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

This recommendation was effectual with both these statesmen, as well as with the king, although he was not immediately employed. Sir William Templew^s nev.er forgetful of this obligation he constantly kept np a Correspondence with the duke of Ormond, and afterwards zealously defended him against the attempt of the earl of Essex to displace him from the government of Ireland. In the mean time, during his interviews with lord Arling­‘ton, who seems to have had his promotion at heart, he took occasion to hint to his lordship, that if his majesty thought him worthy of any employment abroad, he should be happy to accept it; but begged leave to object to the northern climates, to which he had a great aversion. Lord Arlington expressed his regret at this, because the place of envoy at Sweden was the only one then vacant. In 1665, however, about the commencement of the first Dutch, war, lord Arlington communicated to him that his majesty wanted to send a person abroad upon an affair of great importance, and advised him to accept the offer, whether in all respects agreeable or not, as it would prove an introduction to his majesty’s service, This business was a secret commission to the bishop of Munster, for the purpose of concluding a treaty between the king and him, by which the bishop should be obliged, upon receiving a certain sum of money, to join his majesty immediately in the war with Holland. Sir William made no scruple to accept this commission, which he executed with speed and success, and in the most private manner, without any train or official character. In July he began his journey to Qoesvelt, and not long after it was known publicly, that he had in a very few days concluded and signed the treaty there, in which his perfect knowledge in Latin, which he had retained, was of no little advantage to him, the bishop. conversing in no other language. After signing the treaty, he went to Brussels, saw the first payment made, and received the news that the bishop was in the fielfl, by which this negotiation began first to be discovered;, but no person suspected ’the part he had in it; and he continued privately at Brussels till it was whispered to the marquis Castel-Rodrigo the governor, that he came upon some particular errand (-which he was then at liberty to own). The governor immediately sent to desire his acquaintance, and that he might see him in private, to which he easily consented. Soon after a commission was sent him to be resident at Brussels, a situation which he had long contemplated with pleasure, and his commission was accompanied with a baronet’s patent. Sir William now sent for his family (April 1666); but, before their arrival, was again ordered to Munster, to prevent the bishop’s concluding peace with the Dutch, which he threatened to do, in consequence of some remissness in the payments from England, and actually signed it at Cleve the very night sir William Temple arrived at Munster. On. this he returned to Brussels; and before he had been there a year, peace with the Dutch was concluded at Breda. Two months after this event, his sister, who resided with him at Brussels, having an inclination to see Holland, he went thither with her incognito, and while at the Hague, became acquainted with the celebrated Pensionary De Witt.

Sir William Temple died towards the end of 1700, in his seventy-second year, at Moor Park; where, according to express directions in his will, his heart was buried in a silver box, under the sun-dial in his garden. This sun-dial, we are told, was opposite to the window whence he used to contemplate and admire the works of nature with his sister, the ingenious lady Giffard who, as she shared and eased the fatigues of his voyages and travels during his public employments, was the chief delight and comfort of his retirement in old age, as he had the misfortune to lose his lady in 1694. As to his person, his stature was above the middle size: he was well-set and well-shaped; his hair chesnut brown, his face oval, his forehead large, a quick piercing eye, and a sedate and philosophical look. Those who have endeavoured to set sir William’s character in the best light, have allowed him to have had some tincture of vanity and spleen. Bishop Burnet has painted him most unfavourably, allowing him to possess a true judgment in all affairs, and very good principles with relation to government, but in nothing else. The bishop adds, that “he seemed to think, that things were as they are from all eternity; at least, he thought religion was fit only for the mob. He was a great admirer of the sect of Confucius in China, who were atheists themselves, but left religion to the rabble. He was a corrupter of all that came near him: and he delivered himself up wholly to study, ease, and pleasure.” Burnet’s dislike to sir William Temple seems, therefore, to have arisen from a very sufficient cause; from his holding and propagating irreligious principles; but this, others have not only doubted, but peremptorily denied, and have cited his beautiful letter to lady Essex, as a proof of his piety. Burnet, however, we perceive, allows him to have been a great statesman; and, in the very next words to those just cited, refers his reader for “an account of our affairs beyond sea, to his letters; in which,” says Burnet, “they are very truly and fully set forth.”

Young Tenison was first educated at the free-school at Norwich, which was then in great reputation, under Mr. Lovering, the master. From this school, at the age of seventeen, he was admitted a scholar upon archbishop Parker’s foundation, of Bene't college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A.B. in Lent term, 1656-7; and the study of divinity being at that time interrupted, at least as to its ordinary process, he began to study medicine, but on the eve of the restoration he procured himself to be privately ordained at Richmond in Surrey, by Dr. Duppa, bishop of Salisbury. In 1660, the year following, he proceeded M. A. and being by virtue of a pre-election, admitted fellow of his college, March 24, 1662, he became tutor, and in J 665 was chosen one of the university preachers, and about the same time was presented by the dean and chapter of Ely to the cure of St. Andrew the Great in Cambridge.

He had not been seated in this see above two years, when, upon the death of Dr. Marsh, he was offered the archbishopric of Dublin; but he made it the condition of his acceptance, that the impropriations belonging to the estates then forfeited to the crown, should be all restored to the respective parish churches. The king thought this very reasonable, but the difficulties were found so great that it never could be carried into execution; and instead of being translated into Ireland, bishop Tenison was raised in 1694, upon the death of Dr. Tillotson, to the see of Canterbury. Dr. Kennet observes, that upon the death of archbishop Tillotson, “it was the solicitous care of the Court to fill up the see of Canterbury. The first person that seemed to be offered to the eye of the world, was Dr. Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester; but his great abilities had raised some envy and some jealousy of him: and, indeed, his body would not have borne the fatigues of such a station. Even the bishop of Bristol, Dr. John Hall, master of Pembroke college, Oxford, was recommended by a great party of men, who had an opinion of his great piety and moderation. But the person most esteemed by their majesties, and most universally approved by the ministry, and the clergy, and the people, was Dr. Tenison, bishop of Lincoln, who had been exemplary in every station of his life, had restored a neglected large diocese to somo discipline and good order, and had before, in the office of a parochial minister, done as mu^h good as, perhaps, was possible for any one man to do. It was with great importunity, and after rejecting better offers, that he was prevailed with to take the bishopric of Lincoln; and it was with greater reluctancy, that he now received their majesties’ desire and command for his translation to Canterbury. Burnet speaks much to the same purpose, although his opinion of Dr. Tenison seems never to have been very high; and adds, that at this time” he had many frieods, and no enemies."

Soon after his promotion to the archbishopric, queen Mary was seized with the small pox, which proved fatal, and at her desire archbishop Tenison attended her during her illness, was present at her death, and preached a fr.nrral sermon, which is said to have given seme offence, and was severely censured in a letter to his grace by Dr. Ken, the deprived bishop of Bath and Wells, who maintained that the archbishop was guilty of neglect of duty in not having represented to her majesty when on her death-bed “the great guilt she lay under by her conduct at the revolution.” Of this letter, Dr. Tenison took no notice, for which few will now blame him. A “Defence of his Sermon” was afterwards published by his friend Dr. John Williams. But if Dr. Tenison failed in bringing the queen to repentance for “the revolution,” he is said to have produced some good effects on the king’s disposition. When the queen died, William was deeply affected, and impressed with very serious notions, which, we are told, Dr. Tenison encouraged, and in one instance (the king’s illicit connection with lady Villiers) urged the heinousness of that crime with such power, that, if we may believe Whiston, his majesty promised never to see that lady more. The archbishop is also said to have been instrumental in healing some differences in the royal family, especially respecting the settlement of the princess Anne of Denmark.

In 1700, his grace obtained a commission, authorizing him, jointly with the archbishop of York, and four other prelates, viz. Burnet of Salisbury, Lloyd of Worcester, Patrick of Ely, and Moor of Norwich, to recommend to his majesty, proper persons for all the ecclesiastical preferments in his gift, above the value of 20l. per aim. in the book of first fruits and tenths. He continued in the same favour at court until the death of king William, whom he constantly attended in his illness, and prevailed with him to put the last hand to a bill for the better security of the protestant succession. In consequence of his station, he had the honour of crowning queen Anne, but did not enjoy much favour at her court. During the first three years of her reign he steadily opposed the bill to prevent occasional conformity. At the same time he was not neglectful of what concerned the welfare of the established church, and engaged Dr. White Kennet, afterwards bishop of Peterborough, to write “The case of Impropriations, &c.” in consequence of the queen’s having given the first fruits for augmenting the maintenance of the poorer clergy. In 1705, he wrote a letter to the princess Sophia, acquainting her with his own zeal in particular, and that of her friends, for the security of the Hanover succession, to which he received an answer, in which her highness gave some intimation of her desire to come to England at that juncture. This letter of hers was published some time after, together with one from sir Rowland Gwynn to the earl of Stamford, upon the same subject of the princess’s coming over; which last being voted by both houses to be a scandalous libel, tending to create misunderstandings between her majesty and the princess Sophia, the publisher, Charles Gildon, was fined \00l. by the court of queen’s bench. But notwithstanding that our archbishop’s zeal in this matter could not be very agreeable to her majesty, who was always averse to the notion of a visit from the electress, yet in April 1706 he was nominated first commissioner in the treaty of union between England and Scotland. The same year, he concurred with the majority of the lords in their resolution against those who insinuated that “the church was in danger.”

On the death of queen Anne he was appointed one of the three officers of state in whose hands were lodged, by authority of parliament, one of those instruments empowering her successor, if abroad at the time of her demise, to appoint such regents as he should think proper, to continue the administration in his name till his arrival. He bad afterwards the honour of crowning George I. and of being admitted to a private conference with him. This was, however, his last attendance on that prince, as his infirmities, and particularly frequent attacks of the gout, rendered it necessary for him to live as retired as possible at his palace at Lambeth, where he died Dec. 14, 1715, in the seventyninth year of his age. He was interred privately in the chancel of the church of Lambeth, and in the same vault 'with his wife, who died the preceding year, leaving him without issue. By his will he bequeathed very large sums to charitable purposes, and proved a liberal benefactor to Bene't college, Cambridge, the library of St. Paul’s cathedral, the society for the propagation of the gospel, queen Anne’s bounty, Bromley college, &c. The residue of his fortune, which was very considerable, he ordered to be equally divided among the children of his kinsmen, Dr. Edward Tenison (afterwards bishop of Ossory), Mr. Richard Tubby, and Mr. George Fage.

, brother of the two preceding, was born October 5, 1680, at Lyons. At the age of eighteen, he was sent by his fatherto the house of the oratory at Paris, where he immediately devoted himself to the study of scripture and the fathers, and taught afterwards in different houses of his order, chiefly at Troyes, where he spoke a funeral oration for the dauphin, son of Louis XIV. in the Franciscan church. Notwithstanding the success which attended this first essay of his talents for the pulpit, he did not cui.tinue to preach, but only delivered exhortations in the seminaries. But after his brother’s death, being solicited to supply several pulpits where the deceased had engaged himself, he soon acquired a degree of reputation superior to that which AnJrew Terrassoit had enjoyed. He preached at Paris during five years, and, among other occasions, a who;e Lt nt in the metropolitan church, to a very numerous congregation. Various circumstances, particularly his attachment to the Jansenists, obliged him afterwards to quit buh the congregation oi the oratory and the pulpit at the same time; but M. de Caylus, bishop of Auxerre, made him curate of Treigny in 1735. Persecution, however, still following him, he was sent to the Bastille, which he quitted in 1744, to be confined with the Minimes at Argenteuil. At length, when his weakened faculties made him considered as useless to his party, he was set at liberty, and died at Pnris in the bosom of his family, Jan. 2, 1752, leaving “Sermons,” 4 vols. 12mo, and an anonymous book entitled, “Lettres stir la Justice Chretienne,” which has been censured by the Sorbonne.

This poet was first published in folio at Milan in 1493, again by Aldus at Venice, in 1495, and by Henry Stephens at Paris, in 1566, with other Greek poets, and without a Latin version: a good edition also in Greek only was printed at Oxford, by bishop Fell, in 1676, 8vo. There are, since, the editions of Martin, Loud. 1760, 8vo, the very splendid one of Thomas Warton, 1770, 2 vols. 4to; and of Valckenaer, Leyden, 1773, 8vo. Dr. Thomas Edwards also published a very correct and critical edition of “Selecta quaedam Theocriti Idyllia,” 1779, 8vo.

king of Corsica, baron Niewhoff, grandee of Spain, baron of England, peer of France, baron of the holy empire, prince of the Papal throne for thus he styled himself; “a man whose claim to royalty,” says lord Orford, “was as indisputable, as the most ancient titles to any monarchy can pretend to be;” was born at Metz about 1696. The particulars of his eventful history are thus related. In March 1736, whilst the Corsican mal-contents were sitting in council, an English vessel from Tunis, with a passport from our consul there, arrived at a port then in the possession of the roal-contents. A stranger on board this vessel, who had the appearance of a person of distinction, no sooner went on shore, but was received with singular honours by the principal persons, who saluted him with the titles of excellency, and viceroy of Corsica. His attendants consisted of two officers, a secretary, a chaplain, a few domestics and Morocco slaves. He was conducted to the bishop’s palace; called Himself lord Theodore; whilst the chiefs knew more about him than they thought convenient to declare. From the vessel that brought him were debarked ten pieces of cannon, 4000 fire-locks, 3000 pair of shoes, a great quantity of provisions, and coin to the amount o 200,000 ducats. Two pieces of cannon were placed before his door, and he had 400 soldiers posted for his guard, He created officers, formed twenty-four companies of soldiers, distributed among the mal-contents the arms and shoes he had brought with him, conferred knighthood on one of the chiefs, appointed another his treasurer, and professed the Roman Catholic religion. Various conjectures were formed in different courts concerning him. The eldest son of the pretender, prince Ragotski, the duke de Ripperda, comte de Bonneval, were each in their turns supposed to be this stranger; all Europe was puzzled but the country of this stranger vas soon discovered he was, in fact, a Prussian, well known by the name of Theodore Antony, baron of Niewhoff.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was a monk of Tarsus. He was ordained bishop by pope Vitalianus, and sent into England in the year 668, to govern the church of Canterbury. Being kindly received by king Egbert, he restored the faith, and promoted, or rather founded, a form of ecclesiastical discipline, which he is said to have exercised with great rigour, placing and displacing several bishops in an arbitrary manner, particularly those belonging to the diocese of York. He died Sept. 19, 690, aged eighty -eight. He is said to have imported into England a great many valuable Mss. Godwin mentions a Homer, extant in his time, of exquisite beauty. He is also the supposed founder of the school called Greeklade, whence arose the university of Oxford, but this is somewhat fabulous. What remains of his form of discipline, called the “Penitential,” and of his other works, has been collected by James Petit, and printed at Paris, 1677, 2 vols. 4to, with learned notes.

, so called from his being bishop of Mopsuestia, a city in Cilicia, was educated and ordained priest in a monastery, and became one of the greatest scholars of his time, and had the famous Nestorius for a disciple. He died in the year 429, or 430. This bishop wrote a great number of learned works, of which are now only extant, “A Commentary on the Psalms,” which is in father Corder’s “Catena,” the authenticity of which was verified, in one of his dissertations by the duke of Orleans, who died in 1752, at Paris, one of the most learned princes Europe has produced. Theodore left also a “Commentary” in ms. on the twelve minor prophets; and several “Fragments,” enumerated hy Dupin, which are printed in the “Bibliotheca” of Photius. Those parts of his works supposed to contain the distinction of two persons in Christ, the letter from Ibas, bishop of Edossa, who defended him, and the anathemas published by the celebrated Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, against St. Cyril, in favour of Theodore of Mopsuestia, occasioned no little disturbance in the church. This dispute is called the affair of the “Three Chapters,” and was not settled till the fifth general council, in the year 553, when he and his writings were anathematized. His confession of faith may be found in father Garnier’s Dissertations on Marius Mercator.

, an illustrious writer of the church, was born at Antioch about the year 386, of parents who were both pious and opulent. His birth has been represented as accompanied with miracles before and after, according to his own account, in his “Religious History;” in which he gravely informs us, that it was by the prayers of a religious man, called Macedonius, that God granted his motirer to conceive a son, and bring him into the world. When the holy anchorite promised her this blessing, she engaged herself on her part to devote him to God; and accordingly called him Theodoretus, which signifies either given by God, or devoted to God. To promote this latter design, he was sent at seven years of age to a monastery, where he learned the sciences, theology, and devotion. He had for his masters Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. John Chrysostom, and made under them a very uncommon progress. His learning and piety becoming known to the bishops of Antioch, they admitted him into holy orders; yet he did not upon that account change either his habitation or manner of living, but endeavoured to reconcile the exercises of a religious life with tha function of a clergyman. ' After the death of his parents, he distributed his whole inheritance to the poor, and reserved nothing to himself. The bishopric of Cyrus becoming vacant about the year 420, the bishop of Antioch ordained Theodoret against his will, and sent him to govern that dumb. Cyrus was a city of Syria, in the province of Euphratesia, an unpleasant and barren country, but very populous. The inhabitants commonly spake the Syriac to;ig.e, Tew of them understanding Greek; they were almost all poor, rude, and barbarous; many of them were engaged in profane superbtitions, or in such gross errors as shewed them to be rather Heathens than Christians. The learning and worth of Theodoret, which were really very great, seemed to qualify him for a better see; yet he remained in this, and discharged all the offices of a good bishop and good man. He was afterwards engaged in the Nestorian dispute, very much against his will; but at length retired to his see, spent his life in composing books, and in acts of piety and charity, and died there in the year 457, aged seventy and upwards. He wrote “Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures” an “Ecclesiastical History” a “Religious Histor\ T” containing the lives and praises of thirty monks, and several other things, which are still extant.

, a celebrated bishop of Orleans, one of the most learned men of the ninth century, was born in Cisalpine Gaul. Charlemagne made him abbot of Fleury f then bishop of Orleans about the year 793, and chose him to sign his will in the year 811; Louis le Debonnaire had also a high esteem for him. But Theodulphus being accused of having joined in the conspiracy formed by Berenger, king of Italy, was committed to prison at Angers, where he composed the hymn beginning Gloria, laus, et honor, part of which, in the catholic service, is sung on Palm Sunday. It is said that Theodnlphus singing this hymn at his prison window while the emperor passed by, that prince was so charmed with it that he set him at liberty. He died about the year 821. In the Library of the fathers, d'AcherPs “Spicilegium,” and father Labor’s “Councils,” is a treatise by this prelate on baptism, another on the Holy Ghost, two “Capitularia,” addressed to his clergy, some “Poems,” and other works the best edition of which is by father Sirmond, 1646, 8vo the second of the “Capitularia” is in the “Miscellanea,” published by Baluze.

, an historian who may be ranked among those to whom Russia is chiefly indebted for the introduction of polite literature, was the son of a burgher of Kiof; born in that city, June 9, 1681, and baptised by the name of Elisha. Under his uncle, Theophanes, rector of the seminary in the Bratskoi convent at Kiof, he commenced his studies, and was well grounded in the rudiments of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew tongues. Though his uncle died in 1692, he completed his education in that seminary; and in 1698, in the eighteenth year of his age, he travelled into Italy. He resided three years at Rome, where, beside a competent knowledge of Italian, he acquired a taste for the fine arts, and improved himself in philosophy and divinity. Upon his return to Kiof he read lectures on the Latin and Sclavonian art of poetry in the same seminary in which he had been educated: and, with the monastic habit, assumed the name of Theophanes. Before he had attained the twenty-fifth year of his age he was appointed praefect, the second office in the seminary, and professor of philosophy. In 1706 he distinguished himself hy speaking a Lain oration before Peter the Great; and still more by a sermon, which in 1701) he preached before the same monarch after the battle of Pultawa. Having once attracted the notice, he soon acquired the protection of Peter, who was so captivated with his great talents, superior learning, and polite address, as to select him for a companion in the ensuing campaign against the Turks; a sure prelude to his future advancement. In 1711 Theophanes was nominated abbot of Bratskoi, rector of the seminary, and professor of divinity. His censures against the ignorance and indolence of the Russian clergy, and his endeavours to promote a taste for polite literature among his brethren, rendered him a fit instrument in the hands of Peter for the reformation of the church, and the final abolition of the patriarchal dignity. He was placed at the head of the synod, of which ecclesiastical establish* merit he himself drew the plan; was created bishop of Plescof; and, in 1720, archbishop of the same diocese; soon after the accession of Catharine he was consecrated archbishop of Novogorod, and metropolitan of all Russia; and died in 1736. Beside various sermons and theological disquisitions, he wrote a treatise on rhetoric, and on the rules for Latin and Sclavonian poetry; he composed verses in the Latin language; and was author of a “Life of Peter the Great,” which unfortunately terminates with the battle of Pultawa. in this performance the prelate has, notwithstanding his natural partiality to his benefactor, avoided those scurrilous abuses of the contrary party, which frequently disgrace the best histories; and has been particularly candid in his account of Sophia. Peter, from a well-grounded experierce, had formed such a good opinion of the talents of Theophanes, as to employ him in composing the decrees which concerned theological questions, and even many that related to civil atf'airs. Theophanes may be said not only to have cultivated the sciences, and to have promoted them during his life, but likewise to have left a legacy to his cou itrymen, for their further progress after hi-, decease, by maintaining in his episcopal palace fifty hoys, who>e education he superintended under his an>piccs they were instructed in foreign languages, and in various branches of polite knowledge, which had teen hitherto censured by many as profane acquisitions thus transmitting the rays of learning to illuminate future ages and a distant posterity.

