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

, an English divine, was born in the Isle of Wight, and became a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1652, where, after taking the degree of B. A. he removed to Lincoln college, and had the reputation of a good disputant. Having taken his master’s degree he gave offence to the then ruling party in the university, by a speech he made in the character of Terræ Filius, for which he was expelled, in 1658. On the restoration he was preferred to the rectory of Gatcombe in the Isle of Wight, proceeded in his degrees of B. and D. D. and was made one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. Dr. Morley, bishop of Winchester, gave him afterwards, the living of Holy Rood in Southampton, and the king the rectory of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, which he exchanged for that of St. Botolph Bishopsgate, London. This last he held at his death, along with the rectory of Gatcombe, his chaplainship, and the lectureship of Christchurch, Newgate-street. He died Dec. 28, 1687, and was buried at Gatcombe. Besides a few occasional sermons, he published, 1. “A private conference between a rich alderman and a poor country vicar,” &c. respecting the obligation of oaths, Lond. 1670, 8vo. 2. “A Discourse on Prayer,” &c. 1683, 8vo, and, which is still frequently to be met with. 3. “A discourse concerning the trial of Spirits,” against enthusiastic notions of inspiration, 1684, 8vo.

Upon the decease of pope Eugenius, Æneas was chosen by the cardinals to preside in the conclave till another pope should be elected. He was made bishop of Trieste by pope Nicholas, and went again into Germany, where he was appointed counsellor to the emperor, and had the direction of all the important affairs of the empire. Four years after he was made archbishop of Sienna; and in 1452 he attended Frederic to Rome, when he went to receive the imperial crown. Æneas, upon his return, was named legate of Bohemia and Austria. About 1456, being sent by the emperor into Italy, to treat with pope Callixtus III. about a war with the Turks, he was made a cardinal. Upon the decease of Callixtus, in 1458 he was elected pope by the name of Pius II. After his promotion to the papal chair he published a bull, retracting all he had written in defence of the council of Basil, with an apology which shows how little he was influenced by principle: “We are men (says he), and we have erred as men; we do not deny, but that many things which we have said or written, may justly be condemned: we have been seduced, like Paul, and have persecuted the church of God through ignorance; we now follow St. Austin’s example, who, having suffered several erroneous sentiments to escape him in his writings, retracted them; we do just the same thing: we ingenuously confess our ignorance, being apprehensive lest what we have written in our youth should occasion some error, which may prejudice the holy see. For if it is suitable to any person’s character to maintain the eminence and glory of the first throne of the church, it is certainly so to ours, whom the merciful God, out of pure goodness, has raised to the dignity of vicegerent of Christ, without any merit on our part. For all these reasons, we exhort you and advise you in the Lord, not to pay any regard to those writings, which injure in any manner the authority of the apostolic see, and assert opinions which the holy Roman church does not receive. If you find any thing contrary to this in our dialogues and letters, or in any other of our works, despise such notions, reject them, follow what we maintain now; believe what I assert now I am in years, rather than what I said when I was young: regard a pope rather than a private man; in short, reject Æneas Sylvius, and receive Pius II.”

His etchings, particularly of landscapes and birds, from Griffier, are admirable. The free style in which he treated the foliage of his trees, proves his judgment and good taste; and his portraits in mezzotinto are excellent. Among the latter, Strutt mentions bishop Crew, archbishop Sterne, Dr. Comber, dean of Durham, Henry Gyles, the artist, and general Lambert. In Thoresby’s Topography of Leeds are some churches drawn by Place; the plates for Godartius’s book of Insects are by him; and he also executed many views in Yorkshire.

Natural history was his delight; and he gave very agreeable specimens of it, in his “Natural Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire.” The former was published at Oxford, in 1677, folio, and reprinted 1705, with additions and corrections, by John Burman, M. A. fellow of University-college, his step-son, and afterwards vicar of Newington, in Kent; the latter was printed also at Oxford, 1686, in the same size . These were intended as essays towards “A Natural History of England” for, in order to discover antiquities and other curiosities, and to promote learning and trade, he formed a design of travelling through England and Wales. By such researches, he was persuaded that many additions might be made to Camden’s Britannia, and other works, concerning the history and antiquities of England. He drew up a plan of his scheme in a letter to bishop Fell, which may be seen at the end of the second volume of Leland’s Itinerary, of the edition of 1744. In these Histories, whatever is visible in the heavens, earth, and waters; whatever is dug out of the ground, whatever is natural or unnatural; and whatever is observable in art and science, were the objects of his speculation and inquiry; and various and dissimilar as his matter is, it is in general well connected; and his transitions are easy. His books indeed deserve to be called the “natural and artificial histories” of these counties. In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits, he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, upon mature consideration, he must have rejected. He did not, perhaps, know enough of experimental philosophy to exert a proper degree of scepticism in the information given to him. Besides these works, he was the author of several other productions. In 1685, he published “De Origine Fontium, Tentamen Philosophicum,” 8vo and the nine following papers of his are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “An Account of Elden Hole, in Derbyshire,” No. 2. 2. “The Formation of Salt and Sand from Brine,” No. 145. 3. “Discourse concerning the Effects of the great Frost on Trees and other Plants, in 1683,” No. 165. 4. “A Discourse of perpetual Lamps,” No. 166. 5. “The History of the Weather at Oxford, in 1684 or the Observations of a full Year, made by Order of the Philosophical Society at Oxford,” No. 169. 6. “A large and curious Account of the Amianthos or Asbestine Linen,” No. 1708. 7. “Discourse concerning the most seasonable Time of felling Timber, written at the request of Samuel Pepys,esq. secretary of the admiralty,” No. 192. 8. “Of an Irishman of an extraordinary size, viz. Edward Mallone, nineteen years old, seven feet six inches high,” No. 240. 9. “A Catalogue of Electrical Bodies,” No. 245. In 1680, he published “The Clog, or Staffordshire Almanack,” engraven on a copper-plate, and inserted afterwards in his “History of Staffordshire.”

, a French writer, born at Rheims, in 1688, was early distinguished by his progress in polite letters, and by his amiable character, qualities which procured him to be appointed classical professor in the university of Rheims. Some time after, he was removed to the professorship of rhetoric, and admitted into holy orders. Clermont, bishop of Laon, being made acquainted with his merit, offered him the place of director of the college of Clermont, and he was advancing the reputation of this seminary, when the peculiar opinions he held respecting some subjects which then interested the public, obliged him to leave his situation. On this, Gasville, the intendant of Rouen, appointed him tutor to his son, upon the recommendation of the celebrated Rollin. After this, he went to Paris, where he first gave lectures upon history and geography, and then acquired a considerable reputation by some works which he published I. His “Spectacle de la Nature” is generally known, having been translated into perhaps all the European languages, and was no where more popular than in England for many years. This work is written with perspicuity and elegance, and is equally instructive and agreeable; its only fault is, that the author uses too many words for his matter, which, however, is perhaps unavoidable in the dialogue form of writing. 2. 61 Histoire du Ciel,“in 2 vols. 12mo, is another work of the abbe” Pluche, a kind of mythological history of the heavens, consisting of two parts, almost independent of one another. The first, which contains some learned inquiries into the origin of the poetic heavens, and an attempt to prove that the pagan deities had not been real men, was animadverted upon by M. Silouette, in “Observations on the Abbe Pluche' s History,” &c. an account of which may be seen in the “History of the Works of the Learned” for April 1743, with notes by Warburton. 3. He wrote a tract also “De artificio linguarum,” 1735, 12mo, which he translated himself, under the title of “La Mechanique des Langues,” in which he proposes a short and easy method of learning languages, by the use of translations instead of themes or exercises. 4. “Concorde de la Geographic des differens ages,” 1764, 12mo, a posthumous work, well conceived, but executed superficially. 5. “Harmonic des Pseaumes et de PEvangile,” 1764, 12mo, a translation of the Psalms, remarkable for its fidelity and elegance, with many learned notes of reference and illustration from other parts of Scripture. Pluche had obtained the abbey of Varenne St Maur, to which he retired in 1749, and gave himself up entirely to devotion and study, which was a happy relief to him, as he lost all the pleasures of literary society, by an incurable deafness. He died of an apoplexy, Nov. 20, 1761. He was a believer in all the mysteries of his church, even to an extreme; and when some free-thinkers used to express their astonishment that a man of abbé Pluche’s force of understanding could think so like the vulgar, he used to say, “I glory in this it is more reasonable to believe the word of God, than to follow the vain and uncertain lights of reason.”

In Dec. 1629 Mr. Pocock was ordained priest by Corbet, bishop of Oxford, by whom he had some time before been admitted into deacon’s orders, and was now appointed chaplain to the English merchants at Aleppo, where he arrived in Oct. 1630, and continued five or six years. Here he distinguished himself by an exemplary discharge of the duties of his function, and when the plague broke out in 1634, was not to be diverted from what he thought his duty, when the merchants fled to the mountains; but continued to administer such comfort as was possible to the inhabitants of the city; and the mercy on which he relied for his own preservation, was remarkably extended to his countrymen, not one dying either of those who left, or those who remained in the city. While here he paid considerable attention to the natural history of the place, as far as concerned the illustration of the Scriptures, and besides making some farther progress in the Hebrew, Syriac, and Ethiopic languages, took the opportunity which his situation afforded of acquiring a familiar knowledge of the Arabic. For this purpose he agreed with an Arabian doctor to give him lessons, and engaged also a servant of the same country to live with him for the sake of conversing io the language. He also studied such grammars and lexicons as he could find read the Alcoran with great care, and translated much from books in the Arabic, particularly a collection which he procured of 6000 proverbs, containing the wisdom of the Arabians, and referring to the most remarkable passages of their history. These opportunities and advantages iri time reconciled him to a situation which at first greatly depressed his spirits the transition indeed from Oxford and its scholars to Aleppo and its barbarians, could not but affect a man of his disposition.

Another object he had very much at heart while here, was the purchase of Arabic Mss. in which he had considerable success. This appears at first to have been done at his private expence and for his private use but in a letter from Laud, then bishop of London, dated Oct. 30, 1631, he received a commission from that munificent prelate, which must have been highly gratifying to him, especially as he had no previous acquaintance with his lordship. The bishop’s commission extended generally to the purchase of ancient Greek coins, and such Mss. either in the Greek or Eastern languages, as he thought would form a valuable addition to the university library. Whether any the Mss. afterwards given by Laud to the Bodleian were procured at this time seems doubtful. In a letter from Laud, then archbishop, dated May 1634, we find him thanking Pocock for some Gr-eek coins, but no mention of manuscripts. In this letter, however, is the first intimation of the archbishop’s design with respect to the foundation of an Arabic professorship at Oxford, and a hope that Pocock, before his return, would so far make himself master of that language as to be able to teach it. And having carried his design into execution about two years afterwards, he invited Mr. Pocock to fill the new chair, with these encouraging words, that “he could do him no greater honour, than to name him to the university for his first professor.” His departure from Aleppo seems to have been much regretted by his Mahometan friends, to whom he had endeared himself by his amiable manners; and it appears also that he had established such a correspondence as might still enable him to procure valuable manuscripts.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.

Among the ms treasures in the British Museum, are several volumes (4811 48.27) the gift of bishop Pococke viz. “Minutes and Registers of the Philosophical Society of Dublin, from 1683 to 1687, with a copy of the papers read before them;” and “Registers of the Philosophical Society of Dublin, from Aug. 14, 1707, with copies of some of these papers read before them” also “Several Extracts taken out of the Records in Birmingham’s Tower,” “An Account of the Franciscan Abbeys, Houses, and Friaries, in Ireland,” &c. &c.

Mr. Cumberland, whose paintings are to be viewed with some caution, gives the following as characteristic sketches of bishop Pococke: “That celebrated oriental traveller and author was a man of mild manners and primitive simplicity; having given the world a full detail of his researches in Egypt, he seemed to hold himself excused from saying any thing more about them, and observed in general an obdurate taciturnity. In his carriage and deportment he appeared to have contracted something of the Arab character, yet there was no austerity in his silence, and though his air was solemn, his temper was serene. When we were on our road to Ireland, I saw from the windows of the inn at Daventry a cavalcade of horsemen approaching on a gentle trot, headed by an elderly chief in clerical attire, who was followed by five servants at distances geometrically measured and most precisely maintained, and who, upon entering the inn, proved to be this distinguished prelate, conducting his horde with the phlegmatic patience of a Scheiki”

After the ecclesiastical feud had been in some measure composed, Martin V. became the new pontiff, but Poggio did not at first hold any office under him, as he visited England in consequence of an invitation which he had received from Beaufort, bishop of Winchester. He is said to have observed with chagrin the uncultivated state of the public mind in Britain, when compared with the enthusiastic love of elegant literature, which polished and adorned his native country. During his residence here he received an invitation to take the office of secretary to Martin V. which was the more readily accepted by him, as he is said to have been disappointed in the expectations he had formed from the bishop of Winchester. The time of his arrival at Rome is not exactly ascertained but it appears that his first care afcer his re-establishment in the sacred chancery, was to renew with his friends the personal and epistolary communication which his long absence from Italy had interrupted. He now also resumed his private studies, and in 1429 published his “Dialogue on Avarice,” in which he satirized, with great severity, the friars who were a branch of the order of the Franciscans, and who, on account of the extraordinary strictness with which they professed to exercise their conventual discipline, were distinguished by the title of Fratres Observantly. He inveighs also against the monastic life with great freedom, but with a levity which renders it very questionable whether any kind of religious life was much to his taste. When Eugenius IV. was raised to the pontificate, his authority commenced with unhappy omens, being engaged in quarrels both in Italy and Germany and Poggio, foreseeing the disastrous event, wrote freely upon the subject to the cardinal Julian, the pope’s legate, that he might gain him over to his master’s interest. In this letter were some smart strokes of satiric wit, which the disappointed and irritated mind of Julian could not well bear. Poggio’s morals were not free from blame; and the cardinal in his answer reminds him of having children, which, he observes, “is inconsistent with the obligations of an ecclesiastic and by a mistress, which is discreditable to the character of a layman.” To these reproaches Poggio replied in a letter replete with the keenest sarcasm. He pleaded guilty to the charge which had been exhibited against him, and candidly confessed that he had deviated from the paths of virtue, but excused himself by the common-place argument that many ecclesiastics had done the same. In 1433, when the pope was obliged to fly from Rome, Poggio was taken prisoner, and obliged to ransom himself by a large sum of money. He then repaired to Florence, where he attached himself to the celebrated Cosmo de Medici, and in consequence became involved in a quarrel with Francis Philelphus (See Philelphus), which was conducted with mutual rancour. Poggio now purchased a villa at VaJdarno, which he decorated with ancient sculpture and monuments of art; and such was the esteem in which he was held by the republic of Florence, that he and his children were exempted from the payment of taxes. These children, all illegitimate, amounted to fourteen but in 1435, when he had attained his fifty-fifth year, he dismissed them and their mother without provision, and married a girl of eighteen years old. On this occasion he wrote a formal treatise on the propriety of an old man marrying a young girl the treatise is lost, and would be of little consequence if recovered, since the question was not whether an old man should marry a young girl, but whether an old man should discard his illegitimate offspring to indulge his sensuality under the form of marriage. As however, men in years who marry so disproportionately are generally very ardent lovers, he celebrates his young bride for her great beauty, modesty, sense, &c.

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

Cardinal Pole was, in person, of a middle stature, and thin habit; his complexion fair, with an open countenance and cheerful aspect. His constitution was healthful, although not strong. He was learned and eloquent, and naturally of a benevolent and mild disposition, but his bigoted attachment to the see of Rome occasioned his being concerned in transactions which probably would not have originated with him yet we have no reason to think that he dissuaded the court of queen Mary from its abominable cruelties and it is certain that many of them were carried on in his name. Mr. Phillips, who wrote an elaborate biographical vindication of cardinal Pole, but who would not openly vindicate the cruelties of Mary’s reign, has unfortunately asserted, that not one person was put to death in the diocese of Canterbury, after the cardinal was promoted to that see but Mr. Ridley has clearly proved that no less than twenty-four were burnt in one year in that diocese, while Pole was archbishop. Gilpin, however, seems to be of opinion that he “would certainly have prevented those reproaches on his religion which this reign occasioned, had his resolution been equal to his judgment.” Of both we have a remarkable example, alluded to already, but more fully quoted by the same author in his life of Latimer, which seems to be conclusive as to the cardinal’s real character. When, in a council of bishops, it was agitated how to proceed with heretics, the cardinal said, “For my part, I think we should be content with the public restoration of religion; and instead of irritating our adversaries by a rigorous execution of the revived statutes, I could wish that every bishop in his diocese would try the more winning expedients of gentleness and persuasion.” He then urged the example of the emperor Charles V. who, by a severe persecution of the Lutherans, involved himself in many difficulties, and purchased nothing but dishonour. Notwithstanding the liberality and humanity of these sentiments, when Gardiner, Bonner, and others equally violent, were heard in favour of severe measures, Pole had not the courage to dissent; and the result was a commission issued by himself, impowering the bishops to try and examine heretics, agreeably to the laws which were now revived.

, an apostolic father of the Christian church, was born in the reign of Nero, probably at Smyrna, a city of Ionia in Asia Minor, where he was educated at the expence of Calisto, a noble matron of great piety and charity. In his younger years he is said to be instructed in the Christian faith by Bucolus, bishop of that place but others consider it as certain that he was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and familiarly conversed with others of the apostles. At a proper age, Bucolus ordained him a deacon and catechist of his church; and, upon the death of that prelate, he succeeded him in the bishopric. To this he was consecrated by St. John who also, according to archbishop Usher, directed his “Apocalyptical Epistle,” among six others, to him, under the title of the “Angel of the Church of Smyrna,” where, many years after the apostle’s death, he was also visited by St. Ignatius. Ignatius recommended his own see of Antioch to the care and si>perintendance of Polycarp, and afterwards sent an epistle to the church of Smyrna from Troas, A. C. 107 when Polycarp is supposed to have written his “Epistle to the Philippians,” a translation of which is preserved by Dr. Cave.

, an English poet, was son of Mr. Pomfret, rector of Luton in Bedfordshire, and formerly of Trinity college, Cambridge. He was born about 1667. He was educated at a grammar-school in the country, and thence sent to Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1684, and that of master in 1698. He then went into orders, and was presented to the living of Malden in Bedfordshire. About 1703, he came up to London for institution to a larger and very considerable living but was stopped some time by Compton, then bishop of London, on account of these four lines of his poem entitled “The Choice:”

The parenthesis in these lines was so maliciously represented, that the good bishop was made to believe from it, that Pomfret prefered a mistress to a wife though no such meaning can be deduced, unless it be asserted, that an unmarried clergyman cannot live without a mistress. But the bishop was soon convinced, that this representation was nothing more than the effect of malice, as Pomfret at that time was actually married. The opposition, however, which his slanderers had given him, was not without effect for, being obliged on this occasion to stay in London longer than he intended, he caught the small-pox, and died of it, in 1703, aged thirty-five.

, bishop of Bergen, who was born in 1698, at Aarhuus, in Denmark, and died in 1764, wrote several works respecting the history and geography of that kingdom; one of which, his “History of Norway,” was translated into English in 1755. His other publications are less known in this country. He must be distinguished from another Danish writer of both his names, author of a Danish grammar, a collection of epigrams and other articles of Latin poetry. He was born in 1616, and died in 1678.

However Mr. Pool might vindicate himself against the misrepresentations of this sermon, he refused to comply with the act of uniformity in 1662, and therefore incurred an ejectment from his rectory upon which occasion he printed a piece in Latin, entitled “Vop clamantis in deserto” He then submitted to the law with a commendable resignation, and enjoying a paternal estate of one hundred pounds per annum, sat down to his studies, resolving to employ his pen in the service of religion in general, without interfering with the controversies of the times. With this view, he formed the design of a very laborious and useful work, which procured him much credit at the time, and entitles him to the regard of posterity. This was his “Synopsis Criticorum,” published in 1669, and following years, in 5 very large volumes in. folio, some account of which may not be uninteresting, as it throws some light on the state of literary trade and public spirit in those clays. As it was probable that this work, which was suggested by bishop Lloyd, would be attended with an enormous expence, Mr. Pool, after he had formed his plan, and partly prepared his materials, endeavoured first to discover what likelihood there was of public encouragement, and with this view published as a specimen of the work, the sixth chapter of Genesis, with an address and proposals. In these he solicited the subscriptions of “the friends of religion and learning” to the “Synopsis,” which was to consist of three volumes folio, of 280 sheets each, at 4l. each copy, and the number of his subscribers, there is reason to think, was from the beginning very great, men of all parties discovering an eagerness to encourage a work the utility of which was so obvious. That the subscribers might be satisfied as to their money being properly expended, a committee of divines and gentlemen of property consented to act as trustees for the m,anage*­ment of the fund. These were, sir James Langham, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Micklethwait, Dr. Wharton, John King, of the Inner-Temple, esq. and Mr. Stiliingfleet, any three of whom might impower the treasurer, William. Webb, esq. to issue money for carrying on the work.

Along with this specimen and proposals, Mr. Pool published the opinions of “several eminent, reverend, and learned persons, bishops and others,” in favour of the work, and of his ability to execute it, of which he wa$ authorized to make this use. Among the prelates -who recommended the “Synopsis,” as a work which they “were persuaded would tend very much to the advancement of religion and learning, were Morley, bishop of Winchester, Reynolds of Norwich, Ward of Salisbury, Rainbow of Carlisle, Blandford of Oxford, Dolben and Warner of Rochester, Morgan of Bangor, and Hacket of Lichfield and Coventry and among the other divines, several of whom afterwards were raised to the episcopal bench, were Dr. Barlow, provost of Queen’s college, Oxford; Dr. WilIdns, Dr. Castell, Dr. Lloyd (whom some, as we have observed, make the first instigator), Dr. Tillotson, Mr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Whichcot; Dr. Bathurst, president of Trinity college, Oxford, Dr. Wallis and Dr. Lightfoot, with the most eminent and learned of the nonconformists, Baxter, Owen, Bates, Jacomb, Horton, and Manton. Most of these signed their opinions in a body; but bishop Hacket, Dr. Barlow, Dr. Lightfoot, and Dr. Owen, sent him separate letters of encouragement, in language which could not fail to have its weight with the pubJic. He also acknowledges, with great gratitude, the munificent aid he received from sir Peter Wentworth, K. B.” who appears to have been his chief patron, and from sir Orlando Bridgman, the earls of Manchester, Bridgwater, Lauderdale, and Donegal the lords Truro, Brooke, and Cameron, sir William Morrice, sir Walter St. John, sic Thomas Clifford, sir Robert Murray, &c. &c. &c.

Soon after this Pope issued proposals for a translation of the “Odvssey” but of this he performed only twelve books, namely the third, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-fourth. The rest were translated by Fenton and Broome, and Pope is said to have given the former three hundred, and the latter five hundred pounds for their assistance; but as the number of subscribers equalled that of the Iliad, his own profits must have been very considerable. About this time he was full of grief and anxiety, on account of the impeachment of his friend bishop Atterbury, for whom he seems to have felt the greatest affection and regard; and being summoned before the Lords at the trial, to give some account of At* lerbury’s domestic life and employments, not being used to speak in a large assembly, he made several blunders in the few words he had to utter. It is remarkable that the day which deprived him of Atterbury, restored to him another friend, Bolingbroke, who continued in habits of intimacy with him during the whole of his life.

, a man of wit and learning in the seventeenth century, was born at Fawsley in Northamptonshire, in what year is not mentioned. He was half brother to Dr. John Wilkins, bishop of Chester, by the mother’s side. He was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1645, but is supposed for some reason to have left that soon for Wad ham college, Oxford, where he obtained a scholarship, and took the degree of B. A. July 6, 1649. In July 1651 the parliamentary visitors admitted him probationer fellow, although he, does not appear to have been of their principles, and in the same month he commenced master of arts. In 1658, while he served the office of junior proctor, a controversy took place respecting the wearing of caps and hoods, which the reigning party considered as reliques of popery, and therefore wished to aboJish the statute which enjoined them. This he contrived to oppose with so much success that all the power of the republicans was not sufficient to carry the point, and these articles of dress continued to be worn until the restoration. Of this affair, which he calls “the most glorious action of his life,” he has given a full account in his Life of Dr. Ward, bishop of Salisbury, and expresses his displeasure that Antony Wood should, in his “Annals,” have passed over an event so honourable to him.

Dr. Pope was a man of humour and a satirist, and in both characters had published in 1670 the “Memoirs of Mons. Du Vail, with his last speech and epitaph.” Du Vail was a notorious highwayman, who was hanged in 1669 at Tyburn, and having been much admired and bewailed by the ladies, our author by this piece of biography endeavoured to cure them of such weakness or affectation, and to direct their esteem to more worthy objects. In 1693, he published his well-known song called “The Wish,” or “The Old Man’s Wish,” which may be seen in Mr. Nichols’s collection of Miscellany Poems, and perhaps in every collection of English songs. Vincent Bourne wrote a beautiful imitation of it in Latin. This wish seems to have been in some measure accomplished in his own case, for in his life of bishop Ward, published in 1697, he says, “I thank God, I am arriv‘d to a good old age without gout, or stone, with my external senses but little decayed; and my intellectuals, tho’ none of the best, yet as good as ever they were.” In the following year he was involved in a tedious law-suit, which gave him much uneasiness, but what the subject was, his biographer has not discovered. In 1699 he withdrew from the Royal Society, designing Yery probably to retire into the country, and enjoy himself in some respects agreeably to his “Wish.” Accordingly he spent much of his time afterwards at Epsom, but at last settled in Bunhill fields, then a suburb of London, where he died, in a very advanced age, in June 1714, and was buried in the church of St. Giles’s Cripplegate.

He maintained an intimate friendship with two very emifcent and learned men, Mr. Rooke and Dr. Barrow; but his greatest friend and patron, next to his brother bishop Wilkins, was Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, whose life he wrote, and from whom he had a pension of lOOl. a year. His intimacy with this excellent prelate seems to contradict the character Anthony Wood gives of him, that he led “an” Epicurean and heathenish life,“but there was some cause of quarrel between Wood and Dr. Pope, and the former, we know, was too apt to put his resentments in writing. Pope wds a man of wit as well as learning, but certainly not a correct or elegant writer. He was a good French and Ita* lian scholar, and well acquainted also with the Spanish language. In the Philosophical Transactions (April 1665), is by him” Extract of a letter from Venice to Dr. Wilkins, concerning the mines of mercury in Friuli, &c.“and” Observations made at London upon an eclipse of the sun, June 22, 1666.“His other works are,” The Memoirs of Mons. Du Vail,“mentioned above, Lond. 1670, 4to;” Te the Memory of the most rerrowned Du Vail, a Pindaric Ode,“ibid. 1671, 4to, said in the title to be written by Butler, and since printed among his” Remains,“and in his” Works.“Dr. Pope wrote also” The Catholic Ballad,“and other verses, which are inserted in Mr. Nichols’s Col* lection;” Select Novels,“1694, from the Spanish of Cervantes and the Italian of Petrarch;” Moral and Political Fables, ancient and modern,“ibid. 1698, 8vo. But his most useful publication is” The Life of the Right Rev. Seth, Lord Bishop of Salisbury,“a small volume printed at London in 1697, which contains many anecdotes of that prelate’s contemporaries, Wilkins, Barrow, Rooke, Turberville, &c. Dr. Thos. Wood, a civilian, and relation of Ant. Wood, published some severe animadversions on this life in what he entitled” An Appendix to the Life, &c. in a Letter to the Author, &c." 1697, 12mo, but this is much more scarce than the other.

In the year 1808, his asthmatic complaint became so frequent as to interrupt his usual pursuits, and so painful that during the agony he never went to bed, and was forced to abstain from all sustenance. This greatly debilitated his body and about a month before his death he was also afflicted with an intermittent fever. He had an unfortunate objection to medical advice, and therefore resorted to his usual remedy of abstinence but on Monday, the 19th of September, 1808, he suffered an apoplectic stroke, from which he recovered only to endure another the next day. He languished in consequence until the Sunday night, and then expired without a struggle, at his rooms in the London Institution. His remains were removed for interment in the ante-chapel of Trinity-college, Cambridge, and were deposited in a grave close to the statue of sir Isaac Newton, and near the ashes of Bentley. The funeral was attended by the society of the college, and the service read by the master, the bishop of Bristol. The college afterwards purchased such of his books as contained his ms notes, which were very numerous, and from which two publications have since been made, one of his “Adversaria,” and the other already mentioned, by Mr. Kidd.

In 1773 a circumstance occurred, which then excited considerable interest, and in which the part that Dr. Porteus took has been much misinterpreted and misunderstood. The following statement in his own words, will place the fact in its true point of view. < At the close of the year 1772, and the beginning of the next, an attempt was made by myself and a few other clergymen, among whom were Mr. Francis Wollaston, Dr. Percy, now bishop of Dromore, and Dr. Yorke, now bishop of Ely, to induce the bishops to promote a review of the liturgy and articles, in order to amend in both, but particularly in the latter, those parts which all reasonable persons agreed stood in need of amendment This plan was not in the smallest degree connected with the petitioners at the Feathers tavern, but, on the contrary, was meant to counteract that and all similar extravagant projects; to strengthen and confirm our ecclesiastical establishment to repel the attacks which were at that time continually made upon it by its avowed enemies; to render the 17th article on predestination and election more clear and perspicuous, and less liable to be wrested by our adversaries to a Calvinistic sense,.which has been so unjustly affixed to it; to improve true Christian piety amongst these of our own communion, and to diminish schism and separation by bringing over to the national church all the moderate and well-disposed of other persuasions. On these grounds, we applied in a private and respectful manner to archbishop CornWallis, requesting him to signify our wishes (which we conceived to be the wishes of a very large proportion both of the clergy and the laity) to the rest of the bishops, that every thing might be done, which could be prudently and safely done, to promote these important and salutary purposes.

In 1776, Dr. Porteus was promoted to the bishopric of Chester, where he distinguished himself by a faithful discharge of the duties of his high station and in the interval between this period and his promotion to the see of London, the bishop evinced his zeal and ardour for the promotion of piety, benevolence, and the public good, by the part which he took in various matters which were objects of popular discussion. The principal among these were the ftratestaut association against Poperv that abeminable nuisance, the Sunday debating society the civilization of the negroes, and Ihe establishment of Sunday schools. In the first of these, at the same time that the bishop demonstrated his universal charity and candour, he was not negligent in guarding those committed to his care against the dangerous and delusive tenets of popery. In the second, his exertions effectually put a stop to a very alarming evil, to meetings which were calculated to destroy every moral sentiment, and extinguish every religious principle. With respect to the civilization and conversion of the negroes, he indulged the feeling nearest to his heart; but, although he had the happiness to see the final accomplishment of his wishes, his first endeavours were not effectual. The plan of Sunday schools was first introduced by Mr. Richard Raikes, of Gloucester, and when the bishop was convinced by time and experience of their real utility and importance, he promoted them in his diocese, and by an admirable letter which he addressed to his clergy, he explained their advantages, and recommeuded their universal adoption.

In 1787, on the death of bishop Lowth, Mr. Pitt recommended Dr. Porteus to his majesty as a fit person to Succeed to the diocese of London, and his majesty having given his entire approbation, he was accordingly installed. The first object which engaged his attention on his promotion to this important see, was the king’s proclamation against immorality and profaneness and the good effects of his exertions on this subject were immediate and important; but his pastoral zeal was displayed to most advantage a few years after, when all moral and religious principle became endangered by the pernicious influence of the French revolution. The object of the authors of that convulsion was to degrade and vilify the truths of revelation, and to propagate in its place a blasphemous and infidel philosophy. The attempt succeeded but too effectually in their own country, and the contagion soon spread to tbis. No efforts were spared, which could tend to contaminate the public mind, and obliterate from it all reverence for our civil and religious establishments; and had it not been for the vigorous measures of that great minister, who was then at the head of thq administration, and to whom, under providence, we owe our preservation, we might have witnessed here the same frightful scenes, which convulsed and desolated a neighbouring kingdom. At a crisis such as this, in which all that is (Tear to us hung suspended on the issue, it was plainly every man’s bounden duty to exert himself to the utmost for the public welfare and, in a situation so responsible as the see of London, comprehending a vast metropolis, where the emissaries of infidelity were most actively occupied in their work of mischief, the bishop felt himself called upon to counteract, as far as in him lay, the licentious principles which were then afloat, and to check, if possible, the progress they had too evidently made in the various ranks of society. The best mode, as he conceived, of doing this, was to rouse the attention of the clergy to what was passing around them; and nothing surely was ever better calculated to produce that effect, than the charge which he addressed to them in 1794. We know not where, in a short compass, the character of the French philosophy is more ably drawn, or its baneful influence more strikingly developed. He had marked its course with an observing eye. He had read all that its advocates could allege in its favour. He had traced the motives which gave it birth, the features by which it was marked, and the real objects which it was designed to accomplish. It was not therefore without much deliberation and a full knowledge of his subject, that he drew up for his second visitation that eloquent and most impressive address, in which he gave such a picture of the infidel school of that day, and of the industry which was then employed to disseminate its principles in this country, as at once carried conviction to the mind, and most powerfully awakened the attention of every serious and thinking man. But it was on the clergy, in an especial manner, that he was anxious to leave a strong and fixed persuasion of the necessity of increased assiduity and vigilance in the discharge of their religious functions. Christianity, attacked as it was on every side,required more than common efforts, and more than ordinary zeal on the part of its natural defenders and he therefore called upon them to repel with vigour and effect all those charges pf fraud, falsehood, and fanaticism, which had been so liberally thrown upon it; at such a perilous crisis to contend with peculiar earnestness for “the faith once delivered to the saints” and to shew that it is not, as our enemies affirm, “a cunningly devised fable,” but “a real revela-> tion from heaven.”

The benefactions of the bishop of London were numerous, public as well as private. While he was living, he transferred nearly seven thousand pounds in three per cents to the archdeacons of the diocese of London, as a permanent fund for the relief of the poorer clergy of his diocese. He also transferred stock to Christ’s college, Cambridge, directing the interest arising from it to be appropriated to the purchase of three gold medals, to be annually contended for by the students of that college one medal, value fifteen' guineas, for the best Latin dissertation on. any of the chief evidences of Christianity another of the same value for the best English composition on some moral precept in the gospel; and one of ten guineas, to the best reader in and most constant attendant at chapel. He bequeathed his library for the use of his successors in the see of London, together with a liberal sum towards the expence of erecting a building for its reception at the episcopal palace at Fulham. At Hyde-hill, near Sundridge, in Kent, where the bishop had a favourite rural retreat, he built a chapel, under which he directed his remains to be deposited, and he endowed it with an income of 25()l. ayear.

, an English surgeon of the highest eminence, was born in Thread needle-street, London, in December 1713. His father dying before he was quite four years old, he was left, in some degree, to the protection and patronage of Wilcox, bishop of Rochester, who was a distant relation of his mother. The profession of surgery was his own decided choice, though the connection above mentioned might naturally have led him to the church; and, in 1729, he was bound apprentice to Mr. Nourse, one of the surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, under whom he was profoundly instructed, in what, at that time, was taught only by a few, the science of anatomy. His situation brought with it an abundance of practical knowledge, to which his own industry led him to add all that can be gained from a sagacious and careful perusal of the early writers on surgery. Thus qualified, he was admirably calculated to reform the superfluous and awkward modes of practice which had hitherto disgraced the art. In 1736, having finished his apprenticeship, he took a house in Fencburch-street, and quickly was distinguished as a young man of the most brilliant and promising talents. In 1745, he was elected an assistant surgeon; and, in 1749, one of the principal surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s hospital. It was one of the honours of Mr. Pott’s life, that he divested surgery of its principal horrors, by substituting a mild and rational mode of practice (notwithstanding the opposition of the older surgeons), instead of the actual cautery, and other barbarous expedients which had hitherto been employed and he lived to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing his improved plan universally adopted. Though he possessed the most distinguished talents for communicating his thoughts in writing, it seems to have been by accident that he was led to become an author. Immersed in practice, it does not appear that hitherto he had written any thing, except a paper “on tumours attended with a softening of the bones,” in the forty-first volume of the Philosophical Transactions; but, in 1756, a compound fracture of the leg, occasioned by a fall of his horse in the streets, gave him leisure to plan, and in part to write, his Treatise on Ruptures. The flattering reception of his publications attached him afterwards to this mode of employing his talents, so that he was seldom long without being engaged in some work. His leg was with difficulty preserved, and he returned to the labours of his profession. In 1764, he had the honour of being elected a fellow of the Royal Society; and in the ensuing year he began to give lectures at his house, which was then in Watling-street; but finding it necessary, from the increase of his business, to choose a more central situation, he removed, in 1769, to Lincoln’s-rnn-fields, and in 1777 to Hanover-square. His reputation had now risen nearly to the greatest height, bj means of his various publications, and the great success of his practice. He was universally consulted, and employed by persons of the first rank and situation; and received honorary tributes to his merit from the royal college of surgeons at Edinburgh and in Ireland. In 1787, he resigned the office of surgeon to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, “after having served it,” as he expressed himself, “man and boy, for half a century” and in December 1788, in consequence of a cold caught by going out of town to a patient in very severe weather, he died, at the age of seventy-five. He was buried near his mother, in the church of St. Mary Aldermary, Bow-lane, where a tablet was affixed to his memory, inscribed by his son, the rev. J. H. Pott, the present archdeacon of London, and vicar of St. Martin’s-­in-the-fields.

, a pious prelate of the church of England, was born within the barony of Kendall, in the county of Westmoreland, in 1578 or 1579. In his fifteenth year he entered Queen’s college, Oxford, as a poor student, or tabarder, but made such progress in his studies, that he took, his degrees with great reputation; and when master of arts, was chosen fellow of his college. During his fellowship he became tutor to the sons of several gentlemen of rank and worth, whom he assiduously trained in learning and religion. After taking orders, he was for some time lecturer at Abington, and at Totness in Devonshire, where he was highly respected as an affecting preacher, and was, according to Wood, much followed by the puritans. In 1610 he was chosen principal of Edmund Hall, but resigned, and was never admitted into that office. In 1615 he completed his degrees in divinity; and being presented the following year to a pastoral charge, by sir Edward Giles of Devonshire, hemarried the daughter of that gentleman, and intended to settle in that country. Such, however, was the character he had left behind him at Oxford, that on the death of Dr. Airay, the same year, he vvas unanimously elected provost of Queen’s college, entirely without his knowledge. This station he retained about ten years and being then one of the king’s chaplains, resigned the provostship in favour of his nephew, the subject of our next article. He was now again about to settle in Devonshire when king Charles, passing by, as we are told, many solicitations in favour of others, peremptorily nominated him bishop of Carlisle in 1628. Wood adds, that in this promotion he had the interest of bishop Laud, “although a thorough-paced Calvinist.” He continued, however, a frequent and favourite preacher; and, says Fuller, “was commonly called the puritanical bishop; and they would say of him, in the time of king James, that organs would blow him out of the church which I do not believe the rather, because he was loving of and skilful in vocal music, and could bear his own part therein.”

In the beginning of the long parliament he preached at Westminster, and inveighed against the corruptions and innovations that had crept into the church, and his sentiments were generally approved of; but, in the confusion and prejudices which ensued, he did not escape without the usual crimes imputed to men of rank in the church, and was censured as popish, merely because he was a bishop. This treatment, and a foresight of the calamities about to fall on his church and nation, are said to have hastened his death, which happened at his lodgings in Covent-garden, in January 1642. He was interred in the church of St, Paul, Covent-garden. He died, says Fuller, “in honour, being the last bishop that died a member of parliament.”

, nephew to the preceding, was born also within the barony of Kendal in Westmorland, about 1591, and became clerk of Queen’s college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1606. On April 30, 1610, he took the degree of B.A.and July 8, 1613, that of M.A.; and the same year was chosen chaplain of the college, and afterwards fellow of it. He was then a great admirer of Dr. Henry Airay, provost of that college, some of whose works he published, and who was a zealous puritan, and a lecturer at Abingdon in Berks, where he was much resorted to for his preaching. 'On March the 9th, 1620, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and February 17, 1626-7, that of doctor, having succeeded his uncle Dr. Barnabas Potter in the provostship of his college on the 17th of June, 1626. “Soon after,” says Mr. Wood, “when Dr. Laud became a rising favourite at court, he, after a great deal of seeking, was made his creature, and therefore by the precise party he was esteemed an Arminian.” On March the 15th, 1628, he preached a Sermon on John xxi. 17. at the consecration of his uncle to the bishopric of Carlisle at Ely House in Hoiborn which was printed at London, 1629, in 8vo, and involved him in a short controversy with Mr. Vicars, a friend of his, who blamed him for a leaning towards Arminianism. In 1633 he published his “Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet, entitled, Charity mistaken.” The cause was this A Jesuit who went by the name of Edward Knott, but whose true name was Matthias Wilson, had published in 1630, a little book in 8vo, called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof Catholicks are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that Protestancy un repented destroies Salvation.” Dr. Potter published an answer to this at Oxford, 1633, in 8vo, with this title: “Want of Charitie justly charged on all such Romanists as dare (without truth or modesty) affirme, that Protestancie destroy eth Salvation; or, an Answer to a late Popish pamphlet, intituled, Charity mistaken, &c.” The second edition revised and enlarged, was printed at London, 1634, in 8vo. Prynne observes, that bishop Laud, having perused the first edition, caused some things to be omitted in the second. It is dedicated to King Charles I. and in the dedication Dr. Potter observes, that it was “undertaken in obedience to his majesty’s particular commandment.”

Dr. Potter had a son, Charles, who was born at Oxford in 1633, and admitted a student of Christ Church in 1647, but after completing his master’s degree, he left the university, and when abroad with James Croits, afterwards created duke of Monmouth, he embraced the Roman Catholic religion. He was afterwards one of the gentlemen ushers to his great uncle, Dr. Barnabas Potter, bishop of Carlisle. The “Theses Quaclragesiiriales in scholis Oxoniensibus publice pro forma discussae,” Oxon, 1649, 12mo, was published with his name, but the real author was his college tutor, Mr. Thomas Severn.

