “Theological Institutes,” which form a collection of the lesser works of the fathers, and were intended as an introduction to the study of theology.

, a learned English schoolmaster, was the second of five sons of Benjamin Tooke, citizen and stationer of London, and born in 1673. He was educated at the Charterhouse-school, and in 1690 sent to Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he took both the degrees in arts, that of B. A. in 1693, and of M.A. in 1697. In 1695, he was chosen usher of the Charterhouse-school; and, in 1704, professor of geometry in Gresham college, in the room of Dr. Hooke; being recommended by a testimonial from the master, Dr. Burnet, and other officers of the Charterhouse. In Nov. following, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1723, several thousand pounds were left him by his elder brother, Mr. Benjamin Tooke, a bookseller in Fleet-street; yet, notwithstanding this addition to his fortune, he still held his place of usher in the Charterhouse-school, and was preferred to the mastership of the school in 1728; and, the year after, married the widow of Dr. Henry Levett, physician to the Charterhouse. He then, as he was obliged by the statutes, resigned his professorship of Gresham, and from that time attended no other business but his school. This began to be too much for him, for he had some years before declined in his health, till at length he fell into a dropsy, which carried him off, Jan. 20, 1731, in his fifty-eighth year. He was buried in the Charter-house*chapel, in the middle of which is placed a white marble monument, in the form of a shield, against a pillar, with a Latin inscription upon it; to his memory. He had taken deacon’s orders, and sometimes preached, but devoted himself principally to the instruction of youth, for which he was no less fitted by his temper than learning.

He published some things for the benefit and assistance of youth: as, “Synopsis Grsecas linguae;” “Ovid’s Fasti,” from the Delphin edition, with an English interpretation and notes; and, “The Pantheon, or history of the heathen gods.” This book was first written in Latin by Francis Pomey, a Jesuit, and translated into English by one who conceals his name under initial letters. This translation was afterwards revised and corrected, with the addition of a new index, cuts of the deities, and other improvements, by Mr. Tooke; and the tenth edition, printed in 1726, was adorned with new cuts, copied from the sixth Latin, edition, published at Utrecht by Samuel Pitiscus, in 1701. Mr. Tooke translated PuffendorPs “Whole Duty of Man according to the law of nature,” with the notes of Barbeyrac, into English; and bishop GastrelP* “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” into Latin. The supplement to the account of Gresham college, inserted in the second appendix of “Stow’s Survey of London,” was written by him, and given to the editor Mr. Strype.

, of Popes, in the county of Hertford, esq. born about 1595, was sent in the unfortunate expedition against Cadiz in 1625, as captain of a band of volunteers, sir Edward Cecil being both admiral of the fleet, and also lieutenant-general and lord marshal of the land-forces. On Sept. 3, they joined the fleet at Plymouth, where sir Samuel Argol, who had been employed with 28 sail against the Dunkirkers, came up with the admiral, and brought nine of their ships as prizes. Here they waited so long for the arrival of the king (who knighted several of the officers), that they did not weather the Lizard till Oct. 9; and were 13 days reaching Cadiz, occasioned by a tempest, which Mr. Tooke, who appears to have been a considerable actor in the expedition, has well described in a poem, of which it may be observed, en passant, that the versification is perfectly in the vitiated taste of the times in which it was written; but the thoughts are just and manly, the poetry strong and nervous, and the imagery every where correspondent and true. In a mixture of prose and verse, Mr. Tooke proceeds to describe the various distresses of the fleet, both in their fruitless attack and unsuccessful search of the plate-fleet. “Loud complaints,” says Hume, “were made against the court, for entrusting so important a command to a man like Cecil, whom, though he possessed great experience, the people, judging by the event, esteemed of very slender capacity.” Nor did their misfortunes cease with their voyage. A severe mortality attended the ships after their arrival at Plymouth. “For my own peculiar,” says Mr. Tooke, “though outwardly I held up, and fair awhile after, yet this forbearance wrought so little quittance, that several diseases (hence contracted) laid at length such peremptory fetters of a warm bed and a cautious diet over me, that I was compelled to retire, and verse myself out of that profession which I had formerly been versed in for several years together.”

In consequence of these resolutions, he retired to his paternal estate at Popes, where he pursued a learned intimacy with the famous Selden, the learned John Hales of Eton college, Mr. John Greaves, and others the last of whom, in lfi51, dedicates “A Description of the Grand Seignior’s Seraglio, or the Turkish Emperor’s court,” to “his honoured and truly noble friend, George Tooke, esq.” Here these extraordinary geniuses used to pass their hours in the mutual improvement of their minds, and the cultivation of the virtues; while their fellow-citizens, after imbruing their hands in civil carnage, were engaged in empty disputations and idle contests. In this retirement he had the great affliction to lose his wife, a woman of excellent virtues and uncommon endowments. On whicli occasion he wrote various canzonets, and dedicated them “to the memory of his deceased very dear wife, Anna Tooke of Beere.”

In the same year Mr. Tooke had a proper opportunity of testifying his grief and his friendship, by composing “A brief epitaph payed to the merit of my learned kinsman Mr. John Greaves, deceased the 7th of October, 1652.”

The manor of Popes had been in this family from 1483. Mr. Thomas Tooke sold it in 1664 to Stephen Ewre and Joshua Lomax; and they the next year to Daniel Siiottorden, of Eltham in Kent, esq. He sold it to col. Thomas Taylor; and Taylor to sir David Mitchel, who gave it to his lady for life, and afterwards to his nephew John Mitchel, esq. who was not many years ago the possessor. They were likewise lords of the manor of Wormley in Hertfordshire, and patrons of the rectory. For, we find by the records, that Henry VIII. at the dissolution of the monastery of Ecclesia Sanctse Crucis de Waltham, or Waltham Holy Cross, granted the manor of Wormley, and the advowson of the rectory, to Edward North and his heirs, at the rent of 1l. 13s. per ann. He sold it to Elizabeth Woodcliffe, from whom it came to William Woodcliffe of London. This William, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Fisher of Longworth, left a daughter Angelot, married to Walter Tooke, of Popes, in Hatfield, esq. This Angelot, as appears by her epitaph on the north side of the chancel of Wormley church, was a second daughter, in right of whom her husband presented to the living alternis vicibus. It appears by Mr. Purvey’s epitaph, who married lord Denny’s sister, that he also was patron alternis vicibus. Hence it has been conjectured, that Mr. Purvey’s father, John, married the elder sister; and they were sharers, in right of their wives, both of the manor and advowson, till it fell entirely to Tooke, upon the elder sister’s death. The Purveys presented twice, and the Tookes four times; and the first presentation was Purvey’s, as probably marrying the elder sister. Ralph Tooke succeeded his father Walter, and, dying without issue, was buried at Essingdon, and divided the estate between his brothers George and John. George sold his part to Richard Woollaston, esq. who was gun-founder to Oliver Cromwell. He left a jon John; and John, a son Richard, who conveyed it to “William Fellows, esq. whose eldest son Coulston Fellows, csq. succeeded to it. This- Ralph Tooke died December 22, 1635, aged seventy-seven years. He married Jane, the daughter of Edward Byth, of Smallfield in the county of Surrey, esq. She died Dec. 8, 1641. George Tooke, our author, who had the other moiety, called Wormleybury, died possessed of it in 1675, aged eighty years. His device was a hedge-hog; and under it his family motto,” Militia mea multiplex.“On which in his old age he wrote,” A key to the Hedge-hog combatant and my motto."

, S. T. P. was born in East-Kent, the son of Mr. Thomas Tooke, of the family of the Tookes of Beere. His father and grandfather were hearty sufferers in the royal cause. Their enterprising zeal was severely punished by the prevailing party, and acknowledged at the restoration by such rewards as royal hands, tied down by promise and compositions, could afford. His education was first at St. Paul’s school, chiefly under the care of Mr. Fox, to whom he owed many obligations, and to whose family he was a constant and generous benefactor. Thence he went to Corpus-Christi-college, Cambridge; and while bachelor of arts was chosen fellow; the learned Dr. Spencer, and the body, having a just regard to his talents and improvement. It was about this period that he engaged in the school of Bishop-Stortford, whose reputation was then in ruins, and had nothing to recommend it but the name of Leigh, not yet out of mind. At the request of Dr. Tooke, a new school was built by contributions of the gentlemen of Hertfordshire and Essex, and of the young gentlemen who had been educated at Bishop- Stortford. The school was thus raised to a great degree of fame, as the numbers of gentlemen, sent by Dr. Tooke to his own and other colleges, attested; and considerably increased the trade of the town, by such a beneficial concourse. He revived the annual school-feast here, and charged his estate with a yearly present to the preacher on that occasion. Dr. Tooke gave also to this school-library a tegacy of ten pounds for books, which are added to it and procured a great number of valuable authors from gentlemen that were his scholars. By his interest and care the gallery in the church, for the use of the school, was erected. He gave by will to this church a chalice of 20l. value; and died May 4, 1721, after more than thirty years intent and successful labours here. He was buried in the parishchurch of Lamborn in Essex, of which he had been rector from 1707.

, a man of very considerable literary abilities, but more famous as a political adventurer, was the son of John Home, a poulterer in Newport-market, and was born in Newport street in June 1736. He was educated both at Westminster and Eton schools, and after remaining at these seminaries about five or six years, was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1755, which he quitted in 1758, after taking his bachelor’s degree. Little seems to be known of his conduct or proficiency in his studies, but his future works showed that the latter could not have been neglected; nor have we much accurate information as to his proceedings when he left college, dates, evidently wrong, being assigned by all who have professed to give any account of him. We can only, therefore, say generally that he was for some time an usher at Mr. Jennings’s school at Blackheath, that he took deacon’s orders at the request of his father, who had probably given him a learned education with that view, and that he first served a curacy in Kent. His own choice is said to have been the law, for which he was well qualified, but he was unable to resist the importunities of his family, and therefore entered into the church, for which he undoubtedly was the most unfit man that ever disgraced the profession. This was a radical error in his outset, and eventually the cause of much of the obloquy which attended his life. It is, as a very acute writer has observed, very necessary to keep steadily in view, in order to form a correct and candid estimate of his character, “that he was from beginning to end, a man labouring under great, perpetual, irremoveable civil disabilities.” It was a real misfortune to a man of an enterprizing disposition, and one regardless, as Home Tooke was, of the means by which such a disposition may be indulged, to become a member of an order, in which propriety and duty enjoin a sparing and partial interference with the concerns of the world, and in which, if propriety and duty are found too feeble restraints, the law interposes with a strong arm, to curb profane activity and unprofessional exertions.

The die, however, was cast. In 1760, Mr. Tooke received priest’s orders, and was inducted to the chapelry of New Brentford, which his father had purchased for him. In what manner he performed the duties of this office, we have no certain information. What he thought of his profession is less doubtful. In one of his letters to Wilkes, whom he hoped to gratify by such a declaration, he says, “It is true I have suffered the infectious hand of a bishop to be waved over me whose imposition, like the sop given to Judas, is only a signal for the devil to enter but I hope I have escaped the contagion and, if I have not, if you should at any time discover the black spot under the tongue, pray kindly assist me to conquer the prejudices of education and profession.” This letter was written while he was travelling in France as tutor to the son of Mr. Elwes of Berkshire; and on this expedition he threw off every external appearance of the clerical character, which, however, he resumed on his return, and for some time continued to officiate at Brentford.

Soon after his return he found his friend Wilkes a candidate to represent the county of Middlesex, and not only supported his pretensions, but pledged his credit for his expences, and in the hearing of his parishioners, declared that, “in a cause so just and so holy, he would dye his black coat red.” He also laid hold of other opportunities to acquire a name with the party in opposition to the court. Among these schemes he supported the widow Bigby in an appeal of blood. Two brothers, named Kennedy, had murdered Bigby, a watchman, and were capitally convicted, but afterwards pardoned. It was suggested that this lenity was procured through the interest of their sister, a well-known courtezan, with a nobleman high in office. If such was the fact, and it has often been asserted, and never sufficiently contradicted, the royal mercy could not have been worse directed, nor through a more disgraceful course. But in this affair, Mr. Home was disappointed, for the woman accepted a compensation in money, and desisted from her suit; and he, suspecting that the late Mr. Murphy had negociated the arrangement, hated him till the time of his death. His activity was also shown in some affairs arising out of election slaughters, particularly in the instances of Allen, Balfe, and M'Quirk. He was chosen a freeman of Bedford, to vex and oppose the duke of Bedford; he is said to have prompted the sheriffs in their proceedings respecting the execution of two rioters, Doyle and Valine: and he suggested the verbal reply which alderman Beckford made to the king, recorded ou the monument of that magistrate in Guildhall. He became also the founder of the “Society for supporting the Bill of Rights,” but this eventually terminated in his disgrace, as much at least as he could be disgraced by a separation from Wilkes. In 1770 and 1771, these two patriots amused the public by an epistolary controversy, illustrative of both their characters; but while these letters amused, they also perplexed the public, for it became a matter of great difficulty to ascertain which was the best, or rather which was the worst character of the two. The origin of the quarrel, however, was not discreditable to Mr. Home. His first objection was that the “Society for supporting the Bill of Rights” was, become merely an instrument for paying Wilkes’s private debts, and this objection might have been fatal to a society that had the public good only in view; but Wilkes finally triumphed for the society of the Bill of Rights, like others since, never took private character into consideration,

In 1771, he went to Cambridge for the purpose of taking the degree of M. A. which was granted to him, although opposed by some of the members, and particularly by the afterwards celebrated Dr. Paley. He now returned, and mixed, as much as he could, in the temporary politicks of the day. It would be as tedious as useless to revive the memory of all his newspaper effusions. The most finished specimen of his composition is probably to be found in two or three letters written in answer to the attacks of Junins: and he had the honour, which in those days was deemed no inconsiderable one, of being the only knight that returned with his lance unbroken from a combat with that unknown but terrible champion. If he wants the exquisite polish and the brilliant invective of his adversary, that dexterous malignity which comes in with such effect to blacken a character by insinuation, after invective has exhausted its powers; and above all, that well-sustained tone of austere dignity which gives to Junins the air and authority of a great personage in disguise; he is superior to him in facility, vivacity, and that appearance of plainness and sincerity which is of such importance in controversial writings. Soon after these controversies he resigned his living at Brentford, and, as far as he could, the clerical character. That he could not do so altogether, evidently soured his temper for the rest of his life, and prompted him to those sallies of profaneness, and that general conduct, which showed his contempt for the profession and every thing that belonged to it. He now studied the law, with an intent to practise; and while thus employed, an incident occurred which was important to his future fortune. This was his rendering a service to a Mr. Tooke of Purley in Surrey, in the case of an inclosure-bill, who, in gratitude, made him his heir; but he did not reap the full benefit of this intention, and it is said that first and last all he received from Mr. Tooke amounted to no more than 8000l. It was on this account, however, that some time afterwards, he assumed the name of Tooke. The particulars of this cause are related with so little attention to facts by most of his biographers, that we have not thought it necessary to attempt reconciling the different accounts of a matter now of comparative insignificance.

In 1775, Mr. Home having published an advertisement, accusing the king’s troops of barbarously murdering the Americans at Lexington, he was prosecuted and tried at Guildhall, where he pleaded his own cause; but even in those factious days, the libel was too gross for success, and being found guilty, he was sentenced to an imprisonment of twelve months in the king’s bench, and a fine of 200/, It was in consequence of this verdict, that he wrote a “Letter to Mr. Dunning,” which contained the germ of his subsequent philological work. In this, says the acute writer, whom we have already quoted, “he comes hot from the court of King’s Bench to discuss the nature of particles, of which, it seems, a shameful ignorance, on the part of the judges, had just been manifested in a verdict against him. His head is never clear from the politics of the day long enough to write five pages together without alluding to them: and he constantly rouses his readers from calm meditation upon the origin of but and to andyhwi, by smart epigrams upon the natural objects of his hostility, the prime minister and the chief justice for the time being.”