, of Antioch, a writer and bishop of the primitive church, was educated a heathen, and afterwards converted to Christianity. Some have imagined that he is the person to whom St. Luke dedicates the “Acts of the Apostles;” but this is impossible, as he was not ordained bishop of Antioch till the year 170, and he governed this church twelve or thirteen years, at the end of which be died. He was a vigorous opposer of certain heretics of his time, and composed a great number of works, all of which are lost, except three books to Autolycus, a learned heathen of his acquaintance, who had undertaken to vindicate his own religion against that of the Christians. The first book is properly a discourse between him and Autoly* cus, in answer to what this heathen had said against Christianity. The second is to convince him of the falshood of his own, and the truth of the Christian religion. In the third, after having proved that the writings of the heathens are full of absurdities and contradictions, he vindicates the doctrine and the lives of the Christians from those false and scandalous imputations which were then brought against them. Lastly, at the end of his work, he adds an historical chronology from the beginning of the world to his own time, to prove, that the history of Moses is at once the most ancient and the truest; and it appears from this little epitome, that he was well acquainted with profane history. In these books are a great variety of curious disquisitions concerning the opinions of the poets and philosophers, but few things in them relating immediately to the doctrines of the Christian religion, the reason of which is, that having composed his woiks for the conviction of a Pagan, he insisted rather on the external evidences of Christianity, vis better adapted, in his opinion, to the purpose. His style is elegant, and he was doubtless a man of considerable parts and learning. These boots were published, with a Latin version, by Conradus Gesner, at Zurich, in 154-6. They were afterwards subjoined to Justin Martyr’s works, printed at Paris in 1615 and 1636; then published at Oxford, 1684, in 12mo, under the inspection of Dr. Fell; and, lastly, by Jo. Christ. Wolfius, at Hamburgh, 1723, in 8vo. It has been said, that this Theophilus of Antioch was the h'rst who applied the term Trinity to express the three persons in the Godhead.

, archbishop of Achridia, and metropolitan of all Bulgaria, an eminent ecclesiastical writer, flourished in the eleventh century. He was born and educated at Constantinople. After he was made bishop he laboured diligently to extend the faith of Christ in his diocese, when there were still many infidels; but met with much difficulty, and many evils, of which he occasionally complains in his epistles. He was bishop in 1077, and probably some years earlier. How long he lived is uncertain. The works of this bishop are various 1. “Comxnentaria in qtlatuor Evangelia,” Paris, 1631, folio. These as well as the rest of his commentaries are very much taken from St. Chrysostom. 2. “Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles,” Greek and Latin, published with some orations of other fathers, Colon. 1568. 3. “Commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles,” Greek and Latin, Lond. 1636, folio. 4. “Commentaries on Four of the Minor Prophets:” namely, Habbakuk, Jonas, Nahum, and Hosea, Latin, Paris, 1589, 8vo. The commentaries of Theophylact on all the twelve minor prophets are extant in Greek, in the library of Strasburgh, and have been described by Michaelis in his “Bibliotheca Orientalis.” 5. * c Seventy-five Epistles," published in Greek, with notes, by John Meursius, Leyden, 1617, 4to. They are also in the Bibliotheca Patrum. 6. Three or four smaller tracts, some of which are rather doubtful.

“The History of Perukes” is one of his most known and curious books. He designed it againat those ecclesiastics who were not contented to wear their own hair. The year 1621) (says he) is the epoch of perukes in France. He maintains, that no clergyman wore a peruke before 1660, and pretends that there is no instance of it in antiquity. He observes, that cardinal de Richelieu was the first who wore a calot and that the bishop of Evreux having prefixed to the life of St. Francis de Sales (which he presented to pope Alexander VIII.) a print wherein that saint appeared with a leather cap on, the pope had much ado to accept that book, attended with such an irregularity. M. Thiers exclaims against those ecclesiastics, who powder their perukes, and wear them of a different colour from their own hair. He answers the arguments that may be alledged in favour of the clergy. As for what concerns their beard and their bands, he says, no ecclesiastic wore a band before the middle of last century. There have been many variations about their beard. Sometimes shaving was looked upon as a kind of effeminacy, and a long beard appeared very suitable with the sacerdotal gravity; and sometimes a venerable beard was accounted a piece of pride and stateliness. When cardinal d'Angennes was about to take possession of his bishopric of Mans in 1556, he wanted an express order from the king to be admitted with his long beard, which he could not resolve to cut. M. Thiers acknowledges those variations about the beard; but he maintains that the discipline has been constant and uniform as to perukes; and therefore, he says, they ought to be laid aside, and beseeches the pope and the king to suppress such a novelty. Among his other works are, 2. “Traité des Superstitions qui regardent les Sacremena,” 4 vols. 12mo, a book esteemed agreeable and useful by those of his own communion. 3. “Traité de I'exposiiioii. du Saint Sacrement de PAutel,” 1663, 12mo. Some have esteemed this his best production. Many other articles are enumerated by his biographers, but few of them interesting in this country.

“The learned Mr. Thiriby,” says Mr. Bowyer, “fellow of Jesus college, is publishing a new edition of ‘Justin Martyr’s two Apologies,’ and his ‘ Dialogue with Trypno the Jew.’ The Greek text will be printed exactly according to R, Stephens’s edition. The version is Langius’s, corrected in innumerable places. On the same page wi$h the text and version are printed the notes and emendations of the editor, with select notes of all the former editors, and of Sraliger, Casaubon, Salma^us, Capellus, Valesius,­and other learned men. The most selected places have been collated with the ms. from which R. Stephens’s edition was taken, and the variations are inserted in their proper places. At the end are bishop Pearson’s notes from the margin of his book, and Dr. Davids notes upon the first Apology;' both now first printed.”

, bishop of Rochester, the eldest of three sons of the rev. John Tnomas, many years vicar of Brampton in Cumberland, was born at Carlisle Oct. 14, 1712. Many of his ancestors, both on the paternal and maternal side, were remarkable for their longevity; so that he might be considered as “born with somewhat like an hereditary claim to length of days.” Being designed for the church, at a proper age he was placed in the grammar-school at Carlisle, whence he was sent to Oxford, in 1730, and, on the 23d of November, was admitted a commoner of Queen’s-college. Soon after his admission he had a clerkship given him by Dr. Smith, then provost. Having discharged this office, and completed his terms, he put on a civilian’s gown, and, leaving Oxford, became an assistant at the classical academy in Soho-square. In this situation he acquitted himself so well, as to be recommended to be private tutor to the younger son of sir William Clayton, bart. a charge which led to his future elevation. How long he remained in it, is not precisely known, but probably till he had completed his pupil’s education. His conduct, however, was so well approved, that shortly after, with the consent of sir William Clayton, the sister of his pupil, on the death of her first husband, sir Charles Blackwell, of Sprowston-hall, Norfolk, became his wife. Mr. Thomas lived in habits of the closest friendship with his brother-in-law, until about 1784, when that gentleman met a premature death, occasioned by a fall from his horse.

On the 27th of March, 1737, Mr. Thomas was ordained a deacon, by sir George Fleming, bishop of Carlisle, at a special ordination holden in the chapel of John the Baptist, within the precincts of the Savoy, in the Strand; and, on the 25th of September, in the same year, he was ordained priest, by Dr. Joseph Wilcocks, bishop of Rochester, at a general ordination holden in the parish church of Bromley, in the county of Kent. The promotion of Dr Herring (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) in this same year to the see of Bangor, occasioned a vacancy in the rectory of Blechingley, to which Mr. Thomas was presented by his majesty, George II. through the interest of sir W. Clayton, and was instituted, on the 27th of January, by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. During his incumbency on this preferment, which was thirty-six years, Mr. Thomas chiefly resided in the rectorial-house, which he enlarged, improved, and embellished, at a very considerable ex pence. In the discharge of his parochial duties, in which he never omitted any thing which he conceived inight conduce to the temporal or spiritual interests of his parishioners, he was for some time assisted by his brother; and, after his promotion to a vicarage in Norfolk, by the rev. William Thompson, the poet.

The bishop added one to the many instances of men who have been peculiarly fortunate in their first marriage, and, deeply concerned at its dissolution, seeking consolation in a second. Such consolation did his lordship seek in a second marriage with lady Elizabeth Yates, relict of sir Joseph Yates, late one of the judges of the court of King’sbench, to whom he was married, by special licence, on the 12th of January, 1775, at Westminster-abbey. In this union, he was as happy as the great disparity of age" would permit. Though twice married, he had no issue; but each of his ladies brought him a son and a daughter by their former husbands, and to these he shewed a parental affection.

Age, and its natural concomitants, for some few years before his death, almost incapacitated the bishop from any laborious duty; but, so zealous was he in the discharge of his function, that he held a general confirmation not long before his last lingering and fatal illness, and continued to preach both at court and at Bromley, till near his eightieth year. He expired, in great composure, about eleven o'clock on the morning of Thursday, August 22d, 1793, having completed his eightieth year on the preceding 14th of October, 1792. The manner of his death was perfectly agreeable to his wish, expressed in a letter written to his brother on the death of his first lady, “without a sigh or a groan.” The bjlk of his fortune was bequeathed to his relations, in such proportions as corresponded with the proximity of kindred, and the expectations which he had encouraged; bonds and notes, from different friends and acquaintances, to the amount of 5000l. were cancelled legacies, mourning, &c. were presented to his servants and several sums were appropriated to charitable purposes. In his last will and testament, the bishop had made no provision for the manner or place of his interment: but, in a cancelled will, made as far back as 1774, he had directed his remains to be deposited by those of his first lady, and this direction was consequently carried into effect.

“His intellectual abilities were above mediocrity; and the endowments of nature were improved by the application of art and study. He had a lively and chaste imagination, a quick apprehension, a sound and penetrating judgment, and a retentive memory. He excelled equally in learning, science, and the polite arts. He was an adept in music, and a connoisseur in painting. He was, in his earlier days, perfectly acquainted with the practice as well as the theory of music; having been a performer on two difficult instruments. For this agreeable art he entertained a passion to his latest days. He was a great lover of antiquity, and well skilled in the knowledge of coins and medals, and of these, as also of prints and paintings, he left valuable collections. There was no feature more prominent in this good bishop’s character, than a zealous and uniform attachment to our unrivalled constitution. It was the warmest wish of his heart, to see our excellent and happy form of government, both in church and state, preserved free from the contagious influence of superstitious tyranny on the one hand, and licentious anarchy on the other.”

It is somewhat singular that there were three prelates of the same names, John Thomas, who ran their course nearly together; Dr. John Thomas, successively bishop of Peterborough and Salisbury, who died in 1766; Dr. John Thomas, successively bishop of Peterborough, Salisbury, and Winchester, who died in 1781 , and the subject of the preceding article.

, bishop of Worcester, was son of Mr. John Thomas, a linen-draper in the city of Bristol, who lived in a house of his own on the bridge in that town, where the bishop was born on Thursday, February 2, 1613, and baptized there in St. Nicholas’s church, on the Friday following. He was of a very ancient and noble family, as appears by a pedigree taken out of the Heralds’ -office by William Thomas lord bishop of Worcester in 1688, to prove his right to the Herbert arms. His mother was Elizabeth Blount, descended from the Blounts of Eldersfield, in the county of Worcester. His grandfather, William Thomas, was recorder of Carmarthen, where he and his family had for a long time lived in great credit; and the earl of Northampton, then lord president of Wales, gave him this character, “that he was the wisest and most prudent person he ever knew member of a corporation:” this gentleman, after the death of their son, undertook the care of his grandson; which trust he executed with the greatest care and attention, placing him under the tuition of Mr. Morgan Owen, master of the public school at Caermarthen, afterwards bishop of Landaff: here he continued till he went to St. John’s college, Oxford, in the sixteenth year of his age, in Michaelmas term, 1629; from hence he removed to Jesus college, where he tqok his degree of B, A. 1632, and soon after was chosen fellow of the college, and appointed tutor by the principal. Here, according to the fashion of the times, he studied much school philosophy and divinity, epitomizing with his own hand all the works of Aristotle: he took his degree of M.A. Feb. 12, 1634, was ordained deacon by John Bancroft, bishop of Oxford, at Christ Church, June 4, 1637, and priest in the year following at the same place, and by the same bishop. Soon, after he was appointed vicar of Penbryn, in Cardiganshire, and chaplain to the earl of Northumberland, who presen ed him to the vicarage of Laugharn, with the rectory of Lansedurnen annexed. This presentation being disputed, he determined to give it up; but the earl encouraged him to persevere, assuring him that he would be at all the expence and trouble: in consequence of which, the dispute was soon ended, and Mr. Thomas instituted: here he determined to reside, having no other thought but how best to perform his duty; and that he might be more fixed, and avoid the inconveniences of a solitary single life, he resolved to marry. The person he chose was Blanch Samyne, daughter of Mr. Peter Samyne, a Dutch merchant in Lime-street, London, of an ancient and good family, by whom he had eight children; William, who died young, Peter, John, Blanch, Bridget, William, Sarah, and Elizabeth. Here he religiously performed every duty of a parish priest, esteeming his employment not a trade, but a trust, till about 1644, a party of the parliament horse came to Langharn, and inquired whether that popish priest Mr. Thomas was still there, and whether he continued reading the liturgy, and praying for the queen; and one of them adding, that he should go to church next Sunday, and it' Mr. Thomas persevered in praying for that drab or the whore of Babylon, he would certainly pistol him. Upon this, Mr. Thomas’s friends earnestly pressed him to absent himself; but he refused, thinking it would be a neglect of duty. He no sooner began the service, than the soldiers came and placed themselves in the next pew to him, and when he prayed for the queen, one of them snatched the book out of his hand, and threw it at his head, saying, “What do you mean by praying for a whore and a rogue?” The preacher bore it with patience and composure; but the soldier who had committed the affront was instantly seized with such anxiety and compunction, that his companions were forced to carry him away. Mr. Thomas continued the service, and delivered the sermon with his usual emphasis and 'propriety; and when he returned to his house, he there found the soldiers ready to beg his pardon, and desiring his prayers to God for them. When this happened, he was about thirty-three years old. Soon after, the parliament committee deprived him of the living of Laugharn; and though a principal member of that body had been his pupil and particular friend, yet he refused to shew him any favour, saying, “If he was his father, he would do him no service unless he would take the covenant.” From this time till the restoration, Mr. Thomas endured great hardships, being a sufferer to the amount of above fifteen hundred pounds, and, for the support of his family, obliged to teach a private school in the country; and though his friends often made him liberal presents, yet his wiie and numerous family were frequently in want of common necessaries.

At the restoration Mr. Thomas was re-instated in his living, and by the king’s letters patent made chanter of St, David’s. In this year he took his doctor’s degree in divinity, carrying with him a letter from the chancellor, who said thus of him: “I have heard of his great worth and deserts, as well in respect of his learning and orthodox, judgment, as of his most exemplary life and conversation.” In 1661, he was presented to the rectory of Llaqbeder in the Vajley, in the county of Pembroke, by lord chancellor Hyde, and made chaplain to the duke of York, whom he attended in his voyage to Dunkirk, in whose family he continued some time, and with whom he was in one of the sea engagements against the Dutch. By the interest of the duke and the chancellor he was promoted to the deanery of Worcester, Nov. 25, 1665, in the room of Dr. Thomas Warrnestry, deceased. Here, though a stranger, he behaved himself in such a manner as to gain the affections of all the gentlemen of the county, particularly the duke of Beaufort, lord Windsor, afterwards created earl of Plymouth, and sir John Pakington: the last, that he might enjoy more of his company, presented him to the rectory of Hampton Lovet in the beginning of 1670. Upon this he quitted his living at Laugharn, and removed his family to Hampton. Here he enjoyed an easy and pleasant retirement, and he was often heard to say that this was the pleasantest part of his life; and that here he had more quiet and satisfaction within himself than when he was afterwards in the highest order of the church. Here also he found time to search into antiquity, to enlarge his mind, and to enrich it with fruitful knowledge: but his pleasures were not without alloy, for, during his residence here in 1677, his beloved wife died, and was buried in one of the side ailes of the cathedral church of Worcester. In this year also he was promoted to the see of St. David’s, and held the deanery of Worcester in commendam. He was very acceptable to the gentry and clergy of that diocese: he had been bred up among them, spoke their language, and had been a fellow-sufferer with many of them in the late troublesome times. His behaviour confirmed their expectations, his generous temper agreed with theirs, but his chief concern was not so much to please their humours, as to correct their morals, and save their souls; to promote true piety and goodness, and to sow the seeds of holiness among them. He began to repair the palaces at Brecknock and Aberguilly; he preached frequently in several parts of his diocese in the language of the country, and was very instrumental in promoting the translation of the Bible into Welsh. He endeavoured all he could to remove the cathedral service from St. David’s to Caermarthen; the former being a place of no trade, little frequented, situated ; in a corner of the kingdom, twelve long miles from any market town, the cathedral ruinous, the bishop’s palace quite demolished, no residence kept, the canons never attending, except to receive their revenues, and not one shilling laid out in repairing the cathedral after the restoration. On the contrary, Caermarthen he knew to he a rich and populous town; the great church capable of heing made decent and handsome, and the episcopal house of Aberguilly very near, where the bishop constantly resided. On those motives he set about the work very heartily, but met with the same success as bishop Barlow had done before.

Having been bishop of St. David’s six years, he was translated to the see of Worcester, in the place of bishop Fleetwood. As soon as he knew of this appointment, his lordship, who never was a lover of money, desisted from any further treaty with several tenants of the bishopric of St. David’s, and refused very considerable fines, afterwards received by bishop Womack. He went to Worcester in August 1683, and was conducted to his palace by the gentry and clergy of his diocese, where they were entertained very handsomely, and ever after found a plentiful table and hearty welcome; he being always of opinion that, in order to amend the morals of the people, the first step was to gain their acquaintance and affection. Upon this principle, he was a great lover of hospitality and charity; the poor of the neighbourhood were daily fed at his door, and he sent provisions twice a week to the common prison, besides very large sums given where he saw occasion. Some may think that he carried this matter to excess for though he frequently was heard to say, “he dreaded debt as a sin,” through his extensive charity, and the necessary calls of a numerous family, he sometimes brought himself to the verge of it, he laid not up for himself or his children; and, when charged by several for not providing for his own household, his answer always was, “that no bishop or priest was to enrich himself with, or raise his family out of the revenues of the church that the sacred canons forbade it and that for his part he was resolved that none of his should be the richer for them, as he was only God’s steward, and bound to dispense them to his glory in works of charity and piety.” He was extremely careful what persons he ordained; his censures were also expressed in the softest words, and with an humble air of such tenderness and brotherly compassion as always gained the more ingenuous, and left the incorrigible without excuse. He constantly attended six o'clock prayers in the cathedral, so long as Ins health would permit and upon complaint from archbishop Sheldon, dated June 4, 1670, that the duties of reading the church service and administering 1 the sacraments were too much neglected by dignified persons, “the cleans and canons, as if it were an office below them, and left for the most part to be performed by their vicars or petty canons, to the offence of the church’s friends, and the advantage of sectaries, and their own just reproach;” he, together with the prebendaries, so ordered the residence, that one or two of them generally officiated at the communion. The bishop, at his first visitation of the dean and chapter, by his own authority, and their concurrence, procured a chapter act to be made, to oblige the prebendaries to be resident two at a time in every month; this being done with the concurrence of Dr. Hickes, then dean, and Dr. Hopkins, a worthy prebendary of the church, passed without the least appearance of uneasiness in any one member of the society. The money, which at former visitations was usually expended in entertaining, v the bishops, he ordered to be laid out in books for the library, and entertained the church at his own charge; he was besides a considerable benefactor to the library, the books about this time being brought from an inconvenient room on the south side of the church, and placed in the chapter-house, a very elegant room, capable of containing a noble collection of books. The bishop was often present in the Consistory court, whereby he much prevented the frivolous suits, and expedited the dilatory proceedings, which at that time were much complained of. Jn 1683, archbishop Bancroft wrote a letter to the bishop, complaining of a custom which then and for many years after continued, of preaching the sermon in the body of the cathedral, the prayers being read in. the choir: the origin of this custom was, that as there was no sermon in the parish churches, the several parishioners might, after their own prayers, attend the sermon of some eminent preacher in the cathedral. He was a great patron of the French protestants, and contributed largely to their support. In 1687, when the king made his progress through part of England, the bishop sent his servant to Bath, to invite his majesty to his palace at Worcester, where he had the honour of entertaining him on the 23d day of August, the eve of St. Bartholomew. He met him at the gate of his palace, attended by his clergy, and in a sfyort Latin speech welcomed him to the city. His majesty walked upon a large piece of white broad cloth of the manufacture or the city, all strewed with flowers, which reached from the palace gute to the stairs leading up to the great hall: as he went along, he said, “My lord, this looks like Whitehall.” Having refreshed himself after his journey, he went to see the cathedral, the dean attending his majesty to the college gate, from whence he went to see the curiosities of the town, and, among the rest, was shewn where the battle was fought between Oliver and his royal brother *.