This treatise was afterwards translated into French, Dutch, and Latin. The Latin version was made by several hands. One edition was all or most translated by Mr. Thomas Gilbert, of Edmund Hall, in Oxford, and printed at Amsterdam 1677, in 8vo; part of the Latin translation is inserted in the second part of the fourth volume of Pool’s “Synopsis Criticorum.” Our author’s treatise was attacked by Mr. Lambert Morehouse, minister of Prestwood, near Kilmington, who asserts, that 25 is not the true, but propinque root of 666. Mr. Potter wrote a Reply to him. Mr. Morehouse gave a manuscript copy of this dispute to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Sarum, in 1668. Our author, while he was very young, had a good talent at drawing and painting, and the founder’s picture in the hall of Trinity college is of his copying. He had likewise an excellent genius for mechanics, and made several inventions for raising of water, and water-engines; which being communicated to the Royal Society, about the time of its first establishment, were highly approved of, and he was admitted a member of that society. Mr. Wood likewise observes, that about 1640, “he entertained the notion of curing diseases by transfusion of blood out of one man into another; the hint whereof came into his head from Ovid’s story of Medea and Jason; which matter he communicating to the Royal Society about the time of its first erection, it was entered into their books. But this way of transfusion having (as it is said) been mentioned long before by Andr. Libavius, our author Potter (vfrho I dare say never saw that writer) is not to be the first inventor of that notion, nor Dr. Richard Lewen, but rather an advancer.” He became blind before his death, and died at Kilmington about April 1678, and was buried in the chancel of the church there. His memory was preserved in Trinity college until 1670 by a dial, which he constructed and placed on the north side of the old quadrangle, but there is now another in its room. There are many anecdotes of him in the Aubrey Mss. but none perhaps more worth transcribing than the following. “The last time I saw him,” says Aubrey, “I asked him why he did not get some cousin or kinsman to be with him, and look to him now in his great age? He answered me, that he had tried that way, and found it not so well; for they did begrudge what he spent, that it was too much, and went from them, whereas his servants (strangers) were kind to him, and took care of him.” Aubrey adds, that in the “troublesome times it was his happiness never to be sequestered. He was once maliciously informed against to the committee a* Wells (a thing very common in those times); but when he came before them, one of them (I have forgot his name) gave him a pint of wine, and gave him great praise, and bade him go home, and fear nothing.” He seems to have wanted only opportunities of conversing more frequently with his learned contemporaries to have made a distinguished figure in the infancy of the Royal Society.

In the beginning of 1708, he succeeded Dr. Jane as regius professor of divinity, and canon of Christ Church, who brought him back to Oxford. This promotion he owed to the interest of the celebrated duke of Marlborougb, and to the opinion held concerning him that he was a Whig; whereas Dr. Smalridge, whom the other party wished to succeed in the professorship and canonry, had distinguished himself by opposition to the whig-measures of the court. In point of qualification these divines might be equal, and Dr. Potter certainly, both as a scholar and divine, was liable to no objection. It was probably to the same interest that he owed his promotion, in April 1715, to the see of Oxford. Just before he was made bishop he published, what had occupied his attention a very considerable time, his splendid and elaborate edition of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, 2 vols. fol. Gr. and Lat. an edition, says Harwood, “worthy of the celebrity of the place where it was published, and the erudition of the very learned prelate, who has so happily illustrated this miscellaneous writer.” In this he has given an entire new version of the “Cohortations,” and intended to have done the same for the “Stromata,” but was prevented by the duties of his professorship. In his preface he intreats the reader’s candour as to some typographical errors, he being afflicted during part of the printing by a complaint in his eyes, which obliged him to trust the correction of the press to others.

For some time after his being made bishop of Oxford, he retained the divinity chair, and filled both the dignities with great reputation, rarely failing to preside in person over the divinity disputations in the schools, and regularly holding hisxtriennial visitation at St. Mary’s church; upon which occasions his charges to the clergy were suited to the exigencies of the times. In 1717, Dr. Hoadly, then bishop of Bangor, having advanced some doctrines, respecting sincerity, in one of his tracts, which our prelate judged to be injurious to true religion, he took occasion to animadvert upon them in his first visitation the following year; and his charge having been published, at the request of his clergy, Dr. Hoadly answered it, which produced a reply, from our prelate. In this short controversy, he displayed more warmth than was thought consistent with the general moderation of his temper; but such were his arguments and his character, that Hoadly is said to have been more concerned on account of this adversary than of any other he had then encountered.

Some time after this he became much a favourite with queen Caroline, then princess of Wales; and upon the accession of George II. preached the coronation sermon, Oct. 11, 1727, which was afterwards printed by his majesty’s express commands, and is inserted among the bishop’s theological works. It was generally supposed that the chief direction of public affairs, with regard to the church, was designed to be committed to his care; but as he saw that this must involve him in the politics of the times, he declined the proposal, and returned to his bishopric, until the death of Dr. Wake, in January 1737, when he was appointed his successor in the archbishopric of Canterbury. This high office he filled during the space of ten years with great reputation, and towards the close of that period fell into a lingering disorder, which put a period to his life Oct. 10, 1747, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. He was buried at Croydon.

In 1788 he was promoted by the lord chancellor Thurlow to the dignity of a prebendary in the cathedral of Norwich. He had been a schoolfellow of lord Thurlow, and had constantly sent his publications to that nobleman, without ever soliciting a single favour from him. On receiving a copy of the “Sophocles,” however, his lordship wrote a short note to Mr. Potter, acknowledging the receipt of his books from time to time, and the pleasure they had afforded him, and requesting Mr. Potter’s acceptance of a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Norwich. In the following year, and during his residence at Norwich, the united vicarages of Lowestoft and Kessingland were presented to him, without solicitation from any quarter, by Dr. Bagot, then bishop of Norwich. His mind was sensibly impressed by such a disinterested and honourable mark of that prelate’s favour, which was the greater, as these united vicarages were the best subject of patronage that fell vacant during the seven years that Dr. Bagot held the see. Mr. Potter died suddenly, in the night-time, at Lowestoff, Aug. 9, 1804, in the eighty-third year of his age. He was a man of unassuming simple manners, and his life was exemplary. His translations are a sufficient proof of his intimate acquaintance with classical learning, and in this character he was highly respected by the literati of his time. It is said that he left a manuscript biography of the learned men of Norfolk, but into whose hands this has fallen, we have not heard.

, a French divine, successively priest of the oratory, doctor of the Sorbonne, and abbe* of Chambon, was born at Montpellier in 1666. He was some time at the head of an ecclesiastical seminary, under Colbert, bishop of Montpellier where he was of infinite service, not only by the excellence of his instructions, but the purity of his example. He was vicar of St. Roch at Paris, in 161)2, and had there the credit of contributing to the penitence of the celebrated La Fontaine, of which the English reader may see his own curious account in the “New Memoirs of Literature,” vol. X. His latter days were passed at Paris, in the religious house of St. Magloire, where he died in 1723, at the age of fiftyseven.“Father Pouget was the author of some works, of which the most remarkable is,” The Catechism of Montpellier/ 1 the best edition of which is that of Paris in 1702, in 4to. It is a kind of body of divinity, and has been considered by the clergy of his communion as the most precise, clear, and elegantly simple statement of the doctrines and practices of religion that has ever been produced. He was concerned in some other works, which were not entirely his own such as “The Breviary of Narbonne” " Martinay’s edition of St. Jerom Montfaucon’s Greek Analects and a book of instructions for the Knights of Malta.

Poussin, having lived happily to his seventy-first year, died paralytic in 1665. He married the sister of Caspar Dughet, by whom he had no children. His estate amounted to no more than sixty thousand livres; but he valued his ease above riches, and preferred his abode at Rome, where he lived without ambition, to fortune elsewhere. He never made words about the price of his pictures; but put it down at the back of the canvas, and it was always given him. He had no disciple. The following anecdote much illustrates his character. Bishop Mancini, who was afterwards a cardinal, staying once on a visit to him till it was dark, Poussin took the candle in his hand, lighted him down stairs, and waited upon him to his coach. The prelate was sorry to see him do it himself, and could not help saying, “1 very much pity you, Monsieur Poussin, that you have not one servant.” “And I pity you more, my lord,” replied Poussin, “that you have so many.”

He left a very learned son, Gabriel Powell, who was born at Ruabon, in 1575, and educated at Jesus college, Oxford, after which he became master of the free-school at Ruthen, in his native county. Not however finding his situation here convenient for the studies to which he was addicted, ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the fathers, he returned to Oxford, and took up his abode in St. Mary Hall. Here principally he wrote those works which procured him great reputation, especially among the puritans. Dr. Vaughan, bishop of London, invited him to the metropolis, and made him his domestic chaplain, and would have given him higher preferment had he lived. It was probably Vaughan’s successor who gave him the prebend of Portpoole, in 1609, and the vicarage of Northall, in Middlesex, in 1610. He died in 1611. His works enumerated by Wood are chiefly controversial, against the papists, except one or two in defence of the silenced puritans. Several of them, being adapted to the circumstances of the times, went through numerous editions, but are now little known. Wood says he was esteemed a prodigy of learning, though he died when a little more than thirty years old (thirty-six), and had he lived to a greater maturity of years, it is “thought he would have exceeded the famous Dr. John Rainolds, or any of the learned heroes of the age.” Wood adds that he “was a zealot, and a stiff puritan.” By one of his works, entitled “The unlawfulness and danger of Toleration of divers religions, and connivance to contrary worship in one monarchy or kingdom,” it would appear that he wrote against toleration while he was claiming it for himself and his puritan brethren.

, a learned popish divine, was bora about the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was educated at Oxford. He appears to have been fellow of Oriel college in 1495, and afterwards became D. D. and was accounted one of the ornaments of the university. In November 1501, he was made rector of Bledon, in the diocese of Wells, and in July 1503 was collated to the prebend Centum solidorum, in the church of Lincoln, as well as to the prebend of Carleton. In 1508, by the interest of Edmund Audley, bishop of Salisbury, he was made prebendary of that church, and in 1525 became prebendary of Sutton in Marisco, in the church of Lincoln. In November 1514, Pope Leo gave him a licence to hold three benefices, otherwise incompatible. His reputation for learning induced Henry VIII. to employ him to write against Luther, which he did in a work entitled “Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii evangelici, ac septenarii sacramentorum numeri adversus M. Lutherum, fratrem famosum, et Wickliffistam insignem,” Lond. 1523, 4to. This performance, says Dodd, was commonly allowed to be the best that had hitherto been published. There are two public letters from the university of Oxford, one to the king, the other to bishop Audley, applauding the choice of a person so well qualified to maintain the cause of the church and in these letters, they style him the glory of their university, and recommend him as a person worthy of the highest preferment. But all this could not protect him from the vengeance of Henry VIII. when he came to employ his learning and zeal in defence of queen Catherine, and the supremacy of the see of Rome, on both which articles he was prosecuted, hanged, drawn, and quartered in Smithfield, July 30, 1540, along with Dr. Thomas Abel, and Dr. Richard Fetherstone, who suffered on the same account. He wrote in defence of queen Catherine, “Tractatus de uon dissolvendo Henrici regis cum Catherina matrimonio” but it is doubtful if this was printed. Stow, indeed, says it was printed in 4to, and that he had seen it, but no copy is now known. Mr. Churton, in his “Lives of the Founders of Brazenose college,” mentions Dr. Powell’s preaching a Latin sermon, in a very elegant style, at the visitation of bishop Smyth at Lincoln.

, successively bishop of Rochester and Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. was born in the county of Kent, about the year 1516, and was educated in King’s college, Cambridge, where his adversaries allow he was distinguished for his learning;. He was not only skilled in Greek and Latin, but in some of the modern languages, particularly Italian and Dutch. In early life he proved himself an able mathematician and mechanist. He constructed a clock, which pointed both to the hours of the day, the day of the month, the sign of the Zodiack, the lunar variations, and the tides, which was presented to Henry VIII. and considered by him and others as a very extraordinary performance. Heylin, who is seldom partial to the early English reformers, tells us, that he was “well-studied with the ancient fathers.”

At what time he imbibed the principles of the Reformation is uncertain; but it appears that he was accounted a champion for that great change in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. when he was made bishop of Rochester, although only in his 33d year. He was then D.D. and chaplain to archbishop Cranmer. When Gardiner was deprived, he was the following year, 1551, translated to Winchester, and was one of the bishops appointed to make a new code of ecclesiastical laws. He had frequently preached be fore king Edward who, on account of his zealous efforts for the reformation, desired that he might have the above dignities. He had before this, however, some lesser preferment. By Newcourt we find, that Cranmer gave him the rectory of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Nov. 15, 1543, which he held, in commendam, until May 15, 1551, when he was translated to Winchester. He was a frequent preacher, and wrote several treatises in defence of the Reformation but his most remarkable performance was what is commonly called “King Edward’s Catechism,” which appeared in 1553, in two editions, the one Latin, the other English, with the royal privilege. That it was not hastily adopted, however, appears by king Edward’s letter prefixed to it, in which he says “When there was presented unto us, to be perused, a short and playne order of Catechisme, written by a certayne godlye and learned man: we committed the debatinge and diligent examination thereof to certain byshoppes and other learned men, whose judgment we have in greate estimation.” This catechism has been attributed to Nowell; but the late excellent biographer of that eminent divine considers it as unquestionably Poynet’s, although Nowell took much from it into his own catechism.

When queen Mary came to the crown, Povnet, with many others, retired to Strasburgh, where he died April 11, 1556, not quite forty years of age. Dodd says he was obliged to leave England for treasonable practices; as he had not only encouraged Wyat’s rebellion, but personally appeared in the field against the queen and government. This may be true; but no treason was necessary to render England an unsafe place for a man so zealous for the reformation, a professed opponent of Gardiner, and who succeeded that tyrannical prelate in the see of Winchester. Strype informs us, that immediately on the accession of Mary, bishop Poynet was ejected and imprisoned, and deprived of episcopacy, for being married. He doubts whether he ever was concerned with Wyat, but says he was a great friend to the learned Ascham. Milner accuses him of signing away a great number of the most valuable possessions of the see of Winchester. He accuses him also of being of an intolerant spirit, and that he persecuted the learned physician, Andrew Borde. Borde, however, was guilty of irregularities, which it was not unbecoming in his diocesan to punish. If Poynet was intolerant, what shall we say of the favourites of the popish historians?

Besides the “Catechism” already mentioned, bishop Poynet was the author of: 1. “A Tragedie or Dialoge of the unjust usurped primacie of the bishop of Rome,” translated from Bernard Ochinus,“1549, 8vo. 2.” A notable Sermon concerning the ryght use of the Lordes Supper,“&c. preached before the king at Westminster,” 1550, 8vo. When abroad, he wrote, which was published the year after his death, a treatise on the same subject, entitled :t Dialecticon viri boni et literati de veritate, natura, atque substautia corporis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia“in which, Bayle says, he endeavoured to reconcile the therans and Zuinglians. 3.” A short Treatise of Politique Power, and of the true obedience which subjectes owe to kynges and other civile governours, with an exhortacion to all true naturall Englishe men, compyled by D. I. P. B. R. V.V. i.e. Dr. John Poynet, bishop of Rochester and Winchester,“1556, 8vo. The contents of this may be seen in Oldys’s Catalogue of Pamphlets in the Harleian Library, No. 409. It was reprinted in 1639 and 1642 which gave a suspicion that it contained sentiments respecting queen Mary, which at this time were thought applicable to a far milder sovereign. Dr. Poynet wrote” A Defence for Marriage of Priests,“1549, 8vo; and has been thought the author of an answer to the popish Dr. Martin on the same subject, entitled” An Apologie, fully aunswering, by Scriptures and anceant doctors, a blasphemose book, gathered by D. Stephen Gardiner," &c. &c. But Wharton, in his observations on Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, assigns very sufficient reasons why it could not be Poynet’s.

Mr. Preston’s part in this singular disputation might have led to favour at court, if he had been desirous of it and sir Futk Greville, afterwards lord Brook, was so pleased with his performance that he settled 50l. per ann. upon him, and was his friend ever after; but he was now seriously intent on the office of a preacher of the gospel, and having studied Calvin, and adopted his religious opinions, he became suspected of puritanism, which was then much discouraged at court. In the mean time his reputation for learning induced many persons of eminence to place their sons under his tuition and Fuller tells us, he was “the greatest pupil- monger ever known in England, having sixteen fellow-commons admitted into Queen’s college in one year,” while he continued himself so assiduous in his studies as considerably to impair his health. When it came to his turn to be dean and catechistof his college, he began such a course of divinity -lectures as might direct the juniors in that study; and these being of the popular kind, were so much frequented, not only by the members of other colleges, but by the townsmen, that a complaint was at length made to the vice-chancellor, and an order given that no townsmen or scholars of other colleges should be permitted to attend. His character for puritanism seems now to have been generally established, and he was brought into trouble by preaching at St. Botolph’s church, although prohibited by Dr. Newcomb, commissary to the chancellor of Ely, who informed the bishop and the king, then at Newmarket, of this irregularity. On the part of Newcomb, this appears to have been the consequence of a private pique; but whatever might be his motive, the matter came to be heard at court, and the issue was, that Mr. Preston was desired to give his sentiments on the 1U turgy at St. Botolph’s church by way of recantation. He accordingly handled the subject in such a manner as cleared himself from any suspicion of disliking the forms of the liturgy, and soon after it came to his turn to preach before the king when at Hinchingbrook. The court that day, a Tuesday, was very thin, the prince and the duke of Buckingham being both absent. After dinner, which Mr. Preston had the honour of partaking at his majesty’s table, he was so much complimented by the king, that when he retired, the marquis of Hamilton recommended him to his majesty to be one of his chaplains, as a man “who had substance and matter in him.” The king assented to this, but remembering his late conduct at Cambridge, declined giving him the appointment.

He now devoted himself entirely to his studies and the duties of his function, going constantly to Bladen and Woodstock every Sunday; and he kept a resident curate at Woodstock, for the discharge of all parochial duties; for whose convenience, as well as that of his successors, Dr. Fell, now bishop of Oxford, built, at his own expence, a house. The terms of the purchase and building he left to Mr. Prideaux, who completed it in 1685. In college he exerted himself in reforming many abuses, and restoring discipline, which was not very acceptable to many of "the students, but procured him the friendship and esteem of his learned contemporaries at the university, particularly bishop Fell and Drs. Pocock, Marshall, Bernard, Mills, Godolphin, &c. On the death of bishop Fell, when king James imposed a popish dean on Christ Church, Mr. Prideaux determined to quit Oxford, and settle on his cures; and accordingly, having, in 1686, proceeded doctor in divinity, he exchanged his living of Bladen for the rectory of Saham. in Norfolk, and then left Oxford, to which he never returned. A few days before this he attended the funeral of his revered friend, Dr. Fell.

In December of this year (1688) Dr. Prideaux was collated to the archdeaconry of Suffolk by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich. In May 1689 he made his first visitation of his archdeaconry; and the new oaths to government being then the general subject of debate among the clergy, his chief business was to give the best satisfaction he could to those who had any doubts about them which he performed with such success, that out of three hundred parishes, there were only three clergymen in all that jurisdiction who refused to take them, In the winter following he attended the convocation, which was called to consider of alterations and amendments of the liturgy, the canons, ordinances, and constitutions, the reformation of the ecclesiastical courts, &c. &c. but, after sitting ten days, no progress was made in any of these measures, and the convocation was. adjourned. Dr. Prideaux, who was of opinion that many alterations in the liturgy were necessary, wrote a pamphlet on the subject, entitled “ALetter to a Friend, relating to the present Convocation at Westminster,” of which several thousands were sold within a fortnight.

In the first session of parliament after the new bishops (appointed in the room of those who refused to take the oaths to government) made their appearance, two bills were brought into the House of Lords, relating to the church, in both of which Dr. Prideaux was concerned the first was to take away pluralities of benefices, the other to prevent clandestine marriages. Bishop Burnet intended to introduce the first, but submitted it previously to Dr, Prideaux, who drew up a bill, which all the prelates friendly to the measure thought would be less liable to objection, and therefore it was brought into the House, but rejected the other, to prevent clandestine marriages, was introduced by one of the peers and its object was, to make it felony in the minister who should solemnize or officiate at such marriage. This matter being warmly debated, Dr. Kidder, then bishop of Bath and Wells, wrote to Dr. Prideaux, desiring his opinion on it. The doctor, in a very long letter, proved that the ecclesiastical laws were already sufficient to prevent clandestine marriages, if only carried into execution and stated, by what means, all the precautions provided in these laws had been evaded by the avarice of chancellors, comnjissaries, and registrars. He added that, as the bill stood, it could have no other effect than to subject the clergy to be tried for their lives every marriage they solemnized. Kidder, who had made vise of this paper in the debate which ended in withdrawing the bill, immediately. sent it to the press; and the week following, to Dr. Prideaux’s great surprize, he received a printed copy of it from the bishop, who however had not put his name to it.

In 1691, on the death of Dr. Pocock, his professorship (of Hebrew) was offered to Dr. Prideaux but he declined it, says his biographer, “for several reasons, which at that time made it inconvenient to him to accept it, but afterwards it proved much to his detriment that he did not.” As after the act of toleration, many people imagined themselves at liberty either to go to church or stay at home, as they thought proper, by which means the churches were much deserted, Dr. Prideaux drew up a circular letter, directed to the ministers of his archdeaconry, which was afterwards published, in 1701, at the end of his “Directions to Churchwardens.” In 1694, rinding his health impaired by the aguish air of Saham, he determined to return again with his family to Norwich but, instead of putting in a curate at Saham, he thought it his duty to give up both benefice and office, which he accordingly did, into the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and informed the warden and fellows of New college, Oxford, the patrons of the living, of his resignation. On his return to Norwich, the care of the cathedral affairs again devolved upon him, in the absence of the dean (Dr. Fairfax), who resided mostly in London. In 1696, the dean and chapter presented him to the vicarage of Trowse, worth about 40l. and situated a mile from Norwich. Here he officiated with the same assiduity and regularity as at Saham, and that purely for the love of duty for, in addition to his other preferments, he had a private fortune, which rendered this last vicarage of no consequence in a pecuniary view.

In 1697 he published his “Life of Mahomet ,” 8vo, of which three editions were printed the first year. He intended to have written a history of the Saracen empire, and with it the decay and fall of the Christian religion but he gave up this design for reasons stated in the preface to the Life of Mahomet. This valuable work was followed by his useful little treatise called “Directions to Churchwardens,” whose negligence he had very much experienced in his archdeaconry this has gone through many editions. In 1702, on the death of the dean of Norwich, Dr. Henry Fairfax, Dr. Prideaux was installed as his successor on June 8th of that year, and a more proper person could not be found. He now continued, with better effect, if possible, that attention to regularity and discipline which he had before paid and although this made him obnoxious to the persons whom he censured or dismissed, the benefit to the general body was too obvious not to be approved. In December 1702, on a public thanksgivingday for the success of the expedition to Vigo, he preached a sermon on the subject, which we notice as the only one he ever printed and, had it been left to his own inclination, would never have been thought of by himself for that purpose. In 1703 he published a tract in vindication of the ecclesiastical law, which gives the successor in any ecclesiastical benefice or promotion, all the profits, from the day of the avoidance. This was occasioned by an alteration in the law which bishop Burnet was about to have introduced; but our author’s arguments carried such weight, that the design was given up.

On the translation of the bishop of Norwich to Ely, Dr. Prideaux was advised to make interest for the bishopric but being now sixty years of age, too late to enter on a course of public life and parliamentary attendance, and for other reasons, he declined interfering, and Dr. Trimnell became bishop, whom he thought every way deserving of the preferment. In the mean time Dr. Prideaux continued his labours for the general interests of the church, and in 1709, published his tract on “The original right of Tythes.” In this, his first intention was to give the History of Appropriations and this was to have been only an introduction but it enlarging under his hand, he resolved to publish it by itself as the first part of the work. He had for many years made collections of the common law and ecclesiastical history; but wanted much information which he could not have without going to London, and consulting the public records there and he was about this time seized with the calamitous distemper of the stone; so that he was forced to lay aside that design. Upon this last account also he resigned the vicarage of Trowse, when no longer able to go up into the pulpit. The seventy of his disorder now suggested the operation of lithotomy, which was successfully performed by Mr. Salter, an enii* nent surgeon of London, who went to Norwich for the purpose but the subsequent cure, having been entrusted to a young man at Norwich, was so badlyareated, that the patient had almost lost his life, and was indeed ever after a great sufferer by this misconduct.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Stowford, in the parish of Harford, near Ivy-bridge in Devonshire, Sept. 17, 1578, and was the fourth of seven sons of his father, who being in mean circumstances, with so large a family, our author, after he had learned to write and read, having a good voice, stood candidate for the place of parish-clerk of the church of Ugborow near Harford. Mr. Price informs us, that “he had a competitor for the office, who had made great interest in the parish for him* self, and was likely to carry the place from him. The parishioners being divided in thematter, did at length agree in this, being unwilling to disoblige either party, that the Lord’s-day following should be the day of trial; the one should tune the Psalm in the forenoon, the other in the afternoon; and he that did best please the people, should have the place. Which accordingly was done, and Prideaux lost it, to his very great grief and trouble. Upon, which, after he became advanced to one of the first dignities of the church, he would frequently make this reflection, saying,” If I could but have been clerk of Ugborow, I had never been bishop of Worcester.“Disappointed in this office, a lady of the parish, mother of sir Edmund Towel, maintained him at school till he had gained some knowledge of the Latin tongue, when he travelled to Oxford, and at first lived in a very mean station in Exetercollege, doing servile offices in the kitchen, and prosecuting his studies at his leisure hours, till at last he was taken notice of in the college, and admitted a member of it in act-term 1596, under the tuition of Mr. William Helme, B. D. On January the 31st, 1599, he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in 1602 was chosen probationer fellow of his college. On May the 11th, 1603, he proceeded Master of Arts, and soon after entered into holy orders. On May the 6th, 1611, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity; and the year following was elected rector of his college in the room of Dr. Holland; and June the 10th, the same year, proceeded Doctor of Divinity. In 1615, upon the advancement of Dr. Robert Abbot to the bishopric of Sarum, he was made regius professor of divinity, and consequently became canon of Christ-church, and rector of Ewelme in Oxfordshire; and afterwards discharged the office of vice-chancellor of the university for several years. In the rectorship of his college he behaved himself in such a manner, that it flourished more than any other in the university; more foreigners coming thither for the benefit of his instruction than ever was known; and in his professorship, says Wood,” he behaved himself very plausible to the generality, especially for this reason, that in his lectures, disputes, and moderatings (which were always frequented by many auditors), he shewed himself a stout champion against Socinus and Arminius. Which being disrelished by some who were then rising, and in authority at court, a faction thereupon grew up in the university between those called Puritans, or Calvinists, on the one side, and the Remonstrants, commonly called Arminians, on the other: which, with other matters of the like nature, being not only fomented in the university, but throughout the nation, all things thereupon were brought into confusion.“In 1641, after he had been twenty- six years professor, he was one of those persons of unblemished reputation, whom his majesty made bishops, on the application of the marquis of Hamilton, who had been one of his pupils. Accordingly, in November of that year, he was elected to the bishopric of Worcester, to which he was consecrated December the 19th following; but the rebellion was at that time so far advanced, that he received little or no profit from it, to his great impoverishment. For adhering stedfastly to his majesty’s cause, and pronouncing all those of his diocese, who took up arms against him, excommunicate, he was plundered, and reduced to such straits, that he was obliged to sell his excellent library. Dr. Gauden said of him, that he now became literally a helluo librorum, being obliged to turn his books >nto bread for his children. He seems to have borne this barbarous usage with patience, and even good humour. On -one occasion, when a friend came to see bim, and asked him how he did? he answered,” Never better in my life, only I have too great a stomach, for 1 have eaten the little plate which the sequestrators left me; I have eaten a great library of excellent books; I have eaten a great deal of linen, much of my brass, some of my pewter, and now am come to eat my iron, and what will come next I know not." So great was his poverty about this time that he would have attended the conferences with the king at the Isle of Wight, but could not afford the means of travelling. Such was the treatment of this great and good man, one of the best scholars and ablest promoters of learning in the kingdom, at the hands of men who professed to contend for liberty and toleration.

Dr.Prideaux’s works were, 1. “Tabulae ad Grammaticam Groecam Introductorioe,” Oxford, 1608, 4to. 2. “Tirocinium ad Syllogismum cohtexendum.” 3. “Heptades Logicae, siveMonitaadamplioresTractatus introductoria.” These two last pieces were printed with the “Tabulae ad Grammaticam Graecam,” &c. Mr. David Lloyd observes, that our author’s Greek Grammar and Logick were both but a fortnight’s work. 4. “Castigatio cujusdam Circulatoris, qui R. P. Andream EudsBmon-Johannem Cydonium soc. Jesu seipsum nuncupat, opposita ipsius calumniis, in Epistola Isaaci Casauboni ad Frontonem Ducaeum,” Oxford, 1614, 8vo. 5. “Alloquium sereniss. Reg. Jacobo Woodstochio habitum, 24 Aug. 1624,” in one sheet, 4to. 6. “Orationes novem inaugurates de totidem Theologiae apicibus, prout in promotione Doctorum Oxoniae publice proponebantur in Comitiis,” Oxford, 1626, 4to. 7. “Lectiones decem de totidem Religionis Capitibus, praecipue hoc tempore controversis, prout publice habebantur Oxoiiiae in Vesperiis,” Oxford, 1625, 4to. 8. “Lectiones 22, Orationes 13, Conciones 6, et O ratio ad Jacobum Regem,” Oxford, 1648, folio. Among which are contained the preceding lectures, orations, and speeches to king James at Woodstock. 9. “Concio ad Artium Baccalaureos pro more habita in Ecclesia B. Marias Oxon. in die Cinerum in Act. ii. 22. Ann. 1616.” 10. “Fasciculus Controversiarum ad Juniorum aut occupatorum captum colligatus,” &c. Oxford, 1649, 1651, 4to. 11. “Theologiaa Scholasticae Syntagma Mnemonicum,” Oxford, 1651. I2.“Conciiiorum Synopsis,” printed with the “Fasciculus.” 13. “Epistola de Episcopatu,” folio. 14. “Manuductio ad Theologiam Polemicam,” Oxford, 1657, 8vo, published by Mr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, with a Latin Epistle before it in the name of the printer. 15. “Hypomnemata Logica, Rhetorica, Physica, Metaphysica,” &c. Oxford, 8vo. 16. Several Sermons, as, l.“A Sermon at the consecration of Exeter-college Chapel,” on. Luke xix. 46, Oxford, 1625, 4to. 2nd, “Perez Uzzah, A Sermon before the king at Woodstock,” on 1 Samuel vi. 6, 7, Oxford, 1625, 4to. Both these sermons are printed with another volume, entitled, 17. “Twenty Sermons,” Oxford, 1636, 4to. The two first are entitled, “Christ’s Counsel for ending Law-cases,” dedicated to his kinsman Edmund Prideaux, esq. 18. “Nine Sermons on several occasions,” Oxford, 1641, 4to. 19. “A Synopsis of the Councils,” subjoined to “An easy and compendious Introduction to History,” published, as we have just noticed, in the name of his son Matthias Prideaux. 20. “Histories of Successions in States, Countries, or Families,” &c. Oxford, 1653. 21. “Euchologia or, The Doctrines of Practical Praying being a Legacy left to his daughters in private, directing them to such manifold uses of our Common Prayer Book, as may satisfy upon all occasions, without looking after new lights from extemporal flashes,” dedicated to his daughters, Sarah Hodges and Elizabeth Sutton, London, 1655, 8vo. 22. “The doctrine of Conscience, framed according to the form in the Common Prayer;” left as a legacy to his wife, containing many cases of conscience, and dedicated to Mrs. Mary Prideaux, relict of the Right Reverend Father in God John, late Lord Bishop of Worcester, by T. N.; London, 1656, 8vo. 23. “Sacred Eloquence or, The Art of Rhetoric, as it is laid down in Scripture,” London, 1659, 8vo.

, a heretic of the fourth century, well known in ecclesiastical history for having revived the errors of the Gnostics and Manicheans, was a Spaniard, of high birth, and great fortune, with considerable talents and eloquence. His opinions first became known in the year 379, and were rapidly diffused in Spain. But in the ensuing year a council was held by the bishops of Aquitaine at Saragossa, in which the Prisciliianists were solemnly condemned. He was then but a layman, but soon after he was ordained bishop of Labina, or Lavila, supposed to be Avila, one of the cities of Galicia, by two bishops of his own party. In the year 384, or, as Baronius in his Annals writes, 387, the ringleaders of this sect were put to death by the emperor Maximus, having been convicted before the magistrates of the grossest immoralities. These were, Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, two ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons Latronianus, or, as Jerome calls him, Matronianus, a layman and Eucrocia, the widow of the orator Delphidius, who had professed eloquence in the city of Bourdeaux a few years before. These were all beheaded at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s followers, whom they could discover or apprehend, were either banished or confined. The bodies of Priscillian, and those who suffered with him, were conveyed by the friends and adherents into Spain, and there interred with great pomp and solemnity; their names were added to those of other saints and martyrs, their firmness extolled, and their doctrine embraced by such numbers of proselytes that it spread in a short time over all the provinces between the Pyrenees and the ocean. The author of the notes upon Sulpitius Severus tells us that he saw the name of Priscillian in some not very ancient martyrologies. In practice they did not much differ from the Manichees the same, or nearly the same, infamous mysteries being ascribed to both: for, in the trial of Priscillian, before the emperor Maximus, it was alledged that he had countenanced all manner of debauchery, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of lewd women, and that he used to pray naked among them. Others, however, are of opinion that these charges had not much foundation, and that the execution of Priscillian and his followers was rather a disgrace than an advantage to the Christian cause.

, of Aquitaine, a celebrated, learned and pious writer, in the 5th century, and one of the greatest defenders of the grace of Christ, after St. Augustine, was secretary to St. Leo, and is even supposed by some critics to have been author of the epistle addressed by that pope to Flavian against the Eutychian heresy. Prosper had before zealously defended the books of St. Augustine, to whom he wrote in the year 429, concerning the errors of the SemiPelagians, which had recently appeared in Gaul and after St. Augustine’s death, he continued to support his doctrine, which he did in a candid and argumentative manner. Prosper answered the objections of the priests of Marseilles, refuted the conferences of Cassian, in a book entitled “Contra Collatorem,” and composed several other works, in which he explains the orthodox doctrine, with the skill of an able divine, against the errors of the Pelagians and Semi- Pelagians. Many learned men have asserted, with great appearance of probability, that Prosper was only a layman but others, with very little foundation, suppose him to have been bishop of Reggio in Italy, or rather of Riez in Provence. The time of his death is not ascertained, but he was alive in 463. The best edition of his works is that of Paris, 1711, folio, by M. Mangeant, reprinted at Rome, 1732, 8vo. Prospers poem against the Ungrateful, i. e. against the enemies of the grace of Christ, is particularly admired. M. le Maistre de Sacy has given an elegant translation of it in French verse, 12mo. Our author must be distinguished, however, from another Prosper, who lived about the same time, and went from Africa, his native country, into Italy, to avoid the persecution of the Vandals. This Prosper, called “the African,” was author of a treatise on the Call of the Gentiles, which is esteemed, and of the “Epistle to the Virgin Demetriade,” in the “Appendix Angustiniana,” Antwerp, 1703, fo].

At Liege he enlisted into the Dutch service, and was earned by his officer to Aix-la-Chapelle. He afterwards entered into the elector of Cologne’s service; but being still as ambitious as ever to pass for a Japanese, he now chose to profess himself an unconverted or heathenish one, rather than, what he had hitherto pretended to be, a convert to Christianity: The last garrison he came to was Sluys, where brigadier Lauder, a Scotch colonel, introduced him to the chaplain, with whom he was permitted to have a conference; and this, at length, ended in the chaplain’s fervent zeal to make a convert of him, by way of recommending himself, as it afterwards turned out, to Compton, bishop of London, whose piety could not fail of rewarding so worthy an action. By this time Psalmanazar, growing tired of the soldier’s life, listened to the chaplain’s proposal of taking him over to England; and he was, accordingly, with great haste, baptized. A letter of invitation from the bishop of London arriving, they set out for Rotterdam. Psalmanazar was, in general, much caressed there; but some there were, who put such shrewd questions to him, as carried the air of not giving all that credit which he could have wished. This threw him upon a whimsical expedient, by way of removing all obstacles, viz. that of living upon raw flesh, roots, and herbs: and he soon habituated himself, he tells us, to this new and strange food, without receiving the least injury to his health; taking care to add a good deal of pepper and spices, by way of concoction.

At his arrival in London he was introduced to the good bishop, was received with great humanity, and soon found a large circle of friends among the well-disposed, both of clergy and laity. “But,” says he, “I had a much greater number of opposers to combat with; who, though they judged rightly of me in the main, were far from being candid in their account of the discovery they pretended to make to my disadvantage: particularly the doctors Halley, Mead, and Woodward. The too visible eagerness of these gentlemen to expose me at any rate for a cheat, served only to make others think the better of me, and even to look upon me as a kind of confessor; especially as those genjtlemen were thought to be no great admirers of Revelation, to which my patrons thought I had given so ample a testimony.” Before he had been three months in London, he was cried up for a prodigy. He was presently sent to translate the church-catechism into the Formosan language; it was received by the bishop of London with candour, the author rewarded with generosity, and his catechism laid up amongst the most curious manuscripts. It was examined by the learned; they found it regular and grammatical; and gave it as their opinion, that it was a real language, and no counterfeit. After such success, he was soon prevailed upon to write the well-known " History of Formosa/' which soon after appeared. The first edition had not been long published, before a second was called for. In the mean time, he was sent by the good bishop to Oxford, topursue such studies as suited his own inclination most; whilst his opposers and advocates in London were disputing about the merits and demerits of his book.

, of Lucca, an ecclesiastical historian in the fourteenth century, was descended from a noble family, from whom he derived the name of “Bartholomew Fiadoni,” but took that of Ptolemy when he entered into the order of St. Dominic. He became superior of the monastery both at Lucca and Florence. He was afterwards selected by pope John XXII. as his confessor, and in 1318 he was tnade bishop of Torcello, under the patriarchate of Venice. This prelate died in 1327. He was the first of the Italians who studied and wrote on church history. His “Annales” extend from 1060 to 1303, and was published at Lyons in 1619. His largest work was “Historiae Ecclesiastic,” in twenty-four books, commencing with the birth of Jesus Christ, and brought down to 1313. This, after remaining long in ms. was at length published at Milan in 1727, by Muratori, in his grand collection, entitled “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.”

, an English divine, the son of the Rev, John Pyle, rector of Stodey, in Norfolk, was born there in 1674, and is said by Mr. Masters to have been educated at Caius-college, Cambridge but his name does not occur in the printed list of graduates. About 1698, he was examined for ordination by Mr. Whiston (at that time chaplain to bishop Moore), who says, in his own “Life,” that “Dr. Sydall and Mr. Pyle were the best scholars among the many candidates whom it was his office to examine.” It is supposed Mr. Pyle was first curate of Sr. Margaret’s parish in King’s Lynn, where he married in 1701, and the same year was appointed by the corporation to be minister or preacher of St. Nicholas’s chapel. Between the years 1708 and 1718 he published six occasional sermons, chiefly in defence of the principles of the Revolution, and the succession of the Brunswick family. He also engaged in the Bangorian controversy, writing two pamphlets in vindication of bishop Hoadly, who rewarded him with a prebend of Salisbury, and a residentiaryship in that cathedral.

His sentiments will further appear by his publishing his “Paraphrase on the Acts, and all the Epistles,” in the manner of Dr. Clarke. This was followed by his “Paraphrase on the Revelation of St. John,” and on the “Historical books of the Old Testament;” all which, comprising what was thought necessary for illustration, within a small compass, and in a plain and perspicuous manner, were much recommended and much read. His writings are generally characterised by perspicuity and manly sense, rather than by any elevation of style yet in the delivery of his sermons, so impressive was his elocution that, both in the metropolis and in the country, he was one of the most admi /ed preachers of his time. His sole aim was to amend or improve his auditors. For this purpose he addressed himself, not to their passions, but to their understandings and consciences. He judiciously preferred a plainness, united with a force of expression, to all affectation of elegance or rhetorical sublimity, and delivered hi* discourses with so just and animated a torie of voice, as never failed to gain universal attention. Although he lived in friendship and familiar correspondence with many eminent churchmen, as bishop Hoadly, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Sykes, &c. yet he remained long in a situation of comparative obscurity. This, according to a passage in one of archbishop Herring’s letters to Mr. Duncomb, was, “in some measure, owing to himself; for that very impetuosity of spirit which, under proper government, renders him the agreeable creature he is, has, in some circumstances of life, got the better of him, and hurt his views.” This probably alludes to his being heterodox with respect to the Trinity, which was common with most of the divines with whom he associated. He continued to be preacher at St. Nicholas, King’s Lynn, till 1732, when he succeeded to the vicarage of St. Margaret, which he held till 1755. Being then no Jonger capable of discharging the duties annexed to it, he gave in his resignation, both to the dean and chapter of Norwich, and also to the mayor and corporation of Lynn, early in the summer of that year. He then retired to SwafFham, where he died, Dec. 31, 1756, aged eighty-two > and was buried in the church of Lynn All Saints.

, an early Christian writer and apologist, was a disciple of the apostles, according to Eusebius and Jerome, and bishop of Athens, where he was born, or at least educated. About the year 125, when the emperor Adrian, then in the sixth year of his reign, wintered at Athens, and was there initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, a persecution arose against the Christians. Quadratus, who had succeeded Publius, the martyred bishop, in order to stop the persecution, composed an “Apology for the Christian Faith,” and presented it to the emperor. This Apology, which happened to be accompanied by another from Aristides (see Aristides), had the desired effect, and was extant in Eusebius’ s time; who tells us, that it shewed the genius of the man, and the true doctrine of the apostles; but we have only a small fragment preserved by Eusebius, in the fourth book of his history, in which the author declares, that “none could doubt the truth of the miracles of Jesus Christ, because the persons healed and raised from the dead by him had been seen, not only when he wrought his miracles, or while he was upon earth, but even a very great while after his death so that there are many,” says he, “who were yet living in our time.” Valesius, and others upon his authority, will have the Quadratus who composed the Apology, to be a different person from Quadratus, the bishop of Athens; but his arguments do not seem sufficiently grounded, and are therefore generally rejected. Jerome affirms them to be the same. Nothing certain can be collected concerning the death of Quadratus; but it is supposed that he was banished from Athens, and then put to a variety of torments, under the reign of Adrian.