When released from imprisonment, he attempted to be called to the bar, but was rejected. His friends are willing to impute his rejection to jealousy, but for this there seems no foundation. His general character, and his clerical orders, of which he could not divest himself, afford a more reasonable excuse for the conduct of the benchers. It may be supposed, however, that this event would exasperate his antipathies. “He could not be a lawyer, and therefore he resisted the law, and reviled those who administered it.” A habit of hatred, if we may so speak, had grown up with Mr. Tooke, and was undoubtedly strengthened by his numerous disappointments, and that mediocrity of rank, to which with all his talents and all his bustle, he was confined in the political world. The same temper rendered him unjust to almost every species of excellence in his contemporaries. “He hated Dr. Johnson, he hated Mr. Burke, he hated lord Mansfield, he hated Mr. Pitt, he hated Mr. Fox, and he spoke of them without any of that respect or forbearance which great talents and high station, and the esteem of the greatest part of the world, generally extort from less resolute or less acrimonious adventurers. The Ishmael of literature and politics, his hand was against every man, and every man’s hand against his.”

In 1780, he published an invective against the war, called “Facts,” in which Dr. Price supplied two chapters on finance; but the war was soon over, and Mr. Tooke became a farmer in Huntingdonshire; but making no figure in this employment, he returned to London at a time when the contests between the administrations of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox promised a wide field for his exertions. This produced “A Letter on Parliamentary Reform,” in which he is the advocate for universal suffrage; and he sided with Mr. Pitt against Mr. Fox, whom he considered as disgraced by the coalition. It may be here mentioned, although out of chronological order, that in 1788 he published “Two Pair of Portraits;” the figures in which were the two Pitts and the two Foxes, of the past and present generation, the preference being given to the Pitts; but praise was not much in Mr. Tooke' s way; and in a few years both Pitt and Fox shared his aversion alike.

In 1786 he published an octavo volume, entitled “Epea Pteroenta, or the Diversions of Purley,” which has given him a considerable rank in the literary world, although opinions were long at variance on the merit of his system, which he afterwards expanded in two volumes, quarto. It seems now generally agreed that this work evinces ingenuity and research; and has served to illustrate some passages hitherto little understood in our ancient poets. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the idea originated with Mr. Tooke: that all language is reducible to nouns and verbs (the point which he has laboured to establish with respect to the English tongue), was perfectly well known to the philosophical grammarians of antiquity: “Aristoteles duas parte.s orationes esse dicit, vocabula et verba,” says Varro, “De Lingua Latina.” This principle Mr. Tooke has successfully applied in the analysis and etymology of a multitude of English words, especially conjunctions and prepositions, by tracing them to their Saxon original. His speculations, however, though undoubtedly curious, have neither opened to us any new views of the human understanding, nor have they at all extended the limits of metaphysical or logical science, as his admirers wished the world to believe; while his work, professing to be a grammatical treatise, was most preposterously used as the vehicle, of political invective; and, as occasion offered, was made subservient to other purposes still more reprehensible. The disquisition upon the word right is ingeniously contrived to confound all moral distinctions, if the common honesty of mankind did not rest upon some surer foundation than the conclusions of an etymologist of his principles.

In 17yO, Mr. Tooke offered himself as a candidate to represent the city of Westminster, in opposition both to Mr. Fox and lord Hood, and on the hustings from day to day displayed that kind of oratory which was likely to gain the affections of a mob. He did not, however, succeed, although he polled near 1700; but it afforded him an opportunity of sending a petition to the House of Commons, filled with coarse invective, which was declared frivolous and vexatious. His next memorable appearance was at the bar of the Old Bailey, where he was tried in 1794 for high treason. The history of the trial is too recent to require a particular detail. It is well known he was acquitted, and that the event to him was no small triumph. There was no sufficient proof of the charge; and as he knew himself to be perfectly safe, he displayed, on his trial, a degree of coolness, presence of mind, wit and subtlety, which astonished and delighted a great portion of his hearers. Even his adversaries have allowed that he was endowed with every species of courage, active and passive,personal and political, although some of them have expressed his courage by the more offensive word, impudence. When it was reported that, upon being committed to the Tower, his spirit had failed, and he had burst into tears, Wilkes expressed great surprize, and said, “I knew he was a knave, but I never thought him a coward.” On his trial indeed he endeavoured as much as possible to keep principles out of view, and to prove that if he did associate with men of factious designs, it was only to laugh at them; and it is certain that after he made his escape on this memorable occasion, he employed his powers of ridicule, which were very strong, against many of that character whom he met with in other houses, or entertained in his own.

In 1796 he appeared again as a candidate for Westminster, in opposition to sir Alan Gardner, but not in conjunction with Mr. Fox, and although not successful, polled 2819 votes, without expence, or any other solicitation than the speeches he delivered from the hustings. At length, however, in 1801 he obtained what appeared to have been his fond aim, a seat in the House of Commons, an antipathy against which assembly, it has been said, was one of his earliest, strongest, and most enduring feelings. The errors of representation had been long a standing topic with him, and rotten boroughs and corruption his never-failing accusations. But, like others, he seemed at last to think that there was no harm in taking advantage of the present system as long as it lasted. The borough of Old Sarum, offered to him by a young and almost insane nobleman, and which had been a bye-word among parliamentary reformers, had the singular honour of returning him to parliament, and he took his seat, apparently, without any scruple as to the number or quality of his constituents; nor did his dislike to the present order of things reach its utmost height, till all the doors of the House had been finally barred against him by an act of the legislature. In the mean time the expectations excited by his election were completely disappointed. He made no figure in parliament that answered either the hopes or wishes of his friends; and he bad not sat long before his incapacity, as being a priest, was called in question, and it was proposed to expel him. The then minister, Mr. Addington, now lord Sidmouth, was of opinion that a milder course would be more proper, and therefore brought in a declaratory act, effectually preventing a repetition of the abuse; and Mr. Tooke was permitted to sit till the dissolution of parliament in 1802, and then to retire without the renown of martyrdom. His last appearance as the busy, meddling politician, was in the case of a Mr. Paull, a man without birth, property, education, or public services, who offered himself as a candidate for Westminster. This man he first supported, and afterwards deserted. The consequences to this unhappy candidate are well known, but as they involve the characters of persons yet living and perhaps reclaimable, we shall pass them over in silence.

Mr. Tooke died at his house at Wimbledon, March 19, 1812, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. He desired that no funeral service should be said over his remains, but that they should be deposited in a vault in his garden. This injunction, however, as his house was to be sold, was dispensed with by his executors, and he was buried in a vault at Baling church. He was never married, but left natural children, to whom he bequeathed his property.

In spite of labour and dissipation his life was protracted to a period which indicated an originally sound and vigorous frame. For the last twenty years, however, he was subject to severe, distressing, and incurable infirmities. These he bore with a patience and firmness which it was impossible not to admire. What remains untouched of his character shall be given nearly in the words of a writer to whom we have already been indebted, and who appears, of all who have written on the subject, to have appreciated his character with most candour and impartiality.

"Mr. Tooke was possessed of considerable learning, as indeed his writings sufficiently show. To other more casual acquirements he united a very extensive acquaintance with the Gothic dialects, of which he has so copiously and so judiciously availed himself in his etymological researches; and it seems probable that the leading ideas of his philosophical work first presented themselves to his mind whilst he was pursuing this comparatively unfrequented track of literature. He was extremely well versed in the law, a science, which both in theory and practice was particularly congenial to his mind, and which he had once studied with professional accuracy in the hope of being called to the bar. We are unable to state with precision what was the amount of his attainments in classical learning, but we apprehend he by no means possessed that accurate acquaintance with the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, which is necessary to constitute a great scholar, in the ordinary acceptation of the term. He was familiar with all our best writers, most so with those of an early date. His knowledge of modern languages was considerable, and he was particularly well read in Italian authors. On the whole, exclusively of philosophy and politics, he would have passed for a very accomplished man.

"One of the taxes which men pay for being eminent is to have their private as well as their public conduct made the subject of criticism: we shall therefore offer no apology for adding a few such remarks as our information enables us to supply upon that of Mr. Tooke. In the essential particulars of truth, honour, and justice, in all that, in a popular sense, forms the morality of a gentleman, he stood, we believe, unimpeached; at least no charge against him for the violation of it was ever substantiated, although he lived for half a century exposed to the public eye, and beset by the vigilant hostility of active and powerful enemies. His great fault, as a private man, was a libertinism, in his habits and discourse, which ill became his character, his profession, and, latterly, his age. It may seem an uncharitable suspicion, but we are really afraid that the tendency of which we complain, was rather increased than checked by the profession to which, however unwillingly, he belonged. He had a sort of spite at all its restraints. Many of them he never could throw off; but he was anxious to show that in licentiousness at least he could be a layman.

"In the ordinary intercourse of life he was kind, friendly, and hospitable. We doubt whether his temper was naturally good; but if it was not, he had a merit the more; for he had so completely subdued it by care and self-controul, as never to betray, under any provocation, the slightest mark of that irritability which often accompanies talent, and which gains so rapidly upon those who know not how to guard against its approaches. Indeed the aspect under which he appeared in private was by no means such as the stern cynicism and ferocious turbulence of his public conduct would have led one to expect; and those, whose opinion of him has been formed exclusively upon his political character and his writings, will have some difficulty in believing that the curate of Brentford was one of the best-bred gentlemen of the age. In this respect he was a sort of phenomenon. He was born in a low station: at no period did he appear to have possessed any remarkable advantages for the study of good breeding; on the contrary, the greater part of his life was spent in constant intercourse with coarse, vulgar, and uneducated men. Yet his natural taste was so

good, and he had profited so judiciously by whatever opportunities he enjoyed, that courts and high stations have seldom produced a better example of polite and elegant behaviour than was exhibited by the associate of Messrs. Hardy and Thelwall. Indeed his manner had almost every excellence that manner can display grace, vivacity, frankness, dignity. Perhaps, indeed, in its outward forms, and in that which is purely conventional, his courtesy wore the air of the ‘ vieille cour,’ and was rather more elaborate than is consistent with the practice of this lounging unceremonious age: but it was never forced or constrained, and it sat not ungracefully upon an old man."

Mr. Tooke’s talents in conversation have been always praised by those who knew him, and never praised too highly. He possessed an inexhaustible fund of anecdotes, which he introduced with great skill, and related with neatness, rapidity, and pleasantry. His principal fault as a companion was “a love of paradox, and a tendency to disputation which led him continually to argue for the mere sake of victory, and in evident contradiction to his own real opinion a practice quite insufferable when adopted, as it often is, by persons of ordinary understanding, and who only flatter themselves that they possess the acuteness with which Mr. Tooke was really endowed, and to which we must own, that even his liveliness, native ingenuity, and felicity of illustration, could never wholly reconcile us.” He possessed a rich vein of humour, sometimes coarse, but always striking, comic, and original. His speeches afforded some good specimens of it to the public, and he indulged in it still more freely in private. Perhaps, indeed, it may be fairly objected to him, that his conversation was hardly ever quite serious; and that, what with paradox, and what with irony, it was not easy to get at his true meaning. The truth seems to be, that he comforted himself for not having a larger share in the business of the world, by laughing at every body and every thing it contained^ His sceptical disposition probably kept his mind unsettled upon many important facts as to which the generality of men entertain more fixed opinions, and he was therefore ready to espouse either side with equal zeal and equal insincerity, just as accident or caprice inclined him at the moment. There were other subjects on which he was accustomed to speak more positively, but on which we are apt to suspect that his esoteric doctrines were very different from those which he taught to aldermen, shoemakers, and other patriotic persons. On such occasions he could not have been in earnest. He must have seen through the designs of those with whom he was acting he must have loathed their vulgarity he must have despised their folly. We are aware how severe a censure upon his honesty this opinion implies, but we really think that a fair estimate of the strength of his understanding can lead to no other conclusion." These remarks applied very forcibly to many whom he admitted to his table, when company became necessary to him, sciolists and pretenders in philosophy and politics, some of whom he delighted to ridicule even to their faces, and this with an art, a force, and a pleasantry, which were absolutely irresistible. On such occasions, had they been present, Mr. Tooke would have suspended the prejudices, and caught the admiration of his most inveterate enemies.

, a learned antiquary, was a native of Malton, in Yorkshire and, in an humble situation under the late Philip Carteret Webb, esq. solicitor to the treasury, acquired such a knowledge of ancient hands and muniments as raised him to a place in the state-paper office, with his friends and patrons, the late sir Joseph AyiofFe, bart. who died in his arms, and Thomas Astle, esq. He was also one of the gentlemen engaged in preparing for the press the six volumes of the Rolls of Parliament; an office in which he succeeded his friend Richard Blyke, esq, with whom, in 1775, he was joint editor of Gianville’s “Reports of cases of controverted Elections determined and adjudged in parliament, 21 and 22 Jac. I.” 8vo. To this is prefixed an historical account of the ancient rights of determining cases upon controverted elections. He was also editor, if not translator, of an English edition of sir John Fortescue’s “De laudibus Legum Anglise,” 1775, 8vo. On Mr. Webb’s death he entered himself at Gray’s Inn; applied to the study of the law; was called to the bar, and appointed a commissioner of bankrupts. He succeeded Dr. Lort as keeper of the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth; was secretary to the commissioners for selecting and publishing the public records of this kingdom; and registrar to the charity for relief of poor widows and children of clergymen, and treasurer to the orphan charity-school. He married, in 1794, one of the coheiresses of the late Mr. Swindon, an eminent and opulent schoolmaster at Greenwich, in Kent. Mr. Topham’s publications in the Archaeologia are, vol. VI. p. 116, on Esnecca, or the King’s Yacht, in a charter of Henry II.; ibid. 179, on the picture in Windsor castle representing the embarkation of Henry VIII. at Dover; VII. 337, on a subsidy roll of 51 Edward III. The wardrobe account of 21 Edward I. was published by the society in 1787, under his direction; and he was one of the committee for publishing other wardrobe accounts, in “A collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the government of the Royal Household, in divers reigns, from Edward III. to William and Mary,” 1790, 4to. Mr. Topham was elected F. S. A. in 1767, and treasurer (on the death of Mr. Bartlet) in

1787, and was also elected F. R. S. in 1779. He died at Cheltenham, Aug. 19, 1803.

, a strenuous champion for the Calvinism of the church of England, was born at Farnham, in Surrey, Nov. 4, 1740. His father was Richard Toplady, esq. a captain in the army, and his mother, Catharine Bate, sister to the late Rev. Julius Bate, and to the rev. Mr. Bate, rector of St. Paul’s, Deptford,by whom they were married, at the said church, on Dec. 31, 1737. They had issue one son, Francis, who died in his infancy, and afterwards the subject of our memoir. His godfathers were Augustus Middleton, and Adolphus Montague, esqrs.; in respect to whom, he bore the Christian name of the one, and the surname of the other. His father died at the siege of Carthagena, soon after his birth. He received the rudidiments of his education at Westminster school; but, it becoming necessary for his mother to take a journey to Ireland to pursue some claims to an estate in that kingdom, he accompanied her thither, and was entered at Trinity college, in Dublin, at which seminary he took his degree of bachelor of arts. He received orders on Trinity Sunday, the 6tli of June, 1762; and, after some time, was inducted into the living of Broad Hembury in Devonshire. Here he pursued his labours with increasing assiduity, and composed most of his writings. He had for some years occasionally visited and spent some time in London; but, in 1775, finding his constitution much impaired by the moist atmosphere of Devonshire, with which it never agreed, he, removed to London entirely, after some unsuccessful attempts to exchange his living for another, of equivalent value, in some of the middle counties. In London, by the solicitation of his numerous friends, he engaged the chapel, belonging to the French reformed, near Leicester-fields; where he preached twice in the week, while his health permitted, and afterwards occasionally, as much as, or rather more than, he was well able to do. He died Aug. 11, 1778. His body was buried, agreeable to his own desire, communicated to some friends, in Tottenham-court chapel. It is supposed that his intense application to study, which he frequently pursued through the night to three and four o'clock in the morning, was the means of inducing his disorder, and of accelerating his end. From this severe pursuit, so long as his body was able to bear it, he could not be dissuaded.