The next morning being the feast of St. Bartholomew, the king went to hear mass at the popish chapel, built at his accession to the crown, on the east side of Foregatestreet, attended by the mayor and aldermen, whom, when they came to the gate of the chapel, his majesty asked if they would not go in with him; to which the mayor with a becoming spirit replied, “I think we have attended your majesty too far already.” This worthy magistrate, who preferred his religion, and duty to his country, to every other consideration, should have his name recorded in letters of gold: Dr. Nash took pains to find out who it was, and believed it to be either Thomas Bearcroft or Thomas Sherwin; the former was elected by the new charter, the Jatter by the old charter restored. Upon this answer made by the mayor, the king went into the popish chapel, and the mayor, with all the protestants who attended him, went to the college church, where, when divine service was ended, the bishop waited on his majesty till dinner came in, and the meat being set on the table he offered to say grace; but the king was pleased to say that he would spare him that trouble, for he had a chaplain of his own, upon which the good old man withdrew, not without tears in his eyes. As soon as the dinner was over, his majesty proceeded in his progress to Ludlow, having expressed himself well pleased with the attendance of the gentlemen of the county, and his entertainment by the bishop, which, his lordship says in a private letter to a friend, though very chargeable to him, yet he did not grudge it, as he hoped he had done the church some credit by it. The white broad

While the king was at Worcester, the neighbouring dissenters of all denominations sent their addresses to hira^ which the earl of Plymouth, being lord-lieutenant, was to receive, and to deliver to the king. When he brought the two first the king asked him what religion the men who brought them were of. “Indeed, sir,” replied the lordlieutenant, “I did not ask them; but I know by their looks they are neither of your religion, nor mine.” But now the good bishop’s troubles drew on apace: the penal laws against nonconformists were suspended; and May 4, 1688, the king ordered the bishops to take care that his declaration should be read in the neighbourhood of London, on the 20th and 27th of the said month, and in all other churches and chapels the 3d and 10th of June. The archbishop and six bishops presented a petition against it; the consequence of which was, that they were sent to the Tower; this was a great grief to the bishop, not that he was concerned for any fault or misbehaviour of his brethren, or for the calamity that had befallen them, for he often wished that he had been with them, to bear his testimony in so good a cause, and to have a share with them in their honourable sufferings, but he was troubled to think on that impending storm which he foresaw might fall on the church: however, both he and the dean (Dr. Hickes) resolved not to disperse the declaration, and signified to all the clergy his utter dislike of it. Soon after he received a letter from court, containing a reprimand for not obeying the king’s orders; the answer to which was, as he himself says, without any tincture of collusion, but declaratory of his firm resolution not to comply. Upon king William’s accession, his ill health would not allow him to attend the convention; and indeed he never approved of the prince of Orange’s being declared king, and much less of that act which obliged all persons to take oaths of allegiance to king William and queen Mary, or to forfeit their offices, their livings, and their temporal subsistence. For his own part, he was resolved to forsake all, rather than act con* trary to his former oaths, and homage, which he had paid to king James; and although he writes to Kettlewell, and says, “If my heart do not deceive me, and God’s grace do not fail me, I think I could suffer at a stake rather than take this oath,” yet it does not appear that he used any persuasions to prevent others from taking it, only freely gave his opinion, and advised them sincerely to consult their own consciences. This was what he said to the clergy; and when a grandson of his, Dr. William Thomas, of whom we shall speak hereafter, then a student in Trinity college, Camhridge, consulted him on this critical point, he left him to his own liberty, and the feelings of his own conscience. In one of his sermons he says, “An humble man submits, suspects his own judgment, hath a venerable esteem for his superiors; if startled by any constitutions in church and state, he frequently prays, seriously discourses, modestly counsels with others; if after all expedients he remains dissatisfied, if he cannot swim with the stream, he will not trouble the waters.”

The limited time for taking the oaths drawing near, he prepared himself for leaving the palace, and vacating the see. He had agreed with Mr. Martin, then vicar of Wolverly, to come and live with him; and he wrote to Dr. StillinghYet, telling him that he would use all his interest that he might succeed him. While he was thus preparing all things for his retirement, God was pleased to prepare better for him, for, about the 20th of June, after a very severe fit of the gout, he grew continually weaker and weaker, though his friends did not think him in any immediate danger. The bishop, however, perceiving himself decaying, on Sunday the2-3d, received the sacrament in his own chapel; on Monday all his servants were called in, and he gave every one of them his blessing; that night he endeavoured to sleep, but in vain; his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Anne Thomas, sat up with him, and was much edified by him, for the most part of that restless night he spent in ejaculations, and prayer to God, that he would be pleased to re* lease him from his miseries, and the troubles of this vain worl 1: there was no weight or clog on his conscience; death did not appear at all troublesome to him, the sting was gone, his earnest desire was to depart, and be with Christ. Thus he passed the few remaining hours of his life, being sensible to the last; but, growing still weaker and weaker, about three o'clock the next day, being the 25th, he patiently submitted to the stroke of death, and resigned his spirit into the hands of God that gave it.

He published in his life-time, “An Apology for the Church of England, 1678-9,” 8vo. “A Sermon preached at Caermarthen Assizes,” printed in 1657. “The Mammon of Unrighteousness,”, a sermon preached at the cathedral church of Worcester when he was in a very languishing state of health. His “Letter to the Clergy,” and an imperfect work, entitled “Roman Oracles silenced,” were published after his death. All these shew him to have been a good bishop and industrious divine, but not a writer of parts or genius; his style is harder and more antiquated than that of most writers of his time; but his matter shews the simplicity and humility of his heart; for meekness and unaffected humility were his chief ornaments. These rendered him peaceable and quiet, patient of contradiction, and contented in all conditions, the same easy man when sequestered as when bishop and with the same easy- tranquillity and cheerfulness of mind he prepared to lay down his bishopric, as in his younger years he had done his vicarage. He was never known to have been in a passion. When he was dean of Worcester, one of the prebendaries in chapter fell into a sudden and violent emotion upon no great provocation, which made the dean say to him. “Brother, brother, God give you more patience.” To which the angry gentleman replied, “Mr. Dean, Mr. Dean, God give you more passion.” The good man made no reply, but by a smile. His memory was very good, for though he penned his sermons with great' accuracy, yet he always delivered them memoriter. He was of a stature somewhat tall anci slender, of a long visage, his forehead large, his countenance graceful, and his aspect venerable. The constitution of his body in his younger years was strong and healthful, though afterwards much broken by frequent infirmities, particularly the gout; to frequent and violent fits of which he was subject for upwards of four and twenty years: and that disorder would much sooner have brought him to an end, if it had not been checked by his great temperance and repeated abstinence.

, born in 1670, was grandson to the bishop, and only son of John Thomas and Mary Bagnail, daughter 'to Mr. Bagnall, mentioned in the preceding article. William inherited but little from his grandfather. He was educated at Westminster-school, from whence he was elected to Trinity-college, Cambridge, June 25, 1688, being then seventeen years old, as appears by the accounts of admissions in that college. Here he took his master’s degree, and soon after went into orders: he had the living ef Exal in Warwickshire, given him by the interest of lord Somers, to whom he was distantly related: at Atherston in the same county, he had a considerable estate, as he had likewise at the Grange near Toddington in Gloucestershire; the former came to him by his wife, the latter by his uncle William Thomas.

Queen Anne was well disposed to him, and made many inquiries after him, his grandfather the bishop having been formerly her preceptor; but he declined preferment or attendance at court. He married Elizabeth Carter, only daughter of George Carter, esq. of Brill, in the county of Bucks, with whom he had a considerable fortune. By her he had a numerous family, nine daughters and five sons; of the latter one only survived him about eight years, and died unmarried. For the education of this numerous family, Dr. Thomas wished to go to Worcester, which he accordingly did in 1721, and in 1723 was presented to the rectory of St. Nicholas in that city by bishop Hough, to whom he dedicated “Antiquitates Prioratus majoris Malverne,” printed in 1725; his edition of “Dugdale’s Warwickshire in 1730;” and likewise his “Survey of the Cathedral Church of Worcester,” printed in 1736: to Dugdale he made many large and valuable additions, and it is now deservedly a book of great price.

It has already been mentioned, in the life of 'bishop Hall, that in 1753 Thompson superintended the publication of an edition of the “Virgidemiarum.” To his own volumes of poems was added, “Gondibert and Bertha,” a tragedy, the subject taken from Davenant’s poem of “Gondibert.” This tragedy was written, he informs us, when “he was an undergraduate in the university, as an innocent relaxation from those severer and more useful studies for which the college, where he had the henefit of his education, is so deservedly distinguished.” He reprintfd it with all its juvenile imperfections, but, although it is not without individual passages of poetical beauty, it has not dramatic form and consistency to entitle it to higher praise.

But his merit did not lie long concealed. Mr. Forbes, afterwards lord-president of the session, received him very kindly, and recommended him to some of his friends, particularly to Mr. Aikinan, whose premature death he has with great affection commemorated, in a copy of verses written on that occasion. The good reception he experienced wherever he was introduced, emboldened him to risque the publication of his “Winter,” in March 1726, which was no sooner read than universally admired; and from that time his acquaintance was courted by all men of taste. Dr. Ilundle, afterwards bishop of Derry, received him into his intimate confidence and friendship; promoted his reputation every where; introduced him to his great friend the lord chancellor Talbot; and some years after, when the eldest son of that nobleman was to make his tour of travelling, recommended Mr. Thomson as a proper companion for him. His affection and gratitude to Dr. Rundle are finely expressed in his poem to the memory of lord Talbot. In the mean time, the poet’s chief care had been, in return for the public favour, to finish the plan which their wishes laid out for him; and the expectations which his “Winter” had raised were fully satisfied by the successive publication of the other seasons; of “Summer,” in 1727; of “Spring,” in 1728; and of “Autumn,” in a 4to edition of his works, in 1730. Some very interesting remarks on the variations introduced into these, in subsequent editions, may be seen in the Ceusura Literaria, vols. II. III. and IV.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, was educated in Trinity-college, in the university of Cambridge, of which he was fellow. In 1638 he was proctor of that university. In July 1642 he was admitted to the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire and, upon the death of Dr. Samuel Ward, in September 1643, he was elected master of Sidney-college in Cambridge, from which, Dr. Walker says, he was kept out “by the oppressions of the times;” but there was also somewhat of court-intrigue in this affair, as related in Walter Pope’s life of bishop Ward. He tells us, that upon the death of the latter, the fellows of the college assembled to choose a new master. “Mr. Seth Ward, with nine of them, gave their suffrages for Mr. Thorndike of Trinity-college; for Mr. Minshull there were eight votes including his own. But while they were at the election, a band of soldiers rushed in upon them, and forcibly carried away Mr. Parsons, one of those fellows who voted for Mr. Thorndike, so that the number of suffrages for Mr. Minshull, his own being accounted for one, was equal to those Mr. Thorndike had. Upon which Mr. Minshull was admitted master, the other eight only protesting against it, being ill-advised, for they should have adhered to their votes. Two of them, whereof Mr. Ward was one, went to Oxford, and brought thence a mandamus from the king, commanding Mr. Minshull, and the fellows of Sidney-college, to repair thither, and give an account of their proceedings as to that election. This mandamus, or peremptory summons, was fixed upon the chapel-door by Mr. Linnet, who was afterwards a fellow of Trinity-college, but at that time attended on Mr. Thorndike. On the other side, one Mr. Bertie, a kinsman of the earl of Lindsey, being one of those who voted for Mr. Minshull, was also sent to Oxford on his behalf. This gentleman, by the assistance and mediation of my lord of Lindsey, procured an order from the king to confirm Mr. Minshull’s election; but he, not thinking this title sufficient, did corroborate it with the broad seal, to which Mr. Thorndike consented, Mr. Minshull paying him and the rest of the fellows the charges they had been at in the management of that affair,amounting to about an hundred pounds.” This was therefore evidently a matter in which “the oppressions of the times” (which are usually understood to mean those which arose from the usurpation) were not concerned. He was, however, afterwards, to experience the latter also, and was ejected from his living of Barley, which was given to the rev. Nath. Ball of King’s college, Cambridge, who, Calamy informs us, punctually paid a fifth part of the income to Mr. Thorndike. At the restoration he was replaced in this living, but resigned it on being made a prebendary of Westminster. He very much assisted Dr. Walton in the edition of the Polyglot Bible, particularly in marking the variations in the Syriac version of the Old Testament; and wrote several treatises: “A Discourse concerning the primitive Forme of the Government of Churches,” Cambridge, 1641, 8vo; “A Discourse of Religious Assemblies and the Publike Service of God,” Cambridge, 1642, 8vo; “A Discourse of the Right of the Church in a Christian State, with a Review by way of Appendix,” London, 1649, 8vo; “Just Weights and Measures; that is, the present State of Religion weighed in the Balance, and measured by the Standard of the Sanctuary,” London, 1662, 4to; “A Discourse of the Forbearance of the Penalties, which a due Reformation requires,” London, 1670, 8vo; “Origines Ecclesiae, seu de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesise,” Lond. 1670. To these we may add, what is called his famous book, published in 1659, under the title of “An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, in three books, viz. 1. Of the Principles of Christian Truth. 2. Of the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the Laws of the Church.” By a letter from chancellor Hyde, in the appendix to Dr. Barwick’s Life, it would appear that this work had given offence, as being unseasonable and injudicious. Hyde says, “Pray tell me, what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever imparting it, or communicating with them? His name and reputation in learning is too much made use of, to the discountenance of the poor church; and though it might not be in his power to be without some doubts and scruples, I do not know what impulsion of conscience there could be to publish those doubts to the world, in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them.” This seems to allude to some opinions he held that were unfavourable to the measures of the court: and we find that there was some difficulty in admitting him into the convocation in 1661, “on account of his speaking much of the Bohemian churches, called Unitas Fratrum.” He was a member of the Savoy conference, and in the little he said completely undeceived the non-conformists, who, from his early publications, had supposed he was of their side. There was also a suspicion that he had a little too much leaning to the church of Rome, so that his character has not descended to us with all the evidences of consistency; but that he was a man of great learning, and an able oriental scholar, seems indisputable.

In 1570 he went to Orleans, to pursue the law; and there the writings of Cujaci us inspired him with such an esteem for that celebrated professor, that he quitted Orleans, and repaired to him into Dauphiny. He stopped upon the road at Bourges six months, for the sake of, hearing the famous civilian Hotomannus; and then proceeded to Valence, where Cujacius was reading lectures. Here he met with Joseph Scaliger, who was upon a visit to Cujacius; and commenced a friendship with him, which he cultivated ever after with the greatest care. His father, unwilling to have him long at a distance from him, recalled him in about a year; and he returned to Paris some time before that terrible massacre of the Protestants, which was perpetrated on St. Bartholomew’s day in 1572. As he was designed for the church, he went to live with his uncle Nicholas de Thou, who, being just made bishop of Chartres, resigned to him a canonry of Notre Dame. He began now to collect that library, which afterwards became so famous. In 1573 he accompanied Paul de Foix into Italy, and visited the principal towns, cultivating acquaintance with the learned as he passed. On his return to Paris, he applied himself to reading for four years; yet this, he used to say, was not of so much use to him as conversing with learned men, which he did daily. About the end of 1576, when civil tumults threatened the state, M. de Thou was employed in certain negotiations, which he executed so well, as to establish the reputation of a man fit for business. He afterwards went into the LowCountries, and in 1578 was made counsellor-clerk to the parliament; an honourable post, bur accepted by him with reluctance, on account of his great love for retirement and study. In 1579 he accompanied his eldest brother to the baths of Plombieres in Lorrain; and this gentleman dying, he soon after quitted the ecclesiastical state.

, Lord Thurlow, a distinguished statesman and lawyer, was the second son of the rev. Thomas Thurlow, rector of Ashfield in Suffolk, and was born about 1732. He was entered of, and continued for some time at Caiut college, Cambridge, whery vulgar report has made him idle and dissipated. Of this we have no proof, nor of his having been equally careless of his studies after he entered the society of the Middle Temple. Lord Thurlow may have been indebted to what are called lucky coincidences for some of his promotions, but as he was always found amply qualified for the high stations he held, he could not have much neglected the cultivation of his natural abilities, or been remiss in accumulating that knowledge by which alone he could rival his contemporaries. He appears to have been called to the bar in 1758, and must have rapidly attained distinction in his profession, for, in three years after, chiefly owing to the talent he displayed in the Douglas cause, he was advanced to the rank of king’s counsel. His voice, person, and manner, were not ill calculated to give his efforts an air of consequence at the bar, and his practice became extensive. In March 1770 he was appointed solicitor-general, and in. June 1771 attorney-general. He now sat in parliament for the borough of Tamworth, where he had many opportunities of justifying the choice of his patrons, and of creating that species of character and interest which generally leads to the highest legal appointments. As a politician, he uniformly, and with commanding vigour, suppotted the measures adopted with respect to America, Sec. during lord North’s administration. In June 1778, he was appointed to succeed lord Apsley, as lord high chancellor of Great Britain, and the same day was raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Thurlow of Ashfield in Suffolk. This office he resigned in April 1783, when the seals were put into commission, but was re-appointed when Mr. Pitt was nominated prime minister in December following. He again resigned them in June 1792, and on the 12th of that month was created Lord Thurlow of Thurlow in Suffolk, with a collateral remainder of this honour to the issue male of his late two brothers, the bishop of Durham, and John Thurlow of Norwich. After this retirement, till a short period before his death, he took an active part, and had great weight, in the House of Lords.; and having retained complete possession of his faculties, with accumulated wisdom and experience, his latter speeches were often more the subject of admiration, than any that had been remembered in his earlier days. He died in the seventy-fourth year of his age, Sept. 12, 1806, without male issue.

As a scholar lord Thurlow possessed more knowledge than the world gave him credit for, and his profound acquaintance with the Greek language is testified in a dedication to him by his friend Dr. Horsley. In early life, he lived much with men of gaiety and wit, and always preserved a high respect for literary merit. In his latter years, he would not probably have defended the laxity in which much of his time had been spent. He never was married, but left three daughters by a lady with whom he had long lived. He was, agreeably to the terms of his second peerage, succeeded by his nephew Edward, eldest son of Thomas Thurlow, late bishop of Durham, who died in 179 1.

, whom L‘Avocat prqnounces one of the most judicious and accurate critics and historians that France has produced, was born at Paris Nov. 30, 1637. His father, John L,e Nain, was master of the requests. About the age of ten, he was sent to the famous seminary of the Port Royal, where his attention to instruction, and his proficiency, were very extraordinary, and where he very early became fond of ’the study of history. This partiality seems to have been first excited by a perusal of Baronius, and while thus employed he was perpetually putting questions to his master Nicole, who at first gave him such answers as came in his head at the moment, hut soon found that his pupil was not so easily satisfied; and Nicole, although by no means ignorHiit of history, used to dread his approach, lest he might ask questions for which he was not fully prepared. At the age of e ghteen Tillemont began to read the fathers, the lives of the apostles, and their successors in the primitive church, and drew up for himself an account of early ecclesia^tical history, in the manner of Usher’s Annals, a hook he much admired, and formed his pwn somewhat on the same plan. In the mean time he was successfully instructed in other branches but it was a considerable time before he made choice of a profession. In this he was at last influenced by M. Choart de Buzanval, bishop of Brauvais, who determined him in favour of the church, and gave him the tonsure. About 1663, he went to reside with M. Hermant, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, and remained there five or six years. He then returned to Paris, and lodged with M. Thomas de Fosse, an old school-fellow, for about two years; but although in all these situations he was constantly employed in study, and had the quiet enjoyment of his time, he removed to the country, and, after receiving the other orders of his church, and being ordained priest in 1676, he settled at Tillemont, whence he took his name, about a league from Paris. About this time he was employed, along with his friend M. de Sacy, on a life of St. Louis, and two years after he travelled in Flanders and Holland. After his return, he continued his studies, and, in 1690, began to publish his <k History of the Emperors,“which was very favourabl\ received, and made the public more anxious to see his history of the church, on which it was well known he had been for some time employed. His” History of the Emperors“was, in fact, a part of his ecclesiastical history; hut when he printed a volume, as a specimen, it fell into the hands of a licenser of the press, who made so many petty objections, that M. Tillemont determined to suppress the work rather than submit to the proposed alterations and omissions, as none of the objections were in any way contrary to the received doctrines of the church. He then, by the advice of his friends, published the history of the emperors separately; and there being no occasion in this case for a theological licenser, he published vol. I. in 1690, 4to; and completed the work in five vols, in 1701, which had abundant success; was reprinted at Brussels, and translated into English. This was followed by his ecclesiastical history,” Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles," &c. 1693, &c. completed in sixteen volumes, quarto. Extreme accuracy of facts and dates constitute the great merit of this work, and the want of a more methodical arrangement, and of a better style, its chief objections. Dupin wishes he had reduced his work to the form of annals, in imitation of Baronius; and this opinion having been conveyed to M. Tillemont, he said he could not think of going over the materials anew, but was very willing to give his manuscripts to any person who would take the trouble to put them in the form of annals. No such person offering his services, M. Tillemont proceeded in his own way, in which he met afterwards with very little opposition, except a short controversy, of no great importance, with father Lamy.