, a celebrated French ecclesiastic, was born July 14, 1634, at Paris. He entered the congregation of the Oratory, Nov. 17, 1657, and devoted himself wholly to the study of Scripture, and the Fathers, and the composition of works of piety. When scarcely twenty-eight, he was appointed first director of the Institution of his order, at Paris, under father Jourdain; and began, in that house, his famous book of “Moral Reflections” on each verse of the New Testament, for the use of young pupils of the Oratory. This work originallyconsisted only of some devout meditations on our Saviour’s words; but M. de Lomenie, who, from being minister and secretary of state, had entered the Oratory, the marquis de Laigue, and other pious persons, being pleased with this beginning, requested father Quesnel to make similar reflections on every part of the four Gospels. Having complied, M. de Laigue mentioned the book to Felix de Vialart, bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne and that prelate, who was. much celebrated for his piety, adopted the work in his diocese, and recommended the reading- of it by a mandate of November 9, 1671, after having had it printed at Paris by Pralard the same year, with consent of the archbishop Harlai, the royal privilege, and the approbation of the doctors. Father Quesnel afterwards assisted in a new edition of St. Leo’s works. When De Harlai banished father De Sainte Marthe, general of the Oratory, he obliged father Quesnel, who was much attached to him, to retire to Orleans 1681. The general assembly of the Oratory having ordered, in 1684, the signature of a form of doctrine, drawn up in 1678, respecting various points of philosophy and theology, father Quesnel refused to sign it, and withdrew into the Spanish Netherlands, in February 1685. He took advantage of the absurd mixture of philosophy and theology introduced into this form. After this he went to M. Arnauld at Brussels, residing with him till his death, and there finished the “Moral Reflections” on the whole New Testament; which, thus completed, was first published in 1693 and 1694, and approved in 1695, by cardinal de Noailles, then bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne, who recommended it by a mandate to his clergy and people. When the same prelate became archbishop of Paris, he employed some divines to examine these “Reflections” carefully and it was after this revisal that they were published at Paris, 1699. This edition is more ample than any other. The celebrated archbishop of Meaux was also engaged on the subject; and “The Justification of the Moral Reflections, against the Problem,” appeared under his name 1710. The famous Case of Conscience gave occasion for renewing the disputes about the signature of the Formulary, and the subject of Grace. Father Quesnel was arrested at Brussels, May 30, 1703, by order of the archbishop of Malines, and committed to prison but Don Livio, a young Spaniard, employed by the marquis d'Aremberg, released him September 13th following, and he remained concealed at Brussels till October 2; then quitted that place for Holland, where, arriving in April 1704, he published several pieces against the archbishop of Malines, who condemned him by a sentence dated November 10, 1704. This sentence father Quesnel attacked, and wrote in 1705 two tracts to prove it null one entitled, “Idee generale du Libelle, public en Latin,” &c. the other, “Anatomic de la Sentence de M. l'Archeveque de Malines.” Several pieces appeared, soon after, against the book of “Moral Reflections” two had been published before one entitled, “Le Pere Quesnel heretique” the other, “Le Pere Quesnel Seditieux.” These publications induced pope Clement XI. to condemn it altogether, by a decree of July 15, 1708; but this decree did not appease the contest, and father Quesnel refuted it with great warmth, 1709, in a work entitled “Entretiens sur le Décret de Rome, contre le Nouveau Testament de Chalons, accompagne de reflexions morales.” In the mean time, the bishops of Lucon, la Rochelle, and Gap, condemned his book by mandates, which were to be followed and supported by a letter addressed to the king, and signed by the greatest part of the French bishops. This was sent to them, ready drawn p but the plan was partly defeated for a packet intended by the abbe Bochart de Saron for the bishop of Clement, his uncle, and which contained a copy of the letter to the king, fell into the hands of cardinal de Noailles, and much contusion ensued. At length, the disputes on this subject still continuing, pope Clement XL at the solicitation of Louis XIV. published, September 8, 1713, the celebrated bull beginning with the words, “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” by which he condemned father Quesnel’s book, with 101 propositions extracted from it, and every thing that had been written, or that should be written, in its defence. This bull was received by the assembly of the French clergy, and registered in parliament, in 17 14, with modifications. Cardinal de Noailles, however, and seven other prelates refused, and lettres de cachet were issued by Louis XIV. against them but after his decease, the cardinal and several other bishops appealed from the bull to a general council, all which proceedings produced disputes in the French church that lasted nearly to the time of the revolution.

, a celebrated archbishop of Mentz, and one of the most learned divines in the ninth century, was born in the year 785 at Mentz, or rather at Fulda, and descended from one of the most noble families in that country. Mackenzie, however, has inserted him among his Scotch writers, but without much apparent authority. The parents of Rabanus sent him, at ten years old, to the monastery of Fulda, where he was instructed in learning and virtue, and afterwards studied underthe famous Alcuinus, at Tours. In this situation he made so rapid a progress, as to acquire great reputation from his writings at the age of thirty. On his return to Fulda he was chosen abbot there, and reconciled the emperor Louis le Débonnaire to his children. Rabanus wrote a letter of consolation to this prince when unjustly deposed, and published a tract on the respect due from children to their parents, and from subjects to their princes, which may be found in “Marca de Concordiâ,” published by Baluze. He succeeded Orgar, archbishop o Mentz, in the year 847, but was so much a bigot, as to procure the condemnation of Godeschalc. He died at his estate of Winsel, in the year 856, aged sixty-eight, after having bequeathed his library to the abbeys of Fulda and St. Alban’s, leaving a great number of works printed at Cologn, 1627, 6 vols. in 3 folio. The principal are, 1. “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” the greatest part of which are mere extracts from the fathers, as was the usual method among commentators in his time. 2. A poem in honour of the holy cross, of which there is a neat edition printed at Augsburg, 1605, in folio; but the most rare is that printed at Phorcheim, in ædibus Thomæ Anselim, 1503, curiously ornamented. Of the frontispiece the first figure is that of Albinus, abbot of Fulda, who presents Rabanus to the pope, with a poetical piece entitled “Intercessio Albini;” Rabanus appears next, presenting his book to the pope, with a poetical piece, entitled “Commendatio Papæ,” Then follows a kind of dedication to the emperor Louis le Débonnaire, who is delineated on this dedication holding a shield in one hand, and a cross in the other, his head surrounded with glory all the letters comprised in these ornamented lines, form a discourse foreign to the dedication. The poem is in the same style on each of the 28 pages of which it consists, are figures of the cross, stars, cherubim, seraphim, &c. The last represents a cross, with the author adoring it; the letters comprised in this cross form various pious exclamations. 3. A treatise on “the Instruction of the Clergy.” 4. A treatise on “the Ecclesiastical Calendar,” in which he points out the method of distinguishing the leap years, and marking the inductions. 5. A book “on the sight of God, purity of Jieart, and the manner of doing penance.” 6. A large work, entitled “De Universe, sive Etymologiarum Opus.” 7. “Homilies.” 8. “A Martyrology,” &c. But a treatise on “Vices and Virtues,” which is attributed to Rabanus Maurus, was written by Halitgarius bishop of Orleans. His treatise “against the Jews,” may be found in Martenne’s “Thesaurus;” and some other small tracts in the “Miscellanea” of Baluze, and Father Sirmond’s works. Rabanus was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his age, and his character in this respect has been highly extolled both by Dupin and Mosheim.

In 1532, he published at Lyons some pieces of Hippocrates and Galen, with a dedication to the bishop of Mailezais in which he tells him, that he had read lectures upon the aphorisms of Hippocrates, and the “ars medica” of Galen, before numerous audiences in the university of Montpellier. This was the last year of his cootinuance in that place for the year after he went to Lyons, where he became physician to the hospital, and joined lectures with practice for some years following. John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, and afterwards cardinal, with whom he had been acquainted in his early years, going to Rome in? 1534, upon the business of Henry VIITs divorce from Catherine of Spain, and passing through Lyons, carried Rabelais with him, in quality of his physician who returned home, however, in about six months. He had sometime before quitted his religious connections for the sake of leading a life more suitable to his taste and humour; but now renewed them, and in a second journey to Rome, obtained in 1536, by his interest with some cardinals, a brief from pope Paul III. to qualify him for holding ecclesiastical benefices. John du Bellay, had procured the abbey of St. Maur near Paris to be secularized; and into this was Rabelais, now a Benedictine monk, received as a secular canon. Here he is supposed to have begun his famous romance, entitled “The lives, heroic deeds, and sayings of Gargantua and Pantagruel.” He continued ifi this retreat till 1545, when Du Bellay, his friend and patron, and now a cardinal, nominated him to the cure of Meudon, which he is said to have filled with great zeal and application to the end of his life. His profound knowledge and skill in physic made him doubly useful to the people under his care and he was ready upon all occasions to relieve them under indispositions of body as well as mind. He died in 1553. As he was a great wit, many witticisms and facetious sayings are laid to his charge, of which he knew nothing and many ridiculous circumstances are related of him by some of his biographers, to which probably little credit is due.

, a French ecclesiastical historian, was born November 25, 1708, at Chauny. He completed his studies at the Mazarine college at Paris, where he acquired great skill in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and ecclesiastical history, and was sent for by M. de la Croix-Castries, archbishop of Albi, in 1729, to re-establish the college at Rabastens. Here he remained two years, and under his care the college became flourishing but, being afterwards banished by the intrigues of the Jesuits, for his attachment to the anti-constitutionists, retired to M. Colbert at Montpellier, who employed him in superintending the college of Lunel. This situation he privately quitted in a short time, to avoid some rigorous orders and, going to Paris, undertook the education of some young men at the college of Harcourt but this place too he was obliged to quit in 1734, by cardinal Fleury’s order; from which time he lived sequestered from the world, wholly occupied in his retreat in study and devotion. M. de Caylus, bishop of Auxerre, being determined to attach M.Racine to himself, gave him a canonryat Auxerre, and admitted him to sacred orders, all which, however, occasioned no change in. his way of life. He died at Paris, worn out by application, May 15, 1755, aged 47, and was buried at St. Severin. His principal works are, four tracts relative to the dispute which had arisen concerning “Fear and Confidence,” written with so much moderation, that they pleased all parties; and an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” 13 vols. 12mo and 4to. This work has been extremely admired, particularly by the opponents of the bull Unigenitus, and of the Jesuits, who are treated in it with great severity, as they had been the cause of all his troubles. He intended to have continued his Abridgment down to the year 1750 at least, had he lived longer; and a history of the first 33 years of the eighteenth century has been published by one of his friends, 2 vols. 12mo; and some Reflections, by M. Racine, on Ecclesiastical History, have also appeared, 2 vols. 12mo, which are a summary of his Abridgment.

, an eminent English physician, was born at Wakefield in Yorkshire, where his father possessed a moderate estate, in 1650. He was taught Greek and Latin at a school in the same town and, at fifteen years of age, was sent to University college, in Oxford. In 1669, he took his first degree in arts; but no fellowship becoming vacant there, he removed to Lincoln college, where he was elected into one. He applied himself to physic, and ran through the necessary courses of botany, chemistry, and anatomy in all which, having excellent parts, he quickly made a very great progress. He took the degree of M. A. in 1672, and then proceeded in the medical faculty. It is remarkable, that he recommended himself more by ready wit and vivacity, than by any extraordinary acquisitions in learning; and, in the prosecution of physic, he rarely looked further than to the pieces of Dr. Willis, who was then practising in London with a very distinguished character. He had few books of Any kind so few, that when Dr. Bathurst, head of Trinity college, asked him once in a surprise, “where his study was” RadclifTe, pointing to a few phials, a skeleton, and an herbal, replied, <* Sir, this is Radclitfe’s library.“In 1675 he proceeded M. B. and immediately began to practise. He never paid any regard to the rules universally followed, but censured them, as often as he saw occasion, with great freedom and acrimony which drew all the old practitioners upon him, with whom he waged an everlasting war. Yet his reputation increased with his experience and before he had been two years established, his business was very extensive, and among those of the highest rank. About this time, Dr. Marshall, rector of Lincoln college, opposed his application for a faculty-place in the college, which was to serve as a dispensation from taking holy orders, which the statutes required him to do, if he kept his fellowship. This was owing to some witticisms which Raclclirle, according to his manner, had pointed at the doctor. The church, however, being inconsistent with his present situation and views, he chose to resign his fellowship, which he did in 1677. He would have kept his chambers, and resided there as a commoner; but Dr. Marshall being still irreconcilable, he quitted the college, and took lodgings elsewhere, tn 1682 he went out M.D. but continued two years longer at Oxford, increasing both in wealth and fame. In 1684 he went to London, and settled in Bow-street, Covent-garden. Dr. Lower was there the reigning physician but his interest beginning to decline on account of his whig principles, as they were called, Radcliffe had almost an open field and, in less than a year, got into high practice, to which perhaps his conversation contributed as much as his reputed skill in his profession, for few men had more pleasantry and ready wit. In 1686, the princess Anne of Denmark made him her physician. In 1687, wealth jlo wing in upon him very plentifully, he had a mind to testify his gratitude to University college, where he had received the best part of his education; and, with this intent, caused the East window, over the altar, to be put up at his own expence. It is esteemed a beautiful piece, representing the nativity of our Saviour, painted upon glass; and appears to be his gift, by the following inscription under it:” D. D. Joan. Radcliffe, M. D. hujus Collegii quondam Socius, A. D. M.DCLXXXVII.“He is called” Socius;" not that he was really a fellow, but, being senior scholar, had the same privileges, though not an equal revenue, with the fellows. In 1638, when prince George of Denmark joined the prince of Orange and the princess, his consort, retired to Nottingham, the doctor was pressed, by bishop Compton, to attend her in quality of his office, she being also pregnant of the duke of Gloucester; but, not choosing to declare himself in that critical state of public affairs, nor favouring the measures then in agitation, he excused himself on account of the multiplicity of his patients.

After the Revolution, he was often sent for to king William, and the great persons about his court; and this he must have owed entirely to his reputation, for it does not appear that he ever inclined to be a courtier. In 1692 he ventured 5000l. in an interloper, which was bound for the East Indies, with the prospect of a large return but lost it, the ship being taken by the French. When the news was brought him, he said that “he had nothing to do, but go up so many pair of stairs to make himself whole again/' In 1693, he entered upon a treaty of marriage with the only daughter of a wealthy citizen, and was near bringing the affair to a conclusion, when it was discovered that the young lady had an intrigue with her father’s book-keeper. This disappointment in his first love would not suffer him ever after to think of the sex in that light he even acquired a degree of insensibility, if not aversion for them and often declared, that” he wished for an act of parliament, whereby nurses only should be entitled to prescribe to them.' 7 In 1694, queen Mary caught the small-pox and died. “The physician’s part,” says bishop Burnet, u was universally condemned and her death was imputed to the negligence or unskilfulness of Dr. Radcliffe. He was called for; and it appeared, but too evidently, that his opinion was chiefly considered, and most depended on. Other physicians were afterwards called, but not till it was too late."

, a pious and exemplary bishop of Carlisle, was born April 20, 1608, at Bliton, a village in Lincolnshire near Gainsborough. His father, Thomas, was at this time rector of Bliton, and afterwards of Wintringham in the same county; both which preferments he owed to the Wrays of Glentworth. He married Rebecca Allen, daughter of the rev. David Allen, rector of Ludbrough, a very learned lady, who had been successfully taught Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by her father. Under such parents he had the advantage of a religious as well as learned education. For the latter purpose he was sent first to Fillingham, and next, in 16 19, to the public school of Gainsborough, whence, in April 1620, he was removed to Peterborough in Northamptonshire, and put under the tuition of Dr. John Williams, afterwards archbishop of York, but then a prebendary of Peterborough, and a good friend of old Mr. Rainbow. In order to have the farther advantage of this gentleman’s protection, he was sent, in June 1621, to Westminster school, Dr. Williams being then dean of Westminster. In all these places his progress was marked by great diligence and proficiency in his studies, and a conduct which did credit to the instructions of his parents.

On the restoration, in 1660, he was replaced in the mastership of Magdalen college, appointed chaplain to the king, and the year following was promoted to the deanery of Peterborough. In 1662, being elected vice-chancellor of the university, which obliged him to reside there, he greatly contributed to restore proper discipline. In 1664, he was appointed bishop of Carlisle, so much against his inclination, that it required the utmost importunity of his friends to reconcile him to a station for which his modesty made him think he was unfit. After consecration, although the expences attending his entrance on this office were very considerable, he immediately resigned all his other preferments but when he found in what a state his predecessor (Dr. Stern) had left the episcopal residence, Rose castle, he thought it his duty, however unwillingly, to sue him for dilapidations. He then, at great ex pence, repaired the castle, and rebuilt the chapel entirely. His more serious attention, however, was bestowed on the various duties of his office, both with respect to the clergy and people. To the former, in particular, he set an example of diligence in preaching, catechising, &c. and in hospitality. He had prayers four times a day in his family. After continuing this course for twenty years, he became a martyr to the stone and gout, with alternate fits of both which he had long been afflicted. He died at Hose castle, March 26, 1684, in his seventy-sixth year, and was interred in Dalston church-yard, where a plain stone intimates only his name and title. He printed three occasional sermons one we have already mentioned, which was preached at St. Paul’s cross, Sept. 28, 1634, entitled “Labour forbidden and commanded” the second was on the funeral of Susannah, countess of Suffolk, preached May 13, 1649, and printed with some elegies by Drs. Collins and Duport. This Baxter recommended to be reprinted among Clark’s Lives. The third was on the funeral of the celebrated Anne countess of Pembroke, Dorset, and Montgomery, at Appleby in Westmoreland, April 14, 1676. He appears to have been a man of polite manners, uncommon learning, and of exemplary piety and charity. In 1670, he joined with Dr. Wilkins, bishop of Chester, in opposing the conventicle act.

In 1603, when the Hampton-court conference took place, we find him ranged on the puritan side; on this occasion, he was their spokesman, and it may therefore be necessary to give some account of what he proposed, as this will enable the reader in some measure to determine how far the puritans of the following reign can claim him as their ancestor. At this conference, he proposed, 1. “That the Doctrine of the Church might be preserved in purity, according to God’s word.” 2. “That good Pastors might be planted in all churches to preach the same.” 3. “That the Church*government might be sincerely ministred according to God’s word.” 4. “That the book of Common Prayer might be fitted to the more increase of Piety.” With regard to the first he moved his majesty, that the book of “Articles of Religion” concluded in 1562, might be explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things were defective. For example, whereas Art. 16, the words are these, “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace;” notwithstanding the meaning may be sound, yet he desired, that because they may seem to be contrary to the doctrine of God’s Predestination and Election in the 17th Article, both these words might be explained with this or the like addition, “yet neither totally nor finally v and also that the nine assertions orthodoxall, as he termed them, i. e. the Lambeth articles, might be inserted into that book of articles. Secondly, where it is said in the 23d Article, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of preaching or administering the Sacraments” in the. congregation,“before he be. lawfully called, Dr. Rainolds took exception to these words,” in the congregation,“as implying a lawfulness for any whatsoever, * 4 out of the congregation,” to preach and administer the Sacraments, though he had no lawful calling thereunto. Thirdly, in the 25th Article, these words touching “Confirmation, grown partly of the corrupt following the Apostles,” being opposite to those in the collect of Confirmation in the Communion-book, “upon whom after the example of the Apostles,” argue, said he, a contrariety each to other; the first confessing confirmation to be a depraved imitation of the Apostles; the second grounding it upon their example, Acts viii. 19, as if the bishop by confirming of children, did by imposing of hands, as the Apostles in those places, give the visible Graces of the Holy Ghost. And therefore he desired, that both the contradiction might be considered, and this ground of Confirmation examined. Dr. Rainolds afterwards objected to a defect in the 37th Article, wherein, he said, these words, “The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land,” were not sufficient, unless it were added, “nor ought to have.” He next moved, that this proposition, “the intention of the minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament,” might be added to the book of Articles, the rather because some in England had preached it to be essential. And here again he repeated his request concerning the nine “orthodoxall assertions” concluded at Lambeth. He then complained, that the Catechism in the Common-Prayer-book was too brief; for which/reason one by Nowel, late dean of St. Paul’s, was added, and that too long for young novices to learn by heart. He requested, therefore, that one uniform Catechism might be made, which, and none other, might be generally received. He next took notice of the profanation of the Sabbath, and the contempt of his majesty’s proclamation for reforming that abuse; and desired some stronger remedy might be applied. His next request was for a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were corrupt and not answerable to the original of which he gave three instances. He then desired his majesty, that unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed, at least restrained, and imparted to a few. He proceeded now to the second point, and desired that learned ministers might be planted in every parish. He next went on to the fourth point relating to the Common -Prayer, and jcomplained of the imposing Subscription, since it was a great impediment to a learned ministry; and in treated, that “it might not be exacted as formerly, for which many good men were kept ont, others removed, and many disquieted. To subscribe according to the statutes of the realm, namely, to the articles of religion, and the king’s supremacy, they were not unwilling. Their reason of their backwardness to subscribe otherwise was, first, the books Apocryphal, which the Common-Prayer enjoined to be read in the church, albeit there are, in some of those chapters appointed, manifest errors, directly repugnant to tjie scriptures. . The next scruple against subscription was, that in the Common-Prayer it is twice set down, ‘Jesus said to his Disciples,’ when as by the text original it is plain, that he spake to the Pharisees. The third objection against subscription were ‘ Interrogatories in Baptism,’ propounded to infants.” Dr. Rainolds owned “the use of the Cross to have been ever since the Apostles time; but this was the difficulty, to prove it of that ancient use in Baptism.” He afterwards took exceptions at those words in the Office of Matrimony, “With my body I thee worship” and objected against the churching of women by the name of Purification. Under the third general head touching Discipline he took exception to the committing of ecclesiastical censures to lay-chancellors. “His reason was, that the statute made in king Henry’s time for their authority that way was abrogated in queen Mary’s time, and not revived in the late queen’s days, and abridged by the bishops themselves, 1571, ordering that the said lay-chancellors should not excommunicate in matters of correction, and anno 1584 and 1589, not in matters of instance, but to be done only by them, who had the power of the keys.” He then desired, that according to certain provincial constitutions, they of the clergy might have meetings once every three weeks first, in rural deaneries, and therein to have the liberty of prophesying, according as archbishop Grindal and other bishops desired of her late majesty. Secondly, that such things, as could not be resolved upon there, might be referred from thence to the episcopal synods, where the bishop with his Presbyteri should determine all such points as before could not be decided. Notwithstanding our author’s conduct at this conference, Dr. Simon Patrick observes, that he professed himself a conformist to the church of England, and died so. He remarks, that Dr. Richard Crakanthorp tells the archbishop of Spalato, that the doctor was no Puritan (as the archbishop called him). “For, first, be professed, that he appeared unwillingly in the cause at Hampton-court, and merely in obedience to the king’s command. And then he spoke not one word there against the hierarchy. Nay, he acknowledged it to be consonant to the word of God in his conference with Hart. And in an answer to Sanders’ s book of the ‘ Schism of England 7 (which is in the archbishop’s library) he professes, that he approves of the book of * consecrating and ordering bishops, priests, and deacons.’ He was also a strict observer of all the orders of the church and university both in public and his own college; wearing tbte square cap and surplice, kneeling at the Sacrament, and he himself commemorating their benefactors at the times their statutes appointed, and reading that chapter of Ecclesiasticus, which is on such occasions used. In a letter also of his to archbishop Bancroft (then in Dr. Crakanthorp’s hands), he professes himself conformable to the church of England, ‘ willingly and from his heart,’ his conscience admonishing him so to be. And thus he remained persuaded to his last breath, desiring to receive absolution according to the manner prescribed in our liturgy, when he lay on his death-bed which he did from Dr. Holland, the king’s professor in Oxford, kissing his hand in token of his love and joy, and within a few hours after resigned up his soul to God.”

About the same time, 1593, Ralegh had an illicit amour with a beautiful young lady, Elizabeth, daughter of sir Nicolas Throgmorton, an able statesman and ambassador which so offended the queen, that they were both confined for several months and, when set at liberty, forbidden the court. Sir Walter afterwards made the most honourable reparation he could, by marrying the object of his affection; and he always lived with her in the strictest conjugal harmony. The next year he was so entirely restored to the queen’s favour, that he obtained a grant from her majesty of the manor of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, which had been alienated from the see of Salisbury by bishop Caldwell, and was doubtless one of those church- lands, for accepting which he was censured, as mentioned above. During his disgrace he projected the discovery and conquest of the large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana, in South America; and, sending first an old experienced officer to collect information concerning it, he went thither himself jn 1595, destroyed the city of San Joseph, and took the Spanish governor. Upon his return, he mote a discourse t)f his discoveries in Guiana, which was printed in 1596, 4to, and afterwards inserted in the third volume of Hakluyt’s voyages, in Birch’s works of Ralegh, and in Mr. Cayley’s late “Life of Ralegh.” His second attempt on Guiana was conducted by Lawrence Keymis, who sailed in Jan. 1596, and returned in June following. An account of this also is to be found in Hakluyt. The same year, sir Walter had a chief command in the Cadiz action, under the earl of Essex, in which he took a very able and gallant part. In the “Island Voyage,” in 1597, which was aimed principally at the Spanish plate-fleets, Ralegh was one of the principal leaders and would have been completely successful, had he not been thwarted by the jealousy and presumption of Essex. This unhappy nobleman’s misfortunes were now coming on and Ralegh, who had long been at variance with him, contributed to hasten his fall, particularly by a most disgraceful and vindictive letter which he wrote to sir Robert Cecil, to prevent his showing any lenity to Essex. Sir E. Brydges, who has lately reprinted this letter, in his elegant memoir of sir Walter Ralegh, observes, that it exhibits an awful lesson for “Ralegh, in this dreadful letter, is pressing forward for a rival that snare by which he afterwards perished himself. He urges Cecil to get rid of Essex! By that riddance he himself became no longer necessary to Cecil, as a counterppise to Essex’s power.” “Then, I have no doubt it was,” adds sir Egerton, “that Cecil, become an adept in the abominable lesson of this letter, and conscious of his minor talents, but more persevering cunning, resolved to disencumber himself of the ascendant abilities, and aspiring and dangerous ambition of Ralegh.” But whatever share \ftalegh had in defeating the designs of Essex, his sun set at queen Elizabeth’s death, which happened March 24, 1602-3.

, an eminent English divine in the seventeenth century, was second son of sir Carew Ralegh (elder brother of the celebrated sir Walter Ralegh.) His mother was relict of sir John Thynne, of Longleate, in Wiltshire, and daughter of sir William Wroughton, viceadmiral under sir John Dudley (afterwards duke of Northumberland) in the expedition against the Scots in 1544. He was born at Downton, in Wiltshire, in 1586, and educated in Winchester-school, whence he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, of which he became a commoner in Michaelmas term, 1602. In June 1605, he took the degree of B. A. and in June 1608, that of master and being a noted disputant, was made junior of the public act the same year, in which he distinguished himself to great advantage. About that time he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to William earl of Pembroke, in whose family he spent about two years, when he was collated by his lordship to the rectory of Chedzoy, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in the latter end of 1620. Being settled here, he married Mary, the daughter of sir Richard Gibbs, and sister of Dr. Charles Gibbs, prebendary of Westminster. He was afterwards collated to a minor prebend in the church of Wells, and to the rectory of Streat, with the chapel of Walton in Wiltshire. About the time of the death of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, which happened in 1630, he became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I, and by that title was created D. D. in 1636. January the 13th, 1641, he was admitted dean of Wells on the death of Dr. George Warburton. During the rebellion he was sequestered on account of his loyalty, and afterwards treated with the utmost barbarity. It being his month to wait on the king as his chaplain, the committee of Somersetshire raised the rabble, and commissioned the soldiers to plunder his parsonage-house at Chedzoy and in his absence they seized upon all his estate spiritual and temporal, drove away his cattle and horses, which they found upon his ground, and turned his family out of doors. His lady was forced to lie two nights in the corn-fields, it being a capital crime for any of the parishioners to afford them lodging. After this she went to Downton, in Wiltshire, the seat of sir Carew Ralegh, where her husband met her. The king’s party having had some success in the West, Dr. Ralegh had an opportunity to return to his family, and resettle at Chedzoy but the parliament party soon gained the ascendant by the defeat of the lord Goring, and he was obliged to take refuge at Bridgewater, then garrisoned by the king. Here he continued till that town was surrendered to Fairfax and Cromwell, when he was taken prisoner, and after much severe usage set upon a poor horse, with his legs tied under the belly of it, and so carried to his house at Chedzoy, which was then the head -quarters of Fairfax and Cromwell and being extremely sick through his former ill treatment, obtained the favour of continuing prisoner in his own house. But as soon as the generals marched, Henry Jeanes, who was solicitous for his rectory of Chedzoy, and afterwards succeeded him in it, entered violently into the house, took the doctor out of his bed, and carried him away prisoner with all his goods. His wife and children were exposed to such necessities, that they must have perished if colonel Ash. had not procured them the income of some small tenements, which the doctor had purchased at Chedzoy, After this Dr. Ralegh wa& sent prisoner to Ilchester, the county-gaol; thence to Banwell-house, and thence to the house belonging to the deanery in Wells, which was turned into a gaol and here, while endeavouring to secrete a letter which he had written to his wife, from impertinent curiosity, he was stabbed by David Barrett, a shoe-maker of that city, who was his keeper, and died of the wound October 10, 1646, and was interred on the 13th of the same month before the dean’s stall, in the choir of the cathedral of Wells. His papers, after his death, such as could be preserved, continued for above thirty years in obscurity, till at last coming into the hands of Dr. Simon Patrick (afterwards bishop of Ely) he published them at London, 1679, in 4to, under this title: “Reliquiae Raleghanae, being Discourses and Sermons on several subjects, by the reverend Dr. Walter Ralegh, dean of Wells, and chaplain in ordinary to his late majesty king Charles the First.” This editor tells us, that “besides the quickness of his wit and ready elocution, he was master of a very strong reason which won him the familiarity and friendship of those great men -who were the envy of the last age, and the wonder of this, the lord Falkland, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Chillingvvorth the last of which was wont to say (and no man was a better judge of it than himself) that Dr. Ralegh was the best disputant that ever he met withal; and indeed there is a very great acuteness easily to be observed in his writings, which would have appeared more if he had not been led, by the common vice of those times, to imitate too far a very eminent man (meaning, perhaps, bishop Andrews) rather than follow his own excellent genius.” He is said to have been a believer in the millenium, or reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, and to have written a book on that subject, which is lost. In 1719 the rev. Lawrence Howell published at Lond. 8vo, “Certain Queries proposed by Roman catholics, and answered by Dr. Walter Ralegh,” &c. which appears to be authentic.

The humanity which he displayed on this occasion gained him the friendship and esteem of sir Charles Middleton, which no future action of his life had the smallest tendency to impair; but the fracture of his thigh-bone, and his subsequent lameness, determined him to quit the navy, and once more turn his thoughts towards the church. Accordingly, while the Arundel lay at St. Christopher’s, he opened his views to some of the principal inhabitants of the island, hy whom he was so strongly recommended to the bishop of London, that on his coming home with sir Charles Middleton, who warmly joined in the recommendation, he was admitted into orders; after which he immediately returned to St. Christopher’s,* where he was presented by the governor to two rectories, valued at Too/, a year.

, the celebrated abbe and reformer of the monastery of La Trappe, was born January 9, 1626, at Paris. He was nephew of Claudius le Bouthillier de Chavigny, secretary of state, and superintendant of the finances. In classical learning he made so rapid a progress that, with some direction from his tutor, he published, at the age of twelve or thirteen years, a new edition of “Anacreon,” in Greek, with notes, 1639, 8vo. This curious volume, which was dedicated to his godfather Cardinal Richelieu, was reprinted in 1647, and both editions are now scarce. At ten years old, according to the absurd custom then prevalent, he was appointed canon of Notre Dame in Paris, and became possessed of several benefices in a short time. He afterwards took a doctor of divinity’s degree in the Sorbonne, February 10, 1654, and appearing then in a public character, soon became distinguished not only for taste and politeness, but for those amiable qualifications which are of use in society. He was not however without his frailties, and it is said that he refused the bishopric of Leon from a motive of vanity. He was then appointed almoner to the duke of Orleans, and made a shining figure in the assembly of the clergy in 1655, as deputy from the second order. At length becoming conscious how little splendour and preeminence avail to happiness, he bad adieu to all, and devoted his days to religious exercises. It has been said, that this resolution was the consequence of a visit he paid to a favourite lady, from whom he had been absent for some time, and whom on entering her apartment he found dead in her coffin, and frightfully disfigured with the smallpox. This anecdote is taken from “Les veritables Motifs de la Conversion de l'abbé de la Trappe,” published by Daniel de la Roque, Cologn, 1685, 12mo; but some of his biographers treat it as fabulous. One of them, Marsollier, with greater appearance of probability, attributes his conversion to his having narrowly escaped being killed by the ball of a firelock, which struck his gibeciere, or pouch, on which he immediately exclaimed, “Alas! where should I have been, had not my God had compassion on me.” Whichever of these incidents was the cause, it is certain that he retired from the world, and refused even to be assistant to his uncle, who was archbishop of Tours. He then founded a monastery, the fraternity belonging to which practise the utmost self-denial. Their diet is merely vegetable. They allow not themselves wine, flesh, fish, nor eggs; they enter into no conversation with strangers, and for some days are wholly silent. They have each a separate cell, and used to pass some part of every day in digging their own graves in the garden of the convent. De Ranee placed this new establishment of the monks of La Trappe in the hands of the fathers of the strict Cistertian observance. He also sold his estate at Veret for 100,000 crowns, which sum he gave to the H6tel Dieu at Paris, and took the monastic habit in the abbey of Notre Dame de Perseigne, where he made profession, June 6,1664. He afterwards took possession of the abbey de la Trappe, and introduced those regulations above mentioned, which long made it the admiration of all travellers. In this retreat he lived devoted to his austere observances, until 1695, when he died on his straw pallet, in presence of the bishop of Seez, and the whole community, October 26, 1700, aged 74, leaving many pious works; among which the principal are, a book “de la Saintété des Devoirs de l'Etat monastique,” 1683, 2 vols. 4to “Eclaircissemens sur ce Livre,” 1685, 4to; “Explication sur la Regie de S. BenoSt,” 12mo; “lieflexions morales sur les quatre Evangiies,” 4 vols. 12mo; “Conferences sur les Evangiies,” 4 vols. 12mo “Instructions et Maximes,” 12mo; “Concluite Chretienue,” written for Mad. de Guise, 12mo; a greafnumber of “Spiritual Letters,” 2 vols. 12 mo; “Accounts of the Lives and Deaths of some Monks of la Trappe,” 4 vols. 12tno, continued to 6 vols.; lastly, “The Constitutions and Rules of the Abbe of la Trappe,” 1701, 2 vols. 12mo. His life has been written by several Romish authors, particularly by M. de Maupeou, M, Marsollier, and Le Nain, brother of M. de Tillemont, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a statesman in queen Elizabeth’s reign, the son of Avery Randolph of Badlesmere in Kent, was born in that county in 1523. He was, according to his own account, a pupil of George Buchanan, but had his academical education at Christ Church, Oxford, then newly founded; where he took the degree of bachelor of law in 1547, about which time he was made a public notary. In Nov. 1549, he became principal of Broadgatehall (now Pembroke college), and continued in that office until 1553, when the persecution of the protestants under queen Mary, obliged him to retire to France. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he came into high favour, and his talents recommended him to be employed in various embassies, particularly in Scotland during the commotions there: he was sent thrice to queen Mary, and afterwards seven times to her son and successor James VI. We find him also several times supporting the same character at the courts of Russia and France. Eiis first mission to Scotland, in 1561, had for its professed object to promote a mutual friendship between the two nations, and to endeavour that queen Mary, who hadj ust lost her husband, Francis II. king of France, should not again marry a foreigner; but according to Sir James Melvil and others, his real business was to intrigue between the two parties which then divided Scotland, and rather to increase than allay their animosities. In this plan secretary Cecil was supposed to be the director, and Randolph the executor. By a letter published by Mr. Lodge, who says that Randolph was a man of “a dark intriguing spirit, full of cunning, and void of conscience,” we learn that at one time he was confined in prison at Edinburgh; but probably for a short time, as the circumstance is not mentioned in any history. In Russia, to which he was sent in 1560, his conduct merits greater approbation, as in the following year, he brought to conclusion a commercial treaty highly advantageous to the English merchants, who were then enabled to establish the “Russia Company.” His secretary on this embassy was George Turberville the poet, who has described the manners and customs of the Moscovites in some epistles to his friends, which are inserted in Hakluyt’s voyages. In 1571, during one of his embassies to Scotland, he had the spirit to challenge Virac, the French ambassador in that kingdom, who had taken some liberties with queen Elizabeth’s character and with his own. For all these services the queen is accused of having rewarded Mr. Randolph rather niggardly, having bestowed on him only the order of knighthood, the office of chamberlain of the exchequer, and that of postmaster, to neither of which last was much profit annexed, and a few small estates. Yet with these he is said to have been content, although he had a large family. He died at his house on St. Peter’s hill, near Thames-street, London, June 8, 1590, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, Paul’s wharf. In his latter days he appears to have lived retired, “setting his mind,” as he expresses it, “upon the heavenly country, and reconciling himself to the divine mercy by a timely repentance.” Such likewise is the advice he gave to sir Francis Walsingham, whose sister he had married. He tells him, “how worthy. yea, how necessary a thing it was, that they should at length bid farewell to the tricks, he of a secretary, and himself of an ambassador.” Several of his letters and dispatches are in the Cotton collection in the British Museum, and among bishop More’s books in the public library at Cambridge. Two of his letters were published by James Oliphant, among Buchanan’s Letters, 1711, 8vo, and have been inserted since in the Leyden and Edinburgh edition of Buchanan’s works, one to Buchanan himself, and the ether to Peter Yonge, school- master to James VI. There are also some of his letters, instructions, and dispatches, printed in Strype’s “Annals,” Goodall’s “Examination of the Letters said to be written by Mary queen of Scots,” and in Robertson’s History of Scotland," &C.

, archdeacon of Oxford, and president of Corpus Christi college, the son of Herbert Randolph, esq. recorder of the city of Canterbury, was born August 30, 1701. He received his school education at the king’s school in Canterbury, then in great repute, under the rev. Mr. Jones. At the early age of fourteen, being then a good proficient in classical learning, he was elected into a county scholarship in Corpus Christi college, Oxford. There he entered upon a course of academical studies under the tuition of the rev. Mr. Smith, in which, as well in his whole conduct, he acquitted himself to the great satisfaction of those who were set over him; having in view throughout the sacred profession, td which he had been destined from his early youth. He proceeded regularly through the degree of B. A. to that of M. A. the latter in 1722. In 1724 he was ordained deacon, and in the following year priest. At the same time he entered upon the duty of his profession, and undertook a cure at such a moderate distance from the university, as that he might discharge the duties of it, and not be obliged to give up his residence, and the farther prosecution of his studies there. This course of life he continued for a few years, and then returned to a more strict residence in the university; nor was he intent on his own improvement only, but occasionally took part in the education of others, and in the government of his college, in which he succeeded to a fellowship in 1723. He took the degree of B. D. in 1730, and that of D. D. in 1735. In the mean time his reputation as an able divine introduced him to the notice of Dr. Potter, then bishop of Oxford, who soon after his translation to Canterbury, collated him to the united vicarages of Perhatn and Waltham in Kent. He also shortly after recommended him to Dr. Rye, regius professor of divinity, as a person (it to act as his deputy, who appointed him accordingly. This appointment will appear the more honourable, as the divinity disputations are esteemed a trial of the skill and learning of the senior part of the university; and Dr. Randolph acquitted himself in such a manner, that on a vacancy for the professorship in 1741, his friends thought him amply qualified to succeed but on this occasion the superior interest of Dr. Fanshaw carried the election; and Dr. Randolph retired to his living of Perham.

The archbishop, still continuing his patronage to Dr. Randolph, collated him, in 1746, to the rectory of Saltwood, with the chapel of Hythe annexed; his residence, however, still continued at Perham, until he was elected, without his knowledge, or any communication with th e electors, to be president of Corpus Christ! college. This election, which took place April 23, 1748, enabled him to devote the remainder of his life to the place of his education, and the scene of his growing reputation. Oxford became now the principal place of his residence; and the government of his college, and a share in that of the university, his chief employment and concern. Yet having naturally an active mind, and being ever vigilant and attentive to all the duties of his station, much of his time was still devoted to religious studies, which he considered as included in the proper duties of his station, and as their highest aim. Many of his sermons preached before the university were printed by request, and his larger work upon “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” in answer to “The Essay on Spirit,” was published in 1753, and 1754. From 1756 to 1759 he held the office of vice-chancellor, in which he was allowed on all hands to have conducted himself with temper and ability, at a time when disputes ran high, and the business of the university was more than common; the Vinerian statutes having been settled, and the delegacy of the press reformed, during that period. These several labours were so well received by the university, that in 1768 he was unanimously elected to the Margaret professorship of divinity on the death of Dr. Jenner. In the preceding year he had been promoted to the archdeaconry of Oxford on the resignation of Dr. Potter: which promotion took place by the recommendation of archbishop Seeker, accepted and confirmed by bishop Lowth, then bishop of Oxford; and may be 'considered as a testimony borne by those eminent prelates to his merit and character. From this time to that of his death he was again frequently engaged in controversy. The questions now agitated were chiefly, that of subscription to articles of faith, and that of the doctrine of the Trinity revived by Mr. Lindsey, and his followers. On these he published several tracts, and also occasionally gave his assistance to others engaged in the same cause. Bodily infirmities he was subject to for many years before his death, but the faculties of his mind were sound and unimpaired to the very last. Within the last year of his life he finished and published a work, which he had prepared some time before, on the “Citations from the Old Testament in the New.” Repeated attacks at length brought him to a state of weakness, under which he laboured for three months, and died March 24, 17 S3. He was buried in Corpus Christi cloister, where a monument is erected to his memory.

, the late bishop of London, was the younger son of the preceding, and was born July 6, 1749. He became a student of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and took his degrees at the usual periods that of M. A. in 1774; B. D. in 1782 D. D. by diploma, in 1783. In 1776 he was appointed prselector of poetry, and in 1782 regius professor of Greek. In the same year he was presented to a prebend of Salisbury; and in 1783 became canon of Christ church, regius professor of divinity, and rector of Ewelnoe. In the year 1799 he was elevated to the bishopric of Oxford; translated to that of Bangor in 1807; and thence to London in 1809. He was elected F. R. S. in 1811. He passed a great part of his life in the university of Oxford, and it was generally believed that when he was raised to the see of Oxford, the university was complimented with the nomination by the crown. His lordship was author of many single sermons, and charges delivered on different occasions: also of “De Grsecae Linguae Studio Prselectio habita in Schola Linguarum,” 1783, and “Concio ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali Cantuariensis Provincial ad D. Pauli,” 1790. One of his last works was a report of the progress made by the National School Society, to which the general committee referred in terms of gratitude, at their first meeting after his lordship’s decease. They notice his lordship as one “whose latest employment had been to state, for the information qf the public, the progress of a work to which he had contributed his time, his labour, and his counsels. The committee therefore could not fail to entertain a common sentiment of profound regret for the loss which they have sustained, and to cherish in their minds the liveliest recollection of the service which has been so successfully fulfilled by him in this second report. They wish, therefore, to add to this document, designed for general circulation, their sense of what is due from the public, and themselves, to the. memory of one who was a constant and assiduous promoter of this salutary institution, from its first establishment to the last hour of his life. The committee trust, that this testimony, though limited to a single object in the large field of pastoral duty in which he was incessantly engaged, may serve to denote the benefits which have resulted from his prompt, unwearied, and effectual exertions.” The following is the character drawn of him by Mr. archdeacon Jefferson, and which alludes to his zeal for the church, of which he was an active member: “Fearless now of being censured for mercenary adulation, or reproved by unconscious merit, a just tribute may be paid to the character of that departed and exalted prelate, who is, and will be, most lamented where he was best and most entirely known. This opportunity, therefore, is willingly embraced of offering a heartfelt condolence to the ministry of the diocese on the affecting and important loss, which, in these perilous times of contending sects and unsettled opinion, has arisen to them, and to the church: To them, in the premature privation of a diocesan, firm in his support of ecclesiastical authority, but considerate in its application; eminently versed in the letter of ecclesiastical law, but liberal in its practical construction, reluctant in interference, but determined in duty, slow in the profes-. sion of service, but prompt in its execution; disinterested, in patronage, unwavering in measures, correct in judgment, attentive in council, and kind and compassionate to distress: To the church, in the premature privation of a father, diligent in her rites and services, but unostentatious in piety and devotion; sound and unrelaxing in her doctrines and faith, but discreet in zeal, and comprehensive in charity; ever vigilant in defending her interests, ever forward in asserting her privileges, and ever able in the assertion and the defence.” This high character, how-, ever, has been thought capable of abatement. It was perhaps unfortunate that he succeeded a prelate of the mild and conciliating temper of Dr. Porteus, and that he undertook the government of a diocese, which, above all others, requires such a temper. It was, perhaps, not less unfortunate that in his first charge to the clergy of this diocese, he betrayed no little ignorance of the state of religious opinions, and the creeds of those sectaries against whom he wished to warn his clergy.