He had no preferment in the church besides the vicarage of Broad Hembury, which, as his mind could never? brook the idea of living in animosity with his parish upon the account of tithes, did not amount, coinmunibus annis, to eighty pounds a year. For this living he exchanged another, not far distant from it, which had been procured for him by his friends in a mode which (though usual enough) his conscience could not approve; and therefore, when he became acquainted with the manner of their diligence, which was not for some time afterwards, he could not rest satisfied till he had parted with it.

His publications were, 1. “The Church of England vindicated from the charge of Arminianism; and the case of Arminian Subscription particularly considered; in a Letter to the rev. Dr. Nowell,” 1769. 2. “The Doctrine of absolute Predestination stated and asserted; with a preliminary discourse on the Divine Attributes: translated in great measure, from the Latin of Jerom Zanchius; with some account of his Life prefixed,” 1769. 3. “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, relative to his pretended abridgment of Zanchius on Predestination,” 1770, 2d edit. 1771. 4. “A Caveat against unsound Doctrines: a Sermon preached at Blackfryars, April 29, 1770.” 5. “Jesus seen of Angels; and God’s mindfulness of man: three Sermons, preached at Broad Hembury, Devon, Dec. 25, 1770.” 6. “Free Thoughts on the projected Application to Parliament for the Abolition of Ecclesiastical Subscriptions,” 1771. 7. “More work for Mr. John Wesley: or a vindication of the Decrees and Providence of God from the defamations of a late printed paper, entitled ' The Consequence proved/ 1772.” 8. “Clerical Subscription no grievance: a Sermon, preached at the annual Visitation of the archdeaconry of Exeter, May 12, 1772.” 9. “Historical Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England,” 1774, 2 vols. 8vo. 10. “Free-will and merit fairly examined; or men not their own Saviours: a Sermon preached at Blackfryars, May 25, 1774.” 11. “Good News from Heaven or, the Gospel a joyful sound a Sermon, preached at the Lock-chapel, June 19, 1774.” 12. “The scheme of Christian and Philosophical necessity asserted, in answer to Mr. John Wesley’s tract on that subject,” 1775. 13. “Joy in Heaven, and the Creed of Devils: two Sermons, preached in London,” 1775. 14. “Moral and Political Moderation recommended” a Sermon, preached on the general fast, Dec. 13, 1776. 15. “Collection of hymns for public and private worship,” 1776. 16. “His dying avowal, dated Knightsbridge,” July 22, 177S. Since his death, a complete edition of his Works has been printed in 6 vols. 8vo, besides a volume of posthumous pieces, concerning the authenticity of which some doubts had been entertained, but these were removed by a letter from his executor, Mr. Hussey of Kensington, to whom he gave permission to publish them. How far this was done with judgment has been doubted. It is certain that some of Mr. Toplady’s posthumous works have placed his character in a different point of view from that in which his followers and admirers were wont to contemplate it.

The chief object of his writings, as well as of his sermons, was the defence of Calvinism, and the proof that Calvinism was to be found in the articles, &c. of the church of England. His creed, says one of his reviewers, (we suspect Mr. Badcock) was Calvinism in the extreme; and when he reasoned on some of its distinguishing principles, particularly predestination, he discovered no mean talent for disputation. He understood all the niceties of that article; and if his arguments could not convince, his subtleties would confound an Arminian. He would take his adversary on his own ground, and make his own concessions contribute to his defeat. Of this we have a remarkable example, related by himself, in a letter to Mrs. Macauley, in which he tells her of a debate he once had with Mr. Burgh, author of the “Political Disquisitions.” “I should have had,” says he, “a sharp onset if he had been in perfect health. Even as it was, he could not forbear feeling mv pulse on the article of free will. In the course of our debate, I drove him into this dreadful refuge, viz. 6 that God doth all he possibly can (these were Mr. Burgh’s own words) to hinder moral and natural evil: but he cannot prevail, men will not permit: God to have his wish.'” On Mr. Toplady’s asking him, if this would not render the Deity an unhappy being? he replied, “No, for he knows that he must be disappointed and defeated, and that there’s no help for it: and therefore he submits to the necessity, and does not make himself unhappy about it.”

As Mr. Toplady had thus laboured in all his works 'for the revival of Calvinism, he passed with the generality, and particularly with the public critics, for an enthusiast, with all its supposed accompaniments of austerity, bigotry, and separation from the enjoyments of life and from all society but that of his immediate followers. When therefore in his posthumous works it was discovered that he was much more a man of the world than ever had “been suspected, the opinion of many of his admirers was in some measure altered. It appeared indeed that he mixed very freely in all the habits of social intercourse with persons of all persuasions and denominations; and we have seen a letter of his in print, in which he not only enters on an elaborate defence of card-playing, but speaks even with gentleness on the subject of theatrical and other public amusements. His admirers thought all this might be candid, or liberal, but they could not conceive it to be consistent with the spirit and tendency of his works, nor indeed discoverable in them. Of his defences of Calvinism, his ' Historical Proof” is by far the most able, and although the same arguments or proofs have been more recently repeated in a memorable controversy, excited by Mr. Overton’s publications, they have not been placed either in a more fair or more clear light than by Mr. Toplady. As a controversialist, in his disputes with Wesley and others, he has been blamed for a degree of acrimony unworthy of his cause; but he possessed a warm and active imagination, and a degree of zeal which was not always under the guidance of judgment. Against Wesley he may be said to have had a confirmed antipathy, and employed ridicule as well as argument in opposing his opinions and conduct. The last act of his life was to publish what he called his “Dying Avowal,” in which he contradicted a report circulated by Wesley or his followers, respecting his having changed his sentiments. In this short “Avowal,' 7 he informs us that his Arminian prejudices received their first shock from reading Dr. Manton’s sermons on the xviiih chapter of St. John’s Gospel. Besides the works abovementioned, Mr. Toplady was the editor, for some year?, of” The Gospel Magazine,“began in 1774; and in it, under the article,” Review of Books, 1 * will be found some of his bitterest philippics against Wesley. Upon the whole, however, he must be considered as one of the ablest of modern writers in defence of Calvinism, and brought a larger share of metaphysical acuteness into the controversy than any man of his time.

, son of the celebrated French minister, Colbert, was born Sept. 19, 1665. Being sent early in life to several foreign courts, he was deservedly appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in 1686, director-general of the posts in 1699, and counsellor to the regency during the minority of Louis XV.; all which offices he filled with great distinction. His embassies to Portugal, to Denmark, and to England, put him upon a level with the most able negociators. He died at Paris the 2d of September, 1746, at the age of eightyone, an honorary member of the academy of sciences. He had married a daughter of the minister of state Arnauld de Pomponne, by whom he had several children. Ten years after his death, in 1756, were published his “Memoirs of the Negotiations from the treaty of Ryswic to the peace of Utrecht,” 3 vols. 12mo, divided into four parts. The first is assigned to the negociations for the Spanish succession; the second to the negociations with Holland; the third to those carried on with England; and the fourth to the affairs concerning the treaty of Utrecht. These memoirs, says the author of the Age of Louis XIV. consist of particulars interesting to those who are desirous of gaining a thorough knowledge of this business. They are written with greater purity than any of the memoirs of his predecessors: they are strongly marked with the taste that prevailed in the court of Louis XIV. But their greatest value arises from the sincerity of the author; whose pen is always guided by truth and moderation. Torcy has been justly characterised as profoundly wise in all great affairs, fertile in resources in times of difficulty, always master of himself amid the allurements of good fortune, and under the pressures of bad. Though of a serious disposition, yet in company he could be agreeably gay, especially whenever he chose to give way to a vein of delicate pleasantry which was peculiar to him. His temper, always even, was neither ruffled nor clouded by the most arduous circumstances. To this rare quality he added that of a good husband, a tender father, and a humane and gentle master.

, an Italian mathematician, was born at Verona, Nov. 4, 1721, and was educated at Padua, principally in jurisprudence, in which faculty he took his doctor’s degree, but he did not confine himself to that science. The knowledge which he acquired was so general, that upon whatever subject the conversation happened to turn, he delivered his sentiments upon it as if it had formed the only object of his study. On his return from the university, he entered on the possession of a considerable fortune, and determined to devote himself entirely to literary pursuits. The Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Italian languages occupied much of his time, his object being to understand accurately the two first, and to be able to write and speak the two last with -propriety and elegance. He also learned French, Spanish, and English, the last particularly, for he was eager to peruse the best English writers, and was enabled to enter into their spirit. Ethics, metaphysics, divinity, and history, also shared much of his attention, and he displayed considerable taste in the fine arts, music, painting, and architecture. Nor did he neglect the study of antiquities, but made himself familiarly acquainted with coins, gems, medals, engravings, &c. Scarce any monumental inscriptions were engraved at Verona which he had not either composed or corrected. With the antiquities of his own country he was so intimately acquainted, that every person of eminence, who visited Verona, took care to have him in their company when they examined the curiosities of the city.

But these pursuits he considered merely as amusements; mathematics and the belles lettres were his serious studies. These studies are in general thought incompatible; but Torelli was one of the few who could combine the gravity of the mathematician with the amenity of the muses and graces. Of his progress in mathematics we have a sufficient proof in his edition of the collected works of Archimedes, printed at Oxford in 1792, folio, Greek and Latin. The preparation of this work had been the labour of most part of his life. Having been completely ready for publication, and even the diagrams cut which were to accompany the demonstration, the manuscript was disposed of after his death to the curators of the Clarendon press, by whose order it was printed under the immediate care of Dr. Robertson, the present very learned professor of astronomy. It seems to be the general opinion that there have been few persons in any country, or in any period of time, who were better qualified, than Torelli, for preparing a correct edition of Archimedes. As a Greek scholar he was capable of correcting the mistakes, supplying the defects, and illustrating the obscure passages that occurred in treatises originally written in the Greek tongue; his knowledge of Latin, and a facility, acquired by habit, of writing in this language, rendered him a fit person to translate the Greek into pure and correct Latin, and his comprehensive acquaintance with mathematics and philosophy qualified him for conducting the whole with judgment and accuracy. Torelli wrote the Italian language with the classic elegance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as appears by his different works in that language, both in prose and verse. He translated the whole of jtsop’s fables into Latin, and Theocritus, the epithalamium of Catullus, and the comedy of Plautus, called “Pseudolus,” into Italian verse. The first two books of the Æneid were also translated by him with great exactness, and much in the style of the original. Among his other Italian tanslations was Gray’s Elegy.

His life, like his studies, was drawn after the model of the ancient sages. Frugal, temperate, modest, he exhibited a striking contrast to the luxurious manners of his age. In religion he adhered strictly, though not superstitiously, to the opinions of his ancestors. He was firm in his resolutions, but not foolishly obstinate: and so strict an observer of equity, that his probity would have remained inviolate, even though there had been no law to bind him to justice. He never married, that he might have leisure to devote himself, with less interruption, to his favourite studies. Every one readily found admission to him, and no man left him without being both pleased and instructed; such was the sweetness of his temper, and the readiness with which he communicated information. He adhered with great constancy to his friendships. This was particularly exemplified in the case of Clemens Sibiliati, whose life of him is prefixed to the Oxford edition of his Archimedes; with him he kept up the closest connection from a school boy to the day of his death. He was peculiarly attached likewise to many men of distinction, both in Italy and Britain, the late earl Stanhope, earl Mansfield, John Strange, esq. &c. Torelli died August 18, 1781, in the sixtieth year of his age.

, a learned Danish historian and antiquary, was born in Iceland, and partly educated there, but completed his studies in Denmark. Here he became so well known for his acquaintance with history, that when Frederick III. king of Denmark, himself a very learned prince, wanted some able scholar to translate certain Icelandic Mss. which were in his library, Torfa-us was recommended to him, and executed his task so much to the king’s satisfaction, that he retained him for several years in his court, and employed him on other affairs that had no connexion with his studies, and always admired him as a man of talent and probity. As a reward he gave him a valuable appointment in the customs, but Torfseus found it not very agreeable to one of his disposition, and was about soliciting an exchange when the king died. His successor and son, Christian V. appointed him his historiographer for Norway, with a salary of 600 German crowns. This enabled Torfaeus to reside either at Copenhagen, or at an estate he had in Stongeland, pursuing his researches into history and antiquities. He died in 1719, or 1720, nearly eighty years old. As an historian, he occupies a very high rank among his countrymen. His principal works, or those best known, although all are scarce, are, 1. “Historia rerum Norvegicarum,” Hafniae (Copenhagen) 1711, 4 vols. in 2, fol. 2. “Orcades, seu rerum Orcadensium historiae libri tres,” ibid. 1697, 1715, fol. 3 “Series Dynastarum et Regum Daniae, a Skioldo Odini filio, ad Gormum Grandaevum,” ibid. 1702, 4to. 4. “Historia VinJandiae antiquae,” 1705, 8vo. 5. “Groenlandia antiqua, seu veteris Groenlandiae descriptio,” 1706, 8vo.

, the first of a family of eminent printers and booksellers, called in French Detournes, was born at Lyons in 1504, and learned printing first in the house of Sebastian Gryphius. He appears to have established another house about 1540, and printed many books in the name and on account of Gryphius; but from 1544 we find his own name to a number of very correct editions. Among others may be mentioned, an edition of “Petrarch,” in Italian, 1545, 16mo, with a letter from him to Maurice Sceva, of Lyons, in which he gives a curious account of the discovery of Laura’s tomb, in 1533, in the chapel of the Cordeliers’ church at Avignon a “Dante,” 1547, 16mo “Les Marguerites des Marguerites de la reine de Navarre,” 1547, 8vo; “Vitruviu$,” with Philander' s commentary and woodcuts finely executed, 1552, 8vo and “Froissart’s Chronicles,” 1559—61, 4 vols. fol. Most of his editions have Latin prefaces or dedications from his pen. His talents procured him the honour of being appointed king’s printer at Lyons, where he died of the plague in 1564. His device was two vipers forming a circle, the female devouring the head of the male, while she herself is devoured by her young, with the inscription “Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne faceris.” This device is still to be seen on the front of a house at Lyons, in the rue Raisin, where his printing-office stood. He was succeeded by his son, John, who was also king’s printer, and carried on the business until 1585. His editions did not yield in elegance or correctness to those of his father, but being obliged at the date above-mentioned to quit his country, upon account of his religion, for he was a protestant, he settled at Geneva, where he had every encouragement, and in 1604 became a member of the council of two hundred. Like the Geneva printers, however, he deteriorated what he printed here by employing bad paper. He died in 1615. His descendants continued the printing and bookselling business at Geneva, and had established a very extensive trade, when in 1726, John James, and James Detournes purchased the stock of Anisson and Posnel, famous booksellers of Lyons, and obtained permission, notwithstanding their religion, to settle there; and as they also continued their house at Geneva, they greatly extended their trade, particularly to Spain and Italy. In 1740 the learned John Christian Wolff dedicated to them his “Monumenta Typographica,” as to the oldest printing and bookselling family in Europe. Their trade, which consisted chiefly in theological works, having begun to fall off when the Jesuits were suppressed, their sons, who had a plentiful fortune, sold off the whole of their stock in 1730, and retired from a business which had been carried on in their family with great reputation for nearly two hundred and forty years.