Tillemont was intimate with M. Hermant, doctor of the Sorbonne, Baillet, Nicole, and many other learned men, who frequently consulted him. To a complete knowledge of ecclesiastical history, he joined an exemplary humility, and regularity of conduct. His humility, indeed, was so great, that Bossuet, seeing one of his letters to father Lamy, besought him, *' not to be always upon his knees before his adversary, but raise himself now and then up." He was solicited to push himself in the church, and his friend the bishop of Beauvais wished to have him for his successor: but Tillemont, regardless of dignities, wished for nothing but retirement, and there his perpetual watchings and austerities brought him into a state of languor, which terminated in a disease, of which he died, January 10, 1698, aged sixty-one. He was interred at Port-royal agreeably to his desire, but when that abbey was destroyed in 1711, his remains were removed to St, Andre des Arcs, his parish church.

His first education and impressions were among Puritans; from whose principles he gradually seceded, and is said to have felt a great repugnance to read the works usually put into the hands of youth. Mr. Chillingworth’s works are said to have first given his mind a new bias, and dire. -ted Dim to a new method of study, and about the same time he entered into friendship with some great men, which contributed not a little to give him new views of theological matters. Cambridge then could boast of the celebrated names of Dr Cudworth, master of Christ’s-colle^e; Dr. More, and Dr. Rust, afterwards bishop of Dromore in Ireland, fellows of the same Dr. Whichcot, provost of King’s; Dr. Worthington, master of Jesus and Mr. John Smith, author of the “Select Discourses,” fellow of Queen’s. Tillotson enjoyed also a close and intimate friendship with Dr. Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester; he adopted all the best studies of this great man, but so as to perfect every one of them; for, though Wilkins had more general knowledge, yet Tillotson was the greater divine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Traill lived to see the revolution established, and to rejoice in the settlement of the protestant succession in the illustrious house of Hanover. He died in May 1716, aged seventy-four. His works, principally sermons, which have long been popular, particularly in Scotland, were printed for many years separately, but in 1776 were published together at Glasgow in 3 vols. 8vo. In 1810a more complete edition appeared at Edinburgh in 4 vols. 8vo, with a life prefixed, of which we have partly availed ourselves. It is not mentioned in any account we have seen, where Mr. Traill died, but it is probable that he had returned to Scotland before that event, as all his descendants were settled there. His son, Robert, was minister of Panbride, in the county of Angus, and was the father of Dr. James Traill, who, conforming to the English church, was presented to the living of West Ham, Essex, in 1762. He accompanied the earl of Hertford as chaplain to that nobleman when ambassador in France, and was afterwards his chaplain when he became lord lieutenant of Ireland. In 1765 he was appointed bishop of Down and Connor, and died in Dublin in 1783.

He was so much addicted to books, that it was the late bishop Pearce’s opinion that he studied harder than any man in England. In consequence of this he was liable to absence of mind, as it is called, and frequently ordinary matters and occurrences passed unheeded before him. When at college, according to the imperfect account of him in the Supplement to the “Biographia Britannica,” he was somewhat dissipated, and was led to pursuits not becoming his intended profession. When he applied to Dr, Robinson, bishop of London, for orders, that prelate censured him, with much warmth, for having written a play (“Abramule”); but, after taking on him the sacred profession, he was uniform in a conduct which did credit to it. And his consistency in this respect for a series of years, during the most turbulent times, both in church and state, procured him the greatest honours and respect from persons of the first order and character. The university of Oxford, who confers her honours only by the test of merit, and the rules of propriety, could not express her opinion of his merit more significantly than by presenting him with a doctor of divinity’s degree, by diploma, in full convocation. When he preached his assize sermon at Oxford, 1739, it was observed, that the late rev. Dr. Theophilus Leigh, master of Baliol-college, and then vice-chancellor of Oxford, stood up all the time of his preaching, to manifest his high sense of so respectable a character. Nor was he regarded only by those of his own church and country, for he was much esteemed by foreigners, and even by those of the Romish communion, against whom he stood foremost in controversy, and that with some acrimony. When, in 1742, his son was at Rome, he was asked by one of the cardinals, whether he was related to the great Dr. Trapp, and the cardinal being informed that he was his son, he immediately requested, that on his return to England, he would not fail to make his particular respects to the doctor.

As his numerous publications form a sort of diary of his employments, we shall give a chronological list of them, which seems to have been drawn up with great care, omitting only some of his occasional sermons, as we believe they were afterwards collected. His earliest production was, 1. “Fraus nummi Anglicani,” in the “Musae Anglicanse,” 1699; 2. “A poem on Badminton -house, Gloucestershire.” 1700; 3. “Verses on the death of the duke of Gloucester,” Oxon. 1700; 4. “On the deaths of king William, prince George, and queen Anne,” 1702, &c. 5. “Verses on baron Spanheim,” 1706; 6. “Miscellany verses,” in vol. VI. of Dry den’s Miscellany, 1709; 7. “Odes on the Oxford Act,” 1713; 8.“Preservative against unsettled notions,” vol. I. 1715, vol.11. 1722; 9. A controversial “Sermon” against bishop Hoadly, from John xviii. 36, 1717; 10. “Virgil translated into blank verse,” 1717, 2 vols. 4to 11. “Prelectiones Poeticae, 1718, 3 vols. 8vo 12.” Treatise on Popery truly stated and briefly confuted,“1727; 13.” Answer to England’s conversion,“1727; 14.” Sermons on Righteousness overmuch, four in one,“Ecclesiastes vii. 16, ‘Be not righteous over-much, neither m.-.’ke thyself over-wise; why shouldst thou destroy thyself;' 15.” Sermon at Oxford Assizes,“‘ But it is good to be zealously affected always. in a good thing,’ 1739; 16.” Answer to the Seven Pamphlets against the said Sermon,“1740; 17.” Reply to Mr. Law’s answer to Righteousness over-much,“1740; 18.” Miltoni Paradisus Amissus, 2 vols.; 19. “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem Sion Coll. Matt. x. Coram. 16,” 1743; 20. “Sermons, No. III. from Matt. xvi. 22, 23, ‘Now all this was done,’ &c. Malachi iii. 1, ‘ Behold I will send my messenger/ &c. and from Matt. xvi. 27, 28, * For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of the Father,’ &c. prefixed to Explanatory Notes on the first of the Four Gospels,” 1747 21. “Continuation of Explanatory Notes on the Four Gospels,” finished and published by Mr. Trapp, his son, 1752 22. “Sermons on Moral and Practical subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo, published by Mr. Trapp, and printed at Reading, in 1752, His Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lecture were published in 1731, 8vo. Besides the above he published, without his name, 23. “A Prologue to the University of Oxford,” 1703; 24. “Abramule,” a Tragedy, 1703; 25. “An ordinary Journey no Progress,” in defence of Dr. Sacheverell, 1710; 26. “The true genuine Whig and Tory Address,” in answer to a Libel of Dr. B. Hoadly, 1710; 27. < Examiners“in Vol. I. Nos. 8, 9, 26, 33, 45, 46, 48, 50, 1711; Vol. II. Nos. 6, 12, 26, 27, 37,45, 5O, 1712; Vol. III. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 13, 20, 21, 26, 29, 34, 1713; 28. The Age of Riddles,” 1710; 29. “Character and principles of the present set of Whigs,” 1711; 30. “Most Faults^on one Side,” against a sly Whig pamphlet, entitled, * Faults on both Sides,' 1710; 31. “Verses on Garth’s Verses to Godolphin,” 1710; 32. “Votes without Doors, occasioned by Votes within Doors,” 1710; 33. “Preface to an Answer to Priestcraft,” 1710; 34. “Verses on Harley’s being stabbed by Guiscard,” 1711—35. “Poem to the duke of Ormond,” 1711—36. “Character of a certain Whig,” 1711—37. “Her Majesty’s prerogative in Ireland,” 1711; 38. “Peace,” a poem, 1713 39. “A short answer to the bishop of Bangor’s great book against the Committee,” 1717 40. “The Case of the Rector of St. Andrew, Holborn,” 1722; 41. “Several Pieces in the Grub-street Journal,” viz. upon Impudence, upon Henley’s Grammars, Answering, and not answering, Books, 1726; 42. “On Budgel’s Philosopher’s Prayer,” 1726 43. “Prologue and Epilogue for Mr.Hemmings’s Scholars at Thistleworth,” 1728 44. “Grubstreet verses, Bowman,” 1731; 45. “Anacreon translated into Elegiacs,” 1732 46. “Four last Things,” a poem, 1734 47. “Bribery and Perjury;” 48. “Letter about the Quakers Tithe Bill,” 1736.

, successively bishop of Norwich and Winchester, was the son of the rev. Charles Trimnell, sometime fellow of New college, Oxford, whence he was ejected in 1648 by the parliamentary visitors, and was afterwards rector of Ripton Abbots in Huntingdonshire, where he died in 1702. Of a family of fourteen children, there survived him, ). Charles, bi>hop of Winchester; 2. William, dean of Winchester 3. Hugh, apothecary to the king’s household 4. David, archdeacon of Leicester, and chantor of Lincoln 5 Mary, married to Mr. John Sturges, archdeacon of Huntingdon 6. Anne, married to Mr. Alured Clarke of Godmanchester, in the county of Huntingdon; 7. Elizabeth, married to Dr. Henry Downes, bishop of Derry in Ireland; and 8. Catherine, married to Dr. Thomas Green, bishop of Ely.

Charles, the subject of this memoir, was born at RiptonAbbots, Dec. 27, 1663, and in 1675 was admitted on the foundation at Winchester college, where his learning, morals, and respectful behaviour, recommended him to the notice of his superiors. In 1681 he removed from Winchester to New college, Oxford, to which, as the preacher of his funeral sermon says, he “brought more meekness and patience in the study of philosophy, than the generality of philosophers carry from it.” In Jan. 1688 he was admitted master of arts, and in the same year appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by sir John Trevor, master of the Rolls. In August 1689, he attended the earl of Sunderland and his lady in their journey to Holland; and, after their return home, continued with them at Althorp, as their domestic chaplain. In Dec. 1691 he was installed prebendary of Norwich. In 1694, he was presented by the earl of Sunderland to the rectory of Bodington in Northamptonshire, which he resigned two years after on being instituted to Brington, in which parish Althorp stands, a living of no greater value than Bodington, although he was desired to keep both. In 1698 he was installed archdeacon of Norfolk, and procured leave of his noble patron to resign the rectory of Brington (at a time, when the remainder of his income did not exceed two hundred pounds per ann.) in favour of Mr. Downes (afterwards bishop of Derry in Ireland) who had married one of his sisters. On July the 4th, 1699, he was admitted doctor in divinity. In 1701 and 1702, during the controversy that was carried on in the Lower House of Convocation, he wrote some pieces in defence of the rights of the crown, and the archbishop; as, l. “A Vindication of the Proceedings of some Members of the Lower House of Convocation,” 1701, 4to. 2. “The Pretence to enter the Parliament-Writ considered,” 1701, 4to. 3. “An Answer to a third Letter to a Clergyman in defence of the entry of the Parliament- Writ,” 1702, 4to. 4. “Partiality detected,” c. a large pamphlet.

About this time he was made chaplain in ordinary to queen Anne. In 1703 he was invited to appear as a candidate for the wardenship of New college in Oxford, by a great number of the fellows, who looked upon him as the fittest person to keep up that spirit of discipline and learning, which had been exerted, with the greatest credit and advantage to the college, under their late excellent warden Dr. Traffics. But, contrary to the hopes and expectations of his friends, the election was determined in favour of Mr. Brathwait. On this occasion, thirty - one voted for Mr. Brathwait, and twenty - nine for Dr. Trimnell on which the scrutators declared Mr. Brathwait duly elected. But, according to the canon law, no mail can vote for himself in an election per scrutinium; and it being found, that Mr. Brathwait’s own vote had been given for himself, it was insisted upon, that Mr. Brathwait could not be duly elected, because he had but thirty good votes, which was not the major pars pr&sentium required by the statutes, thereb eing sixty electors- present. Upon this ground an appeal v>*as made to the visitor, Dr. Mews, bishop of Winchester, against the validity of the election. One of the bishop’s assessors gave no opinion; and the other, sir John Cooke (dean of the Arches), was clearly of opinion, that the election was void, and thereby a devolution made to the bishop, who, in consequence of such devolution, might nominate whom he pleased; but he chose rather to pronounce the election valid, and Mr. Brathwait duly elected.

In 1705, having had no parochial duty for some years, he undertook the charge of St. Giles’s parish, in the city of Norwich; and in October 1706 was instituted to St. James’s, Westminster, on the promotion of Dr. William Wake to the bishopric of Lincoln. In January 1707, he was elected bishop of Norwich in the room of Dr. John Moore, translated to Ely, and was permitted to keep the rectory of St. James’s with his bishopric for one year. In 1709 he published a charge to the clergy at his primary visitation, in which he spoke with great freedom against some prevailing opinions and practices, which he thought prejudicial to the true interest of the church of England in particular, and of religion in general. These opinions were, the “independence of the church upon the state; the” power of offering sacrifice,“properly so called; and the” power of forgiving sins: “all of them,” he says, “I am persuaded, erroneous, in the manner they have been urged, and no way agreeable to the doctrine of the church of England about them. The making more things follow our sacred function, than can fairly and plainly be grounded upon it, will never advance our character with wise and considering men, such as we should desire all men to be; but must be a real prejudice to us. Our, pretending to an independent power in things within the compass of human authority; and a right to offer sacrifice properly speaking; and a commission to forgive sins directly and immediately; may, and will weaken the grounds and occasions of the reformation; and give our adversaries of the church of Rome, as well as others, great advantage against us; but can never, I am persuaded, advance the interest of the Christian religion in general, or of our church in particular.” He added an Appendix to the charge in answer to some authorities that had been produced from ancient writers in favour of the independence of the church upon the state; which, he says, he did the rather, because he “thought the peace both of church and state more immediately concerned in it, and could not but apprehend mischief coming to both from a pretension so new among those who call themselves members of the church of England: a church that has hitherto been as much distinguished, as it has been supported, by rejecting that claim.” In a sermon preached in 1707 before the sons of the clergy, he had expressed himself in as strong a manner upon this subject, viz. “Let us take care that, while we maintain the distinction and dignity of our order, we do not suffer ourselves to be carried into a separate interest from that of those who are not of our order, or from that of the state For we cannot pretend to be a separate body, without making the worst kind of schism, and the nearest to that which is condemned in scripture, that can be imagined: nor can any thing give greater advantage to those other schisms that disturb the peace of the church, than our dividing ourselves, in any degree, from the true interest of that government to which we belong.” In his charge he censured a pa*sage in favour of a proper sacrifice from Mr. Johnson’s second part of the “Clergyman’s Vade Mecum” (in the note upon the second apostolical canon), which Mr. Johnson defended in a postscript to a pamphlet called “The Propitiatory Oblation.” The bishop replied, in vindication of what he had said on that subject; and afterwards inserted the substance of his Reply in the body of the second edition of his charge.

Besides the opinions that have been mentioned, he declared himself against the modern practice of using the bidding prayer before sermon, as not so agreeable to the nature of the service, the long and general practice of the church, or the design of the 55th canon. And he observed from authority, that “the bishops (Dr. Uavis and Dr. Fletcher) who drew up the 55th canon, always used a form of their own;” and that among the bishop of Lincoln’s articles of inquiry at his visitation in 1641, are these; "Do

In 1710 he printed a speech made in the House of Lords in support of the second article of the impeachment of Dr. Sacheverel, for “suggesting and maintaining that the toleration granted by law is unreasonable, and unwarrantable, &c.” Bishop Trimnell was considered as of whig principles, and when he preached the 30th of January sermon in 1711, before the House of Lords, his sentiments, which are said to have been more moderate than usual at that time, gave so much offence, that no motion was made in the House for the usual compliment of thanks. This occasioning much animadversion, and affording many conjectures which were unfavourable to him, he printed the discourse. He published also, from 1697 to 1715, fourteen other occasional sermons.

Soon after the accession of George I. he was made clerk of the closet to his majesty, in which office he continued until his death. In August 1721 he was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; and in the same year elected president of the corporation of the sons of the clergy. After suffering long by a weak constitution, he died at Farnham castle, Aug. 15, 1723, leaving no issue. By his first wife, Henrietta Maria, daughter of Dr. William Talbot, then bishop of Oxford, and afterwards of Durham, he had two sons, who died in their infancy. This lady died in 1716 ti and in 1719 he married Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor, widow of Joseph Taylor, of the Temple, esq. and sister of sir Rowland Wynne, of Nosteil, in Yorkshire, hart, who survived him. He was interred in Winchester cathedral, under a black marble stone, with a Latin inscription.

Mr. Archdeacon Stephens, rector of Drokinsford, in Hampshire, preached his funeral sermon in Winchester cathedral. In that sermon, and other authorities, his character is thus given: “He had a very serious and devout turn of mind, and performed the duty of every station with the greatest exactness, notwithstanding the weakness of a constitution broken, in the early part of life, by long ant! frequent fastings, and too diligent an application to his studies. But this had no effect upon his mind, which was calm and composed at all times. The uneasiness he suffered from an ill habit of body, never made him uneasy to others. He was of a very affectionate, meek, and gentle nature; and though he had a good deal of warmth in his temper, he subdued it so effectually by reflection and habit, that he was hardly ever seen in a pas*, siott^ but behaved in all the private, as well as public circumstances of life, with great moderation and firmness of. spirit. He was a lover of peace and order, both from judgment and inclination; and, being a most sincere friend to the church of England, he constantly avowed those principles” of toleration and indulgence, which make that church the glory of the reformation. "There are letters extant, by which it appears, that he was very diligent in examining the arguments urged on both sides, before he took the oaths to king William and queen Mary, which he religiously observed by a steady and uniform attachment to the Revolution-interest, as longas he lived. No man ever supported the character of a bishop with greater dignity and authority, and yet no one was ever more beloved by the clergy of both his dioceses; for he was very courteous and obliging, and easy of access to all, and had a strict regard to those parts of behaviour which are most suitable to the profession of a minister of the gospel. His rebukes were conveyed in few words, and those delivered with a sort of uneasiness for the necessity of them: but although they were few, and smoother than oil, yet were they very swords; for to an understanding heart they seemed to receive an aggravation of anger, from that very meekness which endeavoured to soften them. He was of a temper incapable of soliciting favours for himself, or his nearest friends, though he had the tei/derest affection for them. He was very much displeased at the appearance of an importunate application in others, and always avoided it in his own conduct. And notwithstanding all his relations have prospered very much in the world by his means, their success has been owing rather to the credit and influence of his character, than any direct applications made by him. The nobleness of his mind appeared in many other instances; in his candour and generosity of spirit, and contempt of money; of which he left so many marks in every place where he lived, that he had neither ability, nor occasion, 1 to perpetuate his memcry by any posthumous charities. He did not consider his revenue as designed for the private advantage of a family; but as a trust or stewardship, that was to be employed for the honour of his station; the maintenance of hospitality; the relief of the poor; the promoting a good example amongst his clergy; and the general encouragement of religion and learning.

After the death of this pontiff he returned to his own country, and married a relation, Blanche Trissina, by whom he had a third son, Ciro; but Leo’s successor, Clement VII. soon recalled him to Rome, and gave him equal proofs of his esteem a-nd confidence, by sending him as his ambassador to Charles V. and to the senate of Venice. Some of his biographers say that he was created a knight of the golden fleece, either by Charles V. or by Maximilian, but Tiraboschi thinks that he never was admitted into that order, although he might have permission to add the fleece to his arms, and even take the title of chevalier. Voltaire’s blunders about Trissino are wholly unaccountable. Hie makes him archbishop of Benevento at the time he wrote his tragedy; and having this probably pointed out to him, he endeavoured to correct the error by asserting in a subsequent publication that bishop Trissino, by the advice of the archbishop of Benevento, chose Sophonisba for a subject, although Trissino never was either bishop or archbishop, nor an ecclesiastic of any rank.