Bishop Randolph died suddenly on the 28th of July, 1813. He was one of the governors of the Charter-house; trustee of the British Museum; dean of the Chapel royal; visitor of Sion college; and provincial dean of Canterbury.

Raphael, though possessing pre-eminent powers as a painter, had not suffered that profession alone to absorb his mind; he had studied architecture under Bramante, and in chastity of design was not inferior to that distinguished artist, who in full confidence of his abilities, recommended him as his successor, to conduct the great work of St. Peter’s, to which recommendation his holiness paid due attention. According to the pope’s brief on this occasion, dated August 1515, his salary was fixed at three hundred golden crowns, or 150l. per annum. For so important an undertaking this sum would seem to be a very inadequate remuneration but, as his biographer observes, in our own country, one hundred and sixty years subsequent to this period, sir Christopher Wren did not receive more than 200l. per annum, for the building of St. Paul’s, which included draughts, models, making estimates and contracts, examining and adjusting all bills and accounts, with constant personal superintendance, and giving instructions to the artificers in every department. St. Peter’s, which cost more than a century to complete, underwent so many changes by the various architects employed, that it would be now extremely difficult to particularize with any degree of certainty the different parts of it which were executed by Raphael. It appears, however, that it is to him we are indebted for the general plan of the church as it now exists. In 1515, Raphael went with the pope to Florence, and made a design for the facade of the church of St. Lorenzo: and, according to Vasari, he was also the architect of a magnificent house for the bishop of Troja, which still exists in the street of St. Gallo in that city; but of the different buildings designed or executed by Raphael, that on which his reputation as an artist is thought principally to rest, is the Caffarelli palace at Rome. The other buildings of Raphael still existing are, a palace for M. Giovanni Baptista dell' Aquila, opposite to the church of S. Maria della Vallicella, in Rome; a villa for cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII.; and for the prince Ghigi he built a set of stables in the Longara, and a chapel in the church of S. Maria del Popolo. This prince was a distinguished patron of Raphael, and much employed him. For him he painted in fresco, in one of the rooms of his Casino in the Longara, now called the Farnesina, a picture of Galatea drawn by dolphins, and surrounded with tritons, &c. which would appear to have been much admired and praised by his friend count Castiglione, from a letter still existing by Raphael to that nobleman, which the reader may see in our principal authority. For prince Ghigi he painted in fresco, on the spandrels of an arch in front of the Ghigi chapel in the church of S. Maria della Pace, a large allegorical subject of Sibyls delivering their prophecies for the confirmation of the revealed religion. This work was highly esteemed when finished; but is now unfortunately much injured, and parts are entirely effaced. For his Casino in the Longara, Raphael made a series of designs from Apuleius’s history of Cupid and Psyche, which were painted by himself and his scholars on a ceiling of a spacious hall. What part was painted by himself it would not be easy at this time to ascertain, as the work has suffered much by being originally exposed to the open air, as the loggia of the Vatican is at present, and by being repainted and repaired.

, one of our early printers, is said by Bale to have been a citizen of London, and by Pits a native of that city. Wood says he was educated in grammar and philosophy at Oxford, and that returning to London he set up the trade of printing, which was then, as Wood adds, “esteemed a profession fit for any scholar or ingenious man.” By whom he was taught the art, or whether he was at first employed only as a corrector, does not appear. His residence was at the sign of the Mermaid “at Fowl’s gate,” next Cheapside. He married Elizabeth, sister to sir Thomas More, with whom he became intimate, according to Wood, by his piety and learning. Bale and Pits assign different causes for this intimacy; the one, because he was a bold champion for popery, which the other terms his great zeal for the glory of God. Herbert thinks it was most likely that he was at first introduced to his acquaintance by means of printing sir Thomas’s “Dialogues,” and that his acquaintance was afterwards cemented into friendship, as was natural, by their mutual principles and opinions. The date, therefore, of this acquaintance may be 1528 or 1529. Wood says that Rastall, by frequent conferences with sir Thomas, improved his knowledge in various sorts of learning, which is probable; but he omits to notice what is more important, that Rastall became a convert to the reformed religion by means of a controversy with John Frith. Rastall published “Three Dialogues,” the last of which treats on purgatory, and was answered by Frith. On this Rastall wrote his “Apology against John Frith,” which the latter answered with such strength of argument as to make a convert of his opponent. Rastall also wrote a book called “The Church of John Rastall,” which being in the list of prohibited books published by bishop Bonner, annexed to his injunctions in 1542, is supposed to have contained some retraction of his former opinions, at least of what he had written concerning purgatory. Herbert questions whether this book be not the same which Bale mentions by the title of “Abrasio Papismi.” Both Bale and Pits attribute other works to Rastall, not now known, except his “Anglorum regnum Chronicon, or Pastime of the People,” printed by him in 1529. This having lately been reprinted (1B11) among the rest of the English Chronicles, by a select number of the booksellers of London, it is not necessary to describe its contents. The original edition is so scarce that one perfect copy only is known, which formerly belonged to lord Orford, who gave it to James West, esq. and is now in the king’s library; and of imperfect copies, bibliographers mention only three or four.

Herbert ascribes some law publications to William Rastall, but doubtfully. He carried on the printing business from 1530 to 1534. When Justice Rastall he published “A collection (abridged) of the Statutes in force and use,” in 1557, often reprinted. It contains copies of statutes not elsewhere extant, and in some instances more complete transcripts of several acts than are commonly printed in the Statutes at large and it seems to be a republication and enlargement of the abridgment which was printed by his father in 1519. The other son, John, was commonly, but improperly called Mr. Justice Rastall, from having been a justice of the peace. Some works, in controversy with bishop Jewell, have been attributed to William Rastall, but were written by a John Rastall, no relation, as far as we know, of this family, who became a Jesuit, and died abroad in 1600.

, a learned English divine, and editor of lord Bacon’s works, was born at Norwich about 1588. He was admitted a Bible-clerk in Bene't college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Chapman, on the 22d of January, 1660, and took both the degrees in arts before the 19th of March, 1609, when he was elected a fellow of the house. Upon this he commenced tutor, and was ordained deacon by the bishop of Ely, at Downham, September 22, 1611; not long after which, he was presented by the university of Cambridge to the rectory of Bowthorpe in Norfolk, and was instituted to it Dec. 10, 1612. In 1616, by the favour of sir Francis Bacon, who procured the living for him of the college, he obtained the rectory of Landbeach. He had commenced B. D. the year before, and upon his patron’s being made lord-keeper of the great seal, was appointed his domestic chaplain. While Mr. Rawley was in this situation, he proceeded D. D. in 1621. He was of great use to his master, in writing down, compiling, digesting, and publishing his works; to many of which he wrote prefaces and dedications, as well as translated several of them into Latin. These, with some other pieces committed to his care, he collected together, and printed, after his lordship’s decease, London, 1638, folio, with a dedication to king Charles, one of whose chaplains he then was. In 1657, he published at London, in folio, under the title of “Resuscitatio,” several others of lord Bacon’s tracts; to which at the request of many foreigners, and natives of the kingdom, he prefixed some account of his patron’s life. This, which is thought to be drawn up in a clear and manly style, shews Dr. Rawley to have been an able writer. It was likewise translated into Latin, and placed before the “Opuscula varia Posthuma,” printed in 8vo the year following, which, he tells us, were the last things he had in his hands. However, he republished the “Resuscitatio,” with some additions, in 1661; at which time he was chaplain in ordinary to his majesty king Charles II. He was so great a favourite with lord Bacon, that, after his resignation of the seals, he recommended Dr. Rawley to his successor, bishop Williams, for farther preferment. This the bishop promised, and desired lord Bacon to point out in what he would wish him to promote Dr. Rawley but his lordship modestly declining this, and referring the choice to the lord- keeper, Dr Rawley appears to have derived no advantage from his friend’s recommendation. Lord Verulam, besides the care of his writings, left the doctor by will, as a farther testimony of his regard, one hundred pounds, with the king of Spain’s Polyglot. After the publication of his master’s works, in 1638, Dr. Ravvley resided upon his rectory at Landbeach. He married Barbara, the daughter of Mr, John Wicksted, alderman of Cambridge, by whom he had two children. His daughter^ Mary, died in her infancy; but his son, William, became fellow of Corpus Christi college, and was buried at Landbeach, on the 3d of July, 1666. Dr. Rawley lost his son, his wife, and his servants, all in the same year, of the plague; which probably affected him so much as to bring down his grey hairs with sorrow to the grave. He died on the 18th of June, 1667, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, after haying been pastor at Landbeach fifty years, and throughout the whole of the troubles. His remains were deposited near the Communion-table, in the chancel of his own church, under a black marble, with a Latin inscription to his memory. Dr. Rawley was proctor in convocation for the clergy of the diocese of Ely, in 1661, and as such subscribed to the Book of Common-Prayer, upon its revisal. He had the appellation of the lord Bacon’s learned chaplain; and that this title was justly bestowed upon him, is evident from the testimonies of several considerable men, both at home and abroad. He presented lord Bacon’s works, as he published them, to the library of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge; and bequeathed to it “Camden’s Britannia,” with “Ciceronis Opera,” in 2 vols. and Plato, in 3 vols. folio. These books were delivered by his executor Mr. John Rawley, to whose care we are indebted for those Remains of lord Bacon which were published by Dr. Tenison.

Christopher Rawlinson, of Caik-hall in Carimel, in the county of Lancaster, esq. whose remains are deposited in a vault near this place. He wa son of Curwen Rawlinson, member of parliament for the town of Lancaster, and Klizabeth Monk, daughter and co-heir of the loyal Nicholas Monk, lord bishop of Hereford, brother to (Jen. Monk duke of Albemarle. The said Christopher was of Queen’s college, in Oxford, and published the Saxon version of “Boethius de Consolatione Philosophise” in the Saxon language. He was born in the parish of Springfield in Essex, June 13, 1677, and died in Jan. 1733. This monument was erected pursuant to the will of his cousin and co-heiress, Mrs. Mary Blake, youngest daughter of Roger More, of Kirkby Lonsdale, in the county of Westmoreland, serjeant at law, and Catharine Rawlinson, sister of the said Curwen Rawlinson.

For this gentleman’s pedigree, see “Sandford’s Genealogical History of the Kings and Queens of England, 1707;” where also is a print of the monument erected by him to his grandfather and mother, in the church of St. Mary, at Cartmel, in Lancashire. There are two engravings of him; one in a wig and night-gown, in a frame of oakJeaves, engraved by Nutting, with his initials in a cypher at the corners, and his arms quartering a chevron between 3 lions 7 heads, and Ar. fretty Gu. a chief Az. Another, by Nutting also (mentioned in Granger), in the same plate with four others, viz. Robert^ his grandfather; Curvven, his father; Elizabeth, his mother, and Dr. Nicholas Monk, bishop of Hereford, his mother’s father. There is likewise a mezzotinto half-sheet, by Smith, representing him younger, and of a more comely person, than either of the engravings. It is dated “Anno Christi 1701, aetatis suae 24.”

During his continuance in the university, he acquitted himself honourably as a tutor and a preacher; for, preaching and common placing, both in the college and in the university-church, were then usually performed by persons not ordained. Dr. Tenison informed his biographer that Mr. Ray was much celebrated in his time for his preaching solid and useful divinity, instead of that enthusiastic stuff which the sermons of that time were generally filled with. His favourite study, and what indeed made the chief business of his life, was the history of nature, and the works of God: and in this he acquired very extensive knowledge. He published, in 1660, a “Catalogue of the Cambridge Plants,” in order to promote the study of botany, which was then much neglected and the reception this work met with encouraged him to proceed farther in this study. He no longer contented himself with what he met with about Cambridge, but extended his pursuits throughout the greatest part of England and Wales, and part of Scotland. In these journeys of simpiing, though he sometimes went alone, yet he had commonly the company of other curious gentlemen, particularjy Mr, Willoughby, his pupil, Mr. (afterwards sir) Philip Skippon, and Mr. Peter Courthope* At the restoration of the king, he resolved upon entering into holy orders; and was ordained by Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln, December 23, 1660. He continued fellow of Trinitycollege, till the beginning of the Bartholomew act; which, requiring a subscription against the solemn league and covenant, occasioned him to resign his fellowship, he refusing to sign that declaration. His biographer informs us that the reason of his refusal was not, as some have imagined, his having taken the solemn league and covenant: “for that he never did, and often declared that he ever thought it an unlawful oath, but he said he could not declare, for those that had taken the oath, that no obligation lay upon them; but feared there might.” This explanation of Mr. Hay’s conduct seems not very satisfactory, but it is all that we can now obtain, and it is certain that he died in communion with the church of England.

Having now left his fellowship, and visited most parts of his own country, he was desirous of seeing what nature afforded in foreign parts; and accordingly, in April, 1663, himself, with Mr. Willoughby,' Mr. Skippon, and Mr. Nathanael Bacon, went from Dover to Calais, and thence through divers parts of Europe; which, however, it is sufficient just to mention, as Mr. Hay himself, in 1673, published the “Observations” they made in that tour. Towards the end of their journey, Mr. Willoughby and Mr. Ray separated; the former passing through Spain, the latter from Montpelier through France, into England, where he arrived in March, 1665-6. He pursued his philosophical studies with his usual ardour, and became so distinguished, that he was importuned to come into the royal society, and was admitted fellow thereof in 1667. Being then solicited by dean (afterwards bishop) Wilkins, to translate his-“Real Character” into Latin, he consented; and the original manuscript of that work, ready for the press, is still extant in the library of the royal society.

In 1671 he was afflicted with a feverish disorder, which terminated in the yellow jaundice; but he was soon cured of it, and resumed his botanical pursuits. The year after, his beloved friend Mr. Willoughby died, in his 37th year, at Middleton-hall, his seat in Yorkshire; “to the infinite and unspeakable loss and grief,” says Mr. Ray, “of myself, his friends, and all good men.” There having been the sincerest friendship between Mr. Willoughby and Mr. Ray, who were men of similar dispositions and tastes, from the time of their being fellow-collegians, Mr. Willoughby not only confided in Mr. Ray in his life-time, but also at his death; for, he made him one of the executors of his will, and charged him with the education of his sons, Francis and Thomas, leaving him also for life 60l. per ann. The eldest of these young gentlemen not being four years of age, Mr. Ray, as a faithful trustee, betook himself to the instruction of them; and for their use composed his “Nomenclator dassicus,” which was published in 1672, and is far more exact, especially in the names of natural objects, than any that had previously appeared. Francis, the eldest, dying before he was of age, the younger became lord Middleton. Not many months after the death of Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Ray lost another of his best friends, bishop Wilkins; whom he visited in London, November 13, 1672, and found expiring. Mr. Ray having thus lost some of his best friends, and being in a manner left destitute, endeavoured to consoler himself with female society; and in June, 1673, married a young lady, not half his age, being only 20 years of age, the daughter of Mr. Oakeley, of Launton in Oxfordshire. Towards the end of this year came forth his “Observations, Topographical, Moral, &c.” made in foreign countries; to which was added his “Catalogus Stirpium in exteris regionibus observatarum” and, about the same time, his “Collection of unusual or local English words,” which he had gathered up in his travels through the counties of England. In 1674, Mr. Oldenbufgh, the secretary of the Royal Society, renewed his correspondence with Mr. Ray^, which had been some time intermitted, and sent him letters almost every month. Mr. Ray’s accounts in these letters were published by Oldenburgh in the Philosophical Transactions. Oldenburgh had a farther view in his correspondence with Mr. Ray; it was to engage him with those leading members, who had agreed to entertain the society with a philosophical discourse at their meetings, so that the burthen might not lie among too few of the members. Mr. Ray complied, and accordingly sent him “A Discourse concerning Seeds, and the Specific Differences of Plants;” which, Oldenburgh tells him, was so well received by the president and fellows, that they returned him their thanks, and requested he would repeat his favours of that kind.

The study of insects was probably the last that engaged the attention of this great and wise man; who, though on the verge of eternity, in the full possession of himself, and in the anticipation of the most glorious manifestations of his Creator, did not disdain or neglect to contemplate him in his least and lowest works. His last letter to Dr. Derham, who had just been to visit him, is dated August 16, 1704. He speaks of having lately obtained Mr. Willoughby’s entomological papers, and describes himself as then entering on his History of Insects. How well he employed his time during the autumn, is evident from what we have related concerning this work, for he never saw another spring. He died at Black Notley, in a house of his own building, Jan. 17, 1705, in the 77th year of his age. His character is thus concisely given by Derham: In his dealings, no man more strictly just; in his conversation, no man more humble, courteous, and affable; towards God, no man more devout; and towards the poor and distressed, no man more compassionate and charitable, according to his abilities.“The friend who wrote this eulogium, in his” Life of Mr. Ray," asserts, that he was buried, according to his own desire, in the church of Black Notley; but the authors of the Biographia Britannica are probably more correct, in saying, that he declined the offer made him by the rector, of a place of interment in the chancel, choosing rather to repose with his ancestors, in the church-yard; and this account is confirmed by the original situation of his monument, erected at the expence, in part at least, of bishop Compton. The long and elegant Latin epitaph has often been published. Its author was the rev. William Coyte, M. A., father of the late Dr. Coyte of Ipswich, and the original manuscript in possession of sir E. J. Smith, contains the information that Ray was interred in the church-yard. In 1737, the monument in question, which seems to have been a sort of altar-tomb, being nearly ruined, was restored at the charge of Dr. Legge, and removed for shelter into the church; where therefore it became a cenotaph, as an inscription added on this occasion terms it. Forty-five years afterwards the tomb again underwent a repair, by the care of the present sir Thomas Gery Cullum and others, who subjoined a third inscription.

, a learned Dominican, born at Pisa, was appointed vice-chancellor of the Roman church, and bishop ofMaguelone. He died January 13, 1649, leaving several works: the most considerable of which is a theological dictionary, entitled “Pantheologia;” in which he has arranged the theological subjects in alphabetical order. The best edition of this work is, Lyons, 1655, 3 vols. fol. with the additions by father Nicolai, a Dominican: it was reprinted in 1670.

, an English divine, was a native of Buckinghamshire, where he was born in 1588. He was admitted a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, in 1604. He took his degree of M. A. in 1610, and then entered himself a commoner of Alban-hall. In 1612 he was ordained deacon, and in 1614 priest, by the bishop of Oxford. About this time he became chaplain to Edward lord Zouch of Haringworth, warden of the cinque ports, and governor of Dover-castle. Having accompanied this nobleman to Dover, his preaching was so much admired, that at the request of the parishioners he was made minister of St. Mary’s, in December 1616. He was afterwards appointed chaplain in ordinary to Charles I. He was one of those doctrinal puritans, who opposed, as much as any churchman of opposite religious sentiments, the violent proceedings of the authors of the rebellion, and had exposed them so frequently in his sermons, that he was soon marked out for vengeance. In April 1612, his library at Dover was plundered, and in November following he was dragged from his house by the soldiers, and imprisoned for a year and seven months. In January of the above mentioned year, archbishop Laud, then a prisoner in the Tower, had, at his majesty’s request, bestowed on him the living of Chartham in Kent; but from that the usurping party took care he should receive no advantage. He was also with as little effect made a prebendary of Canterbury. In 1644, however, sir William Brockman gave him the living of Cheriton in Kent, which he was not only allowed to keep, but was likewise appointed by the assembly of divines, to be one of the nine divines who were to write annotations on the New Testament for the work afterwards published, and known by the title of the “Assembly’s Annotations.”

His sufferings, however, were not yet at an end; for soon after this apparent favour, upon a suspicion that he was concerned in a plot for the seizing of Dover-castle, he was apprehended and carried to Leeds-castle, where he was imprisoned for some time. In March 1650, he held a public disputation in Folkstone church with Fisher, an anabaptist, who argued against the necessity of ordination, and quoted as his authority some passage in bishop Taylor’s “Discourse of the liberty of Prophesying,” which obliged Mr. Reading to write a tract on the subject. On the restoration, when Charles II. landed at Dover, Mr. Reading was deputed by the corporation to address his majesty, and present him with a large Bible with gold clasps, in their name. He was now replaced in the prebend of Canterbury and the living of Chartham. Here he died Oct. 26, 1667, and was buried in the chancel of the church.

He published several occasional sermons from 1623 to 1663; and 1. “Brief instructions concerning the holy Sacrament,” Lond. 1645, 8vo. 2. “A guide to the holy City,” Oxon. 1651, 4to. 3. “An antidote to Anabaptism,” 1654, 4to. It was in this he animadverted on those passages of bishop Taylor’s “Discourse,” which seemed to favour irregular preaching. 4. “An Evening Sacrifice, or Prayers for a family in these times of calamity.” 5. “Speech made before king Charles II. on the shore, when he landed at Dover,” &c. 1660, single sheet, with verses. Mr, Reading left several manuscripts, partly in the hands of Basil Kennet, whence they passed to his sen, White Kennet.

, one of the most learned divines of his time, was born in 1499, descended from a Yorkshire family, and was nearly related to Tonstall, bishop of Durham. By the encouragement of this learned prelate, he was from his infancy devoted to literature, which he cultivated first in Corpus Christi, Oxford, under the first president, John Claymond, a man of singular erudition and generosity. From Oxford he went for a time to study at Paris, and continued there until he became of age. He then, on his return, fixed himself in St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he is said to have been so adorned with the knowledge of Cicero and the purest authors of antiquity, that Cheke, then a young man there, was fired with emulation; and in a short time, through their united pains and example, that seminary acquired the fame of being more than a match for a whole foreign university. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1526, that of master in 1530, and that of D. D. in 1534. He was also elected public orator of the university. He was soon after chosen master of King’s-hall, which he resigned in 1547, being then appointed the first master of Trinity college. He was likewise archdeacon of Taunton, and a member of the convocation in 1547 and 1550; also prebendary of Wells, and of Westminster, in the college of which cathedral he died in 1551, aged fifty-two, and was buried in the north aile of the abbey.

His works are, 1. “Carolina in mortem duonim fratrum Suffolciensium, Henrici et Caroli Brandon,” Lond. 1552, 4to. A specimen from this rare volume is given in Mr. Bliss’s edition of the “Athense,” from a copy in the Bodleian. 2. “De Pii V. et Gregorii XIII. furoribus contra Elizabetham Reginam Angliae,” ibid. 1582, 8vo. 3. “An Exhortation to true love, loyalty, and fidelity to her majesty,” ibid. 1587, 8vo, to which is added a treatise against Treasons; and 4. “Syntagma hortationum ad Jacobuui Regem Anglise,” ibid. 1604, 8vo. He also translated from Latin into English, bishop Poynet’s “Apology or Defence of Priests’ marriages.” Bale, who gives Dr. Renniger a high character, attributes other works to him, but without specifying whether in ms. or print; and there are, if we mistake not, some of his Mss. in Bene't college library.

, a learned Danish divine, was the son of a Lutheran clergyman, and born in Jutland, Feb. 2, 1561. After his grammatical education, he went to the university of Copenhagen, and was afterwards made corector of the school of Vibourg. In 1585, being appointed tutor to the young Frederick Rosenkrantz, he travelled with him through Germany, France, Italy, &c. for seven years, part of which we must suppose was spent in studying at some of the universities. On his return in 1592, he was appointed philosophical professor in ordinary, and afterwards extraordinary professor of divinity in the university of Copenhagen. In 1594, having been created doctor in that faculty, he removed to the chair of ordinary professor. In 1606, when the king, Christiern VI. paid a visit to his relation, king James, in England, who had married his sister, Resenius accompanied him as his chaplain. In 1615 he was appointed bishop of Roschildt in Zealand, which he held until his death, Sept. 14, 1638, aged seventy-seven. He was a man of great liberality, and bestowed in the course of his life 5500 crowns on schools and hospitals. Besides a translation of the Bible into the Danish language, published in 1605 7, he published a great number of theological dissertations and sermons in the same language; and the following works: “Parva logica,” Latin and Danish, 1605, 1610; “Institutiones geometricae,” 1612; “Parva rhetorica,” 1619; “Scholia in arithmeticam Gemmae Frisii,” 1611; and “De sancta fide in Deum, libellus apologeticus,” Latin and Danish, 1614.

, ar celebrated cardinal, was born in 1613. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, and afterwards coadjutor to his uncle the archbishop of Paris; and at length, after many intrigues, in which his restless and unbounded ambition engaged him, became a cardinal. This extraordinary man has drawn his own character in his Memoirs,- which are written in a very unequal manner, but are generally bold, free, animating, and pleasing, and give us a very lively representation of his conduct. He was a man who, from the greatest degree of debauchery, and still languishing under its consequences, preached to the people, and made himself adored by them. He breathed nothing but the spirit of faction and sedition. At the age of twenty-three, he had been at the head of a conspiracy against the life of cardinal Richelieu, It has been said that he was the first bishop who carried on a war without the mask of religion; but his schemes were so unsuccessful, that he was obliged to quit France. He then went into Spain and Italy, and assisted at the conclave at Rome, which raised Alexander VII. to the pontificate; but this pontiff not making good his promises to the cardinal, he left Italy, and went into Germany, Holland, and England. After having spent the life of an exile for five or six years, he obtained leave upon certain terms to return to his own country; which was the more safe, as his friend cardinal Mazarine died in 1661. He was afterwards at Rome, and assisted in the conclave which chose Clement IX.; but, upon his return to France, gave up all thoughts of public affairs, and died at Paris, Aug. 24, 1679. The latter part of his life is said to have been tranquil and exemplary. At this period he wrote his Memoirs, in which there is a considerable air of impartiality. In order to judge of this, however, the reader is advised to compare them with those of Claude Joli, his private secretary. Both works have been published in English, the former in 1774, 4 vols. the latter in 1775, 3 vols., 12fno. Some friends, nith whom the cardinal entrusted the original ms. fixed a mark on those passages, where they thought he had dishonoured himself, in order to have them omitted, as they were in the first edition; but they have since been restored. The best French editions of these Memoirs are those of Amsterdam, 1719, 7 vols. 12mo, and 1731, 4 vols. small 8vo. This cardinal was the author of other pieces; but these, being of a temporary kind, written as party pamphlets to serve particular purposes, are forgotten.

, a learned German, who contributed much to the restoration of letters in Europe, was born at Pforzheim in 1450. His parents, perceiving his talents and turn for books, were easily persuaded to give him a liberal education, and sent him to Paris, then the seat of literature in these western parts, with the bishop of Utrecht; where he studied grammar under Joannes a Lapide, rhetoric under Gaguinus, Greek under Tiphernas, and Hebrew under Wesselus. Being returned to his own country, he took the degree of doctor in philosophy at Basil, where he lived four years; then went to Orleans to study the law, and was admitted doctor in 1479. He taught the Greek language at Orleans, as he had done at Basil; and composed and printed a grammar, a lexicon, some vocabularies, and other works of alike nature, to facilitate the study of that language. By all this he gained Extraordinary reputation; for, the knowledge of the two languages was at that time so rare an accomplishment, that it was actually made a title of honour. This appears from the following inscription of a letter: “Andronicus Contoblacas, natione Graecus, utriusque linguae peritus, Joanni Reuchlino,” &c. that is, “Andronicus Contoblacas, a Greek, skilled in both languages, to John Reuchlin,” &c.

When the secluded members were admitted again to parliament, they restored him to his deanery of Christchurch, in May 1659. And in May following, 1660, he, with Mr. Edmund Calamy, was made chaplain to his majesty, then at Canterbury. After this he preached several times before the King and both Houses of Parliament; and in the latter end of June, being desired to quit his deanery, he was the next month elected, by virtue of the king’s letter, warden of Merton-college, and was consecrated bishop of Norwich Jan. 6, the same year. Sir Thomas Browne, who knew him well, gives him the character of a person of singular affability, meekness, and humility, of great learning, a frequent preacher, and constant resident. But a more full account of our author is given in a funeral sermon preached at Norwich by the reverend Mr. Riveley, in July 1676, in which his character as a man of piety and learning, and as a divine and prelate, is highly praised. Wood, in his “Athenae,” says he was “a person of excellent parts and endowments, of a very good wit, fancy, and judgment, a great divine, and much esteemed by all parties, for his preaching, and fluid style.” In his “Annals” he is inclined to be less favourable. It was perhaps naturally to be expected that one who had taken so active a part in the revolutionary changes of the times, and yet afterwards accepted a bishopric, should not be much a favourite with either party. Wood also insinuates that Dr. Reynolds was much under the government of his wife, whom he calls “covetous and insatiable,” and concludes in these words: “In this I must commend him, that he hath been a benefactor (though not great) to Merton-college, that gave him all his academical education (for which in some manner the society hath shewed themselves grateful), and 'tis very probable that greater he would have been, if not hindered by his beloved consort.”

Dr. Reynolds assisted at the Savoy conference, and on the first day, according to Neal, spoke much for abatements and moderation, but afterwards sitting among the bishops, he only spoke now and then a qualifying word, but was heartily grieved for the fruitless issue of the conference.“The same author says that he was” prevailed with to accept a bishopric on the terms of the king’s declaration, which never took place.“But another of his biographers says,” His education gave him no prejudice to monarchy or episcopacy; and when a man can advance himself with a good conscience, why may he not leave what interest only had engaged him in? Let them that blame his last turn, justify him, if they can, in the former. He was now submitting to authority, however he had opposed it. Their standing out, and keeping up a schism, when they were put upon nothing but what they owned indifferent, has a worse look than returning from wrong to right," &c. Dr. Reynolds, however, after the government was completely re-established, became a constant resident in his diocese, and mixed no more with affairs of state. He died at the episcopal palace at Norwich Jan. 16, 1676, aged seventy-six. He was buried at the upper end of the chapel (built by himself in 1662) joining to the bishop’s palace in Norwich. Over his grave, soon after his death, was fastened to the wall a marble table, on which his epitaph in Latin was engraven.

His works are, “The Vanity of the Creature,” on Eccies. i. 14. “Sinfulness of Sin,” on Rom. vii. 9, and on vi. 12. “Use of the Law,” on Horn. vii. 13. “Life of Christ,” on 1 John, v. 12. “An Explication of the ex Psalm.” “Meditations on the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s last Supper.” “Explication of the 14 Chapter of Hosea, in seven Humiliation Sermons.” “A Treatise of the Passions and Faculties of the Soul of Man;” all or most of which having been printed several times in 4to, were collected in one large folio at London in 1658, with the author’s portrait, and went by the name of “Bishop Reynolds’s Works.” They were much bought up, read and recommended by men of several persuasions; and are written in a style superior to the generality of works of divinity in that age. “Thirty Sermons” preached on several occasions, between 1634, and his death, some of which had been printed several times, were reprinted in the second edition of his works, at London, 1679, folio. Among them is his Latin Sermon preached at Oxon. 1649, entitled “Animalis Homo,” on 1 Cor. ii. 14. He also wrote the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” on Ecclesiastes, which were so much admired that many learne'd men of [the presbyterian persuasion, wished that the rest had been all wrote parifilo K. eruditione. He also was the author of the “Epistolary Preface to William Barlee’s Correptory Correction,” c. of some notes of Thomas Pierce concerning God’s decrees, especially of reprobation; which book, with the Epistolary preface, a second of Thomas Whitfield, and a third of Daniel Cawdrey, sometime of Cambridge, were printed at London, 1656, 4to. He is also said to be the author of “The humble Proposals of sundry learned, pious Divines within this Kingdom, concerning the engagement intended to be imposed on them for their subscriptions,” London, 1650, 4to. One sheet was published in December 1649. John Ducy published an answer, entitled “Just Re-proposals to humble Proposals or, an impartial consideration of,” &c. London, 1650, 4to, four sheets. And it is probable that he wrote several other things besides those above-mentioned; particularly his “Meditations on the Fall of Peter,” a short tvrelves, never inserted in any of the folio editions.

Of the family of bishop Reynolds we find mention of his son Edward, who was educated at St. Paul’s school, and a fellow of Magdalen-college, Oxford, archdeacon of Norwich, and prebendary of Worcester. He was also for forty years rector of St. Peter’s Northampton, and died in his sixty-ninth year, June 28, 1698. He was buried in Kingsthorpe chqrch, near Northampton, where is a monument and inscription to his memory. Dr. Knight says, he was “a very able and judicious divine, and a very worthy son of so good a father.” Some notices of two of the bishop’s descendants may be found in Cumberland’s life.

Speaking of his own discourses, our great artist says, “Whatever merit they have, must be imputed, in a great measure, to the education which I may be said to have had under Dr. Johnson. I do not mean to say, though it certainly would be to the credit of these discourses if I could say it with truth, that he contributed even a single sentiment to them but he qualified my mind to think justly. No man had, like him, the faculty of teaching inferior minds the art of thinking. Perhaps other men might havg equal knowledge, but few were so communicative. His great pleasure was to talk to those who looked up to him. It was here he exhibited his wonderful powers. In mixed company, and frequently in company that ought to have looked up to him, many, thinking they had a character for learning to support, considered it as beneath them to enlist in the train of his auditors and to such persons he certainly did not appear to advantage, being often i tuous and overbearing. The desire of shining in conversation was in him indeed a predominant passion; and if it must be attributed to vanity, let it at the same time be recollected, that it produced that loquaciousness from which his more intimate friends derived considerable advantage. The observations which he made on poetry, on life, and on every thing about us, I applied to our art, with what success others must judge.” This short extract is not unconnected with a conjecture which many entertained, that sir Joshua did not compose his lectures himself. In addition to his own declaration here, as far as respects Dr. Johnson, who was chiefly suspected as having a hand in these lectures, Mr. Northcote, who lived some years in his house, says, in his memoirs, “At the period when it was expected he should have composed them, I have heard him walking at intervals in his room till one or two o'clock in the mjorning, and I have on the following day, at an early hour, seen the papers on the subject of his art which had been written the preceding night. I have had the rude manuscript from himself, in his own hand-writing, in order to make a fair copy from it for him to read in public: I have seen the manuscript also after it had been revised by Dr. Johnson, who has’ sometimes altered it to a wrong meaning, from his total ignorance of the subject and of art; but never, to my knowledge, saw the marks of Burke’s pen in any of the manuscripts. The bishop of Rochester, also, who examined the writings of Mr. Burke since his death, and lately edited a part of them, informed a friend that he could discover no reason to think that Mr. Burke had the least hand in the discourses of Reynolds.” And Burke himself, in a letter to Mr. Malone, after the publication of sir Joshua’s life and works, Says, “I have read over some part of the discourses with an unusual sort of pleasure, partly because being faded a little in my memory, they have a sort of appearance of novelty; partly by reviving recollections mixed with melancholy and satisfaction. The Flemish journal I had never seen before. You trace in that, every where, the spirit of the discourses, supported by new examples. He is always the same man; the same philosophical, the same artist-like critic, the same sagacious observer, with the same minuteness, without the smallest degree of trifling.” We may safely say, this is dot the language of one who had himself contributed much to those discourses. And if neither Johnson nor Burke wrote for Reynolds, to whom else among his contemporaries shall the praise due to those invaluable compositions be given, if Reynolds is to be deprived of it!

, a celebrated Spanish Jesuit, was born at Toledo, in 1527, and was enrolled by St. Ignatius among his favourite disciples in 1540, before the society of the Jesuits had received the papal sanction. In 1542 he studied at Paris, and afterwards at Padua, where he was sent to Palermo to teach rhetoric. After many,' and long travels for the propagation of the interests of the society in various parts of Europe, he died at Madrid, Oct. 1, 1611. One of his visits was with the duke of Feria to England, in 1558, and his inquiries here, or what he made subsequently, encouraged him to publish a treatise “On the English schism,” 1594, 8vo, in which, it is said, there is less rancour and acrimony than might have been expected, and some curious anecdotes respecting the personal character of queen Mary. He is, however, chiefly known for his Lives of various Saints and Jesuits, and as the founder of that biography of the Jesuits which Alegambe and others afterwards improved into a work of some importance. One of his principal lives, published separately, is that of the founder, St. Ignatius de Loyola. Of this work there have been several editions, the first in 1572, and the second with additions in 1587, in neither of which he ascribes any miracles to his master, and is so far from supposing any, that he enters into an inquiry, whence it could happen that so holy a man had not the gift of miracles bestowed upon him, and really assigns very sensible reasons. But notwithstanding all this, in an abridged edition of his life of Ignatius, published at Ipres in 1612, miracles are ascribed to Ignatius, and Ribadeneira is made to assign, as his reason for not inserting such accounts before, that though he heard of them in 1572, they were not sufficiently authenticated. Bishop Douglas, who is inclined to blame Ribadeneira for this insufficient apology, has omitted to notice that this Ipres edition of the life was published a year after Ribadeneira’s death, and therefore it is barely possible that the miracles, and all that is said about them, might have been supplied by some zealous brother of the order. His “Lives of the Saints” were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 8vo.

He died Nov. 16, 1360, at Avignon, not without suspicion of poison. Fox says that a certain cardinal, hearing of his death, declared openly, that a mighty pillar of Christ’s church was fallen. He was unquestionably a man. of great talents and sound judgment. Perhaps his best panegyric is his being ranked, by some catholic writers, among heretics. Archbishop Bramhall had so great an opinion of him, that in returning from a visitation by Dundalk, he made inquiry where he was buried, and determined to erect a monument to his memory, which it is supposed his death, which happened soon after, prevented. Richard’s body was brought over by Stephen de Valle, bishop of Meath, about 1370, and interred at Dundalk, where sir Thomas Ryves says there was a monument visible, although much defaced, in 1624.

, John, a learned Irish prelate, was a native of Chester, but a doctor of divinity of the university of Dublin. Of his early life we have no particulars, except that he was appointed preacher to the state in 1601. He succeeded to the see of Ardagh, on the resignation of bishop Bedell, and was consecrated in 1633 by archbishop Usher. He held the archdeaconry of Derry, the rectory of Ardstra, and the vicarage of Granard in commendam for about a year after his promotion to Ardagh. In 1641, being in dread of the rebellion which broke out in October of that year, he removed to England, and died in London. August 11, 1654. He had the character of a man of profound learning, well versed in the scriptures, and skilled in sacred chronology. His works are, a “Sermon of the doctrine of Justification,” preached at Dublin Jan. 23, 1624, Dublin, 1625, 4to; and “Choice Observations and Explanations upon the Old Testament,” 1655, folio. These observations, which extend to all the books of the Old Testament, seem intended as a supplement to the “Assembly’s Annotations,” in which he wrote the annotations on Ezekiel; and they were prepared for publication by him some time before his death, at the express desire of archbishop Usher, with whom he appears to have long lived in intimacy.

, a learned English divine, was the son of the rev. Samuel Richardson, B. D. vicar of Wilshamstead near Bedford, by Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. Samuel Bentham, rector of Knebworth and Paul’s Walden, in Hertfordshire. His grandfather was the rev. John Richardson, a nonconformist, who was ejected, in 1662, from the living of St Michael’s, Stamford, in Lincolnshire, and died in 1687. He was born at Wilshamstead, July 23, 1698, and educated partly in the school of Oakham, and partly in that of Westminster. In March 1716 he was admitted of Emanuel college, Cambridge, of which he afterwards was a scholar, and took his degrees of A. B. in 1719, and A. M. in 1723. In the mean time, in September 1720 he was ordained deacon by Gibson, bishop of Lincoln, at St. Peter’s, Cornhill, London, and priest, by the same, at Buckden, in Sept. 1722. He was then appointed curate of St. Olave’s Southwark, which he held until 1726, when the parish chose him their lecturer. About this time he married Anne, the widow of capt. David Durell, the daughter of William Howe, of an ancient family of the county of Chester. He published in 1727, 2 vols. 8vo, the “Priclectiones Ecclesiastical' of his learned uncle John Richardson, B. D. author of a masterly” Vindication of the Canon of the New Testament," against Toland. In 1724 he was collated to the prebend of Welton-Rivall, in the church of Lincoln.

, an eminent English prelate, and martyr to the cause of the reformed religion, descended from an ancient family in Northumberland, was born early in the sixteenth century, in Tynedale, at a place called Wilmomswick in the above county. As he exhibited early proofs of good natural abilities, he was placed in a grammar-school at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in which he made such progress, that he was taken from thence and entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, about 15 18, when Luther was preaching against indulgences in Germany. His disposition was open and ingenuous, and his application to his studies unremitting both at school and university. He was taught Greek by Robert Crook, who had begun a course of that language at Cambridge. His religious sentiments were those of the Romish church in which he had been brought up, and in which he would probably be encouraged by his uncle, Dr. Robert Ridley, then fellow of Queen’s college. In 1522 he took the degree of B. A.; and to his knowledge of the learned languages, now added that of the philosophy and theology then in vogue. In 1524 his abilities were so generally acknowledged, that the master and fellows of University college, Oxford, invited him to accept of an exhibition there; but this he declined, and the same year was chosen fellow of his own college in Cambridge. Next year he took the degree of M. A. and in 1526 was appointed by the college their general agent in all causes belonging to the churches of Tilney, Soham, and Saxthorpe, belonging to Pembroke-hall. But as his studies were now directed to divinity, his uncle, at hjs own charge, sent him for farther improvement to the Sorbonne at Paris; and from thence to Louvain; continuing on the continent till 1529. In 1530, he was chosen junior treasurer of his college, and about this time appears to have been more than ordinarily intent on the study of the scriptures. For this purpose he used to walk in the orchard at Pembroke-hall, and there commit to memory almost all the epistles in Greek; which walk is still called Ridley’swaik. He also distinguished himself by his skill in disputation, but frequently upon frivolous questions, as was the custom of the time. In 1533 he was chosen senior proctor of the university, and while in that office, the important point of the pope’s supremacy came to be examined upon the authority of scripture. The decision of the university was, that “the bishop of Rome had no more authority and jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop;” which was signed by the vicechancellor, and by Nicholas Ridley, and Richard Wilkes, proctors. In 1534, on the expiration of his proctorship, he took the degree of B. D. and was chosen chaplain of the university, and public reader, which archbishop Tenison calls pradicater publicus, and in the Pembroke ms. he is also called Magister Glonieriaf, which office is supposed to be that of university orator. In the year 1537 his great reputation as an excellent preacher, and his intimate acquaintance with the scriptures and fathers, occasioned Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, to invite him to his house, where he appointed him one of his chaplains, and admitted him into his confidence. As a farther mark of his esteem, he collated him, in April 1538, to the vicarage of Herne in Kent. Here he was diligent to instruct his charge in the pure doctrines of the gospel, as far as they were discovered to him, except in the point of transubstantiation, on which he had as yet received no light; and to enliven the devotion of his parishioners, he used to have the Te Deum sung in his parish church in English, which was afterwards urged in accusation against him.