, a celebrated Dominican, better known by the name of Turrecremata, was born in 1388, of an illustrious family at Valladolid. He attended the council of Constance in 1417, was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1429, held some important offices in his order, and became master of the sacred palace. Pope EugeniusIV. sent him to the council of Basil, where he strenuously supported the court of Rome. He was created cardinal in 1439, did oreat services to his order, and died at Rome, September 26, 14-68, aged eighty. His works are, “Commentaries on Gratian’s Decretal,” Venice, 157S, 5 torn. a treatise “On the Church and the Papal Authority,” Venice, 1562, fol. “Expositio super toto Psalterio,” Rome, 1470, 4to, reprinted in 1472, and at Mentz in 1474 “Medltatione*,” Rome, 1467, often reprinted in the same century, and all now of great rarity. He wrote also various others in Latin, in which, says L'Avocat, he servilely defends the Ultramontane opinions, like a slave to the court of Rome, rather than like an impartial divine, and a bishop. He was unquestionably an excessive bigot, and of a most persecuting spirit. Father Touron has written his life.

, a learned antiquary, was born in 1657, of a noble family at Ciudad in the Frioul. His connexions with Octavio Ferrari, one of the most learned antiquaries of Italy, increased his natural taste for that study. Haying settled at Rome, he gained the esteem and friendship of the cardinals Imperial! and Noris, pope Innocent XII. and Clement XI. which latter gav<- him the bishopric of Adria, in 1702, where he died in 1717. His works are, “Monumenta veteris Antii,” 1700, 4to, much valued; “Taurobolium antiquum,” Lugduni, 1704, reprinted in Sallengre’s “Thesaurus Antiquitatum;” “De annis imperil M. Antonii Aurelii Heliogabali,” &c. 1714, 4to; Dissertations on worms in the human body, and on an eclipse of the Sun, with several other learned pieces in the Italian journals.

, a celebrated philosopher, was born at Rome in 1710, of a family originally of Genoa, and studied in the Clementine college at Rome. He became afterwards professor of philosophy and mathematics at the college of Ciudad, in the Frioul. Thence he went to Naples, and taught these sciences in the archiepiscopal seminary. Charles of Bourbon, king of Naples, appointed him in 1754 to be his librarian, superintendant of the royal printing-office, and keeper of the museum, which enabled him to devote his time to his favourite pursuits, one of which was the improvement of microscopes, which he brought to a very great degree of perfection, by inventing the highest magnifiers that had ever been known, four of which he sent in 1765 to our royal society. An account of them may be seen in the Philosophical Transactions, vols, LV. and LVI. This ingenious author was a member of the principal academies of Italy, and a corresponding member of those of Paris, London, and Berlin. He died March 7, 1782, not more rt gretted as a man of genius, than as a man of private worth and amiable manners. His principal works are, “On Natural Philosophy,” Naples, 174-9, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Elementa Physicae,” ibid. 1767, 8 vols. 3. “History and phenomena oi Vesuvius,” 1755, 4to. 4. “Microscopical Observations,” 1766, &c. ]

, in his native language called Vander Beken, a very learned man, who flourished not long after the restoration of letters, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, in 1525, and educated at Louvain, Thence he went to Bologna, in order to study the civil law and antiquities; where he so distinguished himself by his skill in polite literature, and particularly in poetry, that he became known all over Italy, and acquainted with all the learned of Rome, Venice, and Padua. He was not only a man of learning, but of business also; and hence, after returning to his own country, was thought a fit person to be employed in several embassies. He took holy orders, and at length was raised to the bishopric of Antwerp. Hence he was translated to the metropolitical church of Mechlin, where he died in 15;<5, at seventy years of age. He* founded a college of Jesuits at Louvain, the place of his education, to which he left his library, coins, &c. Besides an octavo volume of “Latin poems,” printed by Plantin, at Antwerp, in 1594, he wrote “Commentaries upon Suetonius and Horace;” the former printed in 1592, the latter in 1608, 4to. Scaliger, Lipsius, Scioppius, and indeed all the learned, have spoken well of his “Commentaries.” Fabricius, speaking of explications and emendations of Horace, says, that he and Lambinus were men of great learning and critical talents, and had carefully consulted the best manuscripts, but it is thought that Torrentius had intrusted the collation to some person who had not his own accuracy

an illustrious mathematician and philosopher of Italy, was born at Faenza, in 1608, and was trained in Greek and Latin literature by an uncle who was a monk, Natural inclination led him to cultivate mathematical knowledge, which he pursued some time without a master; but, at about twenty years of age, he went to Rome, where he continued the pursuit of it under father Benedict Castelli. Castelli had been a scholar of the great Galilei, and had been called by pope Urban VIII. to be a professor of mathematics at Rome. Torricelli made so extraordinary a progress under this master, that, having read Galilei’s “Dialogues,” he composed a “Treatise concerning Motion” upon his principles. Castelli, astonished at the performance, carried it and read it to Galilei, who heard it with much pleasure, and conceived a high esteem and friendship for the author. Upon this Castelli proposed to Galilei, that Torricelli should come and live with him; recommending him as the most proper person he could have, since he was the most capable of comprehending those sublime speculations which his own great age, infirmities, and, above all, want of sight, prevented him from giving to the world. Galilei accepted the proposal, and Torricelli the employment, as things of all others the most advantageous to each. Galilei was at Florence, whither Torricelli arrived in 1641, and began to take down what Galilei dictated, to regulate his papers, and to act in every respect according to his directions. But he did not enjoy the advantages of this situation long, for at the end of three months Galilei died. Torricelli was then about returning to Rome. But the grand duke Ferdinand II. engaged him to continue at Florence, making him his own mathematician for the present, and promising him the chair as soon as it should be vacant. Here he applied himself intensely to the study of mathematics, physics, and astronomy, making many improvements and some discoveries. Among others, he greatly improved the art of making microscopes and telescopes; and it is generally acknowledged that he first found out the method of ascertaining the weight of the atmosphere by a proportionate column of quicksilver, the barometer being called from him the Torricellian tube, and Torricellian experiment. In short, great things were expected from him, and great things would probably have been farther performed by him if he had lived; but he died, after a few days illness, in 1647, when he was but just entered the fortieth year of his age.

Torricelli published at Florence, in 1644, a volume of ingenious pieces, entitled “Opera Geometrica,” in 4t There was also published at the same place, in 1715, “Le zioni Accademiche,” consisting of 96 pages in 4to. These are discourses that had been pronounced by him upon different occasions. The first of them was to the academy of La Crusca, by way of thanks for admitting him into their body. The rest are upon subjects of mathematics and physics. Prefixed to the whole is a long life of Torricelli, by Thomas Buonaventuri, a Florentine gentleman.

, an eminent Florentine sculptor, was born about 1472, and was the contemporary of Michael Angelo, in competition with whom he executed some works in the town-hall of Florence. He was an artist of very superior merit, but a proud, inconsiderate, and ungovernable character. It was in one of his passionate fits that he struck Michael Angelo with such force as to flatten his nose. Benvenuto Cellini, in his own life, has recorded this affair, as related to him by Torrigiano himself: “His conversation one day happening to turn upon Michael Angelo Buonarroti, on seeing a drawing of mine made from the celebrated cartoon of the battle of Pisa: ‘ This Buonarroti and I (said Torrigiano), when we were young men, went to study in the church of the Carmelites, in the chapel of Masaccio; and it was customary with Buonarroti to rally those who were learning to draw there. One day, amongst others, a sarcasm of his having stung me to the quick, I was extremely irritated, and, doubling my fist, gave him such a violent blow upon his nose, that I felt the bone and cartilage yield as if they had been made of paste, and the mark I then gave him he will carry to his grave’.”

Cellini’s account of Torrigiano is, that “he was a hand*­some man; but of consummate assurance, having rather the air of a bravo than a sculptor: above all, his strange gestures and sonorous voice, with a manner of knitting his brows, enough to frighten every man who saw him, gave him a most tremendous appearance, and he was continually talking of his great feats among those bears of Englishmen whose country he had but recently left.” At what time he came into England is not known, but in 1519, according to Stow, he executed the superb tomb of Henry VII. in Westminster-abbey, for which he received 1000l. for the whole stuff and workmanship. It is also said by Vasari that he executed variety of works in marble, brass, and wood, in concurrence with other masters of this country, over all whom he was allowed the superiority. Vertue ascribes to him the tomb of Margaret countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII.; and that of Dr. Young master of the Rolls in the chapel at the Rolls in Chancerylane; and lord Orford is inclined to attribute to him ahead of Henry VIII. in plaister in a round at Hampton-court. His lordship adds, that at Strawberry-hill is a model in stone of the head of Henry VII. in the agony of death. It is in the great style of Raphael and Michael Angelo, and worthy of either, though undoubtedly by Torrigiano.

The ungovernable and restless habits of this artist precipitated him into great difficulties, and the circumstances of his death furnish a melancholy instance of the vicissitude of life, and the baneful effects of inquisitorial jurisprudence. Upon leaving England, he visited Spain, and after distinguishing himself by many excellent works, was employed by a Spanish grandee to sculpture in marble a Madonna and Infant Christ, of the size of nature, with high promises to be rewarded in proportion to its merit; and as the grandee was of the first rank, Torrigiano flattered himself with proportionate expectation. After much study and application he completed his work to his own satisfaction, and the grandee saw the performance with delight and reverence, bestowing on him the highest praise. Impatient to possess his treasure, he immediately sent for it, and that his generosity might be displayed to the greatest advantage he loaded two lacqueys with the money to defray the purchase. The bulk was promising; but when the bags were found to contain nothin^but brass maravedi, which amounted only to the small sum of thirty ducats, vexation and disappointment roused Torrigiano’s resentment, who considered this present rather as an insult than as a reward for his merit, and, on a sudden, snatched up his mallet, and without regard to the perfection of his workmanship, or the sacred character of the image, he broke it in pieces, and dismissed the lacqueys, with their load of farthings, to tell the tale. The grandee, with every passion alive to this merited disgrace, and perhaps impressed with superstitious horror for the sacrilegious nature of the act, presented him before the court of inquisition; and impeach* d him for his conduct as an infidel and heretic. Torrigiano urged the right of an author over his own creation reason pleaded on his side, but all in vain he was condemned to lose his life with torture. The holy office, however, lost its victim, for Torrigiano starved himself to death in prison, in 1522.

, otherwise Aretin, from being born at Arezzo, was one of the learned men of the fifteenth century, although our accounts of him are not very satisfactory. He either composed or translated a “Life of St. Atnanasius.” He was admitted into the confidence of Nicholas V. whose chamberlain he was. His conversation and candour have been much praised. He was principally skilled in grammar, as appears by his book “De Potestate Literarum.” Gesner’s “Bibliotheca” gives the titles of many other works; and Magius quotes a “Lexicon” of his. Laurentius Valla must have been one of his admirers, as he dedicates to him his books “De Latina Elegantia.” He died in 1466.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Montbeillard, then belonging to the dukes of Wirtemberg, July 15, 1541. His father, Peter Toussain, who was minister of that place, had formerly been a canon of Metz, but afterwards embraced the reformed religion, and was employed by George duke of Wirtemberg to introduce it at Montbeillard, which he did with great effect until his death in 1573, in his seventy-fourth year. His latter days were embittered by the loss of two of his sons, one of whom was assassinated at Montbeillard, and the other perished in the massacre at Paris in 1572.

Daniel, the subject of this article, after some education in his native place, was sent to Basil in 1555, where he studied for two years, and was admitted to the first academic degree, probably that of bachelor of arts. He then went to Tubingen, where he continued his studies for two more years, under the patronage and at the expence of Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, who thus wished to reward his father’s services to the infant-church of Montbeillard. Here he applied himself to belles lettres and philosophy, and took the degree of master of arts. He had also gone through a course of divinity; for we find that when his father recalled him to his native place, he preached there, both in French and German; but finding himself indifferently acquainted with the former of those languages, he went in 1559 to Paris, where he might acquire a greater facility in speaking and writing, and at the same time carry on his other studies. The following year he left Paris for Orleans, where he taught Hebrew for some time, and being admitted into the ministry, officiated in the church there, which was one of the most numerous and flourishing of the protestant congregations in France. There in 1565 he married the daughter of an advocate of parliament, who had been counsellor to queen Catherine de Medici before the troubles.

While Tossanus was here, he was frequently exposed to the greatest dangers during the war which broke out between the catholics and protestants, Orleans being besieged, and being full of adherents to the duke of Guise and his party. But by various means, although much persecuted, he escaped all, and finally reached Heidelberg, whither he had been invited by the pious Frederick III. elector palatine; and was so well received by that prince and by all descriptions of people, as soon to be able to forget his many dangers and sufferings. The prince afterwards employed him in visiting the reformed churches in his dominions, and in composing some differences of opinion among them, which he is said to have performed with equal ability and zeal. On the death of that prince, however, in 1576, he experienced a reverse, his son Louis being a Lutheran, and unwilling to retain Toussain, who was a Calvinist, in his service. His brother prince Casimir, who was of his father’s persuasion, then invited Toussain to Newstadt, made him superintendant of the churches there, and on the death of Ursinus, professor of divinity. He also officiated in the church of St. Lambert, composed of refugees; and preached to them in French, and by the prince’s desire, joined Zanchius and Ursinus in the publication of various works in support of the reformation. In 1578 he presided at a synod which prince Casimir had assembled for the purpose of establishing conformity in doctrine and discipline, and of assisting the exiles of the palatinate. With this prince Toussain became so great a favourite, that his highness took no steps in ecclesiastical matters without consulting him, and such was the general report of his character, that foreign princes or ambassadors who visited the court at Newstadt, made it a point to pay their respects to Toussain. On the death of the elector Louis IV. in 1583, prince Casimir, his brother, had the charge of his infant son and successor Frederick IV. On this he removed to Heidelberg, in order to take the regency into his own hands, and employed Toussain in promoting the reformed religion. In this, however, he was much obstructed by the violence of the Lutheran party; and the prince, after in vain endeavouring by conferences to allay the fervour of their zeal, was under the necessity of dismissing the most turbulent from their situations in the church or university. This was no more than had been done by the late elector without any ceremony: but the prince regent in the present case took every pains to show that it was a matter of necessity with him, all other means of pacification having failed.

In the mean time Grynaeus, first professor of divinity at Heidelberg, having been removed to Basil in 1586, Toussain was appointed to succeed him, and after entering on the office, complied with the statutes of the university by taking his doctor’s degree. In 1587 his wife died, and about a year and a half after he married the widow of M. Chapelle, who had been chaplain to the prince of Conde. In 1592 he lost his illustrious patron prince Casimir, but as the young elector adhered to the same sentiments in religion, no change took place in ecclesiastical matters. In 1594, Toussain was chosen rector of the university, an office which he filled with great credit. In 1596 when the plague had driven not only the court, but most of the professors and students from Heidelberg, Toussain remained at his post, preaching, and administering what support and consolation he could to the sufferers. Beginning now to feel the infirmities of age, he would have resigned his professorship, but this was not accepted, although he was permitted to relax in every way suitable to his health. He died Jan. 10, 1602, in the sixty-first year of his age, and was buried in the chapel belonging to the university.

His son Paul, also a divine of much learning and reputation in his time, published a life of his father, “Vita et obitus Danielis Tossani,” &c. Heidelberg, 1603, 4to, with various other works, mostly of the controversial kind, and a translation of Luther’s Bible with notes, ibid. 1617, folio. These notes were attacked by the Lutheran divines, and defended by the author in an “Apologia pro suis notis Biblicis, &c.” 1618, 4to. He published also a “Lexicon Concordantiale Biblicum, &c.” of which there have been several editions, the last at Francfort in 1687, folio. He died in 1629. His father’s works, in German and Latin, amountto many volumes 4to and folio, principally commentaries on various parts of the Bible, and defences of particular doctrines of the reformed church. A list may be seen in any of our authorities.