, a Dominican friar, son of sir Thomas Trivet, lord chief justice, was author of the “Annales 6. Regurn Anglise,” published by Mr. Ant. Hall, of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1719, 2 vols. 8vo. He lived in the reigns of Edward I. II. III. and died in 1328. Bishop Nicolson says that an excellent copy of his history, which John Pits subdivides into three several treatises, was in his time in the library of Merton college, Oxford, “whence several of our most eminent antiquaries have had very remarkable observations.” It is in French, and bears the title of “Les Gestes des Apostoiles, or the popes, empereurs, et rois;” but this must be a different work from the former. Trivet left many other Mss. on various subjects of philosophy and theology, a commentary on Seneca’s Tragedies, &c. He was educated at Oxford, and esteemed one of the ornaments of the university in his time.

Mr. Trumbull was educated partly at home and partly at Oafcingham school, to which he was sent in 1649. Jn 1654 he was admitted a gentleman commoner, under Mr. T. Wyat, in St. John’s college, Oxford, but removed three years after to Ah Souls, on being chosen a fellow. In 1659, he went out bachelor of laws. In 1664- he began his travels through France and Italy, and lived there with the lords Sunderland, Godolphin, and the bishop of London, Dr. Compton. In 1666 he returned to college, and the following year practised as a civilian in the vice-chancellor’s court. From some ms memorandums of his life written by himself, it appears that about this time he conducted an appeal to the lord chancellor Clarendon, and carried a point respecting the non-payment ojf fees for his doctor’s degree, by which he gained great credit, and all the business of the vice-chancellor’s court. In July of this year, 1667, he took the degree of LL. D. and in Michaelmas term, 1668, was admitted of Doctors’ Commons, after which he says he attended diligently the courts, and took notes.

, an ingenious English writer, was born in London Sept. 2, 1705, of a Somersetshire family; his father was a merchant, his mother was Judith, daughter of Abraham Tillard, esq. Both his parents died before he was two years old, and left him under the care of his grandmother Tillard and his maternal uncle sir Isaac Tillard, a man of strict piety and morality, of whose memory Mr. Tucker always spoke with the highest veneration and regard, and who took the utmost pains to give his nephew principles of integrity, benevolence, and candour, with a disposition to unwearied application and industry in his pursuits. He was educated at Bishop’s Stortford, and in 1721 was entered as a gentleman commoner in Merlon-college, Oxford, where his favourite studies were metaphysics and the mathematics. He there engaged masters to teach him French, Italian, and music, of which last he was very fond. In 1726 he was entered of the Inner Temple. Soon afterwards, and just before he came of age, he lost his guardian sir Isaac. He studied enough of the law to be useful to himself and his friends; but his fortune not requiring it, and his constitution not being strong, he was never called to the bar. He usually spent the summer vacations in tours through different parts of England, Wales, and Scotland, and once passed six weeks in France and Flanders. In 1727 he purchased Betchworth-castle with its estate. He then turned his attention more to rural affairs, and with his usual industry wrote down numberless observations which he collected in discourses with his farmers, or extracted from various authors on the subject. On the 3d of February, 1736, he married Dorothy, daughter of Edward Barker, esq. afterwards cursitor baron of the exchequer, and receiver of the tenths. By her he had three daughters, Dorothy, who died under three years old, Judith, and Dorothea- Maria, who, on the 27th of October, 1763, married sir Henry Paulett St. John, bart. and died on the 5th of May, 1768, leaving one son. Mrs. Tucker died the 7th of May, 1754, aged 48. As they had lived together in the tenderest harmony, the loss was a very severe stroke to Mr. Tucker. His first amusement was. to collect all the letters which had passed between them whenever they happened to be absent from each other, which he copied out in books twice over, under the title of “The Picture of artless Love;” one copy he gave to her father, who survived her five years, and the other he kept to read over to his daughters frequently. His principal attention then was to instruct his daughters; he taught them French and Italian, and whatever else he thought might be useful to them to know. In 1755, at the request of a friend in the west of England, he worked up some materials which he sent him into the form of a pamphlet, then published under the title of “The Country Gentleman’s Advice to his Son on the Subject of Party Clubs,” printed by Owen, Temple-bar; and he soon after began writing “The Light of Nature pursued,” of which he not only formed and wrote over several sketches before he fixed on the method he determined to pursue, but wrote the complete copy twice with his own hand; but thinking his style was naturally still and laboured, in order to improve it, he had employed much time in studying the most elegant writers and orators, and translating many orations of Cicero, Demosthenes, &c. and, twice over, “Cicero de Oratore.” After this he composed a little treatise called “Vocal Sounds,” printed, but never published; contriving, with a few additional letters, to fix the pronunciation to the whole alphabet in such manner, that the sound of any word may be conveyed on puper as exactly as by the voice. His usual method of spending his time was to rise very early to his studies, in winter bu ‘ning a lamp in order to light his own fire before his servants were stirring. After breakfast he returned to his studies for two or three hours, and then took a ride on horseback, or walked. The evenings in summer he often spent in walking over his farms and setting down his remarks; and in the winter, while in the country, reading to his wife, and afterwards to his daughters. In London, where he passed some months every winter and spring, he passed much time in the same manner, only that his evenings were more frequently spent in friendly parties with some of his relations who lived near, and with some of his old fellow collegiates or Temple friends. His walks there were chiefly to transact any business he had in town, always preferring to walk on all his own errands, to sending orders by a servant, and frequently when he found no other, would walk, he said, to the Bank to see what it was o’clock. Besides his knowledge in the classics and the sciences, he was perfectly skilled in merchant’s accompts, and kept all his books with the exactness of an accompting-house; and he was ready to serve his neighbours by acting as justice of peace. His close application to his studies, and writing latterly much by candle and lamp-light, weakened his sight, and hrought on cataracts, which grew so much worse after a fever in the spring, 1771, that he could no longer amuse himself with reading or writing, and at last could not walk, except in his own garden, without leading. This was a great trial on his philosophy, yet it did not fail him i he not only bore it with patience, but cheerfulness, frequently being much diverted with the mistakes his infirmity occasioned him to make. His last illness carried him off on the 20th of November, 1774, perfectly sensible, and as he had lived, easy and resigned, to the last. He published a pamphlet entitled a Man in quest of himself,“in reply to some strictures on a note to his” Free Will.“He had no turn for politics or public life, and never could be induced to become a candidate to represent the county of Surrey, to which his fortune, abilities, and character gave him full pretensions.” My thoughts,“says Mr. Tucker of himself,” have taken a turn, from my earliest youth, towards searching into the foundations and measures of right and wrong; my love for retirement has furnished me with continual leisure; and the exercise of my reason has been my daily employment." He once, however, was induced to attend a public meeting at Epsom in the beginning of the present reign, when party ran very high, and when sir Joseph Mawbey began to exercise his talent for poetry by a ballad on the occasion, in which he introduced Mr. Tucker and other gentlemen who differed from him in their opinions. So far from being hurt by this, Mr. Tucker was highly amused at the representation given of himself, and actually set the ballad to music.

At the age of twenty-three he entered into holy orders, and served a curacy for some time in Gloucestershire. About 1737 he became curate of St. Stephen’s church, Bristol, and was appointed minor canon in the cathedral of that city. Here he attracted the notice of Dr. Joseph Butler, then bishop of Bristol, and afterwards of Durham, who appointed Mr. Tucker his domestic chaplain. By the interest of this prelate Mr. Tucker obtained a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Bristol; and on the death of Mr. Catcott, well known by his treatise on the deluge, he became rector of St. Stephen. The inhabitants of that parish consist chiefly of merchants and tradesmen, a circumstance which greatly aided his natural inclination for commercial and political studies. When the famous bill was brought into the House of Commons for the naturalization of the Jews, Mr. Tucker took a decided part in favour of the measure, and was, indeed, its most able advocate; but for this he was severely attacked in pamphlets, newspapers, and magazines; and the people of Bristol burnt his effigy dressed in canonicals, together with his letters on. behalf of naturalization . In 1753 he published an able pamphlet on the “Turkey Trade,” in which he demonstrates the evils that result to trade in general from chartered companies. At this period lord Clare (afterwards Ccirl Nugent) was returned to parliament for Bristol, which honour he obtained chiefly through the strerruous exertions of Mr. Tucker, whose influence in his large and wealthy parish was almost decisive on such an occasion. In return for this favour the earl procured for him the deanery of Gloucester, in 1758, at which time he took his degree of D. D. So great was his reputation for commercial knowledge, that Dr. Thomas Hayter, afterwards bishop of London, who was then tutor to his present majesty, applied to Dr. Tucker to draw up a dissertation on this subject for the perusal of his royal pupil. It was accordingly done, and gave great satisfaction. This work, under the title of “The Elements of Commerce,” was printed in quarto, but never published. Dr. Warburton, however, who, after having been member of the same chapter with the dean, at Bristol, became bishop of Gloucester, thought very differently from the rest of mankind, in respect to his talents and favourite pursuits; and said once, in his coarse manner, that “his Dean’s trade was religion, and religion his trade.” The dean on being once asked concerning the coolness which subsisted between him and ^Varburton, his answer was to the following purpose: “The bishop affects to consider me with contempt; to which I say nothing. He has sometimes spoken coarsely of me; to which I replied nothing. He has said that religion is my trade, and trade is my religion. Commerce, and its connections have, it is true, been favourite objects of my attention, and where is jthe crime? And as for religion, I have attended carefully to the duties of my parish: nor have I neglected my cathedral. The world knows something of me as a writer on religious subjects; and I will add, which the world does not know, that I have written near three hundred sermons, preached them all, again and again. My heart is at ease on that score, and my conscience, thank God, does not accuse me.” The fact is, that although there is no possible connection between the business of commerce and the duties of a clergyman, he had studied theology in all its branches scientifically, and his various publications on moral and religious subjects show him to be deeply versed in theology.

Mr. Tuckney took his first degree in arts before he was seventeen years old, and was chosen fellow of his college three years after. In 1620 he proceeded M. A. and was some time in the earl of Lincoln’s family, before he resided on his fellowship. When he returned he became a very eminent tutor, and had many persons of rank admitted under him. In 1627 he took his degree of B. D.; after which he accepted the invitation of his countrymen, and went to Boston, as assistant to the famous vicar of that town, John Cotton, for whom, though a very zealous nonconformist, his diocesan bishop Williams, when lord keeper, procured a toleration under the great seal, for the free exercise of his ministry, notwithstanding his dissenting in ceremonies, so long as done without disturbance to the church. But this was probably not very long: for Mr. Cotton quitted his native country, before the rebellion, and withdrew to New England. On his departure the corporation of Boston chose Mr. Tuckney, who was now married, into this vicarage, and he kept it, at their request, till the restoration; or rather his title to it, for he took no part of the profit after he ceased to reside. Calamy mentions a Mr. Anderson as having been ejected at the restoration; he probably officiated there, but never was vicar, and Dr. How succeeded Mr. Tuckney in 1660.

There was another of this name, George Tully, son of Isaac Tully of Carlisle, who, we conjecture, was a nephew of the above Dr. Tully. He was educated at Queen’s college, Oxford, and was beneficed in Yorkshire. He died rector of Gateside near Newcastle, subdean of York, &c. in 1697. He was a zealous writer against popery, and was suspended for a sermon he preached and published in 1686, against the worship of images, and had the honour, as he terms it himself, to be the first clergyman in England who suffered in the reign of James II. “in defence of our religion against popish superstition and idolatry.” He was one of the translators of “Plutarch’s Morals,” “Cornelius Nepos,” and “Suetonius,” all which were, according to the phrase in use, “done into English by several hands.” Thomas Tully, author of the funeral sermon on the death of bishop Rainbow, which is appended to Banks’s Life of that prelate, was, we presume, of the same family as the preceding. He died chancellor of Carlisle about 1727.

In 1527, we find bishop Tunsiall employed in prosecuting several persons in his diocese for heresy; for he was strongly attached to the principles of the Romish church, but he never carried his zeal so far as to put any person to death for their opinions. On the contrary he was always an advocate for milder methods of reclaiming them from what he thought erroneous. Still his principles, the example of his contemporaries, and the spirit of the age in which he lived, were ajl too powerful for the natural mildness of his disposition; and although he shed no blood, he took many unjustifiable steps to obstruct the progress of the reformation, and that being at present but partial, he probably thought he might succeed without proceeding to the last extremities.

In July 1527, Tunstall attended cardinal Wolsey in his pompous embassy into France; and in 1529 was one of the English ambassadors employed to negociate the treaty of Camhray. It was on his return from this last place, that he exerted himself to suppress Tyndale’s edition of the New Testament, by means which will be noticed in our account of that celebrated reformer and martyr. Even in this matter, bishop Burnet observes that judicious persons discerned the moderation of Tunstall, who would willingly put himself to a considerable expence in burning the books of the heretics, but had too much humanity to be desirous, like many of his brethren, to burn the heretics themselves.

When the great question of Henry VIII. 's divorce was agitated, Tti install at first favoured the divorce, and even wrote on that side of the question; but, having reason afterwards to change his sentiments, he espoused the queen’s cause, which many of the Roman catholics then and now consider as the conscientious side. When Henry took the title of Supreme head of the church of England, Tunstall recommended it both in his injunctions, and in a sermon preached at Durham, although he had, in 1531, solemnly protested against that title. He also vindicated the king’s supremacy, in 1538, in a sermon preached before his majesty, upon Palm-sunday, in which he zealously condemned the usurpations of the bishop of Rome. In 1535, he was one of the commissioners for taking the valuation of ecclesiastical benefices, in order to settle the first fruits and tenths. And in 1537, the king commanded him, on account of his learning and judgment, to peruse cardinal Pole’s book of “Ecclesiastical Union,” which occasioned some letters between the cardinal and Tunstall, particularly, a severe one written jointly by him and by Stokesley, bishop of London, against the pope’s supremacy. The year following, he was appointed to confer concerning the reformation, with the ambassadors of the German protestant princes; but matters were not yet ripe for an alteration in this kingdom. In 1541 a new edition of the English Bible was revised by him and Nicholas Heath, bishop of Rochester. Attached as he was to popery, he appears to have taken in many cases a calm and judicious view of the questions agitated in Henry VIII.'s reign, and this led him to concur in some of the measures which were favourable to the reformation; and in that of Edward VI. he yielded obedience to every law which was enacted, and to all the injunctions, at the same time that he protested, in his place in parliament, against the changes in religion, which, Burnet says, he thought he might with a good conscience submit to and obey, though he could not consent to them. In the question of the corporal presence, he adhered to the popish opinion, and wrote on the subject.

In December 1551, Tunstall was committed to the Tower, upon an accusation of misprision of treason. What the particulars were, is not known; but Burnet thinks that the secret reason was that, if he should be attainted, the duke of Northumberland intended to have had the dignities and jurisdiction of that principality conferred on himself, and thus he count palatine of Durham. It appears, however, that Tunstall was charged by one Vivian Menville, with having consented to a conspiracy in the north for exciting a rebellion; and it is said, that something of this kind was proved, by a letter in the bishop’s own hand-writing, found when the duke of Somerset’s papers were seized. It has been conjectured, that he, being in great esteem with the popish party, was made privy to some of their treasonable designs against king Edward’s government: but which he neither concurred in, nor betrayed. However, on March 28, 1552, a bill was brought into the House of Lords, to attaint him for misprision of treason. Archbishop Cranmer spoke warmly and freely in his defence, but the bill passed the Lords. When, however, it came to the Commons, they were not satisfied with the written evidence which was produced, and having at that time a bill before them, that there should be two witnesses in case of treason, and that the witnesses and the party arraigned should be brought face to face, and that treason should not be adjudged by circumstances, but plain evidence, they therefore threw out the bill against Tunstall. This method of proceeding having been found ineffectual, a commission was granted to the chief justice of the King’s bench, and six others, empowering them to call bishop Tunstall before them, and examine him concerning all manner of conspiracies, &c. and if found guilty, to deprive him of his bishopric. This scheme, in whatever manner it might be conducted, was effectual, for he was deprived, and continued a prisoner in the Tower during the remainder of Edward’s reign. In 1553 also, the bishopric of Durham was converted into a county palatine, and given to the duke of Northumberland, which certainly favours bishop Burnet’s conjecture that there was a secret as well as an open cause for the deprivation of our prelate.

While in the Tower, Tunstall was frequently visited by his nephew, the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, who had probably been brought up to the church with a view of being advanced by this prelate, but he was now in no capacity to serve him otherwise than by his advice, and the advice he gave him about this time, places Tunstall in a very favourable point of view. When Gilpin, just entered on his parochial duties in the north, found that his mind was not quite settled in his religious opinions, he wrote to his uncle Tunstall, who told him, in answer, that he should thiuk of nothing till be had fixed his religion, and that, in his opinion, he could not do better than put his parish into the hands of some person in whom he conld confide, and spend a year or two in Germany, France, and Holland; by which means he might have an opportunity of conversing with some of the most eminent professors on both sides of the question. To this admirable advice, for such it surely is, from a popish bishop of that age, Giipin had but one objection, namely the expence; but the bishop wrote, that his living would do something towards his maintenance; and he would supply deficiencies. When they parted, the bishop gave him some books he had written while in the Tower, particularly one" on the Lord’s supper, which he wished to be printed under his inspection at Paris.

On the accession of queen Mary in 1553, Tunstall was restored to his bishopric; but still he was not a man to her mind, behaving with great lenity and moderation, and consequently his diocese escaped the cruel persecutions which prevailed in others. When he left London, he was strictly charged with the entire extirpation of heresy in his diocese; and was given to understand, that severity would be the only allowed test of his zeal. These instructions, says Mr. Giipin, he received in the spirit they were given; loudly threatening, that heretics should no where find a warmer reception than at Durham: and it was thought indeed that the protestants would hardly meet with much favour from him, as they had shown him so little. But nothing was further from his intention than persecution: insomuch that his was almost the only diocese where the poor protestants enjoyed any repose. When most of the other bishops sent in large accounts of their services to religion, very lame ones came from Durham; they were filled with high encomiums of the orthodoxy of the diocese, interspersed here and there with the trial of an heretic, but either the depositions against him were not sufficiently proved, or there were great hopes of his recantation; no mention however was made of any burnings. A behaviour of this kind was but ill relished by the zealous council: and the bishop lay deservedly under the calumny of being not actuated by true Romish principles. When his nephew Bernard Gilpin, an avowed protestant, came home from his travels, the bishop not only received him with great friendship, but gave this heretic the archdeaconry of Durham; and Fox tells us, that when one Mr. Russel, a preacher, was before bishopTunstail, on a charge of heresy, and Dr. Hinmer, his chancellor, would have examined him more particularly, the bishop prevented him, saying, “Hitherto, we have had a good report among our neighbours; I pray you bring not this man’s blood upon my head.”

Bishop Tunstall did not continue long in this state of retirement, for he died Nov. 18, 1559, aged eighty-five, and was handsomely buried in the chancel of Lambeth church, at the expence of archbishop Parker, with a Latin epitaph by the learned Dr. Haddon. The character of Tunstall may in part he collected from the preceding particulars. Gilpin, who has frequently introduced notices of him in his Lives of Bernard Gilpin, Latimer, &c. says “he was a papist only by profession; no way influenced by the spirit of popery; but he was a good catholic, and had true notions of the genius of Christianity. He considered a good life as the end, and faith as the means; and never branded as an heretic that person, however erroneous his opinions might be in points less fundamental, who had such a belief in Christ as made him live like a Christian. He was just therefore the reverse of (his early patron) Warham, and thought the persecution of protestants one of the things most foreign to his function. For parts and learning he was very eminent: his knowledge was extensive, and his taste in letters superior to that o- most of his contemporaries. The great foible of which he stands accused in history, was the pliancy of his temper. Like most of the bishops of those times, he had been bred in a court; and was indeed too dextrous in the arts there practised.” On this last failing, Mr. Gilpin seems to us to lay too much stress, for even the particulars which, in the preceding sketch we have extracted from his life of Bernard Gilpin, shew decidedly that Tnnstall was no courtly complier in those measures which were particularly characteristic of the times, and which have been more or less the test of the worth of every eminent man who lived in them.

Bishop Tunstall’s writings that were published, were chiefly the following: 1. “In Laudem Matrimonii,” Lond. 1518, 4to. 2. “De Arte Supputandi,” Lond. 1522, 4to, dedicated to sir Thomas More. This was afterwards several times printed abroad. 3. “A Sermon on Palm Sunday” before king Henry the 8th, &c. Lond. 1539 and 1633, 4to. 4. “De Veritate Corporis & Sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia,” Lntet. 1554, 4to. 5. “Compendium in decem Libros Ethicorum Aristotelis,” Par. 1554, 8vo. 6. “Contra impios Blasphematores Dei praedestinationis,” Antw. 1555, 4to. 7. “Godly and devout Prayers in English and Latin,” 1558, in 8vo.