At Canterbury he preached with so much zeal against the abuses of popery, as to provoke the other prebendaries, and preachers of what was called the old learning, to exhibit articles against him at the archbishop’s visitation in 1541, for preaching contrary to the statute of the six articles. The attempt, however, completely failed. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, next endeavoured to entrap him; and articles were exhibited against him before the justices of the peace in Kent, and afterwards before the king and council, which charged him with preaching against auricular confession, and with directing the Te Deum to be sung in English; but the accusation being referred to Craumer, by the king, that prelate immediately crushed it, much to the mortification of Dr. Ridley’s enemies.

The greatest part of 1545 Dr. Ridley spent in retirement at Herne. He had, as we have noticed, been hitherto a believer in transubstantiation, influenced by the decrees of popes and councils, the rhetorical expressions of the fathers, and the letter of scripture; but it is supposed that a perusal of the controversy between Luther and the Zuinglians, with the writings of Ratramnus or Bertram, which had fallen into his hands, induced him to examine more closely into the scriptures, and opinions of the fathers; the result of which was, that this doctrine had no foundation. Cranmer also, to whom he communicated his discoveries, joined with him in the same opinion, as did Latimer. In the close of 1545, Cranmer gave him the eighth stall in St. Peter’s, Westminster. When Edward ascended the throne in 1547, Dr. Ridley was considered as a celebrated preacher, and in his sermons before the king, as well as on other occasions, exposed, with boldness and argument, the errors of popery. About this time, the fellows of Pembroke-hall presented him to the living of Soharo, in the diocese of Norwich; but the presentation being disputed by the bishop, Ridley was admitted to the living by command of the king. On Sept. 4 following, he was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, vacant by the translation of Dr. Holbeach to the bishopric of Lincoln. He was consecrated Sept. 25, in the chapel belonging to Dr. May, dean of St. Paul’s, in the usual form, by chrism, or holy unction, and imposition of hands; and after an ath renouncing the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, was vested, according to the ancient rites, with the robes and insignia appropriated to his dignity. Yet Dr. Brookes, in the subsequent reign, would not allow Ridley to have been a bishop, and only degraded him from his priest’s orders, which is not easy to be accounted for; because if the pretence was that his abjuration of the pope invalidated his consecration, the same objection might be made to Bonner, Tonstall, Gardiner, &c.

In 1548, bishop Ridley appears to have been employed in compiling the common prayer, in conjunction with archbishop Cranmer, and others; and in 1549, he was put into commission, together with Cranmer and several pthers, to search after all anabaptists, heretics, and contemners of the common prayer. This produced the execution of Joan Bocher and another, of which we have already spoken in our account of Cranmer, vol. X. p. 473. In May of this year, he was one of a commission to visit Cambridge, and abolish the statutes and ordinances which maintained popery and superstition; but, finding that another more concealed object was the suppression of Clare-hall, and the incorporation of it with Trinity-hall, as a new college of civilians, he opposed it, and by his firmness prevented this act of injustice. Another part of the business of the commissioners was more agreeable to him: this was to preside at a public disputation relating to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, similar to one that had been held at Oxford a short time before. The decision on this occasion was against transubstantiation; and although Langdale, one of the disputants on the side of that doctrine, composed a pretended refutation of bishop Ridley’s determination, he did not venture to print it until 1558, when he was secure that Ridley could make no reply.

In October 154-9, Bonner, bishop of London, was deprived, and Ridley, who was one of the commissioners before whom his cause was determined, was thought the most proper person to fill that important see, on account of his great learning and zeal for the reformation; and he was accordingly installed in April 1550. flis conduct towards his predecessor Bonner, and his family, after taking possession of the episcopal palace, was honourable to his integrity and benevolence, of which the following facts are sufficient proofs. He took care to preserve from injury the goods, &c. belonging to Bonner, allowing him full liberty to remove them when he pleased, Such materials as Bonner had purchased for the repair of his house and church, the new bishop employed to the uses for which they -were designed; hut he repaid him the money which he had. advanced for them. He took upon himself the discharge of the sums which were due to Bonner’s servants for liveries and wages; and that the mother and sister of that prelate, who lived near the palace at Fulham, and had their board there, might not be losers in consequence of his promotion, he always sent for them to dinner and supper, constantly placing Mrs. Bonner at the head of the table, even when persons of high rank were his guests, often saying, “By your lordship’s favour, this place of right and custom is for my mother Bonner,” as if he had succeeded to the relation, as well as office of her son.

Soon after his promotion to the see of London, he was the person thought the fittest to reconcile Dr. Hooper, the bishop elect of Gloucester, to the vestments, against which the latter had conceived very strong prejudices. In June 1550 bishop Ridley visited his diocese, and directed that the altars should be taken down in the churches, and tables substituted in their room, for the celebration of the Lord’s supper; hi order to take away the false persuasion which the people had, of sacrifices to be offered upon altars. In 1551 the sweating sickness prevailed in London, and in the space of a few days carried off eight or nine hundred persons; but in the midst of the alarm which this necessarily occasioned, Ridley administered in the duties of his office, trusting himself entirely to the good providence of God for safety, in the danger to which he was every moment exposed; and he endeavoured, with all the zeal of an exemplary spiritual pastor, to improve the public calamity to the reformation of the manners of the people. To promote more generally a reformation in the doctrine of the church, the council, this year, appointed Cranmer and Ridley to prepare a book of articles of faith. With this view they drew up forty-two articles, and sent copies of them to the other bishops and learned divines, for their corrections and amendments; after which the archbishop reviewed them a second time, and then presented them to the council, where they received the royal sanction, and were published by the king’s authority.

In 1552, Ridley visited his old coHege at Cambridge, and upon his return called at Hunsdon,- to pay his respects to the princess Mary. Their interview forms a curious narrative. She thanked him for his civility, and entering into conversation with him for about a quarter of an hour, told him that she remembered him at court, and mentioned particularly a sermon of his before her father; and then, leaving her chamber of presence, dismissed him to dine with her officers. After dinner she sent for him again, when the bishop said that he did not only come to pay his duty to her grace, but also to offer to preach before her next Sunday, if she would be pleased to permit him. On this she changed countenance, and after some minutes’ silence, said, “As for this matter, I pray you, my lord, make the answer to it yourself;” and, on the bishop’s urging his offer, as a matter of conscience and duty, she repeated the same words, yet at last told him, that the doors of the parish church should be open to him, where he might preach if he pleased, but that neither herself nor any of her servants should hear him. “Madam,” said the bishop, “I trust you will not refuse God’s word.” “I cannot tell what you call God’s word. That is not God’s word now, which was God’s word in my father’s days.” The bishop observed, that God’s word is the same at all times, but has been better understood and practised in some ages than in others. Mary, enraged at this, answered, “You durst not for your ears have avouched that for God’s word in my father’s days, that you do now;” and then, to shew how well she had prepared herself to argue with the prelate, she added, “As for your new books, I thank God, I never read any of them; I never did and never will.” She then, after making use of much harsh language, parted from him, with these words, “My lord, for your civility in coming to see me, I thank you; but for your offering to preach before me, I thank you not a whit.” After this the bishop was conducted to the room where they had dined, and where sir Thomas Wharton now gave him a glass of wine. When he had drank it, he seemed concerned, and said, “Surely I have done amiss.” Upon being asked why? he vehemently reproached himself for having drank in that place, where God’s word had been refused; “whereas,” said he, “if I had remembered my duty, I ought to have departed immediately, and to have shaken off the dust from my feet for a testimony against this house.” On this interview, his biographer remarks, “One of our learned historians suggests, that as the princess was under no excommunication, the bishop discovered his resentment too far. Too far in worldly prudence he certainly did, for the princess never forgave him; but Christ’s directions to his apostles were not given to persons who had been cast out of their communion, but to persons of a different belief refusing to be instructed. And the princess having avowed an obstinate persevering refusal of every mean of instruction, reading and hearing, no wonder if the bishop blamed himself for so far forgetting his master’s command, as to accept a pledge of friendship in the house of one who had so wilfully rejected the word of God. This bigotry of her’s gave him a sorrowful prospect of what was to be expected, if ever the princess came to the throne.”

When the parliament assembled in 1553, the kins:, who was languishing under the decline which soon put an end to his life, ordered the two houses to attend him at Whitehall, where bishop Ridley preached before him, recommending with such energy the duties of beneficence and charity, that his majesty sent for him, to inquire how he could best put in practice the duties which he had so welt and so strongly enforced; and the result of this sermon and conference was a determination in the king to found, or incorporate anew, and endow with ample revenues, those noble institutions, Christ’s, Bartholomew’s, Bridewell, and St. Thomas’s hospitals.

Anthony Wood says of bishop Ridley, that “he was a person of small stature, but great in learning, and profoundly read in divinity.” He ascribes to him the following works: 1. “A treatise concerning Images not to be set up, nor worshipped in churches.” 2. “Brief declaration of the Lord’s Supper,” 1555 and 1586, 8vo, written during his imprisonment at Oxford, and afterwards translated into Latin by William Whittingham. 3. ^ A friendly farewell, written during his imprisonment at Oxford,“15,59, 8yo. 4.” A piteous lamentation of the miserable state of the church of England, in the time of the late revolt from the Gospel,“1567, 8vo. 5.” A comparison between the comfortable doctrine of the Gospel and the traditions of popish religion.“6.” Account of the disputation held at Oxford,“1688, 4to. 7.” A treatise of the Blessed Sacrament.“To these we are enabled to add, from another authority, 8.” Injunctions of Nicholas Ridley, bishop of London, to his diocese,“1550, 4to. 9.” The way of peace among all Protestants, in a Letter to bishop Hooper,“Lond. 1688, 4to. 10. '^ A Letter of reconciliation to bishop H6oper,” ibid. 1689, 4to. Many of his letters are in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” and in Dr. Gloster Ridley’s valuable account of bishop Ridley’s life, from which chiefly we have taken the preceding particulars.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

, an eminent civilian, descended of a family of that name in Northumberland, was born in the city of Ely, and became master of Eton school, afterwards one of the masters in chancery, chancellor to the bishop of Winchester, and vicar-general to archbishop Abbot. He also received the honour of knighthood. He died Jan. 22 or 23, 1629, and was buried in the parish church of St. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf, London. He was a general schoJar, and published “A view of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law,” which was much admired by king James, and was afterwards reprinted by the learned, but unfortunate Gregory, chaplain to bishop Duppa. This work, says Dr. Coote, while it established the reputation of the author, contributed to revive the declining credit of that jurisdiction.

By this artful falsehood, he so animated his auditors, that they declared they would make no scruple of securing these treasures for whatever end might be most convenient, and that they were devoted to his will. Having obtained so much to secure his adherents from a revolt, he tendered them a paper, superscribed, “an oath to procure the good establishment;” and made them subscribe and swear to it, before he dismissed them. By what means he prevailed on the pope’s vicar to give a tacit sanction to his project is not certainly known; that he did procure that sanction, and that it was looked on as a master-piece of policy, is generally admitted. The 20th of May, being Whitsunday, he fixed upon to sanctify in some sort his enterprize; and pretended, that all he acted was by particular inspiration of the Holy Ghost. About nine, he came out of the church bare-headed, accompanied by the pope’s vicar, surrounded by an hundred armed men. A vast crowd followed him with shouts and acclamations. The gentlemen conspirators carried three standards before him, on which were wrought devices, insinuating, that his design was to re-establish liberty, justice, and peace. In this manner he proceeded directly to the capitol, where he mounted the rostrum; and, with more boldness and energy than ever, expatiated on the miseries to which the Romans were reduced; at the same time telling them, without hesitation, *' that the happy hour of their deliverance was at length come, and that he was to be their deliverer, regardless of the dangers he was exposed to for the service of the holy father and the people’s safety.“After which, he ordered the laws of what he called the good establishment to be read: and assured that the Romans would resolve to observe these laws, he engaged in a short time to re-establish them in their ancient grandeur. The laws of the good establishment promised plenty and security, which were greatly wanted; and the humiliation of the nobility, who were deemed common oppressors. Such laws could not fail of being agreeable to a people who found in them these double advantages; and therefore enraptured with the pleasing ideas of a liberty to which they were at present strangers, and the hope of gain, they adopted most zealously the fanaticism of Rienzi.-^­They resumed the pretended authority of the Romans; they declared him sovereign of Rome, and granted him the power of life and death, of rewards and punishments, of enacting and repealing the laws, of treating with foreign powers; in a word, they gave him the full and supreme authority over all the extensive territories of the Romans. Rienzi, arrived at the summit of his wishes, kept at a great distance his artifice: he pretended to be very unwilling to accept of their offers, but upon two conditions; the first, that they should nominate the pope’s vicar (the bishop of Orvieto) his co-partner the second, that the pope’s consent should be granted him, which (he told them) he flattered himself he should obtain. On the one hand, he hazarded nothing in thus making his court to the holy father, and, on the other, he well knew, that the bishop of Orvieto would carry a title only, and no authority. The people granted his request, but paid all the honours to him: he possessed the authority without restriction; the good bishop appeared a mere shadow and veil to his enterprizes. Rienzi was seated in his triumphal chariot, like an idol, to triumph with the greater splendor. He dismissed the people replete with joy and hope. He ^eized upon the palace, where he continued after he had turned out the senate; and, the same day, he began to dictate his laws in the capitol. This election, though not very pleasing to the pope, was ratified by him; yet Rienzi meditated the obtaining of a title, exclusive of the papal prerogative. Well versed in the Roman history, he was no stranger to the extent of the tribunitial authority; and, as he owed his elevation to the people, he chose to have the title of their magistrate. He asked it, and it was conferred on him and his co- partner, with the addition of deliverers of their country. Our adventurer’s behaviour in his elevation was at first such as commanded esteem and respect, not only from the Romans, but from all the neighbouring states. His contemporary, the celebrated Petrarch, in a letter to Charles, king of the Romans, gives the following account of him:” Not long since a most remarkable man, of the plebeian race, a person whom neither titles nor virtues had distinguished until he presumed to set himself up for a restorer or the Roman liberty, has obtained the highest authority at Rome. So sudden, so great is his success, that this man has already won Tuscany and all Italy. Already Europe and the whole world are in motion; to speak the whole in one word, I protest to you, not as a reader, but as an eye-witness, that he has restored to us the justice, peace, integrity, and every other token of the golden age.“But it is difficult for a person of mean birth, elevated at once, by the caprice of fortune, to the most exalted station, to move rightly in a sphere in which he must breathe an air he has been unaccustomed to. Rienzi ascended by degrees the summit of his fortune. Riches softened, power dazzled, the pomp of his cavalcades animated, and formed in his mind ideas adequate to those of princes born to empire. Hence luxury invaded his table, and tyranny took possession of his heart. The pop conceived his designs contrary to the interests of the holy see, and the nobles, whose power it had been his constant endeavours to depress, conspired against him; and Rienzi was forced to quit an authority he had possessed little more than six months. It was to a precipitate flight that he was indebted, at this juncture, for his life; and to different disguises for his subsequent preservation. Having made an ineffectual effort at Rome, and not knowing where to find a new resource to carry on his designs, he took a most bold step, conformable to that rashness which had so often assisted him in his former exploits. He determined to go to Prague, to Charles, king of the Romans, whom the year before he had summoned to his tribunal, and who he foresaw would deliver him up to a pope highly incensed against him. He was accordingly soon after sent to Avignon, and there thrown into a prison, where he continued three years. The divisions and disturbances in Italy, occa* sioned by the number of petty tyrants that had established themselves in the ecclesiastical territories, and even at Rome, occasioned his enlargement. Innocent VI. who succeeded Clement in the papacy, sensible that the Romans still entertained an affection for our hero, and believing that his chastisement would teach him to act with more moderation than he had formerly done, as well as that gratitude would oblige him, for the remainder of his life, to preserve au inviolable attachment to the holy see (by whose favour he should be re-established), thought him a proper instrument to assist his design of reducing those other tyrants; and therefore, not only gave him his liberty, but also appointed him governor and senator of Rome. He met with many obstacles to the assumption of this newly-granted authority, all which, by cunning and resolution, he at length over> came. But giving way to his passions, which were immoderately warm, and inclined him to cruelty, he excited so general a resentment against him, that he was murdered, Oct. 8, 1354.” Such,“say his biographers,” was the end of Nicolas Rienzi, one of the most renowned men of the age; who, after forming a conspiracy full of extravagance, and executing it in the sight of almost the whole world, with such success that he became sovereign of Rome; after causing plenty, justice, and liberty to flourish among the Romans; after protecting potentates, and terrifying sovereign princes; after being arbiter of crowned heads; after re-establishing the ancient majesty and power of the Roman republic, and filling all Europe with his fame during the seven months of his first reign after having compelled his masters themselves to confirm him in the authority he bad usurped against their interests; fell at length at the end of his second, which lasted not four months, a sacrifice to the nobility whose ruin he had vowed, and to those vast projects which his death prevented him from putting into execution."

, a learned English divine and miscellaneous writer, was descended from a reputable family, which from time immemorial possessed a considerable estate at Mutter, in tae parish of Appleby, in Westmoreland. His father was an eminent maltster; and his mother, the only daughter of Mr. Edward Stevenson, of Knipe, in the same county, cousin to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London. He was born at this latter place, August 28, 1726; but his father soon afterwards removing to Rutter, he was sent, at a proper age, to the free-school at Appleby, where he received the rudiments of classical learning under Mr. Richard Yates, a man of eminent abilities, and distinguished character in his profession. From thence, in 1746, he went to Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, with considerable reputation for his ingenuity and learning. On his receiving orders he was, for some time, curate to the celebrated Dr. Sykes, at Rayleigh in Essex, and in 1758 he was instituted to the vicarage of Herriard in Hampshire; in 1770, to the rectory of Sutton in Essex; and in 1779, to the vicarage of Horucastle in Lincolnshire, to which he wns prcseuteU by his relation, Dr> Edtnund Law, bishop of Carlisle. In 1761 he published a sermon, entitled “The subversion of ancient Kingdoms considered,” preached at St. John’s, Westminster, Feb. 13, the day appointed for a general fast. In 1772, he revised and corrected for the press Dr. Gregory Sharpens posthumous sermons; and the same year completed a new edition of Algernon Sidney’s Discourses on Government, with historical notes, in one volume quarto, at the persuasion of Thomas Hollis, esq. who highly approved his performance.

Lord Hay had introduced Mn Robertson to bishop Hoadly, who mentioned him to archbishop Wake, and he was entertained with much civility by those great prelates. As he was then too young to be admitted into orders, he employed his time in London in visiting the public libraries, attending lectures, and improving himself as opportunities offered. He had the honour to be introduced to lord-chancellor King, by a very kind letter from Dr. Hort, bishop of Kilmore, and was often with his lordship. In 1727 Dr. John Hoadly, brother to the bishop of Salisbury, was nominated to the united bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin in Ireland. Mr. Robertson was introduced to him by his brother; and, from a love of the natale solum, was desirous to go thither with him. Mr. Robertson then informed the archbishop of Canterbury of his design; and his Grace gave him a letter of recommendation to Dr. Goodwin, archbishop of Cashel, who received him in a most friendly manner, but died soon after. The first person whom Dr. Hoadly ordained, after he was consecrated bishop of Ferns, was Mr. Robertson, whose letters of deacon’s orders bear date January 14, 1727; and in February the bishop nominated him to the cure of Tullow in the county of Carlow: and here he continued till he was of age sufficient to be ordained a priest, which was done November 10, 1729; and the next day he was presented by lord Carteret, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the rectory of Ravilly in the county of Carlow, and to the rectory of Kilravelo in the county of Widow; and soon after was collated to the vicarages of the said parishes by the bishop of Ferns. These were the only preferments he had till 1738, when Dr. Synge, bishop of Ferns, collated him to the vicarages of Rathmore and Straboe, and the perpetual cure of Rahil, all in the county of Carlow. These together produced art income of about 200l. a-year. But, as almost the whole lands of these parishes were employed in pasture, the tithes would have amounted to more than twice that sum if the herbage had been paid for black cattle, which was certainly due by law. Several of the clergy of Ireland had,, before him, sued for this herbage in the Court of Exchequer, and obtained decrees in their favour. Mr. Robertson, encouraged by the exhortations and examples of his brethren, commenced some suits in the Exchequer for this herbage, and succeeded in every one of them. But when he had, by this means, doubled the value of his benefices, the House of Commons in Ireland passed several severe resolutions against the clergy who had sued, or would sue, for this “nexv demand,” as they called it, which encouraged the graziers to oppose it so obstinately as to put a period to that demand. This proceeding of the Commons provoked Dean Swift to write “The Legion- Club.” Mr. Robertson soon after published a pamphlet, entitled “A Scheme for utterly abolishing the present heavy and vexatious Tax of Tithe;” the purport of which was, to pay the clergy and impropriators a tax upon the land in lieu of all tithes. This went through several editions: but nothing farther was done in it.

Mr. Robertson had, in 1723, married Elizabeth, daughter of major William Baxter, who, in his younger years, had been an officer in Ireland in the armies of king Charles II. and James 11.; but was cashiered by the earl of Tyrconnel, James’s lord-lieutenant of Ireland, as a person not to be depended upon in carrying on his and his master’s designs. Captain Baxter upon this repaired to London, and complained of it to the duke of Ormond. His father was at that time steward to the duke’s estate. His grace, who was then joined with other English noblemen in a correspondence with the prince of Orange, recommended him to that prince, who immediately gave him a company in his own forces. In this station he returned to England with the prince at the revolution, and acted his part vigorously in bringing about that great event. While the captain was in Holland, he wrote that remarkable letter to Dr. Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, which is inserted in the bishop’s life at the end of the “History of his own Times.” By this lady, who was extremely beautiful in her person, but much more so in her mind, Mr. Robertson had one and twenty children. There is a little poem written by him eight years after their marriage, and inscribed to her, upon her needle-work, inserted in the Gent. Mag. 1736. In 1743, Mr. Robertson obtained the bishop’s leave to nominate a curate at Ravilly, and to reside for some time in Dublin, for the education of his children. Here he was immediately invited to the cure of St. Luke’s parish; aud in this he continued five years, and then returned to Ravilly in 1748, the town air not agreeing with him. While he was in the cure of St. Luke’s, he, together with Mr. Kane Percival, then curate of St. Michan’s, formed a scheme to raise a fund for the support of widows and children of clergymen of the diocese of Dublin, which hath since produced very happy effects. In 1758 he lost his wife. In 1759 Dr. Richard Robinson was translated from the see of Killala to that of Ferns; and, in his visitation that year, he took Mr. Robertson aside, and told him, that the primate, Dr. Stone (who had been bishop of Ferns, and had kept up a correspondence with Mr. Robertson), had recommended him to his care and protection, and that he might therefore expect every thing in his power. Accordingly, the first benefice that became vacant in his lordship’s presentation was offered td him, and he thankfully accepted it. But, before he could be collated to it, he had the “Free and Candid Disquisitions” put into his hands, which he had never seen before. This inspired him with such doubts as made him defer his attendance on the good bishop. His lordship wrote to him again to come immediately for institution. Upon this, Mr. Robertson wrote him the letter which is at the end of a little book that he published some years after, entitled, “An Attempt to explain the words of Reason, Substance, Person, Creeds, Orthodoxy, Catholic Church, Subscription, and Index Expurgatorius;” in which letter Mr. Robertson returned his lordship the most grateful thanks for his kindness, but informed him that he could not comply with the terms required by law to qualify him for such preferment. However, Mr. Robertson continued at Ravilly performing his duty only, thenceforward, he omitted the Athanasian creed, &c. This gave o(Ferice and, therefore, he thought it the honestest course to resign all his benefices together, which he did in 1764; and, in 1766, he published his book by way of apology to his friends for what he had done; and soon after left Ireland, and returned to London. In 1767, Mr. Robertson presented one of his books to his old Alma Mater the university of Glasgow, and received in return a most obliging letter, with the degree of D. D. In 1768 the mastership of the freegrammar school at Wolverhampton in Staffordshire becoming vacant, the company of Merchant-Tailors, the patrons, unanimously conferred it on him. In 1772 he was chosen one of the committee to carry on the business of the society of clergymen, &c. in framing and presenting the famous petition to the House of Commons of Great Britain, praying to be relieved from the obligation of subscribing assent and consent to the thirty-nine articles, and all and every thing contained in the book of common-prayer. After this he lived several years at Wolverhampton, performing the duties of his office, in the greatest harmony with all sorts of people there; and died, of the gout in his stomach, at Wolverhampton, May 20, 1783, in the 79th year of his age; and was buried in the churchyard of the new church there.

In the mean time, his leisure hours had been so well employed that, in 1758, he went to London to concert measures for the publication of his first celebrated work, “The History of Scotland during the reigns of queen Mary and king James VI. till his accession to the crown of England; with a review of the Scottish history previous to that period; and an Appendix, containing original papers,” 2 vols. 4to. The plan of this work is said to have been formed soon after his settlement at Gladsinuir. It was accordingly published on the 1st of February, 1759, and so eager and extensive was the sale, that before the end of that month, he was desired by his bookseller to prepare for a, second edition. “It was regarded,” says his biographer, “as an attempt towards a species of composition that had been cultivated with very little success in this island; and accordingly it entitles the author, not merely to the praise which would now be due to an historian of equal eminence, but to a high rank among those original and leading minds that form and guide the taste of a nation.” Contemporary puhlications abounded in its praises, but it would be superfluous to coiiect options in favour of a work familiarized to the public by so ^any editions. Among the most judicious of the literati of that period who were the first to perceive and predict the reputation our author was about to establish, were, hon. Horace Walpole, bishop Warburton, lord Royston, the late sir Gilbert Elliot, Dr. Birch, Dr. Douglas, late bishop of Salisbury, Dr. John Biair, late prebendary of Westminster, and Mr. Hume. It may suffice to add, that fourteen editions of this work were published in the author’s life-time.

, the most ferocious of those tyrants which the French revolution produced, was born at Arras in 1759, where his father was a lawyer, a man of character and knowledge in his profession, but so improvident as to die insolvent, and leave his two sons, of whom Maximilian was the eldest, in poverty. They soon, however, found a generous patron in De Conzie, bishop of Arras, who in a manner adopted them, but honoured Maximilian with his particular care, and after providing him with school education, sent him to Paris, and procured him an exhibition in the college of Louis Le Grand. The manner in which Robespierre conducted himself here, answered the expectation of his protector. He was assiduous and successful in his studies, and obtained many of the yearly prizes. There was nothing, however, about him, which indicated his future destiny. Being an apt scholar, it might be thought that he would make a figure in the world; but we are told that even this was not the case, and that his instructors discovered neither in his conversation nor his actions any trace of that propensity, which could lead them to conjecture that his glory would exceed the bounds of the college. When he had, however, attained the age of sixteen or seventeen, he was advised to study the law; and this he pursued, under the auspices of a Mons. Ferrieres, but displayed no extraordinary enthusiasm for the profession. He had neither perseverance, address, nor eloquence, and, according to one of his biographers, his consciousness of inferiority to those who were making a great figure at the bar, gave him an air of gloominess and dissatisfaction. It was at first determined, that he should practise before the parliament of Paris, but this scheme was never carried into execution, for he returned to his native province, and was admitted an advocate in the supreme council of Artois. About this time he is said to have published, in 1783, a treatise on electricity, in order to remove the vulgar prejudices against conductors. In this piece he introduced a laboured eloge on the character of Louis XVI.; but the subject of his next literary performance was yet more remarkable; it was against death as a punishment, and in this he reproaches all modern governments for permitting such a punishment to remain on their codes, and even doubts the right claimed by society to cut off the life of an individual!

by others. The good bishop sent a thus altered should be reprinted, and

cern at hearing that hemt-aiitto pub- ship’s opinion/' The bishop, however,

In the year 1776, during the controversy respecting the divinity of Christ, which had been carried on principally by members of the church of England, Mr. Robinson published “A Plea for the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.” This piece is written with much ingenuity, and it procured the author a number of handsome compliments, not only from dissenting ministers, but also from several dignitaries of the established church. Among the latter were Dr. HinchlirTe, Bishop of Peterborough, Dr. Hallifax, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Beadon, afterwards bishop of Bath and Weils, and Dr. Tucker, dean of Gloucester. Some years after, Mr. Lindsey published, first without, but afterwards with his name, “An Examination of Mr.Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ;” to which Mr. Robinson, although frequently called upon, declined to reply. To his friends he said, “The anonymous examiner has not touched my arguments, and his spirit is bitter and contemptuous. His faith stands on criticisms; and my argument is, that if the doctrine requires critical proof, it is not popular, and therefore not divine.” This silence, however, occasioned some suspicion that he was not very sincere, which his conduct afterwards continued. In 1777, Mr. Robinson published a small tract, entitled “The History and Mystery of Good Friday,” in which he employed the same “bitter and contemptuous spirit,” which he had just complained of, in ridiculing the commemoration of the death of our Saviour. In 1778, Mr. Robinson published *' A Plan of Lectures on the Principles of Nonconformity, for the instruction of Catechumens.“This piece contains an outline of the whole controversy of the dissenters with the church of England, and of their history, from the period of the reformation, to 1778, which of course appeared highly satisfactory to his brethren. Towards the close of the same year, he published” An Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, translated from the original French of the rev. John Claude, with Notes,“in 2 vols. 8vo. The preface to the first volume of the Cl Essay” consists of memoirs of the life of the author.

Accordingly he was ranked high from the schools, being placed in the first class; so as to be a competitor with those who were far his superiors in depth of reading. He stood seventh in the senate-house examination; which was considered a high degree at that time, for one who had not enjoyed the advantage of a private tutor. Dr. Tomline, the present bishop of Lincoln, the senior wrangler of the year, with whom he was engaged in this honourable competition for academical distinction, is well known to have expressed a high respect for Mr. Robinson’s character, and for his attainments as a scholar. Mr. Robinson at this time used to say that he never expected to cope with his lordship and with his other competitors, who were placed before him, in algebra and fluxions; what he knew was chiefly in philosophy. Locke’s “Essay,” and Butler’s “Analogy,” which he had studied attentively, were also of service to him in the examination. His friends, who could duly estimate hrs talents, were anxious that be should be a candidate for one of the classical medals; hut he declined offering himself, through the determination he had formed of entering as soon as possible into the church. He was elected fellow of Trinity-college, with peculiar circumstances of distinction, Oct. 1, 1772; and in 1773 he obtained the second of the middle bachelor’s prizes for the best Latin essay on some moral subject. On this occasion he had eight competitors. Dr. James, the late head roaster of Rugby-school, who particularly excelled in writing Latin prose, gained the first prize; but Mr. Robinson was allowed to be at this time the best general scholar of his year; and his seniors, who were most competent tq decide upon his literary merits, declared that they had not known his superior. His biographer gives us an anecdote which shows, in a very striking point of view, the character he held among his contemporaries. An attempt was made, during his under-graduateship, to set aside subscription to the Thirty-nine articles. Some young men went about the university, endeavouring to prevail upon the under-graduates to sign a petition for that purpose. In Trinity-college, the first question which the undergraduates put to those persons who applied to them was, “Has Robinson signed the petition?” and they declined signing it, when they found he had not and the argument which the persons applying made use of to prevail upon Mr. Robinson to sign was, “If you will sign, all the under-graduates in Trinity-college will sign.” Mr. Robinson, it is scarcely necessary to add, refused to sign this petition.

Soon after receiving his first degree, Mr. Robinson was ordained by bishop Keene, and entered upon the curacy of Witcham, in the Isle of Ely. To this was added that of Wichford; and his performance of the duties of both was equally conscientious and successful. About two years after, he quitted this situation and accepted the curacy of St. Martin’s Leicester, under the rev. Mr. Haines: here he had considerable opposition to encounter; but at length acquired a great degree of general popularity, and the respect of many of the upper classes, who were at first prejudiced against his youth and his doctrines. He was also chosen afternoon lecturer of All Saints, and in 1774, chaplain to the Infirmary. To these labours tie added, during 4 considerable part of his life, the care of instructing s young gentlemen in classical learning, who were preparing for the university, but in some cases at least, would accept of no pecuniary compensation. In the same year (1774) he married a lady, whose name his biographer does not mention, by whom he had a family, and who died in 1791. In 1778 a weekly lecture being founded at St. Mary’s church by Mr. Joseph Wheatley, an opulent manufacturer of Leicester, with the consent of the incumbent, and of the bishop of the diocese, Mr. Robinson was appointed first lecturer. Soon after, in the same year, on the death of the incumbent, Mr. Robinson was instituted to the living of this church, by the lord-chancellor. It was here that he preached a course of sermons on “Scripture Characters,” which has since been printed, and forms the most popular of his works, having gone through several editions, in 4 vols. 8vo.

, a learned Italian, was a native of Rocca Contrata, a town in the marche of Ancona, and horn in 1545. When young he was sent to Camerino, where, in 1552, he took the habit among the hermits of St. Augustine, and remained so long here that some have given him the surname of Camero. He afterwards continued his studies at Rome, Venice, Perusia, and Padua. He received the degree of doctor of divinity at the university of Padua, in Sept. 1577, and acquired much celebrity as a preacher at Venice, and as a teacher of the belles lettres to the juniors of his order. In 1579 Fivizani, the vicargeneral of the Augustines, invited him to Rome to be iiis secretary, and pope Sixtus V. placed him in the Vatican in 1585, and confided to his superintendance those editions of the Bible, the councils, and the fathers, which issued from the apostolical press during his pontificate. In 1595, pope Clement VIII. made him apostolical sacristan in the room of Fivizani, now deceased, and titular bishop of Tagaste in Numidia. He collected a very large and excellent library, which he presented in his life-time, by a deed of gift, dated Oct. 23, 1614, to the Augustinian monastery at Rome; but upon the express condition, that it should be always open for the benefit of the public. Rocca died April 8, 1620, at the age of seventy-five. Rocca had read much, but was either deficient in, or seldom exercised his judgment, as appears by the most of his works. Among these may be mentioned his “Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,” which Fabricius calls a very trifling work “Bibliotheca Theologica et Scripturalis” “Notae in Novum Testamentum;” “De Patientia” “De Cometis” “Observationes in VI Libros Elegantiarum Laur. Valise;” “Observationes de Lingua Latina” and other pieces which were collected together, and printed in 1719, 2 vols. folio. From his manuscripts was aiso published, in 1745, a very curious collection, entitled “Thesaurus Pontificiarum Antiquitatum, necnon Rituurn ac Ceremoniarum,” in 2 vols. folio.

, the proto-martyr in the days of queew Mary, received a liberal education in the university of Cambridge, and there, we presume, entered into holy orders. Some time after this the company of merchant adventurers, as they were then called, appointed him their chaplain at Antwerp, where he remained many years. This proved also the means of his conversion from popery, for meeting there with Tindal and Coverdale, who had left England that they might enjoy their religious opinions with more freedom, he was induced by their conversation to examine the points in controversy more closely, the result of which was his embracing the sentiments of the reformers as far as then understood. He also joined with these colleagues in making the first translation of the Bible into English, which appeared at Hamburgh in 1532, under the fictitious name of Thomas Matthew. Rogers was corrector of the press on this occasion, and translated that part of the Apocrypha which was left unfinished by Tindal,' and also contributed some of the marginal notes. At Antwerp Mr. Rogers married, and thence went to Wittemberg, and had acquired such readiness in the Dutch language that he was chosen pastor of a congregation there, which office he discharged greatly to their satisfaction until the accession of Edward VI. At this time bishop Ridley invited him home, and made him prebendary and divinity-reader of St. Paul’s, where he was a very frequent preacher as long as Edward lived. When queen Mary made her triumphal entry into London, Aug. 3, 1553, Rogers had the boldness to preach a sermon at Paul’s Cross on the following Sunday, in which he exhorted the people to abide by the doctrine taught in king Edward’s days, and to resist popery in all its forms and superstitions. For this he was immediately called before the privy-council, in which were several of the restored popish bishops, but appears to have defended himself so ably that he was dismissed unhurt. This security, however, was not of long duration, and two days before Mary issued her proclamation against preaching the reformed doctrines (August 18) he was ordered to remain a prisoner in his own house at St. Paul’s. Erom this he might, it is thought, easily have escaped, and he certainly had many inducements to make the attempt. He knew he could expect no forgiveness; that he might be well provided for in Germany; and that he had a wife and ten children; but he preferred giving his testimony to the truth of what he had believed and preached, at whatever risk.

After being confined six months in his own house he was removed to Newgate, where his confinement was aggravated by every species of severity and in January 1555, was examined before Gardiner, bishop of Winchester the purport of his examination, as written by himself, isgiven at considerable length by Fox, but is not capable of abridgment. The issue was that Mr. Rogers was condemned to be burnt on Feb. 4, which sentence he bore with the greatest constancy and patience. On the day of his execution he was awakened with some difficulty out of a sound sleep, and only requested of Bonner, who came to perform the office of degrading him from holy orders, that he might see his family; but this was denied him. On his way, however, to Smithfield, his wife and ten children, with one at the breast, contrived to meet him. When he came to the stake, although not permitted to say much, he exhorted the people to remain steady in the faith and doctrine which had been taught them, and for which he was now willingto resign his life. As he was the first who had suffered in this reign, and one well known for his piety and usefulness, his death made no slight impression on the multitude who witnessed it, many of whom were afterwards emboldened by such scenes as this wretched reign presented, either to suffer in the same cause, or to preserve the tenour and spirit of the reformation until the accession of Elizabeth restored them to their riberty.

, whom Wood styles “a most admirable theologist, an excellent preacher, and well deserving every way of the sacred function,” was a native of Cheshire, and entered a student of Christ church in 1568. He took orders very early, and became a constant preacher; was M. A. in 1576, chaplain to 'Bancroft, bishop of London; and at last, in 1581, rector of Horninger, near Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, where he lived in great esteem, and died Feb. 22, 1616. These are all the particulars Wood has given of this Mr. Rogers, who appears to have been a voluminous author and translator. Among his original works are, 1. “A Philosophical Discourse, entitled, The Anatomy of the Mind,” Lond. 1576, 8vo, with some encomiastic verses by his fellow student, afterwards the celebrated Camden. 2. “Of the End of the World, and Second Coming of Christ,” ibid. Lond. 1577, 4to, reprinted 1582 and 1583, in 8vo. 3. “The English Creed, wherein is contained in tables an exposition on the articles which every man is to subscribe unto,” &c. ibid. 1579 and 1585, fol. This appears also to have been reprinted twice under a somewhat different title; the last edition, in 1586 and 1621, is called “An Exposition of the 39 articles of the Church of England,” 4to. This work, according to Wood, was not at first received so well as it deserved, and some things in it he says gave offence, not only to papists and schismatics, but even to “many protestants of a middle temper.” Wood has expressed their objections rather obscurely, but it may be conjectured that Mr. Rogers interpreted the articles in their literal sense, and did not admit, as Wood adds, of “the charitable latitude formerly allowed in those articles.” 4. “A golden chain taken out of the rich treasurehouse of the Psalms of David,” ibid. 1579 and 1587, 12mo. 5. “Historical Dialoguetouchingantichristand popery,” &c. ibid. 1589, 8vo. 6. “Sermons on Romans xii. v. 6, 7, 8,” ibid. 1590. 7. “Miles Christian us, or, a Defence of all necessary writings and writers, written against an Epistle prefixed to a Catechism by Miles Moses,” ibid. 1590, 4to. 8. “Table of the lawful use of an Oath, and the cursed state of vain swearers,” ibid. 9. “Two Dialogues,” or Conferences concerning kneeling at the Sacrament, ibid. 1608. Wood enumerates about thirteen volumes of translations from various foreign divines, among whom are St. Augustine, Thomas a Kempis, &c. &C.

In 1720, the university of Paris, willing to have a head suitable to the importance of their interests in the then critical conjuncture of affairs, chose Rollin again rector: but he was displaced in about two months by a lettrede cachet. The university had presented to the parliament a petition, in which it had protested against taking any part in the adjustment of the late disputes; and their being congratulated in a public oration by Rollin on this step occasioned the letter, which ordered them to chuse a rector of more moderation. Whatever the university might suffer by the removal of Rollin, the public was probably a gainer; for he now applied himself to compose his excellent treatise <4 Upon the manner of studying and teaching the Belles Lettres:“” De la maniere d‘etudier et d’enseigner les Belles Lettres." This work was published 1726, in two volumes, and two more in 1728, 8vo, and a copy of it presented to bishop Atterbury, then in banishment, who wrote to Rollin a Latin letter, of great beauty and elegance, which gives a just idea of our author and his writings. Whatever defects more recent inquiries have discovered in this work, it was for many years the first of its kind, and may yet be recommended as laying the foundation of a good taste.

The proposals for printing, by subscription, his poetical works, was the last attempt of Mr. Rolt, who died March 2, 1770, aged 45 having had two wives, by each of whom he left a daughter. To his second wife, who survived him many years, and who, by her mother, was descended from the Percys of Worcester, the late bishop of Dromore, to whom she was thus related, allowed a pension to her death.

, an English divine and writer of great popularity, was born at Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Sept. 25, 1714. His father, one of the French protestants who took refuge in England upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz, resided at Hartlepool as a merchant, and particularly as a dealer in corn. He had two sons and three daughters, whom he educated in the strict doctrines and discipline of the church of England, and lived to see well settled in the world before be left it in 1757. His second son, William, gave indication, at a very early age, of considerable talents, and a laudable eagerness to improve them. This induced his father to send him to the grammar-school, at Houghton-le-Spring, a village in the road from Durham to Sunderland. This school was founded by the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, rector of that parish at the memorable acra of the reformation. At this seminary Mr. Romaine remained seven years, and in 1730 or 1731 was sent to Oxford, where he was entered first at Hertford-college, and thence removed to Christchurch. He resided principally at Oxford till he took his degree of master of arts, Oct. 15, 1737, having been ordained a deacon at Hereford, a year before, by Dr. Egerton, bishop of that diocese.

His first engagement was the curacy of Loe Trenchard, near Lid ford in Devonshire. In the year following he appears to have been resident at Epsom in Surrey, from the date of a letter from him, Oct. 4, 1733, to rev. William Warburton, upon the publication of his “Divine Legation of Moses.” In the same year he was ordained a priest by Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. His title for orders was probably a nomination to the church of Banstead, which he served some years, together with that of Horton, near Epsom, being curate to Mr. Edwards, who had both these livings. At Banstead he became acquainted with sir Daniel Lambert, lord-mayor of London in 1741, who had a country-house in this parish, and appointed Mr. Romaine to be chaplain during his mayoralty.