, a very eminent critic, was descended from a family formerly settled in Dorsetshire. His grandfather, Onesiphorus Toup, had been a man of good property, and patron, as well as incumbent, of Bridport in that county; but he appears to have been embarrassed in his circumstances before his death, as he parted with the advowson, and left a numerous family very slenderly provided for. His second son, Jonathan, was bred to the church, and was curate and lecturer of St. Ives, Cornwall. He married Prudence, daughter of John Busvargus, esq. of Busvargus in Cornwall, and by her had issue Jonathan, the subject of this memoir, and one daughter.

Jonathan, our critic, was born at St. Ives, in December 1713. He received the first principles of his education in a grammar-school in that town, and was afterwards placed under the care of Mr. Gurney, master of a private school, in the parish of St. Merryn. He was removed from this school to Exeter college, Oxford, where he took his degree of batchelor of arts; but his master of arts degree was taken at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, in 1756. In 1750, he was appointed to the rectory of St. Martin’s, and, in 1774, was installed prebendary of Exeter. In 1776, he was instituted to the vicarage of St. Merryn’s. He owed these two last pieces of preferment to the patronage of Dr. Keppel, bishop of Exeter.

Mr. Toup had lost his father whilst he was a child: and his mother sometime after marrying Mr. Keigwin, vicar of Landrake in Cornwall, his uncle Busvargus (the last male of that family) took him under his care: considered him as his own child; and bore the whole charge of his education both at school and college. By the death of this excellent man, without issue, in 1751, Mrs. Keigwin succeeded, as heir at law, to his estate and effects. A will was indeed found, supposed to have been signed by old Mr. Busvargus two days before his death: but there were so many suspicious circumstances attending it, that the persons who would have been benefited by it never ventured to prove it. Mrs. Keigwin died in 1773, and left a will, bequeathing the whole of her estates to her son Jonathan, which accounts for the property of which he died possessed, and which could not have accumulated from his preferments or his publications.

In 1760, Mr. Toup published the first work which made him known to the world as a critic. This was the first part of his “Emendationes in Suidam, in quibus plurima loca veterum Grsecorum, Sophoclis et Aristophanis imprimis, cum explicantur turn emenclantur,” 8vo. The second part appeared in 1764. This work procured him the notice of bishop Warburton, who, from the time of its publication, honoured him with his correspondence and patronage. The bishop, in one of his letters, laments his having a see without any preferment on it: “had it been otherwise, he should have been too selfish to invite any of his brethren to share with him in the honour of properly distinguishing such merit as Mr. Toup’s.” All, however, that the bishop could do, he did with the warmth and earnestness of sincere friendship. He repeatedly recommended Mr. Toup to archbishop Seeker, to the trustees for disposing of his options, to lord Shelburne, and to bishop Keppel; and the favours that prelate conferred on Mr. Toup were owing to the solicitations of bishop Warburton.

In 1766 the third part of the “Emendationes in Suidam” was published, and in the following year archbishop Seeker expressed a desire that Mr. Toup would lend his assistance towards a new edition of Polybius, which was then in contemplation; and bishop Warburton, who seconded this wish, advised him to lay aside for a while the notes he was preparing for Warton’s edition of Theocritus, but it does not appear what progress was made in this edition. In 1767, he published his “Epistola critica ad virum celeberrimum Guhelmum episcopum Glocestriensern,” 8vo. In this letter to his friend Warburton, he takes occasion to correct and illustrate many passages in ancient and especially Greek authors, with his usual acuteness and judgment. In 1770, Mr. Warton’s edition of Theocritus was printed at the university press at Oxford. Mr. Toup had been a large contributor towards the corrections and annotations of this edition, in the title page of which is noticed, “Epistola Jo. Toupii de S^racusis, ejusdemque Addenda in Theocritum, necnon collationes quindecim codicum.” But a note of his on idyll. XIV. written, we should have said, in an unguarded moment, had he not repealed and attempted to defend it afterwards, gave such offence (to Dr. Lowth particularly) that the vice-chancellor of Oxford had it cancelled and another substituted in its room. Mr. Warton, according to Mr. Cole, pleaded that Toup had inserted it without his knowledge. On the other hand, our principal authority vindicates Mr. Toup, by saying that Mr. Warton had not stopped this note from going to the press, and that “a respectable friend, in a letter on this subject, declares his persuasion of Mr. Toup’s sincere veneration for religion.” Mr. Nichols very candidly adds, “The matter is before the public, who may form their own judgment on it.*' One thing is very certain, that the note is grossly indecent, and such a one as ne should not have suspected from a man who had” a sincere veneration for religion;“and that it was a deliberate act on the part of Mr. Toup, appeared from his publication in 1772 of his” Curae posteriores, sive Appendicula notarum atque emendationum in Theocritum, Oxonii nuperrime pubhcatum,“4to, in which the cancelled note is repeated, with a reflection (in the preface) on the persons who had found fault with it, as” homunculi eruditione mediocri, ingenio nullo,“and perhaps the following may allude 10 Lowth,” qui in Hebraicis per omnem fere vitam turpiter volntati, in litteris elegantioribus plane hospites sum.“By the same spirit of captious criticism and contempt for his brethren, in which, it must be allowed, Toup too frequently indulged, he gave great offence to Reiske, who in complimenting Warton for his urbanity, calls Toup” ferocious and foul-mouthed," although few critics have deserved this character more than Reiske himself.

Mr. Toup’s next work was the “Appendiculum notarum in Suidam,” 177.5, which may be considered as a fourth volume of his “Emendationes.” He closed his labours in 1773 by his edition of “Longinus,” which places his fame as a critic, on an imperishable basis. Indeed as a writer of profound learning, and singular critical sagacity, Mr. Toup must be acknowledged to rank wirli the most eminent men, in those departments. Dr. Buruey, uhose right to judge cannot easily be disputed, place* him as one of the seven pre-eminent scholars who were the critical luminaries of the eighteenth century. As his life was passed in literary retirement, his personal character was known to few. Hrefailings seem principally confined to his works, in which we are often led to lament an excess of conceit, and a petulant manner of noticing his contemporaries. He censured too freely, and praised too sparingly. In private life he was a kind neighbour, an indulgent master, and an affectionate and tender relation. He was a man, too, of great humanity, which he delighted to extend to the brute creation. We may suppose he also carefully attended to his duties as a parish priest, for, of all things, he expressed the greatest aversion to non-residence, and rejected every proposal to quit his situation upon such terms. Mr. Toup died Jan. 19, 1785, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried under the communion table in his church of St. Martin. He bequeathed his property to a half-sister, a widow, and her daughters, who lived with him. It was one of his whims, in his latter writings to call himself Joannes, instead of Jonathan Toup. Many additional particulars respecting this excellent scholar may be found in our authority.

, -viscount de Turenne, a celebrated French general, was born in September 1611, at Sedan, and was the second son of Henry de la Tour, duke de Bouillon, descended from one of the most illustrious French families. He very early discovered uncommon talents for the military art, and made his first campaign in Holland under Maurice, and Frederic Henry of Nassau, his uncles on the mother’s side. He went socm after into Lorrain with his regiment in 1634, and having contributed to the taking of la Mothe, was appointed major-general, though at that time very young. In 1636 he took Saverne, and the year following, the castles of Hirson and Sorle, and it was on this occasion, that he acted like Scipio, with respect to a very beautiful woman, whom he sent back to her husband. He was made marechal of France, in 1644, and had the misfortune to be defeated at the battle of Mariendal, 1645; but gained that of Nortlingen, three months after, restored the elector of Treves to his dominions, and the following year effected,. that famous junction of the French with the Swedish army commanded by general Wrangel, which compelled the duke of Bavaria to sue for peace. This duke having broken the treaty he made with France, the viscount de Turenue defeated him at Zumarshausen, and drove him entirely from his dominions in 1643. During the civil wars he joined the princes, and was defeated at the battle of Rhetel, in 1650; but his majesty, being soon reconciled to him, gave him the command of his army in 1652. His conduct was afterwards much admired at the battles of Jergeau, Gien, and the Fauxbourg St. Antoine, and in his retreat before the army of the princes at Villeneuve-Sainte-George. In 1654 he forced the Spaniards to raise the siege of Arras, and in 1655, took Condé, Saint Guillain, and several other places; won the famous battle of the Downs, and took Dunkirk and Oudenarde, with almost all the rest of Flanders; which obliged Spain to conclude the peace of the Pyrenees in 1660. These important services deservedly acquired him the office of marechal-general of the royal camps and armies. A fresh war breaking out with Spain, 1667, Turenne commanded under the king’s orders in Flanders, where he took so many places that the Spaniards were forced to propose peace the following year. In the same year he abjured the Protestant religion, probably from ambitious motives. In 1672 he commanded the French troops during the war against Holland, took forty towns in 22 days, drove the elector of Brandenburg quite to Berlin, won the battles of Sintsheim, Lademburg, Ensheim, MuU hausen and Turkeim, and compelled the Imperial army, consisting of 70,000 men, to re-pass the Rhine. This campaign acquired the viscount de Turenne immortal honour. He crossed the Rhine to attack general Montecuculli, and pursued him to Saspach, near the town of Acheren; but having ascended an eminence to observe the enemy’s camp, he was killed by a cannon-ball, July 27, 1675, at the age of sixty-four. All France lamented the loss of this great man, whose generosity and modesty, joined to his military virtues, and the noblest qualities of the hero, had made him admired throughout Europe. The king ordered a solemn service to be performed for him in the cathedral church at Paris, as for the first prince of the blood, and that his remains should be interred in the abbey of St. Denys, the burying-place of the royal personages of France, where the cardinal, his nephew, raised a superb mausoleum to his memory. He married Anne de Nompar de Caumont, daughter of the duke and marechal de la Force, but had no children by her. His life has been written by the abbe Raguenet, and M. de Ramsay. The viscount de Turenne, one of his ancestors, wrote a valuable treatise on “The Military Art.”

, a famous botanist of France, was born of a good family, at Aix in Provence, June 5, 1656. He had a taste for observing and collecting plants from his childhood; and, when he was at school, used frequently to play truant, though he was frequently punished for it, in order to traverse the fields in quest of new discoveries. The same passion continued when he was more grown up, and after he began to study philosophy and divinity; and, though all endeavours were used by his father, who designed him for the church, to cure him of it, his favourite study prevailed, and plants continued his object. In pursuit of them he was ready to traverse the globe, as he did a great part of it afterwards; but, for the present, was obliged to content himself with what the neighbourhood of Aix and the gardens of the curious afforded. Becoming his own master by the death, of his father in 1677, he quitted theology, which indeed he had never relished, and gave himself up entirely to physic, natural philosophy, and botany, at the instigation of an uncle, who was a very ingenious and reputable physician. In 1678, he ran over the mountains of Dauphine and Savoy, and thence enriched his collection with a great number of curious specimens. In 1679 he went to Montpelier, to study medicine and anatomy. In this town was a garden of plants, which had been established by Henry IV. but this did not satisfy his curiosity: he travelled over the country round about Montpelier, and brought back with him plants which were before unknown to the botanists of that place. His curiosity becoming more ardent, he formed a scheme of passing over into Spain, and set out for Barcelona in April 1681. He spent some time in the mountains of Catalonia, whither he was accompanied by the young physicians of the country, and the students in physic, to whom he pointed out and explained the various sorts of plants; but was often exposed to dangers, and was once stripped naked by the miquelets, a kind of banditti, who, however, so far took pity on him as to return him his waistcoat, in the lining of which, by good luck, he happened to have some silver tied up in a handkerchief. After other risks, he arrived safe at Montpelier in 1681, and continued his studies in medicine, and his operations in chymistry and anatomy. He was afterwards received doctor of physic at Orange, and thence went to Aix, where his passion for plants, which was as high as ever, did not suffer him to continue long. He now visited the Alps, and he brought back with him new treasures, which he had acquired with great fatigue and danger.

His merit as a botanist now began to be known at Paris, whither he went in 1683, and was introduced to M. Fagon, first physician to the queen, who was so struck with the ingenuity and vast knowledge of Tournefort, that he procured him to be made botanic professor in the king’s garden. Tournefort immediately set himself to furnish it wi.th every thing that was curious and valuable; and, by order of the king, travelled into Spain and Portugal, and afterwards into Holland and England, where he made a prodigious collection of plants. His name was become celebrated abroad as well as at home; and he had the botanic professorship at Leyden offered him, which he did not think proper to accept, though his present salary was but small. He had, however, the profits of his profession, and of a great number of pupils in botany, which, with his own private fortune, supported him very handsomely. In 1692 he was admitted a member of the academy of sciences: he was afterwards made doctor in physic of the faculty of Paris, and maintained a thesis for it, which he dedicated to his friend and patron M. Fagon.

In 1700 he received an order from the king to travel to Greece, Asia, and Africa, not only to take cognizance of the plants which the ancients have mentioned, or even of those which escaped their observation, but to make also observations upon natural history at large, upon ancient and modern geography, and upon the religion, manners, and commerce, of different nations and people. The king ordered farther A. Gundelsheimer, a native of Anspach, and physician to the king of Prussia, to attend him as a draughtsman, who might draw plants, animals, orany thing curious, that fell in his way. Almost three years were employed in this learned voyage; and, as botany was M. Tournefort’s favourite object, he herborized over all the isles of the Archipelago, upon the coasts of the Black Sea, in Bithynia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia, and Georgia. At his return he took a different route, in hopes of new subjects of observation, and came tbrough Galatia, Mysia, Lyiiia, and Ionia. The plague being then in Egypt hindered him from proceeding to Africa; yet he brought home 1356 species of plants, entirely new.

He now resumed the business of his profession, which his travels had interrupted, and was soon after made professor of physic in the college-royal. He had also the offices of his botanic professorship in the king’s garden, and the usual functions of the academy of sciences required of every member, to attend, together with the work of preparing an account of his travels, which was now to be expected from him. This being more than his constitution could bear, gradually impaired his health, but it was an unforeseen accident that cost him his life: as he was going to the academy his breast was violently pressed by the axle of a carriage, which brought on a spitting of blood, to which he did not pay a proper regard; and this ending in a dropsy of the breast, carried him off, after languishing some months, December 28, 1708. He was the greatest botanist of his time; and it was by his skill and care that the king of France’s gardens, almost quite neglected and abandoned before, were afterwards holden in honour, and thought worth the attention of all the virtuosi in Europe. Yet he was not so particularly attached to botany as to neglect every thing else; for he had made a most valuable collection of all kinds of natural curiosities, which he left by will to the king.

His writings are as follow “Elemens de Botanique: ou, Methode pour connoitre les plantes, avec figures, Paris, 1G94,” 3 tomes in 8vo. He afterwards enlarged this work considerably, and translated it into Latin for the benefit of foreigners, with this title, “Institutiones rei herbarise: sive, Elementa botanices,” Paris, 1700, 3 vols. 4to. The first volume contains the names of the plants, distributed according to his method; the two other the figures of them, very well engraven. This is his great work, and long made him be considered as the oracle of botany. In his system he divided the plants into twenty-two classes, whiqh he determined by the different formation of the flower, and their orders he ascertained by the fruit. He divided all the plants which were known to him from the quality of the flower (corolla) into classes, which his predecessors had limited by the fruit, and these classes he subdivided into orders. He arranged the genera by solid, distinctive marks, which he borrowed of the fruit gave them fixed generic names, and placed the species, with their manifold variations, under the genera. This classification is by no means difficult, and were it not for the imperfect characters of a few of the classes, might certainly be followed; but it yielded at length to the Linnaean method, with which it certainly will not bear a comparison. His next -work was “Histoire des Plantes qui naissent aux environs de Paris, avec leur usage dans la me'decine,” 1698, in 12mo, enlarged by another hand, into 2 vols. 12mo, in an edition of Paris, “l 725. This was translated by Dr. Marty n in 1732, 2 vols. 8vo.” De optima methodo in instituenda re herbaria,“in 1697, 8vo. This is an epistle to our Mr. Ray, who had dissented from Tournefort’s method of classing plants, and ranging them into their several genuses.” Corollarium institutionum rei herbarire, in quo plantse 1356 munificentia Ludovici magni in Orientalibus regionibus observatae recensentur, et ad genera sua revocantur, Paris, 1603,“in 4to. This work is printed in the third volume of Ray’s” Historia Plantarum, 1740,“in folio.” Relation d‘un voyage du Levant, contenant l’histoire ancienne et moderne de plusieurs isles d'Archipel, de Constantinople," &c. Paris, 1717, 2 vols. in 4to, and 3 in 8vo, with figures; reprinted at Amsterdam, 1718, in 2 vols. 4to. This work comprises not only discoveries in botany, but other curious particulars relating to history, geography, and natural philosophy. Besides these larger works, there are several pieces of Tournefort printed in the History of the Academy of Sciences.