, an ancient historian, of the eleventh century, was an Anglo-Saxon, of a good family in Lincolnshire. When a young man, he was delivered by the people of Lindsay, as one of their hostages, to William the Conqueror, and confined in the castle of Lincoln. From thence he made his escape to Norway, and resided several years in the court of king Olave, by whom he was much caressed and enriched. Returning to his native country, he was shipwrecked on the coast of Northumberland, by which he lost all his money and effects, escaping death with great difficulty. He then travelled to Durham; and applying to Walter, bishop of that see, declared his resolution to forsake the world, and become a monk; in which he was encouraged by that pious prelate, who committed him to the care of Aldwine, the first prior of Durham, then at Jarrow. From that monastery he went to Melross; from thence to Wearmouth, where he assumed the monastic habit; and lastly returned to Durham, where he recommended himself so much to the whole society, by his learning, piety, prudence, and other virtues, that, on the death of Aidwine, in 1087, he was unanimously chosen prior, and not long after was appointed by the bishop archdeacon of his diocese. The monastery profited greatly by his prudent government; the privileges were enlarged, and revenues considerably increased by his influence; and he promoted many improvements in the sacred edifices. In this office he spent the succeeding twenty years of his life, sometimes residing in the priory, and at other times visiting the diocese, and preaching in different places. At the end of these twenty years, he was, in 1107, elected bishop of St. Andrew’s and primate of Scotland, and consecrated by archbishop Thomas, at York, Aug. 1, 1109. Dissentions arising between our archbishop and the king of Scotland, the prelate’s anxiety and distress of mind brought on a decline of health, under which he obtained permission to return to England; and came back to Durham in 1115, where he resided little more than two months before his death. Stevens, in the “Monasticon,” says that he returned to Durham after the death of king Malcolm and his queen; and Spotiswood, in his “Church History,” that he died in Scotland, and was thence conveyed to and buried at Durham, in the Chapter-house, between bishops Walcher and William.

, a dissenting minister of the baptist persuasion, was born at Blackwater-farm, in the parish of St. Michael, and district of St. Alban’s, Hertfordshire, on March 1, 17 10. He appears to have had some classical education, which he afterwards diligently improved, but was not regularly educated for the ministry. In 1738 he published “An abstract of English grammar and rhetoric,” and an advertisement at the end of this volume intimates that he then kept a boarding school. Two of his pupils have been ascertained, Dr. Hugh Smith, an alderman and eminent physician in London, and Dr. William Kenrick. He commenced preacher, without any of the usual forms of admission, but merely because he was thought capable of preaching, when he was about twenty years old; and having been approved of at his outset, he continued and was settled as minister of the baptist congregation at Reading. From this he was invited to become pastor of a similar congregation at Abingdon in 1748, where he spent the remainder of his long life. He began to preach and to print early in life, and he preached and printed to the last. Many of his publications were much approved, and produced occasional correspondence between him and some eminent men of his time, particularly Dr. Watts, Dr. Kennicott, and Dr. Lowth, bishop of London. He was a man of great piety, and of a disposition peculiarly candid, liberal, and benevolent. He died Sept. 5, 1798, in the eightyninth year of his age, and was interred in the baptist burying-ground at Abingdon.

, dean of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Turner of Heckfield in Hampshire, alderman and mayor of Reading in Berkshire; and was born in the parish of St. Giles’s in that borough, in 1591. In 1610 he was admitted on the foundation at St. John’s college, Oxford, and had for his tutor Mr. Juxon, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. His application to learning was assiduous and successful, and having entered into holy orders, he immediately distinguished himself as a divine of merit. Ira 1623 he was presented by his college to the vicarage of St. Giles’s in Oxford, which he held with his. fellowship, but relinquished it in 1628. Laud, when bishop of London, made him his chaplain, and in 1629, at which time Mr. Turner was B. D. collated him to the prebend of Newington in the church of St. Paul, and in October following to the chancellorship of the same church, in which also he was appointed by Charles I. a canon-residentiary. The king likewise made him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and gave him the rectory of St. Olave, Southwark, with which he held the rectory of Fetcham in the county of Surrey. In 1633, when Charle> I. resolved on a progress to Scotland for his coronation, Turner was commanded to attend his majesty; previous to which he was, April 1, 1633-4, created D D. by the university of Oxford. In 1641 he was preferred to the deanery of Rochester, and on the death of Ur. Eglionby to that of Canterbury, but of this last he could not obtain possession until the restoration. After the death of the king, to whom he had adhered with inflexible loyalty and attachment, he shared the fate of the other loyal clergymen in being stript of his preferments, and treated with much indignity and cruelty. On the restoration, in August 1660, he entered into full possession of the deanery of Canterbury, and might have been rewarded with a mitre, but he declined it, “preferring to set out too little rather than too much sail.” Instead of seeking further promotion, he soon resigned the rectory of Fetcham, “desiring to ease his aged shoulders of the burthen of cure of souls; and caused it to be bestowed upon a person altogether unacquainted with him, but recommended very justly under the character of a pious man, and a sufferer for righteousness.”

, an English prelate, son of the preceding, received his education at Winchester school, and was thence elected fellow of New college, Oxford; where he took his degrees in arts, that of bachelor, April 14, 1659, and that of master in the beginning of 1663. He commenced B. I), and D. D. July 6, 1669, and in December following was collated to the prebend of Sneating in St. Paul’s. On the promotion of Dr. Gunning to the see of Chichester, he succeeded him in the mastership of St. John’s college, Cambridge, April 11, 1670. In 1683, he was made dean of Windsor, and the same year, was promoted to the see of Rochester, being consecrated on Nov. 11, and next year Aug. 23, was translated to the bishopric of Ely. Though he owed most of these preferments to the influence of the duke of York, afterwards James II. yet on the accession of that prince to the throne, as soon as he perceived the violent measures that were pursued, and the open attempts to introduce popery and arbitrary power, he opposed them to the utmost. He was one of the six bishops who joined archbishop Sancroft on May 18, 1688, in subscribing and presenting a petition to the king, setting forth their reasons, why they could not comply with his commands, in causing his majesty’s “Declaration for liberty of conscience” to be read in their churches. This petition being styled by the court, a seditious libel against his majesty and his government, the bishops were all called before the privy council; and refusing to enter into recognizances, to appear in the court of the king’s bench, to answer the misdemeanour in framing and presenting the said petition, were, on June 8, committed to the Tower; on the 15th of the same month they were brought by habeas corpus to the bar of the king’s bench, where, pleading not guilty to the information against them, they were admitted to bail, and on the 29th came upon their trials in Westminster-hall, where next morning they were acquitted to the great joy of the nation. However, when king William and queen Mary were settled on the throne, our bishop, among many others of his brethren and the clergy, refused to own the established government, out of a conscientious regard to the allegiance he had sworn to James II.; and refusing to take the oaths required by an act of parliament of April 24, 1689, was by virtue of that act suspended from his office, and about the beginning of the following year, deprived of his bishopric. After this he lived the rest of his days in retirement, and dying Nov. 2, 1700, was buried in the chancel of the parochial church of Therfteld in Hertfordshire, where he had been rector, but without any memorial except the word Expergiscar engraven on a stone over the vault.

, brother to the above, was born a Bristol in 1645, and educated at Corpus Christi college, Oxford, of which he was elected. fellow; he afterwards became chaplain to Dr. Henry Compton, bishop of London, who collated him, Nov. 4, 1680, to the rectory of Thorley in Hertfordshire, and Dec. 20 following, to the archdeaconry of Essex; and in 1682, to the prebend of Mapesbury in St. Paul’s. He commenced D. D. at Oxford, July 2, 1683, was collated by his brother to a prebend of Ely, March 26, 1686, and elected president of Corpus, March 13, 1687-8. The same year, May 7, he was instituted to the sinecure rectory of Fulham, on the presentation of his brother, to whom the advowson, for that turn, had been granted (the bishop of London being then under suspension), and at length was made precentor and prebendary of Brownswood in St. Paul’s, Jan. 11, 1689. What his political principles were at the revolution, we are not told, although, by keeping possession of his preferments, it is to be presumed, he did not follow the example of his brother, but took the oaths of allegiance. However, we are informed, that after the act passed in the last year of king William III. requiring the abjuration oath to be taken before Aug. 1, 1702, under penalty of forfeiting all ecclesiastical preferments, Dr. Turner went down from London to Oxford, July 28, seemingly with full resolution not to take the oath, and to quit all his preferments; but, on better, advice, he made no resignation, knowing that if he was legally called upon to prove his compliance with the act, his preferments would be void in course; and so continued to act, as if he had taken the oath, by which means he retained his preferments to his death, without ever taking it at all. He died April 30, 1714, and was buried in the chapel of Corpus Christi college, where there is a monument, and an inscription written by Edmund Chishull, B. D.

At Cambridge, Turner imbibed the principles of the reformers, and afterwards, agreeably to the practice of many others, united the character of the divine to that of the physician. He became a preacher, travelling into many parts of England, and propagated, with so much zeal, the cause of the reformation, that he excited persecution from bishop Gardiner. He was thrown into prison, and detained for a considerable time; and on his enlargement submitted to voluntary exile during the remainder of the reign of Henry VIII. This banishment proved favourable to his advancement in medical and botanical studies; he resided at Basil, Strasburgb, and at Bonn, but principally at Cologn, with many other English refugees. He dwelt for some time at Weissenburgh; and travelled also into Italy, and took the degree of doctor of physic at Ferrara. As at this period the learned were applying with great assiduity to the illustration of the ancients, it was a fortunate circumstance for Dr. Turner, that he had an opportunity of attending the lectures of Lucas Ghinus, at Bologna, of whom he speaks in his “Herbal” with great satisfaction; and frequently cites his authority against other commen* tators. Turner resided a considerable time at Basil, whence he dates the dedication of his book “On the Baths of England and Germany.” During his residence in Switzerland he contracted a friendship with Gesner, and afterwards kept up a correspondence with him. Gesner had a high opinion of Turner, as a physician and man of general learning, whose equal, he says, he scarcely remembered. This encomium occurs in Gesner’s book “De Herb;s Lunariis.”

On the accession of Edward VI. he returned o England, was incorporated M. D. at Oxford, appointed physician to Edward, duke of Somerset, and, as a divine, was rewarded with a prebend of York, a canonry of Windsor, and the deanery of Wells. In 1552 he was ordained priest by bishop Ridley. He speaks of himself in the third part of his “Herbal,” as having been physician to the “erle of Embden, lord of East Friesland.” In 1551 he published the first part of his History of Plants, which he dedicated to the duke of Somerset his patron. But on the accession of queen Mary, his zeal in the cause of the reformation, which he had amply testified, not only in preaching, but in various publications, rendered it necessary for him to retire again to the continent, where he remained at Basil, or Strasburgh, with others of the English exiles, until queen Elizabeth came to the throne. He then returned, and was reinstated in his preferments. He had, however, while abroad, caught some of the prejudices which divided the early protestants into two irreconcilable parties, and spoke and acted with such contempt for the English discipline and ceremonies, as to incur censure, but certainly was not deprived, as some of those writers who are hostile to the church have asserted, for he died possessed of the deanery of Wells. It would appear, indeed, that he had given sufficient provocation, but found a friend in the queen on such occasions. In the dedication of the complete edition of his “Herbal” to her in 1568, he acknowledges with gratitude, her favours in restoring him to his benefices, and in other ways protecting him from troubles, having, at four several times, granted him the great seal for that purpose.

It appears that at one time there was a design of placing Dr. Turner at the head of Oriel college. Kennet mentions a letter to that college (1550, July 5) “to accept Dr. Turner for master of the same, appointed by the king;” but this appointment certainly did not take place. But from a passage in his “Spiritual Physic,” he appears to have been once a member of the House of Commons. Fox speaks of Turner with great respect, as “a man whose authority neither is to be neglected, nor credit to be disputed.” He married Jane, daughter of George Ander, an alderman of Cambridge, who after his death married Cox, bishop of Ely. In memory of her first husband, she left some money and lands to Pembroke Hall.

By this lady Dr. Turner had a son, Peter, who was a physician, and practised in London, and resided the latter part of his life in St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate-street, London. He died in 1614, and was buried near his father in St. Olave’s church, where there is a monument to his memory. He married Pascha, sister to Dr. Henry Parr, bishop of Worcester, by whom he had eight children, one of whom is the subject of the following article.

, son to the preceding Dr. Peter, and grandson to Dr. William Turner, was born in 1585, and was admitted a probationer fellow of Merton college, Oxford, in 1607, where he proceeded in arts, and not being restricted to any particular faculty, as the fellows of other colleges are, became, according to Wood, versed in all kinds of literature. His first preferment was the professorship of geometry in Gresham college, in July 1620, but he continued to reside mostly at Oxford, and held this place together with his fellowship. In 1629, by the direction of Laud, then bishop of London, he drew up a scheme for the annual election of proctors out of the several colleges at Oxford in a certain order, that was to return every twenty-three years, which being approved of by his majesty, Charles I. was called the Caroline cycle, and is still followed, and always printed at the end of the “Parecbolae sive Excerpta, e corpore statutorum universitatis Oxon.” In the same year he acted as one of the commissioners for revising the statutes, and reducing them to a better form and order. In 1630, on the death of Briggs, Mr. Turner was chosen to succeed him as professor of geometry at Oxford, and resigned his Gresham professorship. How well he was qualified for his new office appears by the character archbishop Usher gives of him, “Savilianus in academia Oxoniensi inatheseos professor eruditissimus.” In 1634 the new edition of the statutes was printed in fol. with a preface by Mr. Turner; and to reward him for his care and trouble, a new office was founded, that of “custos archivorum,” or keeper of the archives, to which he was appointed, and made large collections respecting the antiquities of the university, which were afterwards of great use to Anthony Wood. In 1636, on a royal visit to Oxford, Mr. Turner was created M. D. but having adhered to his majesty in his troubles, and even taken up arms in his cause, he was ejected from his fellowship of Merton, and his professorship. This greatly impoverished him, and he went to reside with a sister, the widow of a Mr. Watts, a brewer in Southwark, where he died in Jan. 1651, and was interred in St. Saviour’s church. He was a man of extensive learning, and wrote much, but being fastidious in his opinion of his own works, he never could complete them to his mind. We have mentioned the only writings he published, except a Latin poem in the collection in honour of sir Thomas Bodley, called the “Bodleiomnema,” Oxf. 1613. Wood also mentions “Epistolae variae ad doctissimos viros;” but we know of no printed letters of his Dr. Ward, however, gives extracts from three ms letters in English to Selden, chiefly relating to some Greek writers on the music of the ancients.

Besides some sermons dedicated to madam de Schomberg, he wrote an answer to a piece published by a canon of Aneci, in order to render the protestants odious, among other things, upon the doctrine of the obedience of subjects to their lawful princes. He wrote also an answer to the letter, which the bishop of Lucca sent to the families at Geneva, which were originally of his diocese, to exhort them to the profession of the catholic religion, which their ancestors had abandoned. But what will chiefly perpetuate our author’s memory is his “Institutio Theologiae Elencticae,” in three volumes 4to, his theses “De satisfactione Christ!” against the Socinians, and “De necessaria secessione ab Ecclesia Romana.” There is an excellent abridgment of his “Institutio,” by Leonard Riissen, which has gone through several editions; the best, if we mistake not, is that of Amsterdam, 1695, 4to.

, the most celebrated of the family, was the son of Francis Turretin, and was born at Geneva, Aug. 24, 1671. From his infancy he shewed a great ardour for study, which his father took every pains to improve and direct. Some of his early preceptors were divines who had fled from France for religion, and one of them, a Mons. Dautun, was particularly serviceable in correcting the exuberances of his compositions, and habituating him to revise and reconsider what he wrote. This at first was rather troublesome to the lively spirits of our author, but he soon saw that Dautun had reason on his side. He studied the Cartesian philosophy under Chouet, a very able professor. Bishop Burnet, who passed the winter at Geneva in 1685, conceived a very high opinion of young Turretin, often examined him on his tasks, and in the course of many conversations inspired him with that taste which Turretin always afterwards indulged for English literature. In 1687 he lost his father, but continued to pursue his theological studies under Louis Tronchin, Calendrini, and Pictet. Tronchin admired in him a great love for truth and peace, and said, “that young man begins where others end.” Turretin had many advantages on his side, an uncommon share of natural understanding, a great memory, a facility in discovering the important parts of a question; an aversion to idleness and frivolous amusements; learned friends, an ample library, and a patrimony which set him at ease from anxiety or precipitation in his studies. At the age of twenty, with these advantages, we are told he was “almost a great man,” (presque un grand homme).

In 16y3 he began his travels, and first resided for a considerable time in Holland, where his talents recommended him to the acquaintance and friendship of the most eminent scholars and divines of the time. He lived eight months at Rotterdam, and in the midst of the disputes between Jurieu and Bayle, was on good terms with both, without any sacrifice of principle on his own part. His chief object during his residence in Holland was the study of ecclesiastical history under Spanheim; and with that view he continued about eight months at Leyden, and maintained some theses which did him great credit, particularly “Pyrrhonismus pontificius, sive Theses Theologico-historicse de variationibus pontificiorum circa ecclesise infallibilitatem.” This was reprinted in the collection of his Dissertations. In July 1692 he came to England, but had not slept many nights in London before he was attacked by an asthmatic complaint, which disturbed him for the greater part of his life. He removed for better air to Chelsea, but preached in the French church in London, and visited the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. At the latter he first saw Mr. (afterwards sir) Isaac Newton, in whose modest manners and conversation he discerned the future illustrious character. It appears also that he held some amicable disputes with our divines on the respective constitutions of the churches of England and Geneva. He passed much of his time with his old friend bishop Burnet, at the palace at Salisbury, where he also met Dr. V/hitby and Mr. Allix: and by means of lord Galloway was introduced at court, and very graciously received by king William and queen Mary. Burnet also introduced him to Tillotson, Compton, Tenison, Lloyd, Wake, &c. &c. He learned English so well, that when after his return to Geneva, the duke of Bridgwater and lord Townsend, with hoth of whom he was intimate, engaged him to preach in English, he performed it with a facility which astonished his noble hearers; but he afterwards lost the art of speaking, although he could always write and read English with great ease and correctness.

an enterprizing scholar of uncommon talents and, attainments, was born June I, 1769, at Threepwood, near Hexham, in the county of Northumberland. He was the son of Francis Tweddell, esq. an able and intelligent magistrate. His earlier years were passed under the care and instruction of a most pious and affectionate mother; and at the age of nine years he was sent to school at Hartforth, near Richmond, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, under the superintendance of the Rev. Matthew Raine (father of the late learned Dr. Raine, of the Charter-house), who early discovered those rare endowments which were shortly to win high distinction, and were cherished by him with a kind solicitude, and treated with no common skill. Previously to his commencing residence at the university of Cambridge he spent some time under the immediate tuition of the Rev. Dr. Samuel Parr, whose pre-eminent learning opened not its stores in vain to an ardent and capacious mind; and whose truly affectionate regard for his pupil spared no pains to perfect him in all the learning of Greece and Rome; nor is it too much to say, that the tutor saw his pains requited, and gloried in his charge; whilst he secured the grateful respect and lasting attachment of his accomplished scholar. Mr. Tweddell’s proficiency in his academical course procured him unprecedented honours. The “Prolusiones Juveniles,” which were published in the year 1793, furnish an ample and unequivocal testimony to the extent and versatility of his talents. Professor Heyne, of Goettingen, in a letter addressed to Dr. Burgess (the truly learned and venerable bishop of St. David’s), thus speaks of Mr. Tweddell’s productions “Redditos mihi his diebus sunt litters? tuae, missae ex urbe Dresdse, Saxoniae, inclusse litteris elegantissimis Jbannis Tweddell, juvenis ornatissimi; cujus visendi et compellandi copiam 'mihi haud obtigisse vehementer doleo; spirant litteroe ejus indolem ingenuam, ingenium venustum, mores amabiles et jncundos. Eruditionem autem ejus exquisitam ex prolasionibus ejus juvcnilibus perspexi, quas litteris adjunxerat; una cum generoso libertatis sensu, quern cum ipsa libertate sibi eripi haud videtur pati velle.”