The theological sentiments of Mr. Romaine were not so common in his early days as they are now, and therefore rendered him more conspicuous. As a clergyman of the church of England he adhered to the most rigid interpretation of the thirty-nine articles. The grand point which he laboured in the pulpit, and in all his writings, was the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He was also a zealous disciple of the celebrated Hutchinson, at a time when he had not many followers in this kingdom. From some dissatisfaction, however, or want of success in his ministry, he appears to have formed an intention of leaving England, and settling in the country of his ancestors. He was prevented from executing this design, by what he piously deemed a providential interposition. He had actually made the necessary preparations, and wa going to the water-side, in order to secure his passage^ when he was met by a gentleman, a total stranger to him, who asked him if his name was not Romaine. He answered that it was. The gentleman had formerly been acquainted with his father, and, observing a strong resemblance tot him in his son, was induced to make the inquiry. After some introductory conversation, he told him, that the lectureship for the united parishes of St. George’s Botolphlane and St. Botolph’s Billingsgate was then vacant; and that, having some interest in those parishes, he would exert it in his behalf, if he would become a candidate for the lectureship. Mr. Romaine consented, provided he should not be obliged to canvass in person; a customwhich he always thought inconsistent with the character of a clergyman, and against which he openly protested many years afterwards, when he was candidate for the living of Blackfriars. He was chosen lecturer of St. Botolph’s in 1748, and the year following lecturer of St. Dunstan’s in the West. In the person of his predecessor in the latter (Dr.Terrick), two lectureships were united: the onefounded by Dr. White, for the use of the benchers of the Temple; the other a common parish lectureship. Mr. Romaine wai elected to both, and continued some years in the quiet exercise of his office, until an opposition arose which ended in a law-suit that deprived him of the parish-lectureship^ but confirmed him in that founded by Dr. White, and endowed with a salary of eighteen pounds a-year. Lest this should be removed from the parish, the use of the church was granted to him, but as lord Mansfield’s decision was, that seven o'clock in the evening was a convenient time to preach the lecture, the church-wardens refused to open the church till that hour, and to light it when there was occasion. His predecessor, however, Dr. Terrick, then become bishop of London, interposed so effectually, and gave such a character of Mr. Romaine, that this ungenerous opposition ceased, every proper accommodation was allowed to his congregation, and he continued quietly to exercise his ministry here to the end of his life.

The marquis of Dorchester, a patron of learning, and learned himself, used to entertain Mr. Rooke at his seat at Ilighgate after the restoration, and bring him every Wednesday in his coach to the Royal Society, which then met on that day of the week at Gresham college. But the last time Mr. Rooke was at Highgate, he walked from thence; and it being in the summer, he overheated himself, and taking cold after it, he was thrown into a fever, which cost him his life. He died at his apartments at Gresham college, June 27, 1662, in the fortieth year of his age. It was reckoned very unfortunate that his death happened the very night that he had for some years expected to finish his accurate observations on the satellites of Jupiter. When, he found his illness prevented him from making that observation, Dr. Pope says, he sent to the Society his request, that some other person, properly qualified, might be appointed for that purpose; so intent was he to the last onmaking those curious and useful discoveries, in which he had been so long engaged. He made a nuncupatory will, leaving what he had to Dr. Ward, the,n lately made bishop of Exeter: whom he permitted to receive what was due upon bond, if the debtors offered payment willingly, otherwise he would not have the bonds put in suit: “for,” said he, “as I never was in law, nor had any contention with, any man, in my life-time, neither would I be so after my death.”

, an eccentric genius of our own times, has enabled us to give an account of him by a publication which himself left behind him, under the title of “Les Confessions de J. J. Rousseau, suivies des Reveries du Promeneur Solitaire,” Geneve, 1783, 2 volumes, 8vo. He was born at Geneva in 1711; his parents were, Isaac Rousseau, an ingenious watch-maker, and Susannah Bernard, the daughter of a clergyman, who was more rich than her husband (he having fifteen brothers and sisters). She had also wisdom and beauty, so that she was no easy prize; but a love, which commenced in their childhood, at length, after many difficulties, produced a happy marriage. And at the same time his mother’s brother, Gabriel, an engineer, married one of his father’s sisters. After the birth of one son, his father went to Constantinople, and was watch-maker to the seraglio; and ten months after his return our author was born, infirm and sickly, and cost his mother her life. The sensibility which was all that his parents left him, constituted (he says) their happiness, but occasioned all his misfortunes. He was “born almost dying,” but was preserved and reared by the tenderness of an aunt (his father’s sister). He remembers not how he learned to read, but only recollects that his first studies were some romances left by his mother, which engaged his father, as well as himself, whole nights, and gave him a very early knowledge of the passions, and also wild and romantic notions of human life. The romances ended with the summer of 1719. Better books succeeded, furnished by the library of his mother’s father, viz. “Le Sueur’s History of the Church and the Empire;” “Bossuet’s Discourses on Universal History;” “Plutarch’s Lives;” ' Nani’s History of Venice;“”Ovid’s Metamorphoses;“”La Bruyere;“ ”Fontenelle’s Worlds, and Dialogues of the Dead“and some volumes of” Moliere.“Of these” Plutarch“were his favourite; and he soon preferred Agesilaus, Brutus, and Aristides, to Oroondates, Artamenes, aud Juba; and to these lives, and the conversations that they occasioned with his father, he imputes that free and republican spirit, that fierce and intractable character, which ever after was his torment. His brother, who was seven years older, and followed his father’s business, being neglected in his education, behaved so ill, and was so incorrigible, that he fled into Germany, and was never heard of afterwards. On the contrary, the utmost attention was bestowed on John James, and he was almost idolized by all. Yet he had (he owns) all the faults of his age he was a prater, a glutton, and sometimes a liar; he stole fruit, sweetmeats, and victuals but he never delighted in being mischievous or wasteful, hi accusing others, or in tormenting poor animals. He re^ Jates, however, an indelicate trick he played one Madame Clot while she was at prayers, which still, he says, diverts him, because” she was the most fretful old woman he ever knew.“His” taste, or rather passion, for music“he owed to his aunt Susan, who sang most sweetly; and he paints her in most pleasing colours. A dispute, which his father had with a French captain obliging him to quit Geneva, our author was left under the care of his uncle Bernard, then employed on the fortifications, who having a son of the same age, these cousins were boarded together at Bossey, at M. Lambercier’s, a clergyman, to learn Latin, and other branches of education. In this village he passed two happy years, and formed an affectionate friendship with his cousin Bernard. A slight offence, the breaking the teeth of a comb, with which he was charged, but denied it, and of which now, fifty years after, he avows his innocence, bub for which he was severely punished, and a like chastisement, which, for a like offence, was also unjustly inflicted on his cousin, gave both at last a distaste for this paradise, and great pleasure in being removed from it. This incident made a deep and lasting impression upon him, as did another about planting a willow and a walnut tree, for which we must refer to his own account. At his return to Geneva he continued two or three years wiih his uncle, losing his time, it not being determined whether he should be a watch-maker, an attorney, or a minister. To the last he was most inclined, but that the small remains of his mother’s fortune would not admit. In the mean time he learned to draw, for which he had a taste, and read” Euclid’s Elements“withes Cousin. Thus they led an idle, but not a vicious life, making cages, flutes, shuttle-cocks, drums, houses, cross-bows, and puppets, imitating Punch, acting plays, and at last makiog sermons. He often visited his father, wlxo was then settled at Nion, a small town in the country of Vaud, and there he recounts two amours (as he calls them) that he had, at the age of eleven, with two grown misses, whom he archly describes. At last he was placed with M. Massiron, register of the city, to learn his business; but, being by him soon dismissed for his stupidity, he was bound apprentice, not, however, to a watch-maker, but to an engraver, a brutal wretch, who not only treated him most inhumanly, but taught him to lie, to be idle, and to steal. Of the latter he gives some instances. In his sixteenth year, having twice on a Sunday been locked out of the city-gates, and being severely threatened by his master if he stayed out a third time, by an unlucky circumstance this event happening, he swore never to return again, sending word privately to his cousin Bernard of what he proposed, and where he might once more see him; which he did, not to dissuade him, but to make him some presents. They then parted with tears, but never met or corresponded more,” which was a pity, as they were made to love each other.“After making some reflections on what would have been his fate if he had fallen into the hands of a better master, he informs us that at Consignon, in Savoy, two leagues from Geneva, he had the curiosity to see the rector, M. de Pontverre, a name famous in their history, and accordingly went to visit him, and was well received, and regaled with such a good dinner as prevented hisreplyingto his host’s arguments in favour of holy mother Church, and against the heresy of Geneva. Instead of sending him back to his family, this devout priest endeavoured to convert him, and recommended him to mad. de Warens, a good charitable lady, lately converted, at Annecy, who had quitted her husband, her family, her country, and her religion, for a pension of 1500 Piedmontese livres, allowed her by the King of Sardinia. He arrived at Annecy on Palm- Sunday, 1728 and saw madam de Warens. This epoch of his life determined his character. He was then in the middle of his 16th year; though not handsome, he was well made, had black hair, and small sparkling eyes, &c. charms, of which, unluckily, he was not unconscious. The lady too, who was then 28, he describes as being highly agreeable and engaging, and having many personal charms, although her size was small, and her stature short. Being told she was just gone to the Cordeliers church, he overtook her at the door, was struck with her appearance, so different from that of the old crabbed devotee which he had imagined, and was instantly proselyted to her religion. He gave her a letter from M. de Pontverre, to which he added one of his own. She glanced at the former, but read the latter, and would have read it again, if her servant had not reminded her of its being church-time. She then bade John James go to her house, ask for some breakfast, and wait her return from mass. Her accomplishments he paints in brilliant colours; considers her as a good Catholic; and, in short, at first sight, was inspired by her with the strongest attachment, and the utmost confidence. She kept him to dinner, and then inquiring his circumstances, urged him to go to Turin, where, in a seminary for the instruction of catechumens, he might be maintained till his conversion was accomplished; and engaged also to prevail on M. de Bernet, the titular bishop of Geneva, to contribute largely to the expence of his journey. This promise she performed. He gave his consent, being desirous of seeing the capital, and of climbing the Alps. She also reinforced his purse, gave him privately ample instructions; and, entrusting him to the care of a countryman and his wife, they parted on AshWednesday. The day after, his father” came in quest of him, accompanied by his friend M. Rixal, a watch-maker, like himself, and a good poet. They visited madam de Warens, but only lamented with her, instead of pursuing and overtaking him, which they might, they being on horseback, and he on foot. His brother had been lost by a like negligence. Having some independent fortune from their mother, it seemed as if their father connived at their flight in order to secure it to himself, an idea which gave our author great uneasiness. After a pleasantjourney with his two companions, he arrived at Turin, but without money, cloaths, or linen. His letters of recommendation admitted him into the seminary; a course of life, and a mode of instruction, with which he was soon disgusted. In two months, however, he made his abjuration, was baptized Ht the cathedral, absolved of h f eresy by the inquisitor^ and then dismissed, with about 20 livres in his pocket; thus, at once, made an apostate and a dupe, with all his hopes in an instant annulled. After traversing the streets, and viewing the buildings, he took at night a mean lodging, where he continued some days. To the king’s chapel, in particular, he was frequently allured by his taste for music, which then began to discover itself. His purse, at last, being almost exhausted, he looked out for employment, and at last found it, as an engraver of plate, by means of a young woman, madame Basile, whose husband, a goldsmith, was abroad, and had left her under the care of a clerk, or an jEgisthus, as Rousseau styles him. Nothing, he declares, but what was innocent, passed betwixt him and this lady, though her charms made great impression on him; and soon after, her husband returning, and finding him at dinner with her confessor, the clerk, &c. immediately dismissed him the house. His landlady, a soldier’s wife, after this procured him the place of footman to the countess dowager of Vercullis, whose livery he wore; but his business was to write the letters which she dictated, a cancer in her breast preventing her writing them herself; letters, he says, equal to those of madam de Sevigne. This service terminated, in three months, with his lady’s death, who left him nothing, though she had great curiosity to know his history, and to read his letters to madam de Warens. He saw her expire with many tears her life having been that of a woman of wit and sense, her death being that of a sage. Her heir and nephew, the count de la Roque, gave him 30 livres and his new cloaths; but, on leaving this service, he committed, he owns, a diabolical action, by falsely accusing Marion, the cook, of giving him a rosecoloured silver ribbon belonging to one of the chambermaids, which was found upon him, and which he himself had stolen. This crime, which was an insupportable load on his conscience, he says, all his life after, and which he never avowed before, not even to Madam de Warens, was one principal inducement to his writing his “Confessions,” and he hopes, “has been expiated by his subsequent misfortunes, and by forty years of rectitude and honour in the most difficult situations.” On leaving this service, he returned to his lodgings, and, among other acquaintances that he had made, often visited M. Gaime, a Savoyard abbé, the original of the “Savoyard Vicar,” to whose virtuous and religious instructions, he professes the highest obligations. The count de la Roque, though he neglected to call upon him, procured him, however, a place with the count de Gouvon, an equerry to the queen, where he lived much at his ease, and out of livery. Though happy in this family, being favoured by all, frequently waiting on the count’s beautiful grand -daughter, honoured with lessons by the abbe“, his younger son, and having reason to expect an establishment in the train of his eldest son, ambassador to Venice, he absurdly relinquished all this by obliging the count to dismiss him for his attachment to one of his countrymen, named Bacle, who inveigled him to accompany him in his way back to Geneva; and an artificial fountain, which the abbe* de Gouvon had given him, helped, as their purse was light, to maintain them till it broke. At Annecy he parted with his companion, and hastened to madam de Warens, who, instead of reproaching, lodged him in her best chamber, and” Little One“(Petit) was his name, and” Mama“hers. There he lived most happily and innocently, he declares, till a relation of” Mama,“a M. d'Aubonne, suggested that John-James was fit for nothing but the priesthood, but first advised his completing his education by learning Latin. To this the bishop not only consented, but gave him a pension. Reluctantly he obeyed, carrying to the seminary of St. Lazarus no book but Clerambault’s cantatas, learning nothing there but one of his airs, and therefore being soon dismissed for his insufficiency. Yet madam de Warens did not abandon him. His taste for music then made them think of his being a musician, and boarding for that purpose with M. le Maitre, the organist of the cathedral, who lived near” Mama,“and presided at her weekly concerts. There he continued for a year, but his passion for her prevented his learning even music. Le Maitre, disgusted with the Chapter, and determined to leave them, was accompanied in his flight, as far as Lyons, by John-James; but, being subject to fits, and attacked by one of them in the streets, he was deserted in distress by his faithless friend, who turned the corner, and left him. This is his third painful” Confession.“He instantly returned to Annecy and” Mama; but she, alas! was gone to Paris. After this, he informs us of the many girls that were enamoured of him: of his journey with one of them, on foot, to Fribourg; of his visiting his father, in his way, at Nion; and of his great distress at Lausanne, which reduced him to the expedient of teaching music, which he knew not, saying he was of Paris, where he had never been, and changing his name to Voussore, the anagram of Rousseau. But here his ignorance and his imprudence exposed him to public shame, by his attempting what he could not execute. Being thus discomfited, and unable to subsist at Lausanne, he removed to Neufchatel, where he passed the winter. There he succeeded better, and, at length, by teaching music, insensibly learned it.

At Boudry, accidentally meeting a Greek bishop, Archimandrite of Jerusalem, who was making a collection in Europe to repair the holy sepulchre, our adventurer was prevailed upon to accompany him as his secretary and interpreter and, in consequence, travelled, alms’-gathering, through Switzerland; harangued the senate of Berne, &c. but at Soleure, the French ambassador, the marquis de Bonac, having made him discover who he was, detained him in his service, without allowing him even to take leave of his “poor Archimandrite,” and sent him (as he desired) to Paris, to travel with the nephew of M. Goddard, a Swiss colonel in the French service. This fortnight’s journey was the happiest time of his life. In his ideas of the magnificence of Paris, Versailles, &c. he greatly mistook. He was also much flattered, and little served. Colonel Goddard’s proposals being very inadequate to his expectations, he was advised to decline accepting them. Hearing that his dear “Mama” had been gone two months to Savoy, Turin, or Switzerland, he determined to follow her; and, on the road, sent by the post a paper of satirical verses, to the old avaricious colonel, the only satire that he ever wrote. At Lyons he visited mademoiselle du Chatelet, a friend of madam de Warens; but whether that lady was gone to Savoy or Piedmont, she could not inform him. She urged him, however, to stay at Lyons, till she wrote and had an answer, an offer which he accepted, although his purse was almost exhausted, and he was often reduced to lie in the streets, yet without concern or apprehension, choosing rather to pay for bread than a lodging. At length, M. Rolichon, an Antonian, accidentally hearing him sing in the street a cantata of Batistin, employed him some days in copying music, fed him well, and gave him a crown, which, he owns, he little deserved, his transcripts were so incorrect and faulty. And, soon after, he heard news of “Mama,” who was at Chambery, and received money to enable him to join her. He found her constant and affectionate, ana 1 she immediately introduced him to the intendant, who had provided him the place of a secretary to the commissioners appointed by the king to make a general survey of the country, a place which, though not very lucrative, afforded him an honourable maintenance for the first time in his life. This happened in 1732, he being then near 21. He lodged with “Mama,” in whose affection, however, he had a formidable rival in her steward, Claude Anetj yet they all lived together on the best terms. The succeeding eight or nine years, viz. till 1741, when he set out for Paris, had few or no events. His taste for music made him resign his employment for that of teaching that science; and several of his young female scholars (all charming) he describes and introduces to his readers. To alienate him from other seducers, at length his “Mama” (he says) proposed to him being his mistress, and became so; yet sadness and sorrow embittered his delights, and, from the maternal light in which he had been accustomed to view this philosophical lady, who sinned, he adds, more through error than from passion, he deemed himself incestuous. And let it be remembered that she had a husband, and had had many other gallants. Such is his “good-hearted” heroine, the Aspasia of his Socrates, as he calls tier, and such was he. This is another of his “Confessions.” Thus madam de Warens, Rousseau, and Anet, lived together in the most perfect union, till a pleurisy deprived him of the latter. In consequence of the loss of this good manager, all her affairs were soon in the utmost disorder, though JohnJames succeeded to the stewardship, and though he pawned his own credit to support hers. Determining now to compose, and for that purpose, first to learn, music, he applied to the abbe Ulancnard, organist of the cathedral of Besanc,on. But, just as they were going to begin, he heard that his portmanteau, with all his cloaths, was seized at Rousses, a French custom-house on the borders of Switzerland, because he had accidentally, in a new waistcoat-pocket, a Jansenist parody of the first scene of Racine’s “Mithridates,” of which he had not read ten lines. This loss made him return to Chambery, totally disappointed, and resolved, in future, to attach himself solely to “Mama,” who, by degrees, reinstated his wardrobe. And still cotitin, ing to study Rameau, he succeeded, at last, in some compositions, which were much approved by good judges, and thus did not lose his scholars. From this aera he dates his connexion with his old friend Gauffeconrt, an amiable man. since dead, and M. d Conzie, a Savoyard gentleman, then living. The extra* ityatn-e of his mistr* ss, in spite of all his remonstrances, made? uim absent himself from her, which increased their ex pe ices, but at the same time procured him many respectable friends, whom he name.-. His uncle Bernard was now dead in Carolina, whither he went in oruer to build Charles-tow1, as na* his cousin, in the service of tue king of Prussia. His health at this time visibly, but unaccountably, declined. “The sword cut the scabbard.” Besides his disorderly passions, his illness was partly occasioned by the tury vv:tn union he studied chess, shutting hunself up, for that purpose, whole days and nights, till he looked like a corpse, and partly by his concern and anxiety for madam de Warens, who by her maternal care and attention saved his life. Being ordered by her to drink milk in the country, he prevailed on her to accompany him, and, aoout the end of the summer of 1736, they settled at Charmett- j s, near the gate of Chambery, but solitary and retired, in a house whose situation he describes with rapture. “Moments dear and regretted.” However, not being able to bear milk, having recourse to water, which almost killed him, and leaving off wine, he lost his appetite, and had a violent nervous affection, which, at the end of some weeks, left him with a beating of his arteries, and tingling in his ears, which have lasted from that time to the present, 30 years after; and, from being a good sleeper, he became sleepless, and constantly short-breathed. “This accident, which might have destroyed his body, only destroyed his passions, and produced a happy effect on his soul.” “Mama” too, he says, was religious; yet, though she believed in purgatory, she did not believe in hell. The summer passed amidst their garden, their pigeons, their cows, &c. theauiumn in their vintage and their fruit-gathering; and in the winter they returned, as from exile, to town. Not thinking that he should live till spring, he did not stir out, nor see any one but madam de Warens and M. Salomon, their physician, an honest man, and a great Cartesian, whose conversation was better than all his prescriptions. In short, John-James studied hard, recovered, went abroad, saw all his acquaintance again, and, to his great surprise and joy, beheld the buds of the spring, and went with his mistress again to Charmettes. There, being soon fatigued with digging in the garden, he divided his time between the pigeon-house (so taming those timid birds as to induce them to perch on his arms and head), bee-hives, and books of science, beginning with philosophy, and proceeding to elementary geometry, Latin (to him, who had no memory, the most difficult), history, geography, and astronomy. One night, as he was observing the stars in his garden, with a planisphere, a candle secured in a pai), a telescope, &c. dressed in a flapped hat, and a wadded pet-en-V air of “Mama’s,” he was taken by some peasants for a conjurer. In future, he observed without a light, and consulted his planisphere at home. The writings of Port-royal and of the Oratory had now made him half a Jansenist. But his confessor and another Jesuit set his mind at ease, and he had recourse to several ridiculous expedients to know whether he was in a state of salvation. In the mean time, their rural felicity continued, and, contrary to his advice, madam de Warens became by degrees a great farmer, of which he foresaw ruin must be the consequence.

, an English lady, celebrated for personal accomplishments, and her elegant writings both inverse and prose, was the daughter of Mr. Waiter Singer, a dissenting minister, and born at Ilchester in Somersetshire, Sept. 11, 1674. Her father was possessed of a competent estate near Frome in that county, whhere he lived; but, being imprisoned at Ilchester for nonconformity, married and settled in that town. The daughter, whose talents in other respects appeared very early, began to write verses at twelve years of age. She was also fond of the sister-arts, music and painting; and her father was at the expence of a master, to instruct her in the latter. She was also early accustomed to devout exercises, in which her mind was sincere, ardent, and unconstrained: and this habit, which grew naturally from constitution, was also powerfully confirmed by education and example. She was early acquainted with the pious bishop Ken, who had a very high opinion of her: and, at his request, wrote her paraphrase on the 38th chapter of Job. In 1696, the 22d of her age, a collection of her poems was published: they were entitled “Poems on several occasions, by Philomela,” her name being concealed, but they contributed to introduce her to the public with great advantage.

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

, one of the earliest cultivators of natural science in Sweden, was the son of John Rudbeck, bishop of Vesteras, a considerable patron of letters, and by whose exertions the Swedish Bible was published in 1618. He was born in 1630, and educated at Upsal. Anatomy was his early study, and he prosecuted it with such success, that at the age of nineteen or twenty he made the important discovery of the lymphatic vessels in the liver, and soon afterwards, of those of other parts of the body. In Bartholine he had a rival in this discovery, which indeed both appear to have made independent of each other; but Haller gives the priority, in point of time, to Rudbeck. Rudbeck, having also made botany a part of his pursuits, contributed, out of his own means, to the advancement of that science, by founding a garden, which he afterwards gave to the university of Upsal. After a visit to Holland in 1653, he devoted himself to medicine, and to the instruction of his pupils in anatomy. In 1658 he was appointed professor of medicine, and was fixed at Upsal for the remainder of his life. Besides the attention which he gave to the above-mentioned pursuits, he very early addicted himself to the study of languages, history, antiquities, architecture, and music, as well as the practical art of drawing, and was so much regarded as a man of taste, that the public festivals and decorations, at the coronation of the young king Charles XL in 1660, were put entirely under his direction.

, bishop of St. David’s in the fifteenth century, was, according to Fuller, a native of Hertfordshire, and took his name from Rudborne, a village near St. Alban’s; but Wood says he was born at Rodburne in Wiltshire. He studied at Merton college, Oxford, and became one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, and an able architect. He built the gateway and fine tower of Merton college, and probably the chapel, for that seems improperly given to bishop Rede. He was so much esteemed, that Henry V. who became acquainted with him when a student at Queen’s college, afterwards appointed him his chaplain, on his going to Franc previous to the battle of Agincourt. He received some ecclesiastical preferments, as the prebend of Horton in the church of Salisbury, the living of East Deping in Lincolnshire, and the archdeaconry of Sudbury. He served the office of proctor in the university, and was elected chancellor, but Wood thinks that if he accepted this office, he did not retain it long. In 1426 he was admitted warden of Merton college, which he appears to have resigned the following year. In 1433 he was promoted to the see of St. David’s, from which the king, Henry VI. would have translated him to Ely; but Wood says, “could not effect it.” He died about 1442. The tower and chapel of Merton will long remain monuments of his skill and taste. He was also a benefactor to the first public library in Oxford. Like the majority in his day, he was an opponent of the first attempts at reformation in religion, and in 1411 was one of the commissioners for suppressing Wickliff’s doctrines and writings. He wrote, according to Bale, a “Chronicle,” and some epistles “ad Thomam Waldenem et alios.” He must be distinguished from the Thomas Rudborne, whose “Historia Major Wintoniensis” is printed by Wharton in vol. I. of his “Anglia Sacra,” who was, however, a monk of Winchester about the middle of the same century, but survived bishop Rudborne.

His reputation having now reached distant parts, he was invited by the magistrates of Dundee to be rector of the grammar-school there, but his salary as librarian having been increased to 30l. 6s. ScL he was induced to decline the offer. In 1711 he assisted bishop Sage in publishing the folio edition of “Drummond of Hawthornden’s Works:” and Dr. Abercrombie, in preparing for the press his “Martial Atchievements.” In 1713 he lost his friend Dr. Pitcairne, for whom he composed an epitaph, and conducted the sale of his library, which was disposed of to the Czar Peter the Great. In 1714, he published his “Rudiments of the Latin tongue,” which soon superseded all other books of the kind, and is still taught in all the grammarschools in Scotland. He lived to see fifteen editions of it sold.

Some time before his death, bishop Warburton, who probably thought the task might involve himself in inquiries not very suitable to the dignity of his order, employed Ruffhead to write the “Life of Pope,” but himself revised the sheets, and occasionally contributed a paragraph, although neither was sufficiently attentive to accuracy of dates, which, in Pope’s history, are matters of no small importance, nor was the work in general creditable to the subject, for Ruffhead had no taste for poetry or criticism. The public, however, knowing to whom he must be indebted for most of his materials, read the book with some avidity, and it was twice reprinted, but has since been superseded by more able pens. The university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of LL. D on Ruffhead, in 1766, which, we believe, he never assumed, although in Northouck’s dictionary he is called Dr. Ruffhead. Among his other literary engagements, Sir John Hawkins informs us that he was employed as reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine, until employed on Cay’s Statutes: and some time before his death the proprietors of Chambers’s Cyclopædia engaged him to superintend a new edition of that work: he was paid a considerable sum on account, but, having done nothing, the booksellers recovered the money of his heirs. He left one son, Thomas Ruffhead, who died curate of Prittlewell, in Essex, in 1798.

, LL. D. an English divine, and bishop of Derry in Ireland, was born in the parish of Milton-Abbot, near Tavistock, in Devonshire, about 1686, of what family is not known. He was educated at the freeschool of Exeter, under the care of Mr. John Reynolds, uncle to the celebrated painter sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1702 he was removed to Exeter college, Oxford, and about this time his friend and fellow collegian, Joseph Taylor, esq. (father of Thomas Taylor, of Denbury, esq.) introduced him to Mr. Edward Talbot, of Oriel college, the second son of Dr. William Talbot, at that time bishop of Oxford. This event was of great importance in his future life, as it secured him the friendship and patronage of the Talbot family, to whom he owed all his promotion. Recommenced bachelor of civil laws in July 1710, and two years afterwards became acquainted with the celebrated Whiston, and was inclined to adopt his notions as to reviving what he called primitive Christianity. Mr. Whiston, who has given us many particulars respecting bishop Rundie in his “Memoirs of his own Life,” says that Mr. Rundie, before he entered into holy orders, became so disgusted at the corrupt state of the church, and at the tyranny of the ecclesiastical laws, that he sometimes declared against obeying them, even where they were in themselves not unlawful, which, adds Whiston, “was farther than 1 could go with him.” The truth seems to have been, as stated by bishop Rundle’s late biegrapher, that the singular character of Whiston, his profound erudition, and disinterested attachment to the doctrines of Arius, supported by an ostensible love of truth, were likely to attract the notice of young men who, in the ardour of free inquiry, did not immediately perceive the pernicious tendency of their new opinions.

Soon after Mr. Rundle’s acquaintance with bishop Talbot became an intimacy, he was ordained by him in 1718, and published a discourse on Acts x. 34, 35. In 1720 he was promoted by that prelate, on his removal to Salisbury, to the archdeaconry of Wilts; and upon the demise of Mr. Edward Talbot, in the same year, was constituted treasurer of the church of Sarum. These were the first bounties of his munificent patron, who retained him from this time-as his domestic chaplain, and particularly delighted in his elegant manners and brilliant conversation. When bishop Talbot was translated to Durham, he continued Mr. Rundle of his household, and on Jan. 23, 1721, collated him to the first stall in that cathedral but on Nov. 12, in the following year, he was removed to the twelfth prebend He bad likewise the valuable mastership of Sherborne hospital, an appointment incompatible with the cure of souls, but which, it will appear from the foregoing list of preferments, he had never undertaken. If any period of his life afforded him more than ordinary satisfaction, it was this. He was esteemed, in a degree far beyond what is usually to be attained in friendships between persons of unequal rank, by the great and good family who patronised him. He had opportunities of gratifying his literary propensities, by frequent conversations with the first in almost every branch of science, and by the most select epistolary correspondences. He became particularly known at this time to the republic of letters by the liberal support he gave to Thomson, upon his publishing his “Winter,” whose acquaintance he instantly sought; and whom, having recommended to lord chancellor Talbot as a proper person to superintend his son’s education during the grand tour, Thomson found himself on his return rewarded by a lucrative appointment. On July 5, 1723, he had proceeded LL. D. as necessary to the dignities he enjoyed, and was associated with Dr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, as resident chaplain at the palace at Durham.

When bishop Talbot died, in 1730, his son, the lord chancellor, particularly distinguished Dr. Rundle as his friend, and entertained him on the same terms as his father had done. The first effort, however, which his lordship made for his advancement was attended with very extraordinary consequences, and formed the basis of a controversy of considerable warmth, although not of long duration. In Dec. 1733, the see of Gloucester becoming vacant by the death of Dr. Sydall, the lord chancellor solicited that preferment for his friend Dr. Rundle, but was refused. Dr. Edmund Gibson, bishop of London, had at this time the greatest weight in ecclesiastical appointments, and had lon4 entertained doubts of the soundness of Dr. Rundle’s principles. This could not have arisen from his former intimacy with Whiston, and his forbearance of Chubb, the professed foes of modern episcopacy, but is said to have proceeded from information given him by Mr. Venn, minister of St. Antholin’s, who reported an improper conversation held by Dr. Rundle in his presence, which Dr. Rundle afterwards declared he never had held, and that the obnoxious words must have been used by some other person in company. Dr. Gibson, however, peremptorily declared against the admission of a suspected deist to the sacred bench, and lord Talbot, we are told, after ably asserting the injustice of the charge, and detecting the sinister means that were made use of to support it, withdrew his petition with disdain.

The issue of this matter, however, was, that the bishop of London proposed Dr. Benson, the friend of Dr. Rundle, for the vacant see of Gloucester, and Dr, Rundle was soon after promoted to the. lucrative bishopric of Derry in Ireland, to which he was consecrated February 1734-5. The aspersions thrown on his character in England had by this time reached Ireland, and created great discontent at the appointment; but a residence of a few years, and repeated acts of public munificence and private generosity, gradually endeared him to the people of Ireland. He died at his palace in. Dublin April 14, 1743, scarcely sixty years of age. Having survived the nearer connections of his own family, he left his property, amounting to 20,000^, principally to the hon. John Talbot, second son to the chancellor. His person is said to have been slender, and not inelegantly formed. As to his character as a man, he appears to have been distinguished by many virtues, and by some weaknesses. His biographer says, he was precipitate in forming friendships, and as ready to relinquish them; a character by no means amiable; but for which, perhaps, some excuse might be formed, if we were made acquainted with the nature of his friendships. Unsuspicious men often contract friendships which, upon a closer inspection, they find unworthy and untenable; and this may happen before years have accumulated experience, if not without blame, at least with some excuse; and perhaps Dr. Rundle did not always suffer himself to be deceived. His character as a divine, we see, once laboured under suspicion, and if we except his own declaration, it was principally vindicated by those who were not very friendly to the church. The attestations of Pope and Swift can add little to his reputation. There was nothing, however, in his public conduct subsequent to the clamour raised against him, which could be censured; and the last letter he appears to have written, a little before his death, to archdeacon S. breathes the language of genuine piety.

The earliest of Rupert’s engravings in mezzotinto, that is now extant, is dated in 1658. It is an half length figure from Spagnoletto: the subject, an executioner holding a sword in one hand, and in the other a head, which is probably intended for that of John the Baptist, and upon the sword are the initials R. P. F. surmounted with a coronet. It is further distinguished by the following inscription on a tablet beneath, “Sp in Rvp. P. fecit. Francofurti. anno 1658 M. A. P. M.” Prince Rupert died at his house in Spring Gardens, Nov, 29, 1682, and was interred in Henry the Vllth’s chapel, regretted as one whose aim in all his actions and all his accomplishments was the public good. He was a great promoter of the trade to Africa, and a principal protector of the Royal African Company; as a proof of which, before the first Dutch war in this reign, he offered his majesty to sail with a squadron to the coast of Guinea, in order to vindicate the honour of the crown, assert the just rights of the company, and redress the injuries done to the nation; but the king, unwilling to hazard his person at such a distance, and in so sickly a climate, though he received the motion kindly, would not consent to it, but contented himself with taking an officer of his recommendation (captain Holmes), under whom the squadron was sent. He was an active member of the council of trade. It was owing to his solicitations, after being at great expence, not only in the inquiry into the value, but in sending ships thither, that the Hudson’s Bay Company was erected, of which he was the first governor appointed by the charter. In memory of him, a considerable opening on the east side of that bay, in Terra de Labrador, is called Rupert’s river. In general, his highness was a great friend to seamen, and to all learned, ingenious, and public-spirited persons, and assisted them with his purse, as well as afforded them his countenance. He was concerned in the patent for annealed cannon, in a glass-house, and other undertakings for acquiring or improving manufactures. Strict justice has been done to his highness’s many virtues, and amiable qualities, in that excellent character of him by bishop Sprat. In respect to his private life, he was so just, so beneficent, so courteous, that his memory remained dear to all who knew him. “This,” observes Campbell, “I say of my own knowledge; having often heard old people in Berkshire speak in raptures of prince Rupert.”

As he drew near to the close of life, conjugal affection was the feeling that clung closest to his heart; and when he had taken his last farewell of his wife, he said, “The bitterness of death is now over.” He suffered the sentence of his judges with resignation and composure. Some of his expressions imply an unusual degree of indifference in this last extremity. The day before his execution he was seized, with a bleeding at the nose: “I shall not now let blood to divert this distemper,” said he to bishop Burnet, who was present; “that will be done to-morrow.” A little before the sheriffs conducted him to his carriage, that was to convey him to the scaffold, he wound up his watch, “Now I have done,” said he, “with time, and henceforth must think solely of eternity.”

, one of the learned divines who was contemporary with Cudworth, Whichcot, Tillotson, and Worth ington, at the university of Cambridge, was a native of that town, and educated at Christ’s college, of which he became fellow, and probably took his degrees at the usual periods, though we do not find his name in the list of graduates published some years ago. Mr. Joseph Glanvil, in his preface to Dr. Rust’s “Discourse of Truth,” tells us that, when at the university, he “lived in great esteem and reputation for his eminent learning and virtues, and was one of the first in the university who overcame the prejudices of the education of the times before the restoration, and was very instrumental to enlarge others. He had too great a soul for the trifles of that age, and saw early the nakedness of phrases and fancies. He out-grew the pretended orthodoxy of those days, and addicted himself to the primitive learning and theology, in which he even then became a great master.” In 1651 he delivered in his own. chapel a discourse upon Proverbs xx. 27, which in 1655 he preached again at St. Mary’s in Cambridge. This piece was first published by Mr. Joseph Glanvil at London in 1682, in 8vo, under the title of “A Discourse of Truth,” in a volume entitled “Two choice and useful Treatises; the one Lux Orientalis: or an inquiry into the opinion of the Eastern sages concerning the pre-existence of souls: being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of Providence in relation to man’s sin and misery.” The other, “A Discourse of Truth, by the late reverend Dr. Rust, lord bishop of Drornore in Ireland. With annotations on them both.” The annotations are supposed to be written by Dr. Henry More, to who-e school Dr. Rust appears to have belonged. On the restoration, bishop Jeremy Taylor, foreseeing the vacancy in the deanery of Connor in Ireland, sent to Cambridge for some learned and ingenious man, who might be fit for that dignity. The choice tell upon Dr. Rust, which corresponding with the great inclination he had to be conversant with that eminent prelate, he gladly accepted of it, hastened to Ireland, and landed at Dublin about August 1661. He was received with great kindness and respect by bishop Taylor, and preferred to the deanery of Connor as soon as it was void, which was shortly after, and in 1662 to the rectory of the island of Magee in the same diocese. Upon the bishop’s death, August 13, 1667, he preached his funeral sermon, which was printed. The bishoprics were now divided; Dr. Boyle, dean of Cork, was nominated bishop of Down and Connor, and Dr. Rust, bishop of Dromore, in which he continued till his death, which was occasioned by a fever in Dec. 1670. He was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore in a va'ult made for his predecessor bishop Taylor, whose body was deposited there. Mr. Glanvil, who was very particularly acquainted with him, tells us “that he was a man of a clear mind, a deep judgment, and searching wit, greatly learned in all the best sorts of knowledge, old and new, a thoughtfql and diligent inquirer^ of a free understanding and vast capacity, joined with singular modesty and unusual sweetness of temper, which made him the darling of all that knew him. He was a person of great piety and generosity, a hearty lover of God and man, an 'excellent preacher, a wise governor, a profound philosopher, a close reasoner, and above all, a true and exemplary Christian. In short, he was one, who had all the qualifications of a primitive bishop, and of an extraordinary man.” Dr. Rust’s other works were, “A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the chief of his opinions,” Lond. 1661, 4to; two sermons, one at the funeral of the earl of Mount-Alexander, the other on the death of bishop Taylor; and “Remains,” published by Henry Hallywell, Lond. 1686, 4to.

, an ingenious philosopher and divine, the son of the rev. Thomas Rutherforth, rector of Papworth Everard, in the county of Cambridge, who had made large collections for an history of that county, was born October 13, 1712. He was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, about 1725, and took his degrees of A. B. 1729, and A.M. 1733. He was then chosen fellow, and proceeded bachelor of divinity in 1740. Two years after he was chosen fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1745, on being appointed professor of divinity, took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales. In the church, he was promoted to be rector of Barrow in Suffolk, of Shenfield in Essex, and of Barley in Hertfordshire, and archdeacon of Essex. He communicated to the Gentleman’s Society at Spalding a curious correction of Plutarch’s description of the instrument used to renew the vestal fire, as relating to the triangle with which the instrument was formed. It was nothing but a concave speculum, whose principal focus which collected the rays is not in the centre of concavity, but at the distance of half a diameter from its surface: but some of the ancients thought otherwise, as appears from Prop. 31 of Euclid’s il Catoptrics;“and, though this piece has been thought spurious, and this error a proof of it, the sophist and Plutarch might easily know as little of mathematics. He published” An Essay on the nature and oblirgations of Virtue,“1744, 8vo, which Mr. Maurice Johnson, of Spalding, in a letter to Dr. Birch, calls” an useful, ingenious, and learned piece, wherein the noble author of the Characteristics, and all other authors ancient and modern, are, as to their notions and dogmata, duly, candidly, and in a gentleman-like manner, considered, and fully, to my satisfaction, answered as becomes a Christian divine. If you have not yet read that amiable work, I must (notwithstanding, as we have been told by some, whom he answers in his Xlth and last chapters, do not so much approve it) not forbear recommending it to your perusal.“”Two Sermons preached at Cambridge,“1747, 8vo.” A System of Natural Philosophy, Cambridge,“1748, 2 vols. 4to.” A Letter to Dr. Middleton in defence of bishop Sherlock on Prophecy,“1750, 8vo.” A Discourse on Miracles,“1751, 8vo.” “Institutes of Natural Law,” 1754, 2 vols. 8vo. “A Charge to the Clergy of Essex,” 1753, 4to, reprinted with three others in 1763, 8vo. “Two Letters to Dr. Kennicott,” 1761 and 1762. “A Vindication of the Right of Protestant Churches to require the Clergy to subscribe to an established Confession of Faith and Doctrines, in a Charge delivered at a Visitation, July 1766,” Cambridge, 1766, 8vo. A second, the same year. “A Letter to Archdeacon Blackburn,” 1767, 8vo, on the same subject. He died Oct. 5, 1771, aged fifty-nine, having married a sister of the late sir Anthony Thomas Abdy, bart of Albins, in Essex, by whom he had two sons, one of whom survived him. Dr. llutherforth was interred in the church at Barley, where, on his monument, it is said, that “he was no less eminent for his piety and integrity than his extensive learning; and filled every public station in which he was placed with general approbation. In private life, his behaviour was truly amiable. He was esteemed, beloved, and honoured by his family and friends; a,nd his death was sincerely lamented by all who ever heard of his well-deserved character.”

, an antiquary and critic, was born in the North of England, and educated at the grammar-school of Northallerton, whence he was admitted a scholar at Sidney college, Cambridge. On quitting the university, he became a member of Gray’s-inn; and in 1692 succeeded Mr. Shadwell as historiographer to king William III. He rendered himself known first as a writer for the stage, by his production of “Edgar,” a tragedy, in 1673, which excited little approbation or inquiry until he became the author of “A View of the Tragedies of the last age,” which occasioned those admirable remarks by Dryden, preserved in the preface to Mr. Colman’s edition of “Beaumont and Fletcher,” and since by Dr. Johnson in his “Life of Dryden.” Rymer was a man of considerable learning, and a lover of poetry; but had few requisites for the character of a critic; and was indeed almost totally disqualified for it, by want of candour and the liberties he took with Shakspeare, in his “View of the Tragedies of the last age,” drew upon him the severity of every admirer of that poet. His own talents for dramatic poetry were extremely inferior to those of the persons whose writings he has with so much rigour attacked, as appears very evidently by his tragedy of “Edgar.” But, although we cannot subscribe either to his fame or his judgment as a poet or critic, it cannot be denied that he was a very useful compiler of records, and his “Fœdera” will ever entitle his memory to respect. While collecting this great work, he employed himself, like a royal historiographer, as one of his biographers says, in detecting the falsehood, and ascertaining the truth of history. In 1702, he published his first letter to bishop Nicolson, in which he endeavours to free king Robert III. of Scotland, beyond all dispute, from the imputation of bastardy. He soon after published his second letter to bishop Nicolson, “containing an historical deduction of the alliances between France and Scotland; whereby the pretended old league with Charlemagne is disproved, and the true old league is ascertained.”