, a learned French Jesuit, was born at Rennes, April 26, 1661,- of an ancient family. He entered among the Jesuits in 1680, and besides other literary honours due to his merit, was appointed librarian to the society in Paris. His range of study had been so extensive that most of his learned contemporaries considered him as an oracle in every branch of science, taste, or art. The holy scriptures, divinity, the belles lettres, antiquities, sacred and profane, criticism, rhetoric, poetry, had all been the objects of his pursuit, and added to his accomplishments. He was for many years editor of the “Journal de Trevoux,” one of the most celebrated in France, in which he wrote a great many essays and criticisms of considerable merit and acuteness. He published also a good edition of“Menochius,” 1719, 2 vols. fol. and an edition of Prideaux’s History of the Jews. He died May 16, 1739, He was a man of a communicative disposition, and very attentive to strangers. There was, however, some degree of vanity in his composition, and he even prided himself on his birth, but upon the whole, was an estimable character, and contributed, by his Journal, to the diffusion of much useful knowledge.

, a pious French divine, was born April 30, 1640, at Rouen, of poor parents, but the inclination for learning which he discovered from his childhood, induced M. du Fosse, maitre des comptes at Rouen, to encourage him in that pursuit, and to send him to the Jesuits’ college at Paris. He completed his philosophical studies at the college de Grassins, under M. Hervent, and was afterwards vicar of $t. Etienne des Tonneliera, at Rouen, where he distinguished himself by his public services. During a visit to Paris in 1675, he gained the prize given by the French academy. Reflecting afterwards on the inconsiderate manner in which he had engaged in the sacred office, he went again to Paris, and renounced all the duties of the priesthood, that had done him so much honour, till M. de Sacy, to whom he applied for directions in his penitence, drew him from this state of dejection, and persuaded him to resume the sacred functions. His talents procured him a benefice in the holy chapel, and the priory of Villers, which the archbishop of Rouen gave him. M. Tourneux would gladly have resigned his benefice in favour of some pious ecclesiastic; but only simple resignations were at that time accepted. A change of this rule was hoped for, but did not take place during his life. The king gave him a pension of 300 crowns. He preached one Lent in the church of St. Benoit, at Paris, to a prodigious number of auditors. M. le Tourneux spent his last years at his priory of Villers-sur-Fere, in Tardenois, in the dio* cese of Soissons. M. le Maitre de Sacy, and M. de.Santeuil, who were his friends, placed great confidence in him, and frequently consulted him, in consequence of which he was involved in some difficulties. He died suddenly at Parts, Nov. 28, 1686, aged forty -seven, and his remains were interred at Port Royal. The principal among his numerous works are, “La Vie.de Jesu Christ;” “La meiliure maniere d'entendre la Messe;” “L‘Anne’e Chretienne,” Paris, 1685, 13 vols. 12mo; a French “Translation of the Roman breviary,” 4 vols. 8vo; with other works suited to persons of his communion. His translation of the breviary was censured by a sentence from M. Cheron, official of Paris, 1688; but M. Arnauld undertook its defence. An “Abridgment of the principal Theological Treatises,” 4to, is also ascribed to M. le Tourneux. L'Avocat says that he had a peculiar talent for homilies and instructions, and it is said that while he preached the Lent sermons at St. Benoft, in Paris, instead of father Quesnel, who had been obliged to abscond, Louis XIV. inquired of Boileau concerning a preacher named le Tourneux, whom every body was running after. “Sire,” replied the poet, “your majesty knows that people always run after novelties this man preaches the gospel.” The king then pressing him to give his opinion seriously, Boileau added, *' When M. le Tourneux first Ascends the pulpit, his ugliness so disgusts the congregation, that they wish he would go down again but when he begins to speak, they dread the time of his descending."

, a French writer, and one of the Encyclopedists, was born at Paris in 1715, and was bred an advocate, but forsook the bar to cultivate general literature. In his youth he is thought to have been somewhat fanatical, as he wrote Latin hymns in praise of the abb Paris, at whose tomb extraordinary miracles were performed. (See Paris). An enthusiasm of a very opposite kind connected him with the philosophers who were exerting their powers against revealed religion, and in 1748 he contributed his first share by his book called “Moeurs,” or “Manners,” in which, although tolerably disguised, are some of those bold attacks, both on Christianity and morals, which afterwards appeared more plainly in the writings of his associates D'Alembert, Diderot, &c. This work procured him, however, a name in the world, although some have endeavoured to deprive him of it, by asserting that the work was written by an impious priest, and that Toussaint consented to bear the praise or blame. For this, however, there seems little foundation, if, according to the abbe Barruel, he afterwards publicly recanted his errors. In the mean time he published “Eciaircissemens sur les Mceurs,” 1764, which he meant as an apology for the former, but it was condemned by the parliament of Paris, and the author made his escape to Brussels, where he became editor of a French paper, devoted to the inte^ rests of the house of Austria. In this, of course, he treated the king of Prussia with little respect, even using the epithet, the “highwayman of the North,” and the philosopherking was not ignorant of this, but had been so much pleased with his book on “Manners,' 7 that he bestowed on him the professorship of logic and rhetoric at Berlin, where Tous* saint died in 1772. While there he published an excellent translation of Gellert’s Fables; and while in France had contributed some articles on jurisprudence to the Encyclopaedia, and assisted in a Dictionary of Medicine, published in 6 vols. folio. His” Mceurs" were translated into English about 1750.

, a political and miscellaneous writer, was born in Southwark, March 31, 1737, where his father was a dealer in second-hand books, the easy access to which gave his son a taste for reading, and enabled him at an early period of life to accumulate a fund of useful knowledge. He appears to have had no regular education, for when scarcely twelve years old, he was placed, as an errand boy, in the shop of a stationer under the Royal Exchange. With him he remained some years, until in 3754, he was bound apprentice to Mr. Robert Goadby, printer at Sherborne in Dorsetshire. During his first years here, he applied at his leisure hours to the Latin and Greek languages, and acquired a competent knowledge of both, and by carefully perusing the best books in other branches of learning, he very successfully supplied the want of a regular education, although he never could be reckoned a profound scholar in any pursuit.

In 1763, he commenced author by publishing “A Review of the genuine doctrines of Christianity,” &c. in which he stated his reasons for renouncing the doctrines of Calvin, in which he had been educated, and from which he afterwards departed much farther. In the following year he left Sherborne, came to London, and having taken out his freedom, supported himself by working as a journeyman printer; and having long before this turned his attention to political, as well as religious subjects, he published a pamphlet on libels, which Wilkes and his party had then rendered an interesting topic. In 1765, his late master, Mr. Robert Goadby, formed the design of publishing, periodically, the lives of eminent men of the English series, and employed Mr. Towers as the editor. The first volume appeared accordingly in 1766, 8vo, under the title of “British Biography,” and was continued by him as far as the seventh volume. The remaining three were written by a clergyman in the west of England. This, although the lease known, is by far the best of Mr. Towers’s works. The compilation is every where judicious; his principal authority, indeed, is the “Biographia Britannica,” but he evidently consulted original authorities, studied much among the treasures of the British Museum, and produced a work certainly very creditable to his talents and judgment. He was also at this time far more free from political prejudices than when he became a coadjutor of Dr. Kippis’s in the new edition of the “Biographia Britannica.” As his name, however, was not prefixed to the “British Biography,” he derived no fame from it, although it served to recommend him to his employers.

About this time he acquired some property by marriage, and laid it out partly in furnishing a bookseller’s shop in Fore-street. Here he carried on trade for about nine years, but with no great success. During this time he published various pamphlets on the political topics of the day, and always in opposition to the measures and supporters of administration. In 1774 he resigned his business, and was ordained a preacher among the dissenters, and soon after chosen pastor of a congregation at Highgate. In 1778 he exchanged this situation for the office of forenoon preacher at Newington Green, where Dr. Price preached in the afternoon. When Dr. Kippis was employed by the London booksellers on a new edition of the “Biographia Britannica,” he recommended Mr. Towers as his assistant; and he wrote several lives, but, as already noticed, under the influence of prejudices which did no credit to the work. It seems indeed rather surprising that a work in which the lives of the eminent men of the church of England must necessarily be expected to form a large, if not the largest share, should be entrusted to one who had no sympathy with the constitution or doctrines of that church, and who, while he probably exerted as much impartiality as he was capable of, could not, in the nature of things, divest himself of a degree of prejudice which must damp his praise, if it did not dispose him to censure.

In 1779, he received the degree of LL. D. from the university of Edinburgh, and continued occasionally to communicate his sentiments on public affairs in various pamphlets, of which it may be sufficient to give a list. In 1796 he published by subscription a collection of them in 3 vols. 8vo, containing, vol. I. “A Vindication of the Political opinions of Mr. Locke.” “A Letter to Dr. Samuel Johnson,” and “Observations on Mr. Hume’s History of England.” Vol. II. “Observations on the Rights and Duties of Juries.” “A Letter to Dr. Nowell.” “An Examination of the Charges brought against lord Russell and Algernon Sidney.” tc A Dialogue between two gentlemen, concerning the application to Parliament for Relief in the matter of Subscription, &c.“”A Review of the genuine doctrines of Christianity,“and an” Oration delivered at the interment of Dr. Caleb Fleming.“Vol. Ill,” Thoughts on the commencement of a new Parliament.“”A Dialogue between an Associator, and a well-informed Englishman“” Remarks on the conduct, principles, and publications of the Crown and Anchor Association.“”And an Essay on the Life, &c. of Dr. Samuel Johnson."

His religious opinions, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, are said to have been those of Dr. Samuel Clarke; with a more moderate degree of Arianism; and although he associated much with the zealous advocates for Unitarian principles, he expressed no doubts of the pre-existence of Christ; nor did he become a convert to their notions respecting materialism, or what is called philosophical necessity. He was disposed to think that, whatever might be the means of meliorating the hardened and wicked in another state, the whole human race would ultimately have reason to acknowledge, that their existence was a blessing bestowed by the father of mercies.

Dr. Towers had enjoyed an unusual share of health and spirits, until about the beginning of 1795, when both appeared evidently to decline, and the jaundice in particular undermined his constitution. He died May 20, 1799, ip the sixty-third year of his age. He was a man whose life points out the numerous advantages, which may be derived from industry and application; and shows how much may be done, in overcoming the obstructions of poverty and want of education, by a steady attention, accompanied with moral habits and prudent ceconomy. His acquisitions were certainly very considerable: and his knowledge of literary history, and of ecclesiastic controversy, very extensive. His manners also were pleasing, and recommended him to the best society; and his conversation, easy, good-humoured, and instructive, was enlivened by anecdotes and remarks, which rendered him every where a welcome guest.

, a learned English divine, of the seventeenth century, was a native of Middlesex, and became a commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1650, where he completed his degree of master of arts in 1657. In 1660, he was elected fellow of All Souls, about which time he entered into holy orders. His first preferment was to the rectory of Welwyn in Hertfordshire. He took his degree of D. D. in 1677, and in April 16i)2 was inducted into the living of St'. Andrew Undershaft, London, where he became a very distinguished preacher. He was presented to this rectory by king William, on the promotion of Dr. Grove to the bishopric of Chichester, and in consequence of the recommendation of archbishop Tillotson. This he acknowledges in the epistle dedicatory to his Latin “Tractatus in Epist. ad Philippenses,” and in the same place gratefully acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Tudor, rector of Tewing in Hertfordshire, to whom probably he was indebted for the living of Welwyn. He died in Oct. 1697, and was interred at Welwyn. Dr. Stanhope preached his funeral sermon at St. Andrew Undershaft, and gave him a very high character for piety, humility, and learning. His works are, 1. a pamphlet, entitled “A brief account of some expressions in St. Athanasius’s creed,” Oxon, 1663, '. 2. “An Explication of the Decalogue, or Ten Cornmandments,” and “Explication of the Catechism of the church of England,” in three parts or volumes, London, 1676—1680, fol. 3. “Of the sacraments in general, in pursuance of an explication of the catechism of the church of England,” Lond. 1686, 8vo. 4. “Of the sacrament of Baptism in particular; of the right of baptism among the heathen and Jews and of the institution of Christian baptism,” &c. ibid. 1687, 8vo.

, a protestant dissenting divine of considerable eminence, was born at Axminster, in Devonshire, Dec. 6, 1700. His father was a physician of the same place, and the son of Mr. Matthew Towgood, one of the ministers ejected by the act of uniformity in 1662. He had his grammar learning under the rev. Mr. Chadwick of Taunton: and in 1717 entered upon a course of academical studies in the same place, under the direction of Mr. Stephen James and Mr. Grove. Soon after he had commenced a preacher, he settled with a congregation of dissenters at Moreton-Hampsted in Devonshire, and was ordained there in August 1722, and the following year married the daughter of James Hawker, esq. of Luppit. He removed to Creditor], in the same county, in 1735, and soon after published, without his name, a pious tract entitled “Recovery from Sickness.” He likewise published without his name, a pamphlet entitled “High flown episcopal and priestly claims freely examined, in a dialogue between a country gentleman and a country vicar,” 1737. Dr. Warren, rector of St. Mary Stratford, Bow, a zealous champion of the church of England, having in a volume of posthumous sermons, compared the schism of the dissenters to that of the Samaritans, Mr. Towgood wrote “The Dissenters Apology,” 1739, in which he endeavours to vindicate a separation from the church. In 1741, when the nation was engaged in a war with Spain, he assumed a different character, by publishing “Spanish cruelty and injustice, a justifiable plea for a vigorous war with Spain.” 1 In this pamphlet, he encourages Britons to hope for success from the justice of the war on our part: the cruelty of our enemies towards Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Christians: and from their trusting in false protectors. He published afterwards several occasional sermons; and during the rebellion in 1754, a pamphlet against the legitimate birth of the Pretender. The work, however, by which he is held in highest esteem among his party, is “The Dissenting Gentleman’s answer to Mr. White,” a clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, who had written against the principles of the dissenters with -so much ability as to demand the exertions of their best writers. Mr. Towgood’s letters to him appeared separately from 174 to 1748, and have passed through six editions; the last, in 1787, is accompanied by a portrait of the author, from a painting by Opie. In 1748 he published a pamphlet intended to diminish the respect paid to the memory of king Charles I. It consists principally of extracts from historians, but is deficient in impartial investigation. He was more successful in 1750, when settled at Exeter, in some pamphlets in defence of infant baptism. In 1761 he became a teacher in an academy at Exeter for the education of dissenting ministers. His office was to lecture on the New Testament, which he continued till 1769. In 1784 the infirmities of age obliged him to resign his public ministry; he enjoyed, however, a moderate share of health and spirits until Jan. 31, 179-2, when he died at Exeter, in the ninety-second year of his age. His private character is represented as highly amiable, and his learning had a very extensive range. His public character may be collected from the contents of his publications. “His religious sentiments,” we are told, “were such as were deemed highly heretical when he first entered upon public life; on which account he found some difficulty in procuring ordination, and experienced the resentment of bigots long after: but they would be esteemed what is termed orthodox, by many in the present day, as he attributed to Christ a high degree of pre-existent dignity, and considered him as a proper object of religious worship.” It appears by this account that, in departing from the creed of his forefathers, Mr. Towgood went farther than his contemporaries, and not so far as his successors.