In 1760 he took his degree of B. A. and that of A. M. in 1763. He became rector of White Notley, Essex, in private patronage, 1788, and of St. Mary’s, Colchester, to which he was presented by the bishop of London, on the death of Philip Morant, 1770. He died Aug. 6, 1804, in the seventieth year of his age. Sound learning, polite literature, and exquisite taste in all the fine arts, lost an ornament and defender in the death of this scholar and worthy divine. His translation of the “Poetics of Aristotle” must convince men of learning of his knowledge of the Greek language, of the wide extent of his classical erudition, of his acute and fair spirit of criticism, and, above all, of his good taste, sound judgment, and general reading manifested in his dissertations. Besides his familiar acquaintance with the Greek and Roman classics, his knowledge of modern languages, particularly French and Italian, was such as not only to enable him to read but to write those languages with facility and idiomatic accuracy. His conversation and letters, when science and serious subjects were out of the question, were replete with wit, humour, and playfulness. In the performance of his ecclesiastical duties Mr. T. was exemplary, scarcely allowing himself to be absent from his parishioners more than a fortnight in a year, during the last forty years of his life, though, from his learning, accomplishments, pleasing character, and conversation, no man’s company was so much sought. During the last 12 or 14 years of his life he was a widower, and has left no progeny. His preferment in the church was inadequate to his learning, piety, and talents; but such was the moderation of his desires, that he neither solicited nor complained. The Colchester living was conferred upon him by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, very much to his honour, without personal acquaintance or powerful recommendation; but, from the modesty of his character, and love of a private life, his profound learning and literary abilities were little known till the publication of his Aristotle.

others, were dug up and thrown into was nothing inDr.Twiss’s conduct to rena pit, in St. Margaret’s churchyard, derhis memory particularly obnoxious. personal character, there seems no difference of opinion among historians. Fuller denominates him “a divine of great abilities, learning, piety, and moderation;” and Wood says, “his plain preaching was esteemed good; his solid disputations were accounted better; but his pious life was reckoned best of all.” Nor less favourably does bishop Sanderson speak of him, even while differing greatly from some of his opinions. Mr. Clark says, that he “had his infirmities, whereof the most visible was this: that he was of a facile nature, and too prone to be deceived by giving too much credit to those, whom, by information from others, or in his own opinion, he judged to be godly. Whence it came to pass that he was often imposed upon, especially by certain crafty heads, who solemnly professed that their chiefest care was the preservation of the purity of doctrine, and reformation of discipline, whereas, in deed and truth, they sought the utter subversion of both.”

, one of a family of Oxford antiquaries, was the grandson of sir Brian Twyne, of Long Parish, in Hampshire, knight, and was born at Bolingdon, in the same county. He was educated at New Inn hall, Oxford, and admitted to the reading of the institutions in 1524, at a time when that society could boast of many excellent civilians. After he left the university he was appointed head master of the free-school at Canterbury, and in 1553 rose to be mayor of the city, in the time of Wyat’s rebellion. By the school he became so rich as to be able to purchase lands at Preston and Hardacre, in Kent, which he left to his posterity. He was a good Greek and Latin scholar, and devoted much of his time to the study of history and antiquities. He was held in great esteem by men able to judge of his talents, particularly by Leland, who introduces him among the worthies of his time in his “Encomia,” and by Camden, who speaks of him in his “Britannia” as a learned old man. Holinshed also mentions him as a learned antiquary, in the first edition of hia “Chronicle;” but this notice is for some reason omitted in the edition of 1587. It is said he was a violent papist, but Tanner has produced evidence of a charge more disgraceful to his character as a tutor and magistrate. This appears in a ms. in Bene't college library, Cambridge, No. CXX. “Anno 1560, Mr. Twyne, school- master, was ordered to abstain from riot and drunkenness, and not to intermeddle with any public office in the town.” He died in an advanced age, Nov. 24, 1581, and was buried in the chancel of the church of St. Paul, Canterbury, with an inscription, in which he is styled armiger. His only publication, which, however, did not appear until after his death, was his work “De rebus Albionicis, Britannicis atque Anglicis commentariorum libri duo,” Lond. 1590, 8vo. His Mss. which are on subjects of history and antiquities, were given by his grandson, Brian Twyne, to the library of Corpus Christi college, Oxford. Mr. Gough mentions his collections for a history of Canterbury, as being lost. Bishop Kennet says that he wrote an epistle prefixed to the“History of king Boccus and Sydracke,” 1510, 4to, a very rare book, of which there is a copy in St. John’s library, Oxford.

Finding that this situation was no longer convenient, and that his patron could not with safety continue his protection, Tyndale came to London, and for some time preached in the church of St. Dunstan’s in the West. While here, having conceived a high opinion of Dr. Cuthbert Tunstall, who had been promoted to the bishopric of London, in 1522, on account of the great commendations bestowed on him by Erasmus, he wished to become one of his chaplains. With this view he applied to sir Henry Guildford, master of the horse, and controller to king Henry VIII. who was a great patron of learned men, a particular friend to Erasmus, and an acquaintance of sir John Welch; and presented to him an oration of Isocrates, translated from the Greek; an undoubted proof of his learning at a time when Greek was understood by very few in England. Sir Henry readily complied with Mr. Tyndale’s request, but the bishop’s answer was, “That his house was full; he had no more than he could well provide for; and therefore advised our author to seek out in London, where, he added, he could not well miss employment.” Not being able to obtain any, however, he was supported by Mr. Humphrey Monmoutb, alderman of London, and a favourer of Luther’s opinions, with whom he remained for half a year, living in the most abstemious manner, and applying closely to his studies. His thoughts were at this time bent upon translating the New Testament into English, as the only means to enlighten the minds of the people in the knowledge of true religion; but being sensible he could not do this with safety in England, he went abroad, receiving very liberal pecuniary assistance from Mr. Monmouth and other persons. He first went to Saxony, where he held conferences with Luther, and his learned friends, then came back into the Netherlands, and settled at Antwerp, where there was a very considerable factory of English merchants, many of whom were zealous adherents to Luther’s doctrine. Here he immediately began his translation of the New Testament, in which he had the assistance of John Fryth, and William Roye, the former of whom was burnt in Smithfield for heresy, July 1533, and the latter suffered that dreadful death in Portugal on the same accusation. It was printed in 1526, in octavo, without the translator’s name. As there were only 1500 printed, and all the copies which could possibly be got in England, were committed to the flames, this first edition is exceedingly rare. The industrious Mr. Wanley could never procure a sight of it; but there was one in Ames’s collection, which was sold after his death, for fourteen guineas and a half.

When this translation was imported into England, the supporters of popery became very much alarmed; they asserted that there were a thousand heresies in it; that it was too bad to be corrected, and ought to be suppressed; that it was not possible to translate the Scriptures into English; and that it would make the laity heretics, and rebels to their king. It is more painful, however, to record that such men as William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, and Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, issued their orders and monitions to bring in all the New Testaments translated into the vulgar tongue, that they might be burnt. To destroy them more effectually, Tunstall being at Antwerp in 1526 or 1S27, procured Augustin Packington, an English merchant, to buy up all the copies of the English Testament which remained unsold; these were accordingly brought to England, and publicly burnt at Paul’s cross. But this ill-fudged policy only took off many copies which lay dead upon Tyndale’s hands, and supplied him with, money for another and more correct edition, printed in 1534, while the first edition was in the mean while reprinted twice, but not by the translator. Of Tunstall’s singular purchase, the following fact is related: “Sir Thomas More being lord chancellor, and having several persons accused of heresy, and ready for execution, offered to compound with one of them, named George Constantine, for his life, upon the easy terms of discovering to him who they were in London that maintained Tyndale beyond the sea. After the poor man had got as good a security for his life as the honour and truth of the chancellor could give him, he told him it was the bishop of London who maintained Tyndale, by sending him a sum of money to buy up the impression of his Testaments. The chancellor smiled, saying that he believed he said true. Thus was this poor confessor’s life saved.” Strict search, however, continued to be made among those who were suspected of importing, and concealing them; of whom John Tyndale, our author’s brother, was prosecuted, and condemned to do penance. Humphrey Monmouth, his great patron and benefactor, was imprisoned in the Tower, and almost ruined.

Mr. Tyrrell’s first appearance as an author was in the dedication of a posthumous work of archbishop Usher’s. Wood says he published this, but the publisher was bishop Sanderson. It was entitled “The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the obedience required of the Subject,” Lond. 1661, 4to. At this time Mr. Tyrrell was very young, and had not probably left Oxford, or was but just beginning his studies in the Temple; but it might perhaps be thought creditable to appear as the nearest relative of the venerable author, and he might not be sorry to have an early opportunity of paying his court to the restored monarch. This much we may infer from the dedication itself, which he concludes in these words: “I shall now make this my most humble suit to your majesty, that as the reverend author in his life-time publicly professed his loyalty to his sovereign, and constantly prayed for your majesty’s happy and glorious return to these your kingdoms, and in all things shewed himself your loyal subject, so you would be pleased to own him as such, by affording your gracious countenance to this his posthumous work, which will eternize the memory of the deceased author, and thereby confer the greatest temporal blessing on your majesty’s most loyal and obedient subject, James Tyrrell.”

In 1686 appeared his vindication of his father-in-law, printed at the end of Parr’s “Life of Archbishop Usher,” under the title of “An Appendix, containing a vindication of his opinions and actions in reference to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and his conformity thereunto, from the aspersions of Peter Heylin, D. D. in his pamphlet called Respondet Petrus” This pamphlet of Heylin’s was his answer to Dr. Bernard’s book entitled “The Judgment of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath,” Lond. 1658, 4to. (See Heylin, p. 442 and 443.) Mr. Tyrrell’s notions in politics were adverse to those of some of his contemporaries, who were for carrying the prerogative to its height, and vindicated passive obedience and non-resistance: he was clearly for a monarchy, but a limited monarchy, and therefore answered sir Robert Filmer in a small volume entitled “Patriarcha non Monarcha, or the Patriarch unmonarched, &c.” 1681, 8vo. This was animadverted upon by Edmund Bohun, in the preface to the second edition of sir Robert’s “Patriarcha;” but Mr. Tyrrell’s opinions on this and other subjects connected with it are most fully displayed in his political dialogues, which were first published at different times, in 1692, 1693, 1694, and 1695, in quarto, until they amounted to fourteen. They were afterwards collected into one volume folio, about the time of his death, and published under the name of “Bibliotheca Politica, or an Enquiry into the ancient Constitution of the English Government, with respect to the just extent of the regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, both for and against the late revolution, are impartially represented and considered. In fourteen dialogues, collected out of the best authors, ancient and modern,” Lond. 1718, reprinted 1727. It appears also that subjects of the religious kind sometimes employed his attention, as in 1692 he published an abridgment of bishop Cumberland’s work on the laws of nature, with the consent and approbation of the right reverend author. This, which was entitled “A brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature, &c.” was reprinted in 1701. But the work which had employed most of Mr. Tyrreli’s time was his “General History of England, both ecclesiastical and civil, from the earliest accounts of time,” 5 vols. fol. generally bound in three, Lond. 1700, 1704. He intended to have brought this down to the reign of William III. but what is published extends no farther than that of Richard II. and of course forms but a small part of the whole plan. It is thought that he left another volume or more ready for the press, but this has never appeared. His chief object seems to be to refute the sentiments of Dr. Brady in his “History of England,” particularly where he asserts that “all the liberties and privileges the people can pretend to were the grants and concessions of the kings of this nation, and were derived from the crown” and that “the commons of England were not introduced, nor were one of the three estates in parliament, before the forty-ninth of Henry III. Before which time the body of commons of England, or freemen collectively taken, had not any share or votes in making laws for the government of the kingdom, nor had any communication in affairs of state, unless they were represented by the tenants in capite.” In refuting these opinions Mr. Tyrrell will probably be thought not unsuccessful; but the work is ill digested, and less fit for reading than for consultation. As a compilation it will be found useful, particularly on account of his copious translations from our old English historians, although even there he has admitted some mistakes.

, one of the most eminent scholars and critics of the last century, was the son of the rev. Dr. Robert Tyrwhitt, of a very ancient baronet’s family in Lincolnshire, a gentleman of considerable eminence in the church, who was rector of St. James’s, Westminster, which he resigned in 1732, on being appointed a canon residentiary of St. Paul’s. He held also the prebend of Kentishtown, in that cathedral, and was archdeacon of London. In 1740 he obtained a canonry of Windsor, and died June 15, 1742, and was buried in St. George’s chapel, Windsor. He married the eldest daughter of bishop Gibson, and so well imitated the liberality and hospitality of that prelate, that, dying at the age of forty-four years, he left a numerous family very moderately provided for.

, a learned divine and ingenious artist, was the only child of the rev. Michael Tyson, dean of Stamford, archdeacon of Huntingdon, &c. who died in 1794, aged eighty-four, by his first wife, the sister of Noah Curtis, of Wolsthorp, in Lincolnshire, esq. He was born in the parish of All Saints, in Stamford, Nov. 19, 1740, and received his grammatical education in that country. He was then admitted of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, and passed regularly through his degrees; that of B. A. in 1764, of M. A. in 1767, and of B. D. in 1775; and after taking his bachelor’s degree was elected a fellow of his college. In the autumn of 1766 he attended a young gentleman of his college, Mr. Gough (afterwards the celebrated antiquary) in a tour through the north of England and Scotland, and made an exact journal of his several stages, with pertinent remarks on such places as seemed most interesting. At Glasgow and Inverary he had the freedom of the corporations bestowed upon him. After his return, in the following year he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and in 1769 a fellow of the royal society. In 1770 he was ordained deacon at Whitehall chapel, by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln. In 1773, his father being promoted to the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, he gave the officiality of it to his son, which was worth about 50l. per ann. and about the same time, being bursar of the college, he succeeded Mr. Cohnan in the cure of St. Benedict’s church, in Cambridge, as he did also in 1776, in the Whitehall preachership, at the request of the late Dr. Hamilton, sori-in-law of bishop Terrick, who had formerly been of Bene’t college.

, or Gulphilas, a Gothic bishop, and the first translator of a part of the Bible into that language, flourished in the fourth century, and during the reign of Valens, obtained leave of that emperor that the Goths should reside in Thrace, on condition of his, the bishop’s, embracing the Arian faith. Little else is known of this prelate, unless that he translated the Evangelists, and perhaps some other books of the New Testament, into the Gothic language, which he achieved by inventing a new alphabet of twenty-six letters. This translation is now in the library of Upsal, and there have been three editions of it, the best by Mr. Lye, printed at Oxford in 1750. Many disputes have been carried on by the learned both as to the antiquity and authenticity of this version. Of later years, however, another fragment of Ulphilas’s translation was discovered in the library at Wolfenbuttle, containing a portion of the Epistle to the Romans. This has been published by Knitel, archdeacon of Wolfenbuttle, who seems of opinion that Ulphilas translated the whole Bible.

, a classical scholar and editor, was the fourth son of a gentleman of Cheshire, and born at Wimslow, in that county, December 10, 1670. He was educated at Eton, and became a fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1697, and M. A. 1701. He afterwards, at the request of Dr. Newborough, the head master, returned to Eton, where he was tutor to the famous sir William Wyndham, and was an assistant teacher at the school. He married the daughter of Mr. Proctor, who kept a boarding-house at Eton, but afterwards removed to Ilminster, in Somersetshire, upon the invitation of several gentlemen of the county, and particularly of the earl Powlett, to whom he was afterwards chaplain, and aii whose sons were under his tuition at Taunton. He remained a few years at Ihninster, and taught the learned languages there till he was elected to the care of the free grammarschool in Taunton: which he conducted with the highest reputation, and raised to be the largest provincial school at that time ever known in England. The number of his pupils amounted to more than 200; and many of them were from the first families in the West of England. He served for many years the church of Bishop’s-Hull, in which parish the school is situated. So early as 1711 he was in possession of the rectory of Brimpton, near Yeovil, in the presentation of the Sydenham family. In 1712 he was presented by sir Philip Sydenham to the rectory of Alonksilver, 14 miles from Taunton. He died August 13, 1749, aged seventy-nine.

He had two sons, one a captain of the navy, who died in the same year with his father; the other, John Upton, born in 1707, who, after receiving a classical education at his father’s school at Taunton, was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1728, and proceeded M. A. in 1732. In the same year the celebrated critic Toup became his pupil, and during the whole of his residence in the university had no other tutor. In 1736 he vacated his fellowship. Having been tutor to the sons of lord chancellor Talbot, that nobleman gave him a prebend in the cathedral of Rochester; besides which he had the rectory of Sevington cum Dinnington, in Somersetshire, by the gift of the earl Powlett; afterwards the rectory of Great Rissington, in Gloucestershire, conferred upon him by earl Talbot, who, as just mentioned, had been one of his pupils; and lastly, he was also rector of the sinecure of Llandrillo, in Denbighshire, in the diocese of St. Asaph, given to him by the bishop. He never married, and died at Taunton, Dec. 9, 1760, in the fifty-third year of his age.

, an eminent archbishop of Rheims, in the fifteenth century, brother of William des Ursins. baron de Traynel, and chancellor ol France, was descended from an illustrious family of Champagne. After having distinguished himself in several posts, being master of requests, he took the ecclesiastical habit, became bishop of Beauvais in 1432, of Laon in 1444, and archbishop of Rheims in 1449, in which see he succeeded his brother James Juvenal des Ursins. He was one of those appointed in 146 1 to revise the sentence pronounced against the famous Maid of Orleans. He died July 14, 1473, aged eighty-five, leaving a “History of the Reign of Charles VI.” from 1380 to 1422, printed at the Louvre, folio. This family has produced several other great men.

, an eminent classical scholar and antiquary, was the illegitimate son of a commander of the order of Malta, of the Ursin family, and was born at Rome Dec. 2, 1529. His education would probably have been neglected, as his mother and himself were turned out of doors by the unnatural father, and were in great poverty, had not some early appearance of talents recommended him to the notice of a canon of the Lateran, Gentilio Delfini, who took him under his protection, and instructed him in classical literature; after which, by this benevolent patron’s interest, he obtained considerable preferment in the church of St. John of Lateran. His talents afterwards made him be taken into the service of the cardinals Ranutius and Alexander Farnese, who rewarded him liberally; and by this means an opportunity was afforded him of collecting a great number of books and ancient manuscripts, and employing them for the benefit of literature. He was in habits of correspondence with the most eminent literary characters of Italy, and he contributed much valuable assistance to the authors of that period. He had attained to great skill in discovering the antiquity and value of Mss., which he seems to have considered as an important secret. Cardinal Frederic Borromeo, being once in his company, requested Ursinus to point out from a book that lay before them, the rules by which he distinguished ancient from modern manuscripts; but he immediately shut the book, and turned the discourse. He died at Rome Jan. 18, 1600, at the age of seventy. He was author of several learned works, as “De Familiis Romanis;” and an Appendix to Ciaconio’s treatise “De Triclinio.” He also published notes oti Sallust, Cecsar, Livy, and most of the Roman historians, the writers de Re Rustica, Cicero, &c. He also caused engravings to be made of a large collection of statues, busts, and other monuments of antiquity, and published them under the title of “Imagines et Elogia Virorum illustrium et eruditorum ex antiquis lapidibus et numismatibus expressa, cum annotationibus Fulvii Ursini.” Mr. Pinkerton, however, says that this work is not to be depended on, and prefers that of Canini, which is better, although far from perfect. Ursinus, in order to keep together the books which, with great labour and at vast expence, he had accumulated, bequeathed them to the Vatican. Castalio published a Life of Ursinus, at Rome, 1657, 8vo. In his will, which is appended to this Life, be bequeaths two thousand crowns to Delfini, bishop of Camenuo, probably a near relation of his early patron.

Having continued five years under these excellent masters, of whom he ever afterwards spoke with honour, and having made a progress far beyond his age, he was admitted into the college of Dublin, which was finished that very year, 1593. He was one of the first three students who were admitted; and his name stands to this day in the first line of the roll. Dr. Bernard seems to hint that he was the first graduate, fellow, and proctor, which we doubt, at least as to the fellowship, his uncle being first fellow, and his tutor at this time senior fellow, according to Harris. Here he learned logic, and the philosophy of Aristotle, under Mr. Hamilton, his tutor, and though, as we are told, his love of poetry and cards retarded his studies for some time, yet he soon recovered himself from these habits, applied to books again with great vigour, and at the same time acquired that pious turn which was ever afterwards a distinguishing; feature in his character. He is said to hare been wonderfully affected with that passage in Cicero, “Nescire quid antea quam natus sis accident, id est semper esse puerum” that is, “to know nothing of what happened before you were born is to be always a boy.” About this time, from meeting with Sleidan’s little book “De quatuor imperiis,” he contracted an extreme fondness for the study of history, which he afterwards pursued with equal depth and preciseness. At fourteen years of age he began to make extracts from all the historical books he could meet with, in order to fix the facts more firmly in his memory; and, between fifteen or sixteen, he had made such a proficiency in chronology, that he had drawn up in Latin an exact chronicle of the Bible, as far as the book of Kings, not much differing from his “Annals,” which have since been published. The difference chiefly consists in the addition of observations and the parallel chronofcugy of the heathens. Before he was full sixteen, he had entered upon theological studies, and perused the most able writers, on both sides, on the Romish controversy. Among the Romanists, he read Stapleton’s “Fortress of Faith;” and, finding that author confident in asserting antiquity for the tenets of Popery, and in taxing our church with novelty in. what it dissented from theirs, he kept his mind in suspense, till he could examine how the truth stood in that particular. He took it for granted, as his historian says, that the ancient doctrines must needs be the right, as the nearer the fountain the purer the stream; and that errors sprang up as the ages succeeded, according to that known saying of Tertullian, “Verum quodcunque primum, adulterum quodcunque posterius.” Bishop Jewel had adopted the same principle before him; and too much deference to the authority of the fathers prevailed in their days and long after. Yet they were far from being ignorant, as has been absurdly imputed to them, that the question concerning doctrines is not how ancient, but how true those doctrines are. The dispute was purely historical. Stapleton quoted the fathers as holding the doctrines of popery. Usher thought this impossible, and rather believed that Stapleton had misquoted them, at least had wrested and tortured them to his own sense. This made him then take up a firm resolution, that in due time (if God gave him life) he would himself read all the fathers, and trust none but his own eyes in searching out their sense: which great work he afterwards began at twenty years of age, and finished at thirty-eight; strictly confining himself to read a certain portion every day, from which he suffered no occasion to divert him.