, son of John Ryves of Damery Court, or, as Fuller says, of Little Langton, in Dorsetshire, was born in the latter end of the XVIth century, ' and was educated at Winchester-school, whence he was admitted of New college, Oxford, in 1596, became fellow in 1598, and applying himself to the study of the civil law, commenced doctor in that faculty in 1610. He was a celebrated, civilian in doctors’ commons and the court of admiralty, and when he had established his fame in England, was, in 1618, preferred to be one of the masters in chancery, and judge of the faculties and prerogative court in Ireland, where he was held in equal esteem for his knowledge in the laws. Upon king Charles I. coming to the crown, he was made his advocate, and knighted: and, when the rebellion broke out, he was very firm to the royal cause, and although advanced in life, engaged in several battles, and received several wounds in his majesty’s service. He was one of the assistants to the king at the treaty of peace in the Isle of Wight. Sir Thomas Ryves was not only a very eminent civilian, and a good common lawyer, but likewise very accomplished in polite learning; and, particularly, wrote in Latin with unusual delicacy and correctness. He died in 1651, and was buried in St. Clement Danes, near Temple Bar, London. His works are, 1. “The Vicar’s Plea; or, a competency of Means due to Vicars out of the several parishes, notwithstanding their impropriations.” This book is written with a great deal of learning and strength of argument. 2. “iiegiminis Anglicani in Hibernia Defensio, adversus Analecien, lib. 3,” London, 1624, 4to. This was the answer to a book called “Analecta Sacra,” supposed to be written by David Roth, titular bishop of Ossory, a good antiquary, according to Usher, but a bigoted Roman catholic, if the author of this work. Sir Thomas Ryves’s object is, to vindicate the conduct of the Irish government as far as respects the Roman catholics, and his book includes much curious information respecting the state of opinions at that time. 3. “Jmperatoris Justiniani defensio adversus Alemannum,” Lond. 1626, 12mo. Alemanni had taken great liberties with the character of Justinian in his edition of Procopius, which our civilian thought it his duty to censure. 4. “Historia Navalis,” Lond. 162!), 12mo, enlarged afterwards into two publications, “Historiae Navalis antiquae libri quatuor,” ibid. 1633, 8vo, and “Historian Navalis mediae libri tres,” ibid. 1640, 8vo.

, a polite and learned Italian, was born at Modena in 1477, and was the son of an eminent civilian, who, afterwards becoming a professor at Ferrara, took him along with him, and educated him with great care. He acquired a masterly knowledge in the Latin and Greek early, and then applied himself to philosophy and eloquence; taking Aristotle and Cicero for his guides, whom he considered as the first masters in these branches. He also cultivated Latin poetry, in which he displayed a very high degree of classical purity. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Alexander VI. when he was about twentytwo, he was taken into the family of cardinal Caraffa, who loved men of letters; and, upon the death of this cardinal in 1511, passed into that of Frederic Fregosa, archbishop of Salerno, where he found Peter Bembus, and contracted an intimacy with him. When Leo X. ascended the papal throne in 1513, he chose Bembus and Sadolet for his secretaries men extremely qualified for the office, as both of them wrote with great elegance and facility and soon after made Sadolet bishop of Carpentras, near Avignon. Upon the death of Leo, in 1521, he went to his diocese, and resided there during the pontificate of Adrian VI.; but Clement VII. was no sooner seated in the chair, in 1523, than he recalled him to Rome. Sadolet submitted to his boliness, but oh condition that he should return to his diocese at the end of three years. Paul III. who succeeded Clement VII. in 1534, called him to Rome again; made him a cardinal in 1536, and employed him in many important embassies and negotiations. Sadolet, at length, grown too old to perform the duties of his bishopric, went no more from Rome; but spent the remainder of his days there in repose and study. He died in 1547, not without poison, as some have imagined; because he corresponded too familiarly with the Protestants, and testified much regard for some of their doctors. It is true, he had written in 1539 a Latin letter to the senate and people of Geneva, with a view of reducing them to an obedience to the pope; and had addressed himself to the Calvinists, with the affectionate appellation of “Charissimi in Christo Fratres;” but this proceeded entirely from his moderate and peaceable temper and courteous disposition. He was a sincere adherent to the Romish church, but without bigotry. The liberality of sentiment he displayed in his commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans incurred the censure of the Roman court.

, a celebrated Icelandic writer, was the son of a priest named Sigfus, and was born about the middle of the eleventh century, between 1050 and 1060. He travelled at a very early period into Italy and Germany, in order to improve himself in knowledge, and for a considerable time his countrymen were not at all aware ipf what had become of him. At length Jonas, the son of Ogmund, who was afterwards a bishop, found him at Paris, and carried him back to Iceland. Here he took the order of priesthood, and succeeded his father as priest of Odda, He also established a school, and contributed with others to induce the Icelanders to pay tithes, and took a considerable part with regard to the formation of the ecclesiastical code of laws. He died in 1133 or 1135, being about eighty years of age. At the age of seventy he wrote a History of Norway, from the time of Harold Haarfager to that of Magnus the Good. He is generally allowed the merit of having collected the poetical Edda, by which means he preserved these curious and valuable remains of the ancient Scandinavian mythology, poetry, and morality, from being lost. They were printed at Copenhagen, 1787, 4to, with a Latin translation, the editors of which, in their preface, give a full account of the supposed authors, and the claim of Saemund to be considered as the principal collector.

, a bishop of the old episcopal church of Scotland, a man of great learning and worth, and an able controversial writer in defence of the church to which he belonged, was born in 1652. He was the son of captain Sage, a gentleman of Fifeshire in Scotland, and an officer of merit in lord Duffus’s regiment, who fought on the side of the royalists when Monk stormed Dundee in 1651. Although, like many other royalists, he was scantily rewarded for his services, he was able to give his son a liberal education at school, and at the university of St. Andrew’s, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1672. He passed some years afterwards as schoolmaster of the parishes of Bingry in Fifeshire, and of Tippermoor in Perthshire, and as private tutor to the sons of a gentleman of fortune, whom he attended at school, and accompanied to the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1684, when his pupils left him, he removed from St. Andrew’s, and when uncertain what course to pursue, was recommended to archbishop Rose, who gave him priest’s orders, and advised him to officiate at Glasgow. Here he continued to display his talents till the revolution in 1688, when the presbyterian form of church government was established, and then went to Edinburgh. He preached in this city a while, but refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, was obliged to desist, and found an asylum in the house of sir William Bruce, the sheriff of Kinross, who approved his principles, and admired his virtues. Returning to Edinburgh in 1695, where he appears to have written some defences of the church to which he belonged, he was observed, and obliged again to retire. At length he found a safe retreat with the countess of Callendar, who employed him as chaplain, and tutor to her sons, and afterwards he lived with sir John Steuart of Garntully as chaplain, until Jan. 25, 1705, when he was consecrated a bishop. In the following year his health began to decay, and after trying the waters of Bath, in 1709, and change of air in other places, without much benefit, he died at Edinburgh June 7, 1711.

Bishop Sage was a man profoundly skilled in all the ancient languages, which gave him an eminent advantage over his adversaries, the most distinguished of whom was Mr. Gilbert Rule, principal of the college of Edinburgh, who, with much zeal, and no mean abilities, was overmatched by the superior learning and historical knowledge of his antagonist. Sage wrote the second and third letters, concerning the persecution of the episcopal clergy in Scotland, which were printed at London, in 1689, the rev. Thomas Morer having written the first, and professor Monro the fourth. 2. “An account of the late establishment of Presbyterian Government by the parliament of Scotland in 1690,” Lond. 1693. 3. “The fundamental charter of Presbytery,' 7 ibid. 1695. 4.” The principles of the Cyprianic age with regard to episcopal power and jurisdiction,“ibid. 1695. 5.” A Vindication“of the preceding, ibid. 1701. 6.” Some remarks on a Letter from a gentleman in the city, to a minister in the country, on Mr. David Williamson’s sermon before the General Assembly,“Edin. 1703. 7.” A brief examination of some things in Mr. Meldrum’s sermon, preached May 16, 1703, against a toleration to those of the episcopal persuasion,“ibid. 1703. 8.” The reasonableness of a toleration of those of the Episcopal persuasion inquired into purely on church principles,“ibid. 1704. 9.” The Life of Gawin Douglas,“bishop of Dunkeld, prefixed to Ruddiman’s edition of” Douglas’s Virgil,“1710. 10.” An Introduction to Drummond’s History of the Five James’s," Edin. 1711, with notes by Ruddiman, who always spoke highly of Sage as a scholar and companion.

His first lauy being dead, he espoused about this time, 1716, a second of great merit and accomplishments, niece to madam de Maintenon, and widow of the marquis de Villette; with whom he had a very large fortune, encumbered, however, with a long and troublesome law-suit. In. the company and conversation of this lady, be passed his time in France, sometimes in the country, and sometimes at the capital, till 1723; when the king was pleased to grant him a full and free pardon. Upon the first nonce of this favour, the expectation of which had been the governing principle of his political conduct for several years, he returned to his native country. It is observable, that bishop Atterbury was banished at this very juncture; and happening, on his being set ashore at Calais, to hear that lord Bolingbroke was there, he said, “Then I am exchanged” His lordship having obtained, about two years after his return, ao act of parliament to restore him to his family-intjeriiancr, and to enable him to possess any purchase he should make, chose a seat of lord Tankerville, at Dawley near L'xbriJge Hi Middlesex; where he settled with his lady, and gratified his taste by improving it into a most elegant villa. Here he amused himself with rural employ ments, and with corresponding and conversing with Pope, Swift, and other friends but was by no means satisfied within for he was yet no more than a mere titular lord, and stood excluded from a seat in the House of Peers. Inflamed with this taint that yet remained in his blood, he entered again, in 172^, upon the public sta^e; and, disavowing all obligations to the minister Walpole, to whose secret enmity he iiMpuied his not having received the full effects of the royal merty intended, he embarked in the opposition, and distinguished himself by a multitude of pieces, written during me short remainder of that reign, and for some years under the following, with great boldness against the measures that were then pursued. Besides his papers in the “Craftsman,” which were the most popular in that celebrated collection, he published several pamphlets, which were afterwards reprinted in the second edition of his “Political Tracts,” and in the authorized edition of his works.

, a learned Jesuit of Avignon, where he was born in 1557, entered into that society in 1578, and became a noted tutor. He was afterwards made rector of the college of Besancon, and died at Paris Jan. 23, 1640, in the eighty-third year of his age. He wrote some pious tracts, but is principally known for his “Annals of the Old Testament,” published in 1618 24, b vols. folio. As this work appeared too voluminous for general use, M. de Sponde, bishop of Pamiers, requested leave to publish an abridgment in the manner of his abridgment of Baronius; but Salian, conscious how much originals suffer by abridgments, refused this request with much politeness; and when induced at last to make an abridgment himself, contrived to do it in such a manner as to render the original almost indispensable to his readers.

, a learned English divine, was the eldest son of Dr. Samuel Salter, prebendary of Norwich, and archdeacon of Norfolk, by Anne-Penelope, the daughter of Dr. John Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich. He was educated for some time in the free-school of that city, whence he removed to that of the Charter-house, and was admitted of Bene't-college, Cambridge, June 30, 1730, under the tuition of Mr. Charles Skottowe. Soon after his taking the degree of B. A. in 1733, he was chosen into a fellowship, and took his master’s degree in 1737. His natural and acquired abilities recommended him to sir Philip Yorke, then lord-chief-jqstice of the King’s-bench, and afterwards earl of Hardwicke, for the instruction of his eldest son the second earl, who, with three of his brothers, in compliment to abp. Herring, was educated at that college. As soon as that eminent lawyer was made Jordehancellor, he appointed Mr. Salter his domestic chaplain, and gave him a prebend in the church of Gloucester, which he afterwards exchanged for one in that of Norwich. About the time of his quitting Cambridge, he was one of the writers in the “Athenian Letters.” Soon after the chancellor gave Mr. Salter the rectory of Burton Goggles, in the county of Lincoln, in 1740; where he went to reside soon after, and, marrying Miss Seeker, a relation of the then bishop of Oxford, continued there till 1750, when he was nominated minister of Great Yarmouth by the dean and chapter of Norwich. Here he performed the duties of that large parish with great diligence, till his promotion to the preachership at the Charter-house in January 1754, some time before which (in July, 1751), abp. Herring had honoured him with the degree of D. D. at Lambeth. In 1756, he was presented by the lord-chancellor to the rectory of St. Bartholomew near the Royal Exchange, which was the last ecclesiastical preferment he obtained; but in Nov. 1761, he succeeded Dr. Bearcroft as master of the Charter-house, who had been his predecessor in the preachership. While he was a member of Bene't college, he printed Greek Pindaric odes on the nuptials of the princes of Orange and Wales, and a copy of Latin verses on the death of queen Caroline. Besides a sermon preached on occasion of a music-meeting at Gloucester, another before the lord-mayor, Sept. 2, 1740, on the anniversary of the fire of London, a third before the sons of the clergy, 1755, which was much noticed at the time, and underwent several alterations before it was printed; and one before the House of Commons, Jan. 30, 1762; he published “A complete Collection of Sermons and Tracts” of his grandfather Dr. Jeffery, 1751, in 2 vols. 8vo, with his life prefixed, and a new edition of “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” by Dr. Whichcote, with large additions of some letters that passed between him and Dr. Tuckney, “concerning the Use of Reason in Religion,” &c. and a biograpiiical preface, 1751, 8vo. To these may be added, “Some Queries relative to the Jews, occasioned by a late sermon,” with some other papers occasioned by the “Queries,” published the same year. In 1773 jmd 1774, he revised through the press seven of the celebrated “Letters of Ben Mordecai;” written by the rev. Henry Taylor, of Crawley in Hants. In 1776, Dr. Salter printed for private use, “The first 106 lines of the First Book of the Iliad; nearly as written in Homer’s Time and Country;” and printed also in that year, “Extract from the Statutes of the House, and Orders of the Governors, respecting the Pensioners or poor Brethren” (of the Charterhouse), a large single sheet in folio; in 1777, he corrected the proof-sheets of Bentley’s “Dissertation on Phalaris;” and not long before his death, which happened May 2, 1773, he printed also an inscription to the memory of his parents, an account of all which may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” Dr. Salter was buried, by his own express direction, in the most private manner, in the common burial-ground belonging to the brethren of the Charter-house.

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

, an eminent puritan divine, was, according to Strype, born at Playford in Suffolk, and was a fellow of Pembroke hall, Cambridge. Wood says he was born in 1517, without specifying where; but adds, that he was educated ac Oxford, which seems most probable, as that university was the scene of much of his future life; He appears to have imbibed the principles of the reformation at a very early period, and became such an acute reasoner that Wood informs us he was the means of converting John Bradford, the famous martyr. He began likewise very early to entertain those prejudices against the hahits which occasioned so much mischief in the church, and which were confirmed in him, and many others, by. associating with the Geneva reformers during their exile in the time of queen Mary. He was ordained by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, who, at his request, dispensed with the habits, to which now, and ever after, he attached the idea of idolatry. He was chaplain in the army of lord Russel in his expedition against the Scots. In 1551, he was preferred to the rectory of Allhallows, Bread-street, London, which he resigned in 1553, and the year following to the deanery of Chichester. During the reign of Edward VI. he was accounted one of the* ablrst and most useful preachers in confirming the people in the doctrines of the reformation. On the accession of queen Mary he concealed himself for some time; but having been active in collecting money for the support of poor scholars in the two universities, narrowly escaped beingapprehended, and was obliged to go abroad, where he resided chiefly at Strasburgh, with the other English exiles, and had some hand in the Geneva translation of the Bible.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth he returned home, not only confirmed in his aversion to the habits, but with a dislike, it would appear, to the whole of the hierarchy, and refused the bishopric of Norwich because dissatisfied with the nature of the office. He continued, however, to preach, particularly at Paul’s cross, where his wonderful memory and eloquence were very much admired; and in September 1560 he was made a prebendary of Durham. In Michaelmas-term 1561, he was instalied clean of Christ-church, Oxford. On this occasion some members of that society, who recommended him for the situation, said, that “it was very doubtful, whether there was a better man, a greater linguist, a more complete scholar, or a more profound divine;” and it is certain that for some years he and Dr. Lawrence Humphrey were the only protestant preachers at Oxford of any celebrity. In 1562, he resigned his prebend of Durham, and became so open and zealous in his invectives against the habits, that after considerable forbearance, he was cited, with Dr. Humphrey, before the high commission court at Lambeth, and Sampson was Deprived of his deanery, and for some time imprisoned. Notwithstanding his nonconformity, however, he was presented, in 1568, to the mastership of Wigston-hospitaJ, at Leicester, and had likewise, according to Wood, a prebend in St. Paul’s. He went to reside at Leicester, and continued there until his death, April 9, 1589. He mar-? ried bishop Latimer’s niece, by whom he had two sons, John and Nathaniel, who erected a monument to his memory, with a Latin inscription, in the chapel of the hospital at Leicester, where he was buried. His works are tew 1. “Letter to the professors of Christ’s Gospel, in the parish of Allhallows in Breadstreet,” Strasburgb, 1554, 8vo, which is reprinted in the appendix to Strype’s “Ecclesiastical Memorials,” vol. III. 2. “A Warning to take heed pf ‘Fowler’s Psalter’,” Loud. 1576 and 1578, 8vo. This was a popish psalter published by John Fowler, once a Fellow of New-college, Oxford, but who went abroad, turned printer, and printed the popish controversial works for some years. 3, ' Brief Collection of the Church and Ceremonies thereof,“Lond. 1581, 8vo. 4.” Prayers and Meditations Apostolike; gathered and framed out of the Epistles of the Apostles,“&c. ibid. 1592, J6mo. He was also editor of two sermons of his friend John Bradford, on repentance and the Lord’s-supper, Lond. 1574, 1581, and, 1589, 8vo. Baker ascribes to him, a translation of” a Sermon of John Chrysostome, of Pacience, of the end of the world, and the last judgment,“1550, 8vo; and of” An Homelye of the Resurrection of Christ," by John Brentius, 1550, 8vo. Other works, or papers in which he was concerned, may be seen in pur authorities.

, a learned Jesuit of France, was born at Rouen in 1676. He taught polite literature with distinguished reputation at Caen, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Huet, bishop of Avranche. A taste for poetry is said to have been the principal bond of their union. He afterwards professed rhetoric at Paris; and was for some time charged with the education of the prince of Conti. He was librarian to the king when he died, September 2 I, 1733. He published separately various Latin poems, which are reckoned among the purest of modern times; and also published them in a collected form, “ Carnumim libri quatuor,” Paris, 1715, 12mo, and various theses and philological dissertations but is best known by his translation of the works of Horace with notes a work which has been very well received. The satires and epistles are ably translated; but the odes are rather weakened by a languid paraphrase than a version answerable to the original. His notes are learned, and many of them very useful for understanding his author; but there are also marks of a falsely delicate and fastidious taste, not uncommon among French critics. The best editions of his Horace are those of Paris, 1728, 2 vols. 4to, and 1756, 3 vols. 12mo.

, an extraordinary Negro, was born in 1729, on board a ship in the slave-trade, a few days after it had quitted the coast of Guinea for the Spanish West Indies; and at Carthagena, received baptism from the hand of the bishop, and the name of Ignatius. He lost his parents in his infancy, a disease of the new climate having put an early period to his mother’s existence; while his father defeated the miseries of slavery by an act of suicide. At little more than two years old, his master brought him to England, and gave him to three maiden sisters, resident at Greenwich; who thought, agreeable to prejudices not uncommon at that time, that ignorance was the only security for his obedience, and that to enlarge his mind would go near to emancipate his person. By them he was surnamed Sancho, from a fancied resemblance to the 'Squire of Don Quixote. While in this situation, the duke of Montagu, who lived on Blackheath, accidentally saw, and admired in him a native frankness of manner, as yet unbroken in servitude, and unrefined by education; brought him frequently home to the duchess; indulged his turn for reading with presents of books, and strongly recommended to his mistresses the duty of cultivating a genius of such apparent fertility. His mistresses, however, were inflexible^ and even threatened on angry occasions to return Sancho to his African slavery. The love of freedom had increased with years, and began to beat high in his bosom. Indignation, and the dread of constant reproach arising from the detection of an amour, finally determined him to abandon the family, and as his noble patron was recently dead, he flew to the duchess for protection, who dismissed him with reproof. She at length, however, consented to admit him into her household, where he remained as butler till her death, when he found himself by her grace’s bequest and his own ceconomy, possessed of seventy pounds in money^ and an annuity of thirty. Freedom, riches, and leisure, naturally led a disposition of African texture into indulgences; and that which dissipated the mind of Ignatius completely drained the purse. Cards had formerly seduced him; but an unsuccessful contest at cribbage with a Jew, who won his clothes, had determined him to abjure the propensity which appears to be innate among his countrymen. Ignatius loved the theatre^ and had been even induced to consider it as a resource in fhe hour of adversity, and his complexion suggested aa offer to the manager of attempting Othello and Oroonoko; but a defective and incorrigible articulation rendered this abortive. He turned his mind once more to service, and was retained a few months by the chaplain at Montaguhouse. That roof had been ever auspicious to him; and the last duke soon placed him about his person, where habitual regularity of life led him to think of a matrimonial connexion, and he formed one accordingly with a very deserving young woman of West India origin. Towards the close of 1773, repeated attacks of the gout and a constitutional corpulence rendered him incapable of farther attendance in the duke’s family. At this crisis, the munificence which had protected him through various vicissitudes did not fail to exert itself; with the result of his own frugality, it enabled him and his wife to settle themselves in a shop of grocery, where mutual and rigid industry decently maintained a numerous family of children, and where a life of domestic virtue engaged private patronage, and merited public imitation. He died Dec. 15, 1780, of a series of complicated disorders. Mr. Jekyll remarks that, of a negro, a butler, and a grocer, there are but slender anecdotes to animate the page of the biographer, yet it has been held necessary to give some sketch of the very singular man, whose letters, with all their imperfections on their head, have given such general satisfaction to the public*. The display which those writings exhibit of epistolary talent, rapid and just conception, of mild patriotism, and of universal philanthropy, attracted the protection of the great, and the friendship of the learned. A commerce with the Muses was supported amid the trivial and momentary interruptions of a shop; the poets were studied, and even imitated with some success; two pieces were constructed for the stage; the theory of music was discussed, published, and dedicated to the Princess royal; and painting was so much within the circle of Ignatius Sancho’s judgment and criticism, that several artists paid great deference to his opinion.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Fresingfield, in Suffolk, Jan. 30, 1616, and educated in grammar-learning at St. Edmund’s Bury, where he was equally remarkable for diligent application to his studies, and a pious disposition . In July 1634, he was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he became very accomplished in all branches of literature, took his degree of B. A. in 1637, and that of M. A. in 1641, and was in 1642 chosen fellow of his college. His favourite studies were theology, criticism, history, and poetry , but in all his acquirements he was humble and unostentatious. In 1648 he took the degree of B. D. It is supposed he never subscribed the covenant^ and that this was connived at, because he continued unmolested in his fellowship till 1649; at which time, refusing the engagement, he was ejected. Upon this he went abroad, and became acquainted with the most considerable of the loyal English exiles; and, it is said, he was at Rome when Charles II. was restored. He immediately returned to England, and was made chaplain to Cosin, bishop of Durham, who collated him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, and to the ninth prebend of Durham in March 1661. In the same year he assisted in reviewing the Liturgy, particularly in rectifying the Kalendar and Rubric. In 1662 he was created, by mandamus, D. D. at Cambridge, and elected master of Emanuel college, which he governed with great prudence. In 1664 he was promoted to the deanery of York, which although he held but a few months, he expended on the buildings about 200l. more than he had received. Upon the death of Dr. John Barwick he was removed to the deanery of St. Paul’s; soon after which, he resigned the mastership of Emanuel college, and the rectory of Houghton. On his coming to St. Paul’s he set himself most diligently to repair that cathedral, which had suffered greatly from the savage zeal of the republican fanatics in the civil wars, till the dreadful fire in 1666 suggested the more noble undertaking of rebuilding it. Towards this he gave 1400l. besides what he procured by his interest and solicitations among his private friends, and in parliament, where he obtained the act for laying a duty on coals for the rebuilding of the cathedral. He also rebuilt the deanery, and improved the revenues of it. In Oct. 1668, he was admitted archdeacon of Canterbury, on the king’s presentation, which he resigned in 1670. He was also prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; and was in that station when Charles II. in 1677, advanced him, contrary to his knowledge or inclination, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. In 1678 he published some useful directions concerning letters testimonial to candidates for holy orders. He was himself very conscientious in the admission to orders or the disposal of livings, always preferring men of approved abilities, great learning, and exemplary life. He attended king Charles upon his death-bed, and made a very weighty exhortation to him, in which he is said to have used a good deal of freedom. In 1686 he was named the first in James I I.'s commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but be refused to act in it. About the same time he suspended Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, for residing out of and neglecting his diocese. As one of the governors of the Charter-house, he refused to admit as pensioner in that hospital Andrew Popham, a papist, although he came with a nomination from the court. In June 1688, he joined with six of his brethren the bishops in the famous petition to king James, in which they gave their reasons why they could not cause his declaration for liberty of conscience to be read in churches. For this petition, which the court called a libel, they were committed to the Tower; and, being tried for a misdemeanor on the 29th, were acquitted, to the great joy of the nation. This year the archbishop projected the vain expedient of a comprehension with the protestant dissenters. We have the following account of this in the speech of Dr. W. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, in the house of lords, March 17, 1710, at the opening of the second article of the impeachment against Dr. Sacheverell. “The person,” says he, “who 6rst concerted this design was the late most reverend Dr. Sancroft, then archbishop of Canterbury. The time was towards the end of that unhappy reign of king James II. Then, when we were in the height of our labours, defending the Church of England against the assaults of popery, and thought of nothing else, that wise prelate foreseeing some such revolution as soon after was happily brought about, began to consider how utterly unprepared they had been at the restoration of king Charles II. to settle many things to the advantage of the Church, and what happy opportunity had been lost for want of such a previous care, as he was therefore desirous should now be taken, for the better and more perfect establishment of it. It was visible to all the nation, that the more moderate dissenters were generally so well satisfied with that stand which our divines had made agaiust popery, and the many unanswerable treatises they had published in confutation of it, as to express an unusual readiness to come in to us. And it was therefore thought worth the while, when they were deliberating about those other matters, to consider at the same time what might be done to gain them without doing any prejudice to ourselves. The scheme was laid out, and the several parts of it were committed, not only with the approbation, but by the direction of that great prelate, to such of our divines, as were thought the most proper to he intrusted with it. His grace took one part to himself; another was committed to a then pious and reverend dean (Dr. Patrick), afterwards a bishop of our church. The reviewing of the daily service of our Liturgy, and the Communion Book, was referred to a select number of excellent persons, two of which (archbishop Sharp, and Dr. Moore) are at this time upon our bench and I am sure will bear witness to the truth of my relation. The design was in short this: to improve, and, if possible, to inforce our discipline to review and enlarge our Liturgy, by correcting of some things, by adding of others and if it should be thought adviseable by authority, when this matter should come to be legally considered, first in convocation, then in parliament, by leaving some few ceremonies, confessed to be indifferent in their natures as indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed by those who made a scruple of them, till they should be able to overcome either their weaknesses or prejudices, and be willing to comply with them.” In October, accompanied with eight of his- brethren the bishops, Sancroft waited upon the king, who had desired the assistance of their counsels; and advised him, among other things, to annul the ecclesiastical commission, to desist from the exercise of a dispensing power, and to call a free and regular parliament. A few days after, though earnestly pressed by his majesty, he refused to sign a declaration of abhorrence of the prince of Orange’s invasion. In December, on king James’s withdrawing himself, he is said to have signed, and concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal, in a declaration to the prince of Orange, for a free parliament, security of our laws, liberties, properties, and of the church of England in particular, with a due indulgence to protestant dissenters. But in a declaration signed by him Nov. 3, 1688, he says that “he never gave the prince any invitation by word, writing, or otherwise;” it must therefore have been in consequence of the abdication that he joined with the lords in the above declaration. Yet when the prince came to St. James’s, the archbishop neither went to wait on him, though he had once agreed to it, nor did he even send any message. He absented himself likewise from the convention, for which he is severely censured by Burnet, who calls him “a poor-spirited and fearful man, that acted a very mean part in all this great transaction. He resolved,” says he, “neither to act for, nor against, the king’s interest; which, considering his higli post, was thought very unbecoming. For, if he thought, as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it was a strange thing to see one who was at the head of the church to sit silent all the while that this was in debate, and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking, voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly be.came his character.”

Though of considerable abilities and uncommon learning, he published but very little. The first thing was a Latin dialogue, composed jointly by himself and some of his friends, between a preacher and a thief condemned to the gallows; and is entitled, 1. “Fur Prædestinatus sive, dialogismus inter quendam Ordinis proedicantium Calvinistam etFurem ad laqueum damnatum habitus,” &c. 1651, 12mo. It was levelled at the then-prevailing doctrine of predestination. An edition was published in 18 13; and a translation in the following year, by the rev. Robert Boucher Nickolls, dean of Middleham, with an application to the case of R. Kendall executed at Northampton Aug. 13, 1813. 2. “Modern Politics, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other modern authors, by an eye-witness,” 3652, 12mo. 3. “Three Sermons,” afterwards re-printed together in 1694, 8vo. 4. He published bishop Andrews’s “Defence of the vulgar Translation of the Bible,” with a preface of his own. 5. He drew up some offices for Jan. 3O, and May 29. 6. “Nineteen familiar Letters of his to Mr. (afterwards sir Henry) North, of Mildenhall, bart. both before, but principally after, his deprivation, for refusing to take the oaths to king William III. and his retirement to the place of his nativity in Suffolk, found among the papers of the said sir Henry North, never before published,” were printed in 1757, 8vo. In this small collection of the archbishop’s “Familiar Letters,” none of which were probably ever designed to be made public, his talents for epistolary writing appear to great advantage. He left behind him a multitude of' papers and coUections in ms. which upon his decease came into his nephew’s hands; after whose death they were purchased by bishop Tanner for eighty guineas, who gave them, with the rest of his manuscripts, to the Bodleian library. From these the Rev. John Gutch, of Oxford, published in 1781, 2 vols. 8vo, various “Miscellaneous Tracts relating to the History and Antiquities of England and Ireland,” &c.

, a Roman catholic writer of considerable fame, and one of the principal champions of popery in the sixteenth century, was born about 1527, at Charlewood in Surrey, and educated at Winchester school, whence he removed to New college, Oxford. Here he studied chiefly canon law, and was made fellow of his college in 1548, and in 1550, or 1551, took the degree of bachelor of laws. When queen Mary came to the throne, he had the offer of being Latin secretary to her majesty, which he declined for the sake of a studious, academical life, and remained at Oxford during the whole of her reign. In 1557 he was one of the professors of canon law, and read what were called the “shaggling lectures,” i. e. lectures not endowed, until the accession of queen Elizabeth, when his principles induced him to quit England. He arrived at Rome about the latter end of 1560, and studying divinity, became doctor in that faculty, and was ordained priest by Dr. Thomas Goldwell, bishop of St. Asaph, who at that time resided in the English hospital at Rome. Soon after, cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent, hearing of his abilities, took him into his family, and made use of him, as his theologal, in the council. When the council broke up, Dr. Sanders accompanied the cardinal to Poland, Prussia, and Lithuania, where he was instrumental in settling the discipline of the Romish church; but his zeal disposing him to think most of his native country, he returned to Flanders, and was kindly entertained by sir Francis Englefield, formerly privy-counsellor to queen Mary, and then in great favour with the court of Spain; through whose hands a great part of those charitable collections passed, which his catholic majesty ordered for the subsistence of the English popish exiles. Sanders was appointed his assistant, and being settled at Louvaine, together with his mother and sister, he lived there twelve years, and performed many charitable offices to his indigent countrymen. Much of this time he employed in writing in defence of popery against Jewell, Nowell, and other eminent protestant divines.

, an eminent English bishop, was descended from an ancient family, and was the youngest son of Robert Sanderson, of Gilthwaite-hall, Yorkshire, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Richard Carr, of Butterthwaite-hall, in the parish of Ecclesfield. He was born at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, Sept. 19, 1587, and educated in the grammar-school there, where he made so uncommon a progress in the languages, that, at thirteen, he was sent to Lincoln college in Oxford. Soon after taking his degree of B. A. his tutor told Dr. Kilbie, the rector, that his “pupil Sanderson had a metaphysical brain, and a matchless memory, and that he thought he had improved or made the last so by an art of his own invention.” While at college, he generally spent eleven hours a day in study, chiefly of philosophy and the classics. In 1606 he was chosen fellow, and in July 1608, completed his degree of M. A. In November of the same year, he was elected logic reader, and re-elected in Nov. 1609. His lectures on this subject were published in 1615, and ran through several editions. In 1613, 1614, and 1616, he served the office of sub-rector, and in the latter of those years, that of proctor. In 1611, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. King, bishop of London, and took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1617. In 1618, he was presented by his cousin sir Nicolas Sanderson, lord viscount Castleton, to the rectory of Wybberton, near Boston, in Lincolnshire, but resigned it the year following on account of the unhealthiness of its situation; and about the same time was collated to the rectory of Boothby-Paniiell, or Paynel, in the same county, which he enjoyed above forty years. Having now quitted his fellowship, he married Anne, the daughter of Henry Nelson, B. D. rector of Haugham in the county of Lincoln; and soon after was made a prebendary of Southwell, as he was also of Lincoln in 1629. He continued to attend to his parochial duties in a very exemplary manner, and particularly laboured much to reconcile differences, and prevent law-suits both in his parish, and in the neighbourhood. He also often visited sick and disconsolate families, giving advice and often pecuniary assistance, or obtaining the latter by applications to persons of opulence. He was often called upon to preach at assizes and visitations; but his practice of reading his sermons, as it was then not very common, raised some prejudice against him. Walton observes, that notwithstanding he had an extraordinary memory, he had such an innate bashfulness and sense of fear, as to render it of little use in the delivery of his sermons. It was remarked, when his sermons were printed in 1632, that “the best sermons that were ever read, were never preached.” At the beginning of the reign of Charles I. he was chosen one of the clerks in convocation for the diocese of Lincoln; and Laud, then bishop of London, having recommended him to that king as a man excellently skilled in casuistical learning, he was appointed chaplain to his majesty in 1631. When he became known to the king, his majesty put many cases of conscience to him, and received from him solutions which gave him so great satisfaction, that at the end of his month’s attendance, which was in November, the king told him, that “he should long for next November; for he resolved to have more inward acquaintance with him, when the month and he returned.” The king indeed was never absent from his sermons, and used to say, that “he carried his ears to hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson.” In 1633 he obtained, through the earl of Rutland’s interest, the rectory of Muston, in Leicestershire, which he held eight years. In Aug. 1636, when the court was entertained at Oxford, he was,‘ among others, created D. D. In 1642, he was proposed by both Houses of parliament to king Charles, who was then at Oxford, to be one of their trustees for the settling of church affairs, and approved by the king: but that treaty came to nothing. The same year, his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford, with the canonry of Christ church annexed: but the national calamities hindered him from entering on it till 1646, and then he did not hold it undisturbed much more than a year. In 1643, he was nominated by the parliament one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them neither did he take the covenant or engagement, so that his living was sequestered but, so great was his reputation for piety and learning, that he was not deprived of it. He had the’ chief hand in drawing up “The Reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn League and Covenant, the Negative Oath, and the Ordinances concerning Discipline and Worship:” and, when the parliament had sent proposals to the king for a peace in church and state, his majesty desired, that Dr. Sanderson, with the doctors Hammond, Sheldon, and Morley, should attend him, and advise him how far he might with a good conscience comply with those proposals. This request was rejected by the presbyterian party; but, it being complied with afterwards by the independents, when his majesty was at Hampton-court, and in the isle of Wight, in 1647 and 1648, those divines attended him there. Dr. Sanderson often preached before him, and had many public and private conferences with him, to his majesty’s great satisfaction. The king also desired him, at Hampton-court, since the parliament had proposed the abolishing of episcopal government as inconsistent with monarchy, that he would consider of it, and declare his judgment; and what he wrote upon that subject was afterwards printed in 1661, 8vo, under this title, “Episcopacy, as established by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal power.” At Sanderson’s taking leave of his majesty in this his last attendance on him, the king requested him to apply himself to the writing of “Cases of Conscience;” to which his answer was, that “he was now grown old, and unfit to write cases of conscience.” But the king told him plainly, “it was the simplest thing he ever heard from him; for, no young man was fit to be a judge, or write cases of conscience.” Upon this occasion, Walton relates the following anecdote: that in one of these conferences the king told Sanderson, or one of them that then waited with him, that “the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the earl of Stafford’s death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that, if God ever restored him to the peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and a voluntary penance, by walking barefoot from the Tower of London, or Whitehall, to St. Paul’s church, and would desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon.” In 1643, Dr. Sanderson was ejected from his professorship and canonry in Oxford by the parliamentary visitors, and retired to his living of Boothby-Pannel. Soon after, he was taken prisoner, and carried to Lincoln, to be exchanged for one Clarke, a puritan divine, and minister of Alington, who had been made prisoner by the king’s party. He was, however, soon released upon articles, one of which was, that the sequestration of his living should be recalled; by which means he enjoyed a moderate subsistence for himself, wife, and children, till the restoration. But, though the articles imported also, that he should live undisturbed, yet he was far from bein^r either quiet or safe, being once wounded, and several times plundered; and the outrage of the soldiers was such, that they not only came into his church, and disturbed him when reading prayers, but even forced the common prayer book from him, and tore it to pieces. During this retirement, he received a visit from Dr. Hammond, who wanted to discourse with him upon some points disputed between the Caivinists and Arminians; and he was often applied to for resolution in cases of conscience, several letters upon which subjects were afterwards printed*. In 1658, the hon, Robert Boyle sent him a present of 50l.; his circumstances, as of most of the royalists at that time, being very low. Boyle had read his lectures “De juramenti obligatione,” published the preceding year, with great satisfaction; and asked Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, if he thought Sanderson could be induced to write cases of conscience, provided he had an honorary pension allowed, to supply him with books and an amanuensis But Sanderson told Barlow, “that, if any future tract of his could bring any benefit to mankind, he would readily set about it without a pension.” Upon this, Boyle sent the above present by the hands of Barlow; and Sanderson presently revised, finished, and published, his book “De obligatione conscientiae,” which, as well as

In Aug. 1660, upon the restoration, he was restored to his professorship and canonry; and soon after, at the recommendation of Sheldon, raised to the bishopric of Lincoln, and consecrated Oct. 28. He enjoyed his new dignity but about two years and a quarter: during which time he did all the good in his power, by repairing the palace at Bugden, augmenting poor vicarages, &c. notwithstanding he was old, and had a family; and when his friends suggested a little more attention to them, he replied, that he left them to God, yet hoped he should be able at his death to give them a competency. He died Jan. 29, 1662-3, in his seventy-sixth year; and was buried in the chancel at Bugden, in the plainest and least expensive manner, according to his own directions. Dr. Sanderson was in his person moderately tall, of a healthy constitution, of a mild, cheerful, and even temper, and very abstemious. In his behaviour, he was affable, civil, and obliging, but not ceremonious. He was a man of great piety, modesty, learning and abilities, but not of such universal reading as might be supposed. Being asked by a friend, what books he studied most, when he laid the foundation of his great learning, he answered, that “he declined to read many books, but what he did read were well chosen, and read often; and added, that they were chiefly three, Aristotle’s ‘ Rhetoric,’ Aquinas’s ‘ Secunda Secunclse/ and Tully, but especially his ’ Offices,' which he had not read over less than twenty times, and could even in his old age recite without book.” He told him also, the learned civilian Dr. Zoucb had written “Elementa Jurisprudentioe,” which he thought he could also say without book, and that no wise man could read it too often. Besides his great knowledge in the fathers, schoolmen, and casuistical and controversial divinity, he was exactly versed in ancient and modern history, was a good antiquary, and indefatigable searcher into records, and well acquainted with heraldry and genealogies; of which last subject he left 20 vols. in ms. now in the library of sir Joseph Banks. The worthiest and most learned of his contemporaries speak of him in the most respectful terms: “That staid and well-weighed man Dr. Sanderson,” says Hammond, “conceives all things deliberately, dwells upon them discretely, discerns things that differ exactly, passeth his judgment rationally, and expresses it aptly, clearly, and honestly.” The moral character of this great and good man, Mr. Granger observes, has lately been rashly and feebly attacked by the author of the “Confessional,” and as ably defended by the author of “A Dialogue between Isaac Walton and Homologistes,” 1768. Every enemy to church government has been, for the same reason, an enemy to bishop Sanderson and every other prelate; but the uprightness and integrity of his heart, as a casuist, was never before called in question by any man who was not an entire stranger to his character. He saw and deplored, and did his utmost, honestly and rationally, to remedy the complicated ills of anarchy in church and state; when il every man projected and reformed, and did what was right in his own eyes. No image can better express such a condition, than that of a dead animal in a state of putrefaction, when, instead of one noble creature, as it was, when life held it together, there are ten thousand little nauseous reptiles growing out of it, every one crawling in a path of its own."