, an accomplished scholar and connoisseur, was the eldest son of William Townley, of Townley, esq. and Cecilia his wife, sole heiress of Ralph Standish, of Standish in Lancashire, esq. by lady Philippa Howard, daughter of Henry duke of Norfolk. His paternal grandmother was heiress of the house of Widdrington. He was born in the house of his ancestors October 1, 1737; and succeeded to the family estate, by the premature death of his father, in 1742. This event, united with religious considerations, sent him in early childhood to France for education; to which, however, much more attention was paid than is usual in the seminaries of that couutry. At a tetter period he was committed to the care of Turbervile Needham, a man of considerable reputation at that time upon the Continent as a natural philosopher. His own native taste and activity of mind carried him far beyond his companions in classical attainments; and a graceful person easily adapted itself to all the forms of polished address, which are systematically taught in France. Thus accomplished he came out into the world, and was eagerly received into the first circles of gaiety and fashion, from the dissipations of which it would be vain to say that he wholly escaped. These habits of life, however, in which imbecility grows old without the power, and vanity without the will, to change, after having tried them for a few years, his vigorous and independent mind shook off at once; and by one of those decisive efforts of which it was always capable, he withdrew to the Continent, resumed his literary pursuits, studied with critical exactness the works and principles of ancient art, and gradually became one of the first connoisseurs in Europe. During this period of his life he principally resided at Rome; from whence, ki different excursions, he visited the remotest parts of Magna Graecia and Sicily. He has been heard to relate, that on arriving at Syracuse, after a long and fatiguing journey, he could take neither rest nor refreshment till he had visited the fountain of Arethusa. This, though a trifling, is a characteristic circumstance; for he never spared himself, nor ever desisted from any pursuit, till he had either obtained his object or completely exhausted his strength^

Though far from indifferent to any of the fine arts, statuary was his favourite, and he soon became too ardent a lover of antiquity to remain a spectator of its fairest forms without courting the possession. His principal agent at Rome, after he ceased to reside there, was Mr. Jenkins. How he acquired so many specimens of ancient art from the East we have now no means of learning. When his “dead family,” as he was wont to call them, grew considerable, he purchased for their reception two successive houses in London; the latter of which (in Park-street, Westminster,) he fitted up with great elegance, and made it his principal residence till his death, which happened, to the unspeakable grief of his friends, January 3, 1805.

The Townley Marbles were now become a national object; the trustees of the British Museum, therefore, obtained from Parliament a grant of 20,000l. probably not halt the original cost; and for this sum they were purchased from the family. In the midst of an expensive war, and under the administration of one whose great mind rarely condescended to patronize the fine arts, this may be considered as a remarkable testimony to their value. They were, on the whole, undoubtedly the most select assemblage of Greek and Roman sculpture ever brought into England. That of the earl of Arundel, the first which travelled so far beyond the Alps, though much more numerous, appears from the remnants of it which are preserved, to have been filled with subjects of very inferior merit. The same perhaps may be said of a few celebrated collections yet remaining in some noble houses. But in the Townley Museum there was not a single statue, bust, or basso relievo, which did not rise far above mediocrity; and with the exception of seven or eight subjects beyond the hope or possibility of private attainment, it certainly contained the finest specimens of ancient art yet remaining in the world. Among these may be distinguished the farfamed head of Homer, the apotheosis of Marcus Aurelius, the younger Verus, the Astragalizontes, a small but exquisitely beautiful group, the Isis, the female Bacchus, the ivy-crowned Muse, and the small bronze of Hercules Alastor, found at Biblus in Syria.

The Townley Museum was also rich in gems, terra cottas, sepulchral monuments; and, above all, in a series of Roman imperial, large brass, second only in extent and preservation to that of the late king of France, which alone had cost the collector above 3000l. The Greek medals were rather specimens than a collection; having been selected for a particular purpose, which will now be explained.

Mr. Townley was a zealous advocate for the mythological system of D'Ancarvilef; who compiled the greater part of his curious work in Park-street, and derived some of his best illustrations from specimens in that collection. Of this system, which has not been generally received in England, it must be allowed that, amidst the silence of the earlier writers of antiquity, it is powerfully supported by the later Platonists, and the remains of ancient art. The symbols employed by sculptors and engravers to adumbrate the creative, destroying, and restoring powers of the universe, appear to have been connected with the mysteries. By the vulgar they were considered as the attributes of common Polytheism by the initiated they were referred to the Απορητα of their own system.

Though an indefatigable writer, Mr. Townley never printed any thing but a dissertation on the Ribchester helmet, in the “Vetusta Monumenta” of the Society of Antiquaries. The reason of this reserve may partly have been much native delicacy of mind, and partly a consciousness that his English style was tinctured witl\ foreign idioms. Indeed, he never spoke his native tongue but with some hesitation, and had frequent recourse to French and Italian words to remove his embarrassment. He had much native delicacy of mind; a quality never more conspicuous than in the familiar, extenuating manner in which he spoke of his own antiquarian treasures: treasures such as the Medici might have boasted of.

To young connoisseurs, and in general to his inferiors in taste and science, who sought his assistance, he was an active and zealous patron, sparing neither his interest nor his exertions to promote their views.

But it would be injurious to the memory of this excellent person to consider him merely as a virtuoso. He was one of the most benevolent and generous of men. The demands of taste, however importunate, could never tempt him either to rapacity or retention. In his conduct to a numerous tenantry he was singularly considerate and humane: and whether present or absent from his house in the country, the stream of his bounty to the indigent never dried up or diminished. In one year of general distress, approaching to famine, he distributed among the poor of the neighbouring townships a sum equivalent to a fourth part of the clear income arising from the estate. His personal habits, though elegant, were frugal and unostentatious. He never even kept a carriage. He was an early riser, and an exact ceconomist of his time. To his own affairs he was minutely and skilfully attentive. In his later years he grew more attached to his native place, and displayed in adorning the grounds about it a taste not inferior to that which distinguished his other pursuits. His temper, though naturally cheerful, was calm and sedate. His conversation, though regulated by the nicest forms of goodbreeding, was seasoned with a kind of Attic irony, not always unfelt by those about him. His manner had much both of dignity and sweetness. He was happy in a vigorous constitution, and still more so in a slow and sensible decay; for, after half a century of uninterrupted health and spirits, which gave but too keen a relish to every enjoyment, a. lingering disorder which hung over him for the three last years of his life, co-operating with other means, brought him to a deep and serious sense of religion; and in this sense he died.

, a learned master of Merchant Taylors’ school, was the second son of a merchant, and born in London in 1715. He was educated at that school over which he afterwards presided, whence he was elected to St. John’s college, Oxford. Soon after taking orders, he was chosen morning preacher at Lincoln’s-inn chapel, and lecturer of St. Dunstan’s in the East. He married, in 1740, Miss Jane Bonnin of Windsor, descended from the Poyntz family, and related to the late dowager lady Spencer, through whose patronage Mr. Townley obtained the living of St. Bennett, Gracechurch-street, London. He afterwards became grammar-master to Christ’s hospital; and in 1759 was chosen high master of the Merchant Taylors’ school, in which office he died July 15, 1778, having been presented in 1777 to a living in Wales, by bishop Shipley, to whom he was chaplain. He was the close intimate of Garrick, from whom he held for some years the valuable vicarage of Hendon, in Middlesex; and it has been supposed that many of Garrick’s best productions and revisals partook of Mr. Townley’s assisting hand. He was the long- concealed author of the celebrated farce of “High Life below Stairs,” anno 1759, a piece which has held its constant place on the stage, against all the variations of dramatic taste and literary caprice. He also produced, in 1764, “False Concord,” a farce, for his friend Woodward’s benefit; and, in 1765, the “Tutor,” a farce, under Mr. Column’s protection, at Drury-lane, but which, from the juvenile characters, did not succeed. It is to be remarked, that “False Concord” contains three characters of lord Lavender, Mr. Suds, an enriched soap-boiler, and a pert valet, who are not only the exact lord Ogleby, Mr. Sterling, and Brush, of the “Clandestine Marriage,” brought out in 1767 by Garrick and Colman conjointly; but that part of the dialogue is nearly verbatim. We leave the application of the inference to the reader.

Mr. Townley also (with Dr. Morell) materially assisted his friend Hogarth in his “Analysis of Beauty,” as. Mr. Hogarth’s erudition was wholly of the pencil. Although bestowing so much attention on the business of the stage, he is said to have been much admired as a divine. “His manner of delivery was graceful, impressive, and energetic. The style of his discourses was correct, yet unstudied, and (what is the highest praise of sacred oratory) adapted to the understanding of a general auditory. Some single sermons only are in print.” When chosen head master of Merchant Taylors* school, the first improvement which he suggested in the system of education, was the introduction of mathematical learning, for which he had acquired a taste at Christ’s hospital, but this he was not able to accomplish. He was more successful, however, in substituting, instead of the old practice of declaiming, repetitions, every three or four months, of select passages in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, which first took place in February 1761. In the following year, his partiality to theatrical representations induced him to request permission from the company of Merchant Taylors for the boys to perform a Latin play. This was at first granted, and plays were performed for two seasons, but the company finally disapproved of them, and we cannot help thinking, very justly, as likely to draw the attention of the scholars from more useful pursuits, and more important acquirements. In other respects, he appears occasionally to have di tiered from the guardians of the school, but was upon the whole a diligent master, and many of his pupils are now filling the highest stations in the three professions of divinity, law, and medicine.

, a late very learned divine, was the eldest son of the rev. John Townson, M. A. rector of Much Lees, in Essex. He was born in 1715; and, having been instructed a-while by his father, was placed under the rev. Henry Nott, vicar of the neighbouring parish of Terling, where he was soon distinguished for quickness of apprehension and a most retentive memory. From Terling he was removed to the free-school at Felstod, then under the direction of the rev. Mr. Wyatt. On March 13, 1733, he was entered a commoner of Christ Church, Oxford, where he had for his tutor the rev. John Whitfield, M. A. afterwards poetry professor. In July 1735, he was elected demy of Magdalen college, and two years afterwards fellow of that society, having in the intermediate year (Oct. 20) been admitted to the degree of B. A. He commenced M.A, June 20, 1739; and was ordained deacon, Dec. 20, 1741, and priest Sept. 19, 1742, by Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford.

Three days after this he set out for France with Mr. Dawkins, in company with Mr. Drake and Mr. Holdsworth; and, after a tour in Italy, Germany, Holland, &c. returned in 1745. From tue minutes of his journal, kept with regularity and marked with intelligence, an agreeable volume might easily have been formed, had he been disposed to attempt it. But of the accuracy of such books of travels as are usually given to the public from a transient view of a country, he entertained no very favourable opinion; in support of which he occasionally related the following anecdote of his friend and fellow-traveller, Mr. Holdsworth. When this gentleman first went into Italy he composed with some care an account of what he saw. On visiting the same country again, with his former journal in his hand, he altered the narrative, and contracted the substance of it. When he made the tour a third time, he burnt his papers.

On his return to college he resumed the employment of tutor. Mr. Lovibond, the poet, and lord Bagot, were two of his pupils. In 1746 he was presented to the living of Hatfield Peverel, in Essex. In 1749 he was senior proctor of the university; and, resigning Hatfield, was presented to the rectory of Blithfield, in Staffordshire, by sir Walter Wagstaffe Bagot, bart. Soon after he quitted the proctorship he was admitted (June 15) to the degree of B. D. and the same summer Mr. Drake offered him the lower rnediety of Malpas, in the county of Chester. After some reluctance, principally arising from his unwillingness to leave Oxford, he accepted this offer, and was instituted Jan. 2, 1751. At the close of the year (Dec. 19) he quitted Oxford, and resigned his fellowship the month following. He now divided his time between Malpas and Blithfield, which he held for a few years with his new preferment; and then, having resigned it, he inducted (Feb. 23, 1759) his worthy successor, the rev. Walter Bagot, M. A. son of his esteemed friend and patron. In 1758, a very considerable accession of fortune came to him by the death of the rev. William Barcroft, rector of Fairsted and vicar of Kelvedon, in Essex, who bequeathed him his library and the principal part of his fortune, amounting in the whole to more than eight thousand pounds. According to the testimony of his biographer, his conduct as a Christian' pastor seems to have been in all respects most exemplary.

About 1766, and for some time afterwards, he employed himself in composing an exposition of the Apocalypse. This he finished, but never published. “It was his humble request to God, that if his system were wrong, the work might never see the light) and it so proved, that whenever he thought of revising his papers and preparing them for the press, something still intervened, and hindered his design.” In this uncertainty, as to the probable success of his undertaking, it was suffered to lie quiet in his stiKlv, with a direction to be burnt, whicji he never rescinded. He found leisure, however, while employed on it, to attend to the controversy excited by the publication of 4 * The Confessional,“and published, but without his name, 1.” Doubts concerning the authenticity of the 1 last publication of the Confessional, and the current editions of certain books cited in it; addressed to the author of that learned work,“1767. 2.” A Defence“of them, in answer to” Occasional Remarks,“&c. 1768; and 3. in the same year,” A Dialogue between Isaac Walton and Homologistes; in which the character of bishop Sanderson is defended against the author of the Confessional." All these valuable pamphlets are reprinted in the late edition of his works.

In Sept. 1768, at the earnest request of his friend and patron, Mr. Drake, Dr. Townson went abroad with his eldest son, Mr. William Drake, a gentleman-commoner of Brazen Nose college, and performed nearly the same tour which he went over twenty-six years before. After his return to Malpas in October 1769, he studied and produced his “Discourses on the Four Gospels.” They originated in a sermon first preached in the parish church of Biithfiold, and afterwards before the university, June 2, 1771, where he was desired to publish what had been heard with so much satisfaction. This induced him to re-consider the subject; and, by a progress which every literary man will readily understand, it grew under his revision to its present form and size, and was published in 1778, in a quarto volume, and received with the universal approbation of his learned brethren. Bishop Lowth’s testimony to its merit may be selected from a number: “It is a capital performance, and sets every part of the subject it treats of in a more clear and convincing light than ever it appeared in before.” But, adds his biographer, he received testimony to the merit of his book, on which he set a higher value than on the commendation of any individual, however exalted in character, or dignified by station. This was the degree of D. D. by diploma, which was with perfect unanimity conferred on him in full convocation, by the university of Oxford, February 23, 1779. This honour will appear the greater to our readers, when they are told that diploma degrees are very rarely conferred by this university.

The “Discourses on the Gospels” were scarcely published, when some cavils respecting one of the evangelists, and an attack made upon Mr. West’s book on our Lord’s resurrection, induced Dr. Townson to consider the part of the Gospels which relates to that subject; but he did not at this time pursue it. In the summer of 1778 he published a sermon, entitled “The Manner of our Saviour’s teaching,” preached before Dr. Porteus at his primary visitation of the see of Chester; and two years after the bishop bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Richmond. The archdeacon of Richmond has a stall in the cathedral of Chester, and his portion in the duties of the church; but in other respects he has really no authority or charge belonging to him; for the bishop is himself, in effect, archdeacon both of Chester and Richmond; the endowments of which two archdeaconries constitute the principal revenue of the see. The bishop, however, laudably solicitous for the good of his diocese, gave him a special commission, April 25, 1782, to visit the five northern deaneries within the archdeaconry of Richmond, in the execution of which Dr. Townson rode, by his own computation, being then almost seventy years of age, 572 miles, and from the information obtained in this journey, composed a very elegant and methodical register, exhibiting a full and distinct view of each parish and r hapelry, under the several heads pointed out for his examination.