In 1612 he took his doctor of divinity’s degree; and the next year, being at London, his first publication appeared, entitled “De Ecclesiarum Christianarum Successione & Statu,” in 4to. This is a continuation of bishop Jewel’s “Apology,” in which that eminent prelate had endeavoured to shew that the principles of protestants are agreeable to those of the fathers of the six first centuries. Usher’s design was to finish what Jewel had begun, by shewing that from, the sixth century to the reformation, namely, for 900 years, Christ has always had a visible church of true Christians, untainted with the errors and corruptions of the Roman church; and that these islands owe not their Christianity to Rome. This work is divided into three parts. The first reaches to the tenth century, when Gregory VII. was raised to the popedom. The second was to have reached from that period to the year 1370. And the third was to bring it to the reformation. How far he had brought it in this edition is stated in the followirig extract of a letter written to his brother-in-law, Thomas Lydiat, dated at Dublin, August 16, 1619: “You have rightly observed,” says be, “that in my discourse ‘ De Christianarum Ecclesiarum Successione et Statu,’ there is wanting, for the accomplishment of the second part, a hundred years [from 1240 to 1370, viz. the last chapter of this part]; which default, in the continuation of the work is by me supplied. I purpose to publish the whole work together, much augmented, but do first expect the publication of my uncle Stanyhurst’s answer to the former, which, I hear, since his death, is sent to Paris, to be there printed. I am advertised, also, that even now there is one at Antwerp who hath printed a treatise of my countryman De sacro Bosco (Holywood), ‘ De ver Ecclesise investigatione,’ wherein he hath some dealing with me. Both these I would willingly see before I set about reprinting my book, meaning, that if they have justly found fault with any thing, I may amend it; if unjustly, I may defend it.” His uncle’s answer, however, was never published, nor did our author publish any other edition of his work, as he here purposed; probably prevented by the distraction of the times. It was reprinted at Hanover in 1658, 8vo, without any amendments. In the last edition of 1687, containing likewise his Antiquity of the British Churches, are these words in the title-page: “Opus integrum ab Auctore auctum et recognitnm;” which, Dr. Smith observes, was a trick of the bookseller. Usher’s work was solemnly presented by archbishop Abbot to king James, as the eminent first fruits of the college of Dublin.

All this while he kept a correspondence in every country for the advancement of learning, and procured in 1634 a very good copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the East; besides one of the Old Testament in Syriac, and other valuable manuscripts. It was one of the first of those Pentateuchs that ever were brought into these western parts of Europe, as Mr. Selden and Dr. Walton acknowledge; and the Syriac Testament was much more perfect than had hitherto been seen in these parts. The other manuscripts were procured by the means of one Mr. Davies, then a merchant at Aleppo. The archbishop collated the Samaritan with the Hebrew, and marked the differences, after which he intended it for the library of sir Robert Cotton. Bat this, as well as the other manuscripts, being borrowed of him by Dr. Walton, and made use of by hhn in the edition of the Polyglot Bible, were not recovered out of the hands of that bishop’s executors till 1686, and are novy in the Bodleian library. And notwithstanding the necessaryavocations in the discharge of his episcopal office, he prosecuted his studies with indefatigable diligence, the fruits of which appeared in 1638, when he pablished at Dublin, in 4to, his “Emmanuel, or a treatise on the Incarnation of the Son of God;” which was followed by his “Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates” in the ensuing year. This history contains a most exact account of the British church: From the first planting of Christianity in twenty years after our Saviour’s crucifixion, he brings it down both in Britain and Ireland, to the end of the seventh century. The piece was of great service, particularly to Dr. Lloyd and bishop Stillingfleet, his followers upon the same subject.

In the beginning of 1640 he came into England with his family, intending (as before) to return in a year or two at farthest. Soon after his arrival he went to Oxford for the more convenience of pursuing his studies: but these were unhappily interrupted by the urgent necessity of the times, which put him upon writing some pieces that were published at Oxford in 1641, on the subject of episcopacy: These were, 1. “The Judgment of Dr. Reynolds concerning the original of Episcopacy defended.” 2. “The Original of Bishops, or a chorographical and-historical disquisition touching the Lydian and proconsular Asia, and the seven metropolitan churches contained therein.” The design of this treatise is to prove, from Acts xix. 17, supported by Rev. ii. 1. and confirmed by ecclesiastical history, that bishops and metropolitans were instituted by the apostles; meaning only with regard to their superiority in degree; for he did not hold episcopacy to be a superior order to presbytery. He also endeavours to prove that the bishop of Ephesus was not only the metropolitan of the proconsular Asia, but the primate, or exarch, of all the provinces that were comprehended within the compass of the whole Asian diocese; and that he acted suitably to the patriarchal jurisdiction, which was in effect conferred upon him, In the prosecution of the argument he shews, 1. That the stars described in the Revelations are the angels of the seven churches. 2. That these angels were the several bishops of those churches, and not the whole college of presbyters. 3. That each of these seven churches was at that time a metropolis. 4. That these bishops were ordained by the apostles as constant permanent officers in the church, and so in a sortjwe (Tivino, not to be dispensed with except in cases of necessity. These tracts were printed, with others on the same subject, under the title “Certain brief Treatises,” &c. Oxf. 1641, 4to. It was about this, time also that he drew up his treatise on “The Power of the Prince and the Obedience of the Subject,” which, as we have mentioned in our account of his grandson, James Tyrrell, was published after the restoration. Archbishop Usher was a man of too much note, and of too high a station, not to. be < deeply involved in and affected with the succeeding troubles. He is charged by some writers with having advised the king to consent to the bill against the earl of Stratford, but is cleared by others; and Dr. Parr tells us, that when the primate lay extremely ill, and expected death at St. Donate’s castle in 164-5, he asked his grace concerning it, who flatly denied it, and said it was wrongfully laid to his charge; for, that he neither advised nor approved it. In the rebellion in Ireland he was plundered of everything except his library and some furniture in his house at Drogheda, whence the library was conveyed to England. On this the king conferred on him the bishopric of Carlisle, to be holden in commendam; the revenues of which, however, were reduced to almost nothing by the Scots and English armies quartering upon it. When all the lands belonging to the English bishoprics were seized by the parliament, they voted him a pension of 400l. per annum; which yet he never received above once or twice. It is said that he was invited into France by cardinal Richelieu, with a promise of the free exercise of his religion, and a considerable pension; and likewise by the States of Holland, who offered him the place of honorary professor at Leyden. Dr. Smith, one of his biographers, seems to doubt these facts, especially the first. But Dr. Parr thinks it not unlikely, from an instance of respect which Richelieu had before shewn to the archbishop, by sending him, in return for a copy of the “Antiquity of the British Churches,” which the author had presented to his eminence, a letter of much kindness and esteem, accompanied with a gold medal, which Dr. Bernard says “is still preserved.” It was in possession of the Tyrrell family in 1738, and was then exhibited to the society of antiquaries. The date is 1631. In 1642 the archbishop removed to Oxford, not lon before the king came thither, and preached every Sunday at some of the churches, principally All Saints. In 1643 he was nominated one of the assembly of divines at Westminster, but refused to sit among them: and this, together with some of his sermons at Oxford, in which he had spoke against their authority, giving offence to the parliament, they ordered his library to be seized, and it would have been sold, had not Dr. Featly, who sat among those divines while his heart was with the church and king, obtained it by means of Mr. Selden for his own use, and so secured it to the right owner, or at least the greater part, but some valuable articles were stolen, and never recovered. In 1644 he published at Oxford his valuable edition of “Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae.”

Archbishop Usher was tall, well-shaped, and walked upright to the last. His hair was b'rown, his complexion sanguine, his countenance full of good-nature as well as gravity: yet, Dr. Parr says, the air of his face was hard to hit, and that, though many pictures were taken of him, he never saw but one like him, which was done by sir Peter Lely. He was a man who abounded in all graces, moral as well as spiritual; which, joined with the greatest abilities and learning, made him upon the whole a very complete character. Among his Mss. were many notes and observations upon the writings and characters of the fathers and ecclesiastical authors, which he designed as the foundation of a large and elaborate work, to be called “The.ologica Bibliotheca;” and this was indeed, of all his works, that which, he had most set his heart upon: yet the calamities of the times would not suffer him to finish it. He left these papers, however, to Dr. Gerard Langbaine, proTost of Queen’s college, as the only man on whose learning as well as friendship he could rely, to render them fit for the press: but Langbaine, while pursuing his task in the public library, got so severe a cold, that he died in 1657; and nothing farther appears to have been done, though Dr. Fell afterwards made some attempts to get it finished. A copy of it is lodged ip the Bodleian library. The works from his Mss. published after his death, were: 1. “Chronologia sacra seu Annorum & wadoncltcts Patriarcharum, isapoMiois Israelitarum in Ægypto Annorum etiamJudicum,RegumJudae Israelis, ^o3fi|<jChronologica,” Oxford, 166Q, in 4to, published by Dr. Thomas Barlow,. afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Reprinted with the Annals of the Old and New Testament at Geneva, in 1722, folio. This chronology is imperfect, the author dying while he was engaged in it. He proposed to have subjoined to it a tract “De primitive & veterurn Hebraeorum Kalendario.” 2. A collection of piece’s published by Dr. Nicholas Bernard at London, in 1658, 8vo, under the title of “The Judgment of the late Archbishop,” &c. 3. Dr. Bernard published likewise at London in 1659 our author’s “Judgment and sense of the present See of Rome from Apocal. xviii. 4.” 4. “The power of the prince and obedience of the subject stated;” with a preface by Dr. Robert Sanderson, published by James Tyrrell, esq. grandson to our author, at London, 1661. 5. A volume of “Sermons,” preached at Oxford before his majesty, and elsewhere. 6. “Historia Dogmatica Controversise inter Orthodoxos & Pontificios de Scripturis & sacris Vernaculis. Accessere ejusdem Dissertationes duoe de Pseudo-Dionysii scriptis & de Epistola ad Laodicenos. Descripsit, digessit, & Notis atque Auctario locupletavit Henricus Wharton,” London, 16yO, 4to. 7. “A Collection of three hundred Letters written to James Usher lord archbishop of Armagh, and most of the eminentest persons for piety and learning in his time both in England and beyond the seas. Collected and published from original copies under their own hands by Richard Parr, D. D. his lordship’s chaplain at the time of his death, uith whom the care of all his papers were intrusted by his lordship,” London, 1686, folio. To this Dr. Parr has prefixed the life of the archbishop, collected from authentic documents, and with the assistance of the Tyrrell family, his only descendants. This volume forms the best monument yet erected to his memory, and from the very names of his correspondents, gives us a high ictea of the respect in which he was held, and the high place he filled in the literary world.

, author of the heretical sect called Valeutinians, was an Egyptian, and, according to Danaeus, was educated at Alexandria. He aspired to the episcopal dignity; but being set aside by another, who was afterwards martyred, he formed the design to oppose the true doctrine of Christ. He came to Rome A.D. 140, during the pontificate of Hyginus, and there created great disturbances. In 143, he was censured by the church, and excluded the congregation; which was so far from humbling him, that he retired into Cyprus, where he propagated his erroneous doctrines with still greater boldness: He was learned, eloquent, and had studied the Grecian language, particularly the Platonic philosophy. Thus, from nice and witty, or sophistical, distinctions, mixing the doctrine of ideas, and the mysteries of numbers with the Theogony of Hesiod, and the Gospel of St. John, which was the only one received by him, he formed a system of religious philosophy, not very different from that of Basilides and the Gnostics, and in some respects more absurd than either. The rise of his heresy was in the reign of Adrian. Fleury places it A. D. 143, as do Danasus, Tillemont, and Echard. Valentine himself died A.D. 160. His errors spread at Rome, in Gaul, and Syria, but particularly in the Isle of Cyprus and Egypt, and continued until the fourth century. Bishop Hooper, in his tract “De Haeresi Valentiniana,” has deduced this heresy from the Egyptian mysteries. Irenseus was the principal writer against Valentinus, to whom may be added Tertullian, Clemens Alexandriuus, &c. and among the moderns, Buddeus “Dissert. de hreresi Valentiniana.” The author of this heresy is said to have at last abjured his errors, and was received into the church again, but we have no farther account of his personal history.

He composed several learned and curious works, some of which were published in his life-time, some not till after his death. Among the former are, “De Fulminum significationibus,” Romae, 1517, printed also in the 5th volume of Grsevius’s Roman Antiquities. “Pro Sacerdotum barbis defensio,” Romae, 1531, occasioned by an intention to renew a decree, pretended to be made by an ancient council, and confirmed by pope Alexander III. by which priests were forbidden to wear long beards. “Castigationes Virgilianae iectionis,” printed in Robert Stepbens’s Virgil at Paris, 1532, and since reprinted with the best editions of this poet. “Hieroglyphica, sive de sacris Egyptiorum aliarumque gentium literis Commentariorum libri LVIII.” Basil, 1566. In this he attempts to illustrate, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman symbols, almost every branch of science and art, but is supposed to display more imagination than judgment. Among the works published after his death are, “Diaiogo della volgar lingua, non prima uscito in luce,” 4to; “Antiquitatum Belluuensium libri quatuor,” 8vo; and “Contarenus, sive de literatorum infelicitate libri duo,” 8vo; all printed at Venice in 1620, by the direction and under the care of Alorsio Lollini, bishop of Belluno. The last piece contains a great number of curious anecdotes; and is entitled “Contarenus,” because the first book of it is a dialogue between Caspar Contareno, a Venetian ambassador, and some learned persons at Rome. It has been often printed at Amsterdam, 1647, in 12mo, “cum Cornelii Tollii Appendice,” at Helmstadt, 1695, in 12mo; and at Leipsic, 1707, in 8vo, with two other pieces upon similar subjects, namely, “Alcionius de Exilio,” and “Barberius de miseria Poetarum Grascorum,” and a preface by Joannes Burchardus Menkenius, the editor. Mr. D'Israeli, who has written so well on this interesting subject, considers Valerianus’s as “a meagre performance, iti which the author shews sometimes a predilection for the marvellous, which happens so rarely in human affairs; and he is so unphilosophical, that he places among the misfortunes of literary men, those fatal casualties to which all men are alike liable.” “Yet,” adds Mr. D'Israeli, “evert this small volume has its value; for, although the historian confines his narrative to his own times, he includes a sufficient number of names to convince us that to devote t>nf life to authorship is not the true means of improving our happiness or our fortune.”

, a learned prelate, was born April 7, 1531, at Venice, descended from one of the best families in that city. After having made a rapid progress in his studies, he was admitted among the Savii deir Ordini, a small society of five 5'oung men of the highest rank at Venice, who had access to the college where affairs relative to the republic were debated, that they might be trained up to the science of government. Valerio took a doctor’s degree in divinity and in canon law, became professor of philosophy at Venice, 1558, and having afterwards chosen the ecclesiastical profession, was appointed bishop of Verona, on the resignation of his uncle, cardinal Bernardo Naugerio, 1565. He discharged the duties of the episcopal station with great prudence, and to the edification of his diocese, and formed a friendship with St. Charles Borromeo. Pope Gregory XIII. created him cardinal, 1583, invited him to Rome, and placed him at the head of several congregations. Valerio acquired universal esteem by his skill in public affairs, his learning and virtue. He died at Rome, May 24, 1606, aged 75, and although so advanced, his death is supposed to have been hastened by chagrin, occasioned by the interdiction under which pope Paul V. had laid the republic of Venice. This learned bishop left several excellent works: the most known are, “The Rhetoric of a Preacher,” “De Rhetoric* Ecclesiastica libri tres,” Venice, 1574, 8vo, composed by the advice and according to the plan of his intimate friend, St. Charles Borromeo. This was so popular as to be printed eight times in the author’s life, besides being translated into French, of which there is an edition so late as 1750, 12mo, nor, say the French writers, can the study of it be too strongly recommended to young ecclesiastics. His other works are on subjects of philosophy and history. In 1719, appeared in 4to, a work entitled “De cautione adhibenda in edendis Libris,” which contains a complete list of Augustine Valerio’s other works both printed and ms.

, an English poet and translator, called the Silurist, from being a native of that part of Wales whose ancient inhabitants were called Silures, was born, in 1621, at Newton St. Bridget, in Brecknockshir. After being educated at home under Matthew Herbert, an able grammar- master, he was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1638, but after two years residence, he departed without taking a degree, his father wishing him to study law in London. On the breaking out of the rebellion he was sent for home, and followed, as Wood says, “the pleasant paths of poetry and philology,” but afterwards studied and practised physic with reputation. He was, adds Wood, “esteemed by scholars an ingenious person, but proud and humorous.” He died in April 1695, and was buried in the parish church of Llansenfreid near Brecknock. His poetical works are, 1. “Olor Iscanus, a collection of some select poems,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. 2. “Silex scintillans, or the Bleeding Heart, sacred poems and private ejaculations,” 1650, 1655, 12mo. 3. “The Mount of Olives: or. Solitary Devotions,” 1652, 8vo. 4. “Thalia Rediviva,” poems, which Wood says were ready for the press in 1673, but knows not whether they were printed. Mr. Ellis has given a few specimens from Vaughan’s poetry, but without being able to applaud it much. He translated some parts of Plutarch’s Morals, which were printed in a second edition of his “Olor Iscanus;” Anselm’s “Blessed state of Man;” Guevara “On the praise and happiness of the Country Life;” the “Life of Paulinus bishop of Nola,” and a few other articles mentioned by Wood.

, a Latin poet and moral writer, was the son of Walter Vaughan, of the Golden Grove, in Carmarthenshire, esq. and younger brother to sir John Vaughan, first earl of Carbery, and patron of bishop Jeremy Taylor. He was born at Golden Grove in 1577, and became a commoner of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1591, where he took his degrees in arts. The fruits of his scholastic attainments began to appear uncommonly early, as he was only in his fifteenth year when he prepared for printing an easy paraphrase of Persius in English and Latin; and his publications which appeared in 1597 and 1598 bespeak a prematurity of genius. After taking his degrees in arts, he applied to the study of the law, but before he proceeded in that faculty, set out on his travels, and at Vienna performed the necessary exercises for a doctor’s degree, in which he was incorporated at Oxford in 1605. He afterwards appears to have meditated a settlement in Cambriol, Newfoundland, where he was living in 1628, but the time of his death is not mentioned. His Latin poems are, 1. the “Song of Solomon, and some of the Psalms,” translated, Lond. 1597. 2. “Varia Poemata de Sphaerarum online,” 1589, 8vo. 3. “Poemata continent. Encom. Roberti Comitis Essex,” 1598, 8vo. 4. “Cambrensium Caroleia,” &c. a poem on the nuptials of Charles I. 1625 or 1630, 8vo. His English works are, “The Golden Grove, moralized in three books,” 1608, 8vo, which seems to have suggested to bishop Taylor the title of one of his most popular works; and “The Golden Fleece,” 1626, 4to: both works of the moral kind, and replete with observations on the manners of the times, and the principal personages. A particular account of both is given in the “Bibliographer,” vol. II. by which it appears that Vaughan had translated a part of Boccalini’s Advices from Parnassus, and had published “Circles called the Spirit of Detraction, conjured and convicted,” and “Commentaries upon, and paraphrase of, Juvenal and Persius,” all in early life.

, or Lope-Felix de Vega Carpio, a celebrated Spanish poet, was born at Madrid, Nov. 25, 1562. He informs us that his father was a poet, but what he was besides, or the time of his death, is not known. It appears that he was an orphan when at school, about thirteen or fourteen years old, and was then impelled by so restless a desire of seeing the world, that he resolved to escape; and having concerted his project with a schoolfellow, they actually put it in execution, but were soon brought back to Madrid. Before this time, according to his own account, he had not only written verses, but composed dramas in four acts, which, as he tells us, was then the custom. Upon his return to Madrid, however, he abandoned this mode of composition, and ingratiated himself with the bishop of Avila by several pastorals, and a comedy in three acts, called “La Pastoral de Jacinto,” which is said to have formed an epoch in the annals of the theatre, and a prelude to the reform which Lope was destined to introduce.

, or Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus, a Christian poet of the sixth century, was a native of Italy, and studied at Ravenna. He applied himself to grammar, rhetoric, poetry, and jurisprudence, but was most attached to rhetoric and poetry, and was honoured by Hilduinus, the abbot of St. Denis