We shall now give some account of his writings, which, for good sense, clear reasoning, and manly style, have always been much esteemed. In 1615, he published, 1. “Logicse Artis Compendium,” as we have already mentioned. In 1671 appeared, as a posthumous work, his “Physicae scientiss compendium,” printed at Oxford. 2. “Sermons,” preached and printed at different times, amounting to the number of thirty-six, 1681, folio; with the author’s life by Walton prefixed. 3. “Nine Cases of Conscience resolved;” published at different times, but first collected in 1678, 8vo. The last of these nine cases is “Of the use of the Liturgy,” the very same tract which was published by Walton in his Life of Sanderson, 1678, under the title of “Bishop Sanderson’s judgment concerning submission to Usurpers.” In this tract is given a full account of the manner in which Dr. Sanderson conducted himself, in performing the service of the church, in the times of the usurpation. 4. “De Juramenti Obligatione,” 1647, 8vo; reprinted several times since, with, 5. “De Obligatione Conscientiae.” This last was first printed, as we have said, at the request of Mr. Boyle, and dedicated to him; tfye former, viz. “De Juramenti Obligatione,” was translated into English by Charles I., during his confinement in the Isle of Wight, and printed at London in 1655, 8vo; and of both there is an English translation, entitled “Prelections on the Nature and Obligation of promissory oaths and of conscience,” London, 1722, 3 vols. 8vo, 6, “Censure of Mr. Antony Ascham his book of the Confusions and Revolutions of Government,” 1649, 8vo. This Ascham was the rump parliament’s agent at Madrid, and was murdered there by some English royalists. 7. “Episcopacy, as established by Law in England, not prejudicial to the Regal Power,' 7 1661, mentioned before. 8.” Pax Ecciesiae about Predestination, or theFive Points;“printed at the end of his Life by Walton, 8vo. Our bishop seems at first to have been a strict Calvinist in those points: for in 1632, when twelve of hissermons were printed together, the reader may observe in the margin some accusations of Arminius for false doctrine; but in consequence of his conferences with Dr. Hammond, he relaxed from the rigid sense, as appears by some letters that passed between them, and which are printed in Hammond’s works. 9.” Discourse concerning the Church in these particulars: first, concerning the visibility of the true Church; secondly, concerning the Church of Rome,“&c. 1688 published by Dr. William Asheton, from a ms copy, which he had from Mr. Pullen, the bishop’s domestic chaplain. 10. A large preface to a book of Usher’s, written at the special command of Charles I. and entitled,” The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the Obedience required of the Subject,“&c. 1661, 4to, and 1633, 8vo. 11. A prefatory Discourse, in defence of Usher and his writings, prefixed to a collection of learned treatises, entitled,” Clavi Trabales; or, nails fastened by some great masters of atsemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subjects’ duty, and church government by bishops,“1661, 4to. 12.” Prophecies concerning the return of Popery,“inserted in a book entitled” Fair Warning, the second part,“London, 1663. This volume contains also several extracts from the writings of Whitgift and Hooker, and was published with a view to oppose the sectaries, who were said to be opening a door at which popery would certainly enter. 13.” The preface to the Book of Common Prayer,“beginning with these words,” It hath been the wisdom of the church.“14.” Ectvo/X^, seu Explanatio Juramenti,“&c. inserted in the” Excerpta e corpore statutorum Univ. Oxon.“p. 194. It was written to explain the oath of obligation to observe the penal statutes. 15.” Articles of Visitation and Inquiry concerning matters ecclesiastical,“&c. Lotid. 1662, 4to. Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Hammond were jointly concerned in a work entitled” A pacific discourse of God’s grace and decrees,“and published by the latter in 1660. In the preface to the Polygiott, Dr. Bryan Walton has classed Dr. Sanderson among those of his much honoured friends who assisted him in that noble work. Peck, in the second volume of his” Desiderata Curiosa,“has published the” History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin St. Mary at Lincoln: containing an exact copy of all the ancient monumental inscriptions there, in number 163, as they stood in 1641, most of which were soon after torn up, or otherways defaced. Collected by Robert Sanderson, S.T. P. afterwards lord bishop of that church, and compared with and corrected by sir William DugdaleVMS survey."

, an Italian ecclesiastical historian, was born June 31, 1692, and became, by the interest of his bishop, cardinal Rezzonico, who was afterwards pope Clement XIII. librarian and professor of ecclesiastical history at Padua, where he died, Feb. 23, 1751, in the fiftynrnth year of his age. He is known principally by his “Vitae Pontificum Romanorum,” Ferrara, 174-8, reprinted under the title of “Basis Historic Ecclesiasticae.” He also wrote “Historic Familiae Sacne;”. “HistoriaS. S. Apostolorum;” “Disputationes XX ex Historia Ecclesiastica ad Vitas Pontificum Romanorum,” and “Dissertations,” in defence of the “Historic Familiie Sacrae,” which father Serry had attacked.

After nine weeks confinement in the Marshalsea, he was set at liberty, by the intercession of sir Thomas Holcroft, knight-marshal. This, however, was not accomplished without much difficulty, and so intent was Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, on bringing Sandys to the stake, that it required some management on the part of sir Thomas before he could succeed; and no sooner was Sandys liberated than Gardiner, being told that he had set at liberty one of the greatest heretics in the kingdom, procured orders to be issued to all the constables of London to search for, and apprehend him. In Sandys* s final escape, as related by his late biographer, the hand of Providence was strikingly visible. While he was in the Tower, wanting a pair of new hose, a tailor was sent for, who, not being permitted to measure him, had made them too long, and While he was now concealed at the house of one Hurleston, a skinner in Cornhill, he sent them, as Hurleston’s own, to a tailor to be shortened. This happened to be honest Benjamin the maker, a good protestant, who immediately recognized his own handy work, and required to be shown, to the house where Dr. Sandys was, that he might speak with him for his good. At midnight he was admitted, and informed Dr. Sandys, that all the constables of the city, of whom he himself was one, were employed to apprehend him, thai it was well known that his servant had provided two geldings, and that he meant to ride out at Aldgate tomorrow. “But,” said he, “follow my advice, and, by God’s grace, you shall escape. Let your man walk all the day to-morrow in the street where your horses are stabled, booted and prepared for a journey. The servant of the man of the house shall take the horses to Bethnalgreen. The man himself shall follow, and be booted as if he meant to ride. About eight in the morning I will be with you, and here we will break our fast. It is both term and parliament time, and the street by that hour will be full of people; we will then go forth look wildly, and, if you meet your own brother in the street, do not shun, but outface him, and assure him that you know him not.” Dr. Sand3's accordingly complied, and came out at the appointed hour, clothed in all respects as a layman and a gentleman. Benjamin carried him through bye-lanes to Moorgate, where the horses were ready, and Hurleston as his man. That night he rode to his father-in-law’s house, but had not been there two hours, when intelligence was brought, that two of, the guard had been dispatched to apprehend him, and would be there that night. He was then immediately conducted to the house of a farmer near the sea-side, where he remained two days and two nights in a solitary chamber. Afterwards he removed to the house of one James Mower, a ship-master, near Milton-shore, where was a fleet of merchant-men awaiting a wind for Flanders. While he was there, Mower gathered a congregation of forty or fifty seamen, to whom he gave an exhortation, with which they were so much delighted, that they promised to defend him at the expence of their lives. On Sunday May 6, he embarked in the. same vessel with Dr. Coxe, afterwards bishop of Ely, and the ship was yet in sight, when two of the guard arrived on the shore to apprehend Dr. Sandys.

At Worcester began the inquietudes and vexations which pursued bishop Sandys through his latter days. The papists in his diocese hated him, and he was at no pains to conciliate them. At Hartlebury, in particular, it was his misfortune to have for his neighbour sir John Browne, a bigoted papist, who took every opportunity to insult the bishop, and to deride his wife (for he had by this time married Cecily, sister of sir Thomas Wilford), by calling her " My Lady‘,’ 7 a style which in the novelty of their situation, some of the bishop’s wives really pretended to; so that in conclusion a great affray took place between the bishop’s servants and those of the knight, in which several were wounded on both sides. At Worcester Dr. Sandys remained till 1570, when on the translation of his friend Grindal to York, he succeeded him in the see of London, a station for which he was eminently qualified by his talents as a preacher, and as a governor. During this period, he had interest to procure for his kinsman Gilpin, a nomination to the bishopric of Carlisle, but Gilpin refused it. At London, Dr. Sandys sat six years, when he was translated to York, on the removal of Grindal to Canterbury.

Of the decline of archbishop Sandys’ s age, and of the particular disorder which brought him to his grave, no circumstances are recorded. He died at Southwell, July 10, 1588, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the collegiate church of that place. He was the first English bishop who, by his prudence or parsimony, laid the foundation of a fortune in his family, which has justified their subsequent advancement to a peerage. With his father’s savings, the manor of Ombersley, in Worcestershire, was purchased by sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son, whose descendants, since ennobled by the family name, still remain in possession of that fair and ample domain. There also the archbishop’s portrait, together with that of Cicely his second wife, is still preserved. She survived to 1610, and has a monument at Woodham Ferrers, in Essex, where she died.

Sandys distinguished himself also as a poet; and his productions in that way were greatly admired in the times they were written. In 1632 he published “Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished, mythologized, and represented in figures,” Oxford, in folio. Francis Cleyn was the inventor of the figures, and Solomon Savary the engraver. He had before published part of this translation; and, in the preface to this second edition, he tells us, that he has attempted to collect out of sundry authors the philosophical sense of the fables of Ovid. To this work, which is dedicated to Charles I. is subjoined “An Essay to the translation of the jEneis.” It was reprinted in 1640. In 1636, he published, in 8vo, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms of David, and upon the Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testament,” 1636, 8vo, reprinted in 1638, folio; with a title somewhat varied, This was a book which, Wood tells us, Charles I. delighted to read, when a prisoner in Carisbrooke castle. There was an edition of J 640, with the Psalms set to music, by Lawes. In this last year he published, in 12rno, a sacred drama, written originally by Grotius, under the title of “Christus Patiens,” and which Mr. Sandys, in his translation, has called “Christ’s Passion,” on which, and “Adamus Exul,” and Masenius, is founded Lauder’s impudent charge of plagiarism against Milton. This translation was reprinted, with cuts, in 1688, $vo. The subject of it was treated before in Greek by Apollinarius bishop of Hierapolis, and after him by Gregory Nazianzen; but, according to Sandys, Grotius excelled all others. Langbaine tells us, with regard to Sandys’ translation, that “he will be allowed an excellent artist in it by learned judges; and he has followed Horace’s advice of avoiding a servile translation, * nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres’ so he comes so near the sense of his author, that nothing is lost; no spirits evaporate in the decanting of it into English; and, if there be any sediment, it is left behind.” He published also a metrical paraphrase of “The Song of Solomon,” London, 1641, 4to, dedicated to the King, and reprinted in 1648 with his “Psalms.” There are but few incidents known concerning our author. All who mention him agree in bestowing on him the character, not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety. For the most part of his latter days he lived with sir Francis Wenman, of Caswell, near Witney in Oxfordshire, to whom his sister was married; probably chusing that situation in some measure on account of its proximity to Burford, the retirement of his intimate acquaintance and valuable friend Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who addressed some elegant poems to him, preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” with several by Mr. Sandys, who diejl at the house of his nephew, sir Francis Wyat, at Boxley in Kent, in 1643; and was interred in the* chancel of that parish-church, without any inscription but in the parish register is this entry “Georgius Sandys poetarum Anglorum sui sseculi facile princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7, Stilo Angliae, ann. Dom. 164$.” His memory has also been handed down by various writers, with the respect thought due to his great worth and abilities. Mr. Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age, but objects to his “Ovid,” as too close and literal; and Mr. Pope declared, in his notes to the Iliad, that English poetry owed much of its present beauty to his translations. Dr. Warton thinks that Sandys did more to polish and tune the English versification than Den ham or Waller, who are usually applauded on this subject; yet his poems are not now much read. The late biographer of his father observes, that “the expressive energy of his prose will entitle him to a place among English classics, when his verses, some of which arebeautiful, shall be forgotten. Of the excellence of his style, the dedication of his travels to prince Henry, will afford a short and very conspicuous example.”

, a secular priest, who was sometimes called Smith, and sometimes Holland, was born at Barrow in Lincolnshire, about 1621, and admitted of St. John’s college in Cambridge April 12, 1639, by the masters and seniors of which he was recommended to be secretary to Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of Durham. While in this employment he entered on a course of reading, which ended in his embracing the popish religion. He then went over to the English college of secular priests at Lisbon in 1642; and, after studying there some time, he returned to England in 1652, and was elected secretary of the secular clergy, and employed in propagating his religion, and writing books in defence of it, particularly against Dr. Hammond, Dr. Bramhall, Dr. Thomas Pierce, Dr. Tillotson, Casaubon, Taylor, Tenison, Stillingfleet, Whitby, &c. In the course of his controversies he wrote about forty volumes or pamphlets, the titles of which may be seen in Dodd. He had also a controversy with the superiors of his own communion, of which Dodd gives a long, but now very uninteresting account. He died, as his biographer says, with the pen in his hand, in 1707, in the eighty-sixth year of his age.

At this time he was in his twentieth year, and defended in a public assembly at Mantua, several difficult propositions in natural philosophy and divinity, with such uncommon genius and learning, that the duke of Mantua, a great patron of letters, appointed him his chaplain, at the same time that the bishop of that city made him reader of canon law and divinity in his cathedral. These employments animated him to improve himself in Hebrew; and he applied also with much vigour to the study of history, in which he was afterwards to shine. During his stay at Mantua he became acquainted with many eminent persons; and his patron, the duke, obliged him to dispute with persons of all professions, and on all subjects. Paul had a profound knowledge in the mathematics, but the utmost contempt for judicial astrology: “We cannot, 17 he used to say,” either find out, or we cannot avoid, what will happen hereafter." Fulgentio, his biographer, relates a ludicrous story, in which his patron appears to have been a chief actor. The duke, who loved to soften the cares of government with sallies of humour, having a mare ready to foal a mule, engaged Paul to take the horoscope of the animal’s nativity. This being done, and the scheme settled, the duke sent it to all the famous astrologers in Europe, informing them, that under such an aspect a bastard was born in the duke’s palace. The astrologers returned very different judgments; some asserting that this bastard would be a cardinal, others a great warrior, others a bishop, and others a pope, and these wise conjectures tended not a little to abate the credulity of the times.

How scandalous soever this design against his life was, it was attempted again more than once, even by monks of his own order: but the senate took all imaginable precautions for his security, and he himself determined to live more privately. In his recess, he applied himself to write his “History of the Council of Trent,” for which he had begun to collect materials long before. Walton tells us, that the contests between the court of Rome and the senate of Venice “were the occasion of father Paul’s knowledge and interest with king James, for whose sake principally he compiled that eminent history of the remarkable council of Trent; which history was, as fast as it was written, sent in several sheets in letters by sir Henry Wotton, Mr. Bedell, and others, unto king James, and the then bishop of Canterbury, into England.” Wotton relates, that James himself “had a hand in it; for the benefit,” he adds, “of the Christian world.” This history was first published by sir Nath. Brent (See Brent), at London, in 1619, in folio, under the feigned name of Pietro Soave Polano, which is an anagram of Paolo Sarpi Venetiano, and dedicated to James I. by Antony de Dominis, archbishop of Spalatro. It was afterwards translated into Latin, English, French, and other languages; and a new translation of it into French by Dr. le Courayer, with notes critical, historical, and theological, was published at London, 1736, 2 rols. folio. Burnet’s account of this work may serve to shew the opinion which Protestants of all communities have ever entertained of it: “The style and way of writing,” says he, “is so natural and masculine, the intrigues were so fully opened, with so many judicious reflections in all the parts of it, that as it was read with great pleasure, so it was generally looked on as the rarest piece of history which the world ever saw. The author was soon guessed, and that raised the esteem of the work: for as he was accounted one of the wisest men in the world, so he had great opportunities to gather exact informations. He had free access to all the archives of the republic of Venice, which lias been now looked on for several ages as very exact, both in getting good intelligence, and in a most careful way of preserving it: so that among their records he must have found the dispatches of the ambassadors and prelates of that republic, who were at Trent; which being so near them, and the council being of such high consequence, it is not to be doubted, but there were frequent and particular informations, both of more public and secreter transactions transmitted thither. He had also contracted a close friendship with Camillus Oliva, that was secretary to one of the legates, from whom he had many discoveries of the practices of the legates, and of their correspondence with Rome: besides many other materials and notes of some prelates who were at Trent, which he had gathered together. His work came out within fifty years of the conclusion of the council, when several, who had been present there, were still alive; and the thing was so recent in men’s memories, that few thought a man of so great prudence as he was would have exposed his reputation, by writing in such a nice manner things which he could not justify. Never was there a man more hated by the court of Rome than he was; and now he was at their mercy, if he had abused the world by such falsehoods in matter of fact, as have been since charged on his work; but none appeared against him for fifty years.”

, doctor of law and divinity, curate of St. Leu, at Paris, official and grand vicar in the same city, and afterwards bishop of Toul, was born about 1595, at Paris. He was preacher in ordinary to Louis XIII. who had a great esteem for him, and by whose order he wrote the “Marty rologiu in Gallicanum,” 1638, 2 vols. fol. M. du Saussay succeeded Paul de Fiesque in the diocese of Toul, 1649, and discovered great zeal in the government of his church, and died September 9, 1675, at Toul, aged eighty. He left many works besides that above mentioned, which contain great learning, but shew very little critical knowledge.

The first effort of his uncultivated genius was a poem against Hoadly, bishop of Bangor; of which the author was afterwards ashamed. He then attempted to write for the stage, but with little success: yet this attempt was attended with some advantage, as it introduced him to the acquaintance of sir Richard Sieele and Mr. Wilks. Whilst he was in dependence on these gentlemen, he was an assiduous frequenter of the theatres, and never absent from a play in several years. In 1723 he brought a tragedy on the stage, in which himself performed a part, the subject of which was “Sir Thomas Overbury.” If we consider the circumstances under which it was written, it will afford at once an uncommon proof of strength of genius, and an evenness of mind not to be ruffled. Whilst he was employed upon this work, he was without a lodging, and often without food nor had he any other conveniences for study than the fields or the street and, when he had formed a speech, he would step into a shop, and beg the use of pen, ink, and paper. The profits of thjs play amounted to about 200l.; and it procured him the notice and esteem of many persons of distinction, some rays of genius glimmering through all the clouds of poverty and oppression. But, when the world was beginning to behold him with a more favourable eye, a misfortune befel him, by which not only his reputation, but his life, was in danger. In a night-ramble he fell into a coffee-house of ill-fame, near Charing-Cross; when a quarrel happened, and one Mr. Sinclair was killed in the fray. Savage, with his companion, was taken into custody, tried for murder, and capitally convicted of the offence. His mother was so inhuman, at this critical juncture, as to use all means to prejudice the queen against him, and to intercept all the hopes he had of life from the royal mercy; but at last the countess of Hertford, out of compassion, laid a true account of the extraordinary story and sufferings of poor Savage before her majesty; and obtained his pardon.

By his first wife, daughter of Henry Spencer, earl of Sunderland, he had a son William, who succeeded him; and by a second wife, the daughter of William Pierrepoint, second son of Robert earl of Kingston, he had a daughter Gertrude, who was married to Philip Stanhope, third earl of Chesterfield, and was mother to the celebrated earl, who, says Maty, may be perhaps justly compared to his grandfather in extent of capacity, fertility of genius, and brilliancy of wit. They both, adds he, distinguished themselves in parliament by their eloquence; at court, by their knowledge of the world; in company, by their art of pleasing. They were both very useful to their sovereigns, though not much attached either to the prerogative or to the person of any king. They both knew, humoured, and despised the different parties. The Epicurean philosophy was their common study. William, the second marquis of Halitax, died in 1699, when the dignity became extinct in his family, but was revived in 1700 in the person of Charles Montague. The -marquis William left three daughters Anne, married to Charles Bruce, earl of Aylesbury Dorothy, to Richard Boyle, the last earl of Burlington; and Mary, to Sackville Tuftou, earl of Thanet. George,: marquis of Halifax, was the author of some tracts, written with considerable spirit and elegance. Besides his “Character of a Trimmer,” he wrote “Advice to a Daughter;” “The Anatomy of an Equivalent;” “A Letter to a Dissenter, upon his Majesty’s laie Glorious Declaration of Indulgences;” “A rough Draught of a new Model at Sea, in 1694;” “Maxims of State.” Ah which were printed together after his death; and the third edition came out in 1717, 8vo. Since these, /there was alsa published under his name, “The Character of king Charles the Second to which is subjoined, Maxims of State, &c,” 1750, 8vo. “Character of Bishop Burnet,” printed at the end of his “History of his own Times;” “Historical Observations upon the Reigns of Edward I. II. III. and Richard II. with Remarks upon their faithful Counsellors and false Favourites,” 1689. He also left memoirs of his own times* from a journal which he kept every day of all the conversations which he had with Charles II. and the most distinguished men of his time. Of these memoirs two fair copies were made, one of which fell into the hands of Daniel earl, of Nottingham, and was destroyed by him. The other devolved on the marquis’s grand-daughter, lady Burlington, in whose possession it long remained; but Pope, as the late lord Orford informed Mr. Mai one, finding, on a perusal of these memoirs, that the papists of those days were represented in an unfavourable light, prevailed on her to burn them; and thus the public have been deprived of probably a curious and valuable work.

, a most learned man, and a great benefactor to the learning of his country, was the son of Henry Savile of Bradley, in the township of Stainland, in the parish of Halifax, Yorkshire, by Ellen, daughter of Robert Ramsden. He was born at Bradley, Nov. 30, 1549, and first entered of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, whence he was elected to Merton-college in 1561, where he took the degrees in arts, and was chosen fellow. When he proceeded master of arts in 1570, he read for that degree on the Almagest of Ptolemy, which procured him the reputation of a man wonderfully skilled in mathematics and the Greek language; in the former of which, he voluntarily read a public lecture in the university for some time. Having now great interest, he was elected proctor for two years together, 1575 and 1576, an honour not very common, for as the proctors were then chosen out of the whole body of the university, by the doctors and masters, and the election was not, as now, confined to particular colleges, none but men of learning, and such as had considerable interest, durst aspire to that honour. In 1578 he visited the continent, became acquainted with various learned foreigners, and obtained many valuable Mss. or copies of them. He is said to have returned a man of high accomplishment*, and was made tutor in the Greek tongue to queen Elizabeth, or, as it is otherwise expressed, he read Greek and mathematics with her majesty, who had a great esteem for him. In 1585 he was made warden of Mertoncollege, which he governed six and thirty years with great credit, and greatly raised its reputation for learning, by a judicious patronage of students most distinguished for talents and industry. In 1596, he was chosen provost of Eton-college, of which society also he increased the fame by rilling it with the most learned men, among whom was the ever-memorable John Hales. It is said, however, that he incurred some odium among the younger scholars by his severity, and his dislike of those who were thought sprightly wi s. He used to say, “Give me the plodding student. If I would look for wits, I would go to Newgate, there be the wits.” John Earte, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, was the only scholar he ever accepted on the recommendation of being a wit. James 1. upon his accession to the crown of England, expressed a particular regard for him, and would have preferred him either in church or state; but sir Henry declined it, and only accepted the honour of knighthood from his majesty at Windsor on Sept. 21, 1604. His only son dying about that time, he devoted his fortune entirely to the promoting of learning. In 1619 he founded two lectures, or professorships, one in geometry, the other in astronomy, in the university of Oxford; which he endowed each with a salary of 160l. a year, besides a legacy of 600l. for purchasing more lands for the same use. In the preamble of the deed, by which a salary was annexed to these two professorships, it is expressly said that “geometry was almost totally unknown and abandoned in England.” Briggs was his first professor of geometry; but Aubrey says, on the authority of bishop Ward, that he first sent for Gunter for that purpose, who, coming with his sector and quadrant, “fell to resolving of triangles and doing a great many fine things. Said the grave knight, ‘ Do you call this reading of Geometric This is shewing of tricks, man,’ and so dismissed him with scorne, and sent for Brings.” Sir Henry also furnished a library with mathematical hooks near the mathematical school, for the use of his professors; and gave 100l. to the mathematical chest of his own appointing; adding afterwards a legacy of 4C/. a year to the same chest, to the university and to his professors jointly. He likewise gave 120l. towards the new-building of the schools; several rare manuscripts and printed books to the Bodleian library; and a good quantity of matrices and Greek types to the printingpress at Oxford. Part of the endowment of the professorships was the manor of Little Hays in Essex. He died, at Eton -college, Feb. 19, 1621-2, and was buried in the chapel there, on the south side of the communion table, near the body of his son Henry, with an inscription on a black marble stone. The university of Oxford paid him the greatest honours, by having a public speech and verses made in his praise, which were published soon after in 4to, under the title of “Ultima Linea Savilii,” and a sumptuous honorary monument was erected to his memory on the south wall, at the upper end of the choir of Merton- college chapel. Sir Henry Savile, by universal consent, ranks among the most learned men of his time, and the most liberal patrons of learning; and with great justice the highest encomiums are bestowed on him by all the learned of his time: by Isaac Casaubon, Mercerus, Meibomius, Joseph Scaliger, and especially the learned bishop Montagu; who, in his “Diatribes” upon Selden’s “History of Tithes,” styles him “that magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honourable amongst not only the learned, but the righteous for ever.”

, an eminent lawyer in the seventeenth century, was a member of Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M.A. in 1655,. and was the same year admitted ad eundem at Oxford. He was afterwards a benefactor to the library of his college. After studying law at the Inner Temple, he was admitted to the bar, and had a large share of practice fit London, and on the Oxford circuit. In 1661 he was knighted, and in Feb. 1680, was appointedattorney-general, As a lawyer he formed himself after the lord chief justice Hale, under whom he practised, and of whom he was a just admirer. Like that excellent person, he was a man of general learning, and, according to Granger, of an integrity that nothing could corrupt; but bishop Burnet represents him as a dull hot man, and forward to serve all the designs of the court. Had this been always the case, however, king James would not have dismissed him from the office of attorney general, which he did in 1687, because he perceived that sir Robert could not have been prevailed upon to njould the laws to such purposes as were never intended by the legislatureOn the other hand, Granger allows that he was justly censured for his harsh treatment of lord Russel on his trial, and it is certain that he supported some of king James’s arbitrary measures, being the manager in depriving the city of London of its charter. At the time of the revolution, he sat as member of parliament for the university of Cambridge, and was expelled the house for being concerned, as attorney-general, in the prosecution of sir Thomas Armstrong, who was executed for being one of the conspirators in the Rye-house plot. In the next sessions he was re-chosen, and appears to have sat quietly for the remainder of his life. He died in 1692, at Highclear in Hampshire, where he had an estate, and rebuilt the parish church. His only daughter married the earl of Pembroke, and died in 1706. Under his name, and those of Heneage Finch, sir George Treby, and Henry Pollexfen, were published in 1690, folio, “Pleadings and arguments with other proceedings in the court of king’s bench upon the Quo Warranto, touching the charter of the city of London, with the judgment entered thereupon.”

, a Danish historian, is supposed to have been a native of Denmark, but this has been a disputed point. As to his name Sachse, it is evident from many monuments of Danish antiquity, that it is of no obscure or late origin in the history of Denmark. Saxo himself calls the Danes his countrymen, Denmark his country; and speaking of the kings, he terms them our kings. Some attribute his origin to Ambria, others with more reason to Sialandia, a Danish island. The name Scalandicus is also added to that of Saxo, in some editions of his works. He has been called Longus, which has induced some to attribute his descent to the noble family of the Langii. Others have rather chosen to ascribe this name to the height of his stature. Saxo, in his preface, speaks of his ancestors as having been distinguished in war, which indicates that they were of no ignoble race. His name of Grammaticus was titular, and expressive of his attainments in literature. There are different opinions concerning the year of his birth. It is, however, certain that he flourished in the twelfth century. Carpzovius endeavoured, by some acute and subtile reasonings, to ascertain the date. The education of Saxo is equally involved in uncertainty. Pontoppidan supposes that he studied at Paris,and there acquired the eleg.ance of style for which he afterwards was distinguished. It is certain, that in the 12th century the Cimbri and the Danes frequently went to France for education. It may, however, be doubted, whether in the rage for trifle which then prevailed at Paris, Saxo could have procured a master who was capable of instructing him. We must be rather inclined to suppose that he owed his attainments to his own industry and talents. It appears that he applied to theology, for we find him appointed capitular in the bishopric of Lundens, and afterwards a prefect in the cathedral of Roschiid. While he 'filled this office he was sent, in 1161, by Absalon, the bishop of Roschiid, to Paris, with a view of inviting some monks from St. Genevieve, who might correct^the depraved morals of those which belonged to Eskilsco. William Abbas accepted the invitation of Saxo, and three brothers followed him. These monks introduced into Denmark the monastic discipline which had been prescribed by St. Augustine. Various opinions have been offered about the date of Saxo’s death. Pontanus supposes it to have been in the year 1208. Some conjecture the time to have been 1190, others in 1201. But, when we reflect that in his preface he speaks of Waldemar II. who ascended the throne of Denmark in 1203, and that Andrew Suno, to whom the history is dedicated, succeeded Absalon in the bishopric in 1202, we cannot agree with those who have adopted the earlier dates. Though some others have fixed the date in 1204, and others in 1206, the general opinion is, that he died in 1208, aged upwards of seventy. He was buried in the cathedral of Roschild. Three centuries afterwards, an inscription was’ added to his tomb by Lago Urne, bishop of Scalandre. Though more elegant verses might have been invented, says Klotzius, none could have been more true.

Absalon, bishop of Roschild, first instigated Saxo to undertake the history of Denmark, and assisted him with his advice and with books. Saxo employed twenty years in accomplishing his undertaking, and at last rendered it worthy the expectations of Absalon who, however, died be* fore the history was completed, which Saxo inscribed to Andrew Suno, who was the successor to the see. After remaining in ms. for three hundred years, Christianus Petra3us undertook the publication, having received the manuscript accurately written from Bergeius the archbishop of Lundens. It was delivered to be printed to Jodocus Radius Ascensius, and was published at Paris in 1514, and re-published at Basil, in 1534, by Oporinus. A third edition appeared at Francfort on the Maine, in 1576. At last, Stephanus Johannes Stephanius, historian to the king, and professor of eloquence and history in the university of Sora, with the aid of some Danish nobles, and the liberal contribution of the king, was enabled to publish an edition of Saxo, in folio, printed at Sora, 1644. A second part of the volume appeared in the following year, containing the “Prolegomena,” and copious notes. There is a later edition by Christ. Adolphus Klotz, printed at Leipsic in 1771, 4to, and there are several Danish translations. The credibility of Saxo is somewhat doubtful, but his style is good, and much praised by critics of authority.

He was taught Latin at home, and, according to his son, had for his preceptor John Jocundus of Verona, whom he himself in various parts of his works mentions as his master; but even this circumstance his opponents are not disposed to credit, and tell us, that as he was the descendant of princes, it was necessary to provide him with a preceptor like Jocundus, who was a man not only of high character, but a gentleman by birth. They also add some circumstances which certainly make it doubtful whether Scaliger really was taught by Jocundus, because it was neither by his knowledge of Latin, nor by philosophy or theology, that Jocundus acquired his reputation, but by his skill in the fine arts. (See Jocundus,) It appears, however, less questionable, that at the age of twelve Scaliger was presented to the emperor Maximilian, who made him one of his pages, and that he served that emperor seventeen years, and gave proofs of his valour and dexterity in several expeditions, in which he attended his master. He was at the battle of Ravenna in 1512, in which he lost his father and brother Titus, whose bodies he conveyed to Ferrara, where his mother resided, who some time after died wkj> grief. His father dying in narrow circumstances, Scaliger found himself almost without a maintenance, and therefore resolved to enter into the Franciscan order, for which purpose he went to Bologna, and applied himself vigorously to study, especially to logic and Scotus’s divinity; but changing his views of the ecclesiastical profession, he agaiiv entered into the army, and served some time in Piedmont. A physician, whom he knew at Turin, persuaded him to study physic and accordingly he prosecuted it at his leisure hours, while he was in the army he likewise learned the Greek language, of which he had been entirely ignorant till then. At length, frequent attacks of the gout determined him, at forty years of age, to abandon a military life, and devote himself entirely to the profession of physic. In this he had already acquired both skill and fame, and the bishop of Agen, being indisposed, and apprehending some need of a physician in his journey to his diocese, requested Scaliger to attend him. Scaliger consented upon condition that he should not stay at Ageu above eight days: there, however, he conceived an attachment for a young lady, said to be not more than thirteen years of age, and remained at Agen waiting for her parents’ consent. That obtained, he married her in 1529, lived with her twenty-nine years, and had fifteen children by her, seven of whom survived him. Whatever his origin, he must have been now a man of some consideration, for this lady was of a noble and opulent family.

, an eminent physician and mathematician, was born about 1616. After the usual classical education he was admitted of Caius college, Cambridge, in 1632, and took his first degree in arts in 1636. He was then elected to a fellowship, and commencing A. M. in 1640, he took pupils. In the mean time, intending to pursue medicine as his profession, he applied himself to all the preparatory studies necessary for that art. Mathematics constituted one of these studies: and the prosecution of this science having obtained him the acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards bishop) Seth Ward, then of Emanuel college, they mutually assisted each other in their researches. Having met with some difficulties in Mr. Ougbtred’s “Clavis Mathematical which appeared to them insuperable, they made a joint visit to the author, then at his living of Aldbury, in Surrey. Mr. Oughtred (See Oughtred) treated them with great politeness, being much gratified to see these ingenious young men apply so zealously to these studies, and in a short time fully resolved all their questions. They returned to Cambridge complete masters of that excellent treatise, and were the first that read lectures upon it there. In the ensuing civil wars, Mr. Scarborough became likewise a joint sufferer with his fellow-student for the royal cause, being ejected from his fellowship at Caius. Upon this reverse of fortune he withdrew to Oxford, and entering himself at Merton college, was incorporated A.M. of that university, 23d of June, 1646. The celebrated Dr. Harvey was then warden of that college, and being employed in writing his treatise” De Generatione Animaiium,“gladly accepted the assistance of Mr. Scarborough. The latter also became acquainted with sir Christopher Wren, then a gentleman commoner of Wadham college, and engaged him to translate” Oughtred’s Geometrical Dialling" into Latin, which was printed in 1649.

, a learned German, was born at Nuys, in the electorate of Cologne, 1646; his father was a major in the army of the landgrave of Hesse Cassel. He was educated for the church at Dxiisbourg; and, having rnacle the Oriental tongues his particular study, became professor of them in that university in 1677. In 1679 he removed to Leyden, to fill the same post for a larger stipend.; aud there continued till 1729, when, he died of an apoplexy. He published some useful books in the Oriental way as, 1. “Opus Aramseum, complectens Grammaticam Chaldaicam & Syriacam,” 1686, 8vo. 2. “Nq-, vuin Testamenturn Syriacum, cum versione Latina,” 1708,' 4to. The Latin version is that of Tii./melHus retouched. Leusdeu laboured jointly with hini in this work till death, which happened when they were got to Luke xv. 20 and, Scbaaf wrote the remainder by himself. At the end of it is subjoined, “Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale.” 3. “Epitome Grammaticae Hebraicae,” 1716, 8vo. 4. “A Letter in Syriac of the bishop Mar Thomas, written from, Malabar to the patriarch of Antioch, and a Latin version by himself,” 1714, 4to. 5. “Sermo Academicus de Linguarum Orientalium scientia,” an Inauguration-Speech, In 1711 he drew up, at the request of the curators of the academy at Leyden, a catalogue of all the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Samaritan books and manuscripts in the li^ brary there; which was joined to the catalogue of that library t published in 1714.

As a teacher, professor Schultens had the happy talent of rendering the driest subjects plain and interesting to his pupils. This was particularly the case with the principles of the Hebrew grammar, an intimate and accurate knowledge of which he recommended as indispensably necessary to all who wished to understand the Old Testament in the original language. In translating and explaining the Bible, he preserved a judicious medium between those who^ thought the Hebrew text too sacred to be the subject of criticism; and those who, like Houbigant, without a sufficient acquaintance with the genius of the language, ventured on needless alterations. Hence he was. much displeased with a work by professor Kocherus of Berne, entitled “Vindiciue sacri textus Hebraei Esaiae vatis, adversus 11. Lowthi criticam;” concerning which he said, in a letter to Dr. Findlay, of Glasgow, “It violates the bounds of moderation and decency by the assertion that the text of Isaiah could not gain any thing by Dr. Lowth’s conjectures. I am of a very different opinion. When at Oxford and London, I was intimately acquainted with bishop Lowth, had an opportunity of knowing his excellent disposition, and am therefore much vexed that Kocherus, from his fiery zeal against innovation, should have been induced to treat him with seventy, as if the bishop had been a rash and petulant critic.” Schultens’s sentiments on this subject are more fully expressed in some articles which he wrote for the “Bihliotheca Critica,” published by Wyttenbach, particularly in the review of Kennicoi’s Bible. These judicious sentiments, together with his extensive abilities and knowledge of the subject, his eulogist observes, rendered him admirably qualified to have given a new version of the Old Testament. This at one time he designed, and nearly finished a translation of the book of Job, which was published after his death by Herman Muntinge, 1794, 8vo, but his sentiments of this portion of sacred writ are so much at variance with those of the most able and popular commentators, that we question if it will meet with general approbation.

, an eminent naturalist, was born in 1725, at Cavalese, in the bishopric of Trent. He studied at Inspruck, and at twenty years old obtained the degree of licentiate in medicine, and afterwards was intrusted with the care of the hospitals of Trent, and of hi* native town Cavalese; but as this stage was too small for his ambition, he requested that his parents would permit him to go to Venice. In that city, under the auspices of Lo taria Lotti, he extended his knowledge of medicine, and added to it a more intimate acquaintance with pharmacy, botany, and natural history. On his return he traversed the mountains of Tirol and Carniola, where he laid the foundation of his “Flora” and “Entomologia Carniolica.” In 1754- he accompanied count de Firmian, prince bishop, and afterwards cardinal, to Gratz, from whence he went to Vienna to obtain a diploma to practice in the Austrian dominions. His examination is said to have been rigorous, and his thesis on a new method of classing plants to have been received with great regard. The friendship of Van Swieten, if in this instance it can be called friendship, procured him the office of first physician to the Austrian miners of Tirol. In this banishment he continued more than ten years; for it was only in 1766, after repeated solicitations, that he obtained the post of counsellor in the mining department, and professor of mineralogy at Schemnitz; but in this interval he produced his “Anni tres Historico-naturales,” 1769 to 1771, 8vo. In this new office he was indefatigable in teaching, exploring new mines, composing different works on fossils, and improving the method of treating minerals; but after ten years’ labour, he was not able to obtain the newly-established chair of natural history at Vienna; yet soon after his attempt, about the end of 1776, he was appointed professor of chemistry and botany at Pavia. In this situation he published some pharmaceutical essays, translated and greatly augmented Macquer’s Dictionary, and explained the contents of the cabinet of natural history belonging to the university, under the title of " Deliciae Florae et Faunae Insubricee,' 7 the last part of which he did not live to complete. The president of the Linnsean society, who dedicated the Scopolia to his memory, informs us that, after some domestic chagrin, and much public persecution, he died at Pavia, May 8, 1788. He had been concerned with all the most eminent men of that university, Volta, Fontana, and others, in detecting the misconduct of their colleague, the celebrated Spallanzani, who had robbed the public museum. But the emperor, loth to dismiss so able a professor, contented himself with a personal rebuke at Vienna to the culprit, and his accusers were silenced, in a manner which was supposed to have caused the death of Scopoli. The survivors told their story, as explicitly as they durst, in a circular letter to the learned of Europe.

, a learned English divine, was son of Mr. Thomas Scott, a substantial grazier, and was born in the parish of Chippingham, in Wiltshire, in 1638. Not being intended for a literary profession, he served an apprenticeship in London, much against his will,- for about three years but, having an inclination as well as talents for learning, he quitted his trade and went to Oxford. “He was admitted a commoner of New Inn in 1657, and made a great progress in logic and philosophy; but left the university without taking a degree, and being ordained., came to London, where he officiated in the perpetual curacy of Trinity in the Minories, and as minister of St. Thomas’s in Southwark. In 1677 he was presented to the rectory of St. Peter Le Poor; and was collated to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral in 1684. In 1685 he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity, having before taken no degree in any other faculty. In 1691 he succeeded Sharp, afterwards archbishop of York, in the rectory of St. Giles in the Fields; and the same year was made canon of Windsor. Wood says that*; he might soon have been a bishop, had not some scruples hindered him;‘.’ and Hickes lias told us that he refused the bishopric of Chester, because he could not take the oath of homage; and afterwards another bishopric, the deanery of Worcester, and a prebend of the church of Windsor, because they were all places of deprived men. This, however, Dr. Isham attributes entirely to his growing infirmities. He died in 1694, and was buried in St. Giles’s church: his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Isham, and afterwards printed in 1695. In this sermon we are told that” he had many virtues in him of no ordinary growth piety towards God kindness, friendship, affability, sincerity, towards men zeal and constancy in the discharge of the pastoral office and, in a word, all those graces and virtues which make the good Christian and the good man.“When popery was encroaching under Charles II. and James II. he was one of those champions who opposed it with great warmth and courage, particularly in the dedication of a sermon 'preached at Guildhall chapel, Nov. 5, 1683, to sir William Hooker, lord-mayor of London, where he declares that” Domitian and Dioclesian were but puny persecutors and bunglers in cruelty, compared with the infallible cut-throats of the apostolical chair."

A doctrine of this nature, advanced in an age when the reality of witches was so universally believed, that even the great bishop Jewel, touching upon the subject in a sermon before queen Elizabeth, could “pray God they might never practise farther than upon the subject,” exposed the author to every species of obloquy and persecution; and accordingly Voetius, a foreign divine, informs us in his “Disput. Theolog.” vol. III. p. 564, though Wood says nothing of it, that his book was actually burnt. It was also opposed, and, as it should seem, by great authority too: for, James I. in the preface to his “Demonologie,” printed first at Edinburgh in 1597, and afterwards at London in 1603, observes, that be “wrote that book chiefly against the damnable opinions of Wierus and Scott; the latter of whom is not ashamed,” the king says, “in public print to deny, that there can be such a thing as witchcraft, and so maintains the old error of the Sadducees in the denying of spirits,” an inference which by no means follows from Scot’s premises. Dr. John Raynolds, in his “Praslectiones upon the Apocrypha/' animadverts on several passages in Scot’s” Discovery;“Meric Casaubon treats him as an illiterate person; and Mr. Joseph Glanvil, one of the greatest advocates for witchcraft, affirms, that” Mr. Scot doth little but tell odd tales and silly legends, which he confutes and laughs at, and pretends this to be a confutation of the being of witches and apparitions: in all which his reasonings are trifling and childish; and, when he ventures at philosophy, he is little better than absurd." Scot did not live to see the full effects of his endeavours to abate the prejudices of the times, nor could this indeed be the work of a single hand, contending against the king on the thfone, many very learned men, almost the whole body of the people, and what was the last to yield, the statutelaw of the land. His work, however, was reprinted in 1651, 4to, and in 1665, folio, with additions, and was translated into German.

, alias Rotheram (Thomas), a munificent benefactor to Lincoln college, Oxford, was born at Rotheram, in Yorkshire, from whence he took his name, but that of his family appears to have been Scot. He rose by his talents and learning to the highest ranks in church and state, having been successively fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, master of Pembroke Hall, chancellor of that university, prebendary of Sarum, chaplain to king Edward IV. provost of Beverley, keeper of the Privy Seal, secretary to four kings, bishop of Rochester and Lincoln, archbishop of York, and lord chancellor. His buildings at Cambridge, Whitehall, Southwell, and Thorp, are eminent proofs of his magnificent taste and spirit.