During the same year, when the attention of the reading and literary world was occupied by the controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley (then archdeacon of St. Alban’s) Dr. Townson sent to the archdeacon some remarks on his opponent’s letters, which were printed in the appendix of Dr. Uorsley’s Letters to Dr. Priestley, published in 1784, but without his name, which he concealed. In the northern part of the diocese of Chester, the Roman Catholics form a considerable body. This induced our author to turn his mind to examine the claims of the church of Rome, and he accordingly composed a dissertation on the subject; but, although this work was highly approved by his friends, and was even transcribed for the press, he deferred the publication with his wonted diffidence; nor did he at last, when the question was put to him, pronounce decisively whether it should or should not be printed. This, however, Whs done in 1797, and it now forms a part of his esteemed works. In 1784 he printed part of the work on the Resurrection, already noticed as begun in 1778, under the title of “A Discourse on the Evangelical Histories of the Resurrection and first Appearances of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” 4to. Of this he dispersed six or eight copies among those in whose judgment he placed confidence; but the final publication was posthumous.

Dr. Townson died April 15, 1792, in the presence of his biographer, Mr. archdeacon Churton, to whose interesting narrative we must refer for the circumstances of his departure, and his general character. “Never, perhaps,” adds Mr. Churton, “in these latter ages, has any man, in a like situation, been equally esteemed and equally lamented.”

The above sketch has been taken from the “Account” prefixed by Mr. Churton to “The Works of Dr. Townson,” collected and published by him in 1810, 2 vols. 8vo. The contents of these volumes are: Vol. I. the “Discourses on the Gospels,” to which is subjoined “A Sermon on the manner of our Saviour’s teaching.” The original part of this volume consists of a sermon, entitled “The Quotations in the Old Testament considered,” preached before the university of Oxford, at St. Mary’s Oxford, in 1807, by Mr. Churton, and placed here “in humble hope that it may form no improper introduction to the Discourses of Dr. Townson on the Gospels, by shewing that what is there maintained, in the case of the evangelists, was the known and established practice of revelation, from the days of the first prophets that succeeded Moses.” Prefixed to this excellent discourse, is an introduction of very considerable length, principally in vindication of Dr. Townson from the attack lately made on his work by the author of “ Discursory Considerations on the Hypothesis of Dr. Macknight and others, that St. Luke’s Gospel was the first written.” In handling this controversy, Mr. Churron displays abilities of which it is certainly not too much to say that they place him in the first rank of biblical scholars; but, what is perhaps yet more valuable, they exhibit that uniform candour and calmness of temper, which, if they do not end in conviction, would certainly make many controversies end in peace.

Vol. II. contains Dr. Townson’s “Discourse on the Evangelical History, from the interment to the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” first edited by Dr. Loveday in 1792. Three “Sermons,” 1 On Religious Meditation; 2, The History of the Rechabites; 3. The Righteousness and Peace of the Gospel. These were selected from his ms Sermons by Mr, Churton, and for reasons stated in a short preface to them. “Babylon in the Revelation of St. John, as signifying the city of Rome, considered with reference to the claims of the Roman Church,” first published in 1797. “Doubts concerning the Confessional, &c.” “A Defence of these Doubts,” and “A Dialogue between Isaac Walton and Homologistes; in which the character of bishop Sanderson is defended, &c.” These volumes, we doubt not, will find a place in every theological library, and perpetuate a name which the scholars of past times were accustomed to mention with respect, and which the friends of Revelation will at all times recollect with gratitude.

, a learned divine who deserves to be recorded as a rare specimen of a doctrinal puritan, who retained his loyalty to the king and attachment to the church with equal firmness, was born at North-Tawton in Devonshire, in 1602. He was educated at Exeter- college, Oxford, where he took his degrees, and was chosen fellow in 1623. Having afterwards taken orders, he was, according to Wood, useful in moderating, reading to novices, and lecturing in the chapel. He was alsp an able and laborious preacher, had much, Wood says, of the -primitive religion in his sermons, and “seemed to be a most precise puritan in his looks and life, on which account his sermons and expositions in the churches of St. Giles’s and St. Martin at Oxford, were much frequented by the puritanical party.” He appears however to have been decidedly averse to the proceedings of those who were intent on overturning the establishment of the church; and although, in 1643, he was, from his general character, nominated one of the assembly of divines, he declined attending them, and preferred remaining at Oxford, where he preached at Christ Church before the king, and at St. Mary’s before the parliament. In both instances he was so much approved that he was appointed by the chancellor of the university, in 1646, to take his doctor’s degree, but this he declined. Adhering to his loyalty, and to the use of the Common Prayer, after it had been abolished, he was soon denounced by the usurping party. Dr. Hakewell, the rector, having left the college, the government devolved on Mr. Tozer, as sub-rector, who manfully opposed the illegality of the parliamentary visitation, and maintained the rights and privileges of the college, although the university was at that time in complete possession of the parliamentary forces, and every man was to be expelled who did not obey their orders as given from the mouth of the visitors. In March 1647-8, he was cited before these visitors, who kept their judgment-hall in Merton-college, and was accused of “continuing the Common Prayer in the college, after the ordinance for the Directory (the new form) came in force: also of having sent for and admonished one of the house, for refusing to attend the chapel-prayers on that account.” It was among his crimes, likewise, that he had constantly shown the utmost dislike to the parliamentary faction, and always countenanced and patronized the loyalists of his college. And although the visitors had thought proper to put off the term, yet as Dr. Fell, the vice-chancellor, had proceeded to open it at the usual time in the university, without any regard to the visitors’ pleasure, Mr. Tozer did the same in Exeter college. In answer to all this, Mr. Tozer did what at the close of the same century conferred immortal honour on the fellows of Magdalen college, he disowned their authority; and told them, that “the things about which he was questioned, concerned the discipline of the college; and that he had some time before answered in the name of the whole college, that they could not, withr out perjury, submit to any other visitors than those to whom their statutes directed them,” meaning the bishop of Exeter, a title sufficiently obnoxious. This answer being, as may be expected, unsatisfactory to the visitors, they ordered him to be ejected, aad committed the execution of the sentence to the soldiers of the garrison. Mr. Tozer however contrived to keep possession of the college for some time; in consequence of which, in June 1648, the visitors again sent for him, and with equal contempt for the statutes of the house, peremptorily forbade him to proceed to an election the day following; and as it is probable he refused to comply, they expelled him both from the college and the university. But he was not to be terrified from what he thought his duty even by this sentence, and refused to deliver up the keys of the college, there being no rector to whom he could legally give them, and then they imprisoned him. Even when he was, in the same month, preaching at St. Martin’s church, he was dragged out of it by the soldiers, and forbidden to officiate there any more, because he seduced the people. By what means the visitors were afterwards induced to show any degree of lenity to Mr. Tozer, we are not told; but it is certain that after all their harsh treatment of him, and his spirited opposition to their authority, he was allowed to remain in his rooms in the college, and they even gave him the profits of a travelling fellowship for three years. On the strength of this, he went to Holland, and became minister to the English merchants at Rotterdam, where he died Sept. 11, 1650, in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was interred in the English church in that place. Mr. Tozer published a few occasional sermons; “Directions for a godly life, especially for communicating at the Lord’s Tahle,” 1628, 8vo. of which a tenth edition appeared in 1680; and “Dicta et facta Christi ex quatuor evangelistis collecta,” 1634, 8vo.

, an eminent physician, was born in 1640, at Aversa, in the kingdom of Naples, and after studying medicine at Naples, took his doctor’s degree in 1661. Although at this time only in his twenty-first year, he was thought capable of instructing others, and first gave lectures on physiology; he afterwards for several years taught for Thomas Cornelio of Cosenza, whose advanced age prevented him from lecturing as professor of medicine and mathematics. He was also employed to supply the place of Andrew Lamez, another of the professors, and often gave four lectures in a day. At length be succeeded to Cornelio’s professorship of the theory of medicine, which he tilled with increasing reputation. In 1679 he had attained such high fame, that the university of Padua solicited him to accept, a chair there; hut this and many otuer most liberal offers he declined from his attachment to Naples, where he was deservedly appointed p!u >?cian to ti t hospital or' the Annunciata, and first physician to the state. On the death, however, of Malpighi, in 1694, he was induced to change his resolution. Pope Innocent XII. appointed him, in the year following, to succeed Malpighi as his first physician, and having accepted this honourable situation, the pope gave him the principal professorship in the college of Sapienza. After the death of this pontiff in 1700, Tozzi was chosen physician to the conclave, but could not accept it, as he was invited to Spain to attend the king, Charles II. then in a bad state of health. But hearing, when on the road to Madrid, of this king’s death, he returned to Rome to pay his respects to the new pope Clement XI. by whom he was highly esteemed, and who made him great offers if he would remain at Rome. His former attachment however to his native country returning, he proceeded again to Naples, whence the duke of Medina Celi, the viceroy, would not allow him any more to depart, a constraint which was perfectly agreeable to his inclination. He died at Naples, March 11, 1717, in his seventy-seventh year. He published several professional works separately, which, with many additions, were republished in 5 vols. 4to, under the title of “Opera omnia Medica,” Venice, 1711 1728. Tozzi, in his practice, as well as theory, held some singular opinions. He rejected blisters and bloodletting, and did not admit of the existence of plethora. With Van Helmont and Sylvius de Le Boe, he considered acidity as the cause of most diseases, which he endeavoured to obviate by absorbents. His specific in continued fevers, was a precipitate of mercury and in consumptions distilled water of vipers.

, an eminent botanist, the son of Leonard Targioni, born at Florence Sept. 11, 1722, was sent to the university of Pisa, where he very soon distinguished himself by a thesis on the use of medicine. At the age of nineteen he became acquainted with the famous botanist Micheli, by whom he was protected, with whom he kept up an uninterrupted friendship till 1737, when Micheli died, and whom he succeeded in the care of the famous botanic garden. Of the plants in this garden Micheli had already made a catalogue, which Targioni published after his death, with very considerable additions by himself. In the year 1737, he was made professor of botany in the Studio Fiorentino, a kind of university at Florence, and at the same time member of the academy ofApatisti. In 1738, he became a member of the Collegio Medico, or faculty of Medicine. Much about the same time he was named by government consulting physician in pestilential disorders, aud had the place of fiscal physician (physician to the courts of justice). This last place obliged him to write a great deal, being often consulted on the accidents that became discussions for a court of justice, such as deaths by poison, sudden deaths, unheard-of distempers, and (when, as it sometimes happened, foolish accusations of the kind were brought into court) witchcraft. Some time after, he was named, together with the celebrated Antonio Cocchi, to make a catalogue of the library, begun by P</lagliabecchi and increased by Marni, duke Leopold, and others, which consisted of 40,000 volumes of printed books, and about 1100 volumes of manuscripts. It is to this nomination we are indebted for the five volumes of letters of famous men, as, during his employment in this capacity, he used to make extracts of the curious books which fell into his hands. On Micheli’s death in 1737, Mr. Targioni had inherited his Hortus Siccus, Mss. and collection of natural history, which last, however, he purchased, but at a very cheap rate, with his own money. This seemed to lay him under the necessity of publishing what his master had left behind him, and accordingly he had prepared the second part of the “Nova Plantarum Genera,” but not exactly in the manner in which Micheli himself would have published them; for, though the drawings were too good to be lost, as they have all the accuracy which distinguish the other works of the great naturalist, Targioni could not suffer the work to come forth with the Zoophytes and Keratophytes classed among the plants, asMicheli had intended. Targioni therefore meant to have given the work another form. It was to be divided into two parts, the first of which would have contained the “Fucus’s, Algae, and Confervae;” and the second the “Zoophytes:” the first part was finished a week before Targioni’s death. Many of the plates are from drawings by Ottaviano Targioni, the son of John Targioni, who succeeded his father as reader of botany in the hospital of Sancta Maria Maggiore, a new establishment formed by the grand duke upon a liberal and extensive plan, in which ducal professors of medicine, anatomy, chemistry, physiology, surgery, &c. read gratis on the very spot where examples are at hand to confirm their doctrine. In 1739, Targioni was chosen member of the academy Naturae Curiosorum; and, in 1745, the Crusca gave him a public testimony of the value they set upon his style, by chusing him one of their members. In 1749, he was chosen member of the academy of Etruscans at Cortona, as he was of that of the Sepolti at Volterra in-4749. The academy of Botanophiles made him one of their body in 1757; as did that of practical agriculture at Udino in 1758. In 1771, he was chosen honorary member of the royal academy of sciences and belles lettres at Naples; and, finally, was named corresponding member of the royal society of medicine at Paris in 1780. It is much to be regretted that we cannot give an account of his manuscript works, several of which are known to be very important, as he was one of the most celebrated physicians of this time, and is known to have written a great deal on inoculation (of which he was one of the first promoters in Tuscany), putrid fevers, &c. &c. His printed works are extremely numerous; among the first of them was his “Thesis de prsestantia et usu Plantarum in medicina.” Pisis, 1734,“folio; and the latest, * Notizie degli Aggrandimenti delle Scienze Fisiche accaduti in Toscana nel corso di anni 60, nel secolo 17, Firenze,” 1780, 4 vols. 4to. He had just published the fourth volume of this last great work, on the improvement made in natural knowledge and natural philosophy in Tuscany in sixty years only of the 17th century, when he died of an atrophy in 1780. Mr. Targioni had a large cabinet of natural history, the foundation of which, as has been said, had been laid by Micheli. It consists of the minerals and fossils which are found in Tuscany, and the Zoophytes and Hortus Siccus of Micheli. There is a drawer made at Amboyna, by order of Rumphius, containing all the sorts of wood of that island. Besides this, there is a great suite of animals and shells and petrified animal substances, particularly of the bones of elephants which are found in the environs of Florence.

, a contributor to the study of natural history in this country in the seventeenth century, was by birth a Dutchman, as we are informed by Anthony Wood. On what occasion, and at what period he came into England, is not precisely ascertained, but it may be supposed to have been about the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, or the beginning of that of James I. as Hollar’s print of him, engraved in 1656, represents him as a person very far advanced in years. He is said to have been for a considerable time in the service of lord treasurer Salisbury and lord Wooton. He travelled several years, and into various parts of Europe; as far eastward as into Russia. In 1620 he was in a fleet that was sent against the Algerines; and mention is made of his collecting plants in Barbary, and in the isles of the Mediterranean. He is said to have brought the trifolium stellatum of Linnseus from the isle of Fermentera; and his name frequently occurs in the second edition of Gerard, by Johnson in Parkinson’s “Theatre of Plants,” and in his “Garden of Flowers,” printed in 1656. But Dr. Pulteney conjectures that Tradescant was not resident in England in the time of Gerard himself, or known to him.

He appears, however, to have been established in England, and his garden founded at Lambeth; and about 1629 he obtained the title of gardener to Charles I. Tradescant was a man of extraordinary curiosity, and the first in this country who made any considerable collection of the subjects of natural history. He had a son of the same name, who took a voyage to Virginia, whence he returned with many new plants, They were the means of introducing a variety of curious species into this kingdom, several of which bore their name. Tradescant’s spiderwort, Tradescant’s aster, are well known to this day; and Linnæus has immortalized them among the botanists by making a new genus, under their name, of the spidcrworfa which had been before called ephemeron. His museum, called “Tradescant’s Ark,” attracted the curiosity of the age, and was much frequented by the great, by whose means it was also considerably enlarged, as appears by the list of his benefactors, printed at the end of his “Museum Tradescantianum;” among whom, after the names of the king and queen, are found those of many of the first nobility, the duke and duchess of Buckingham, archbishop Laud, the earls of Salisbury and Carlisle, &c. &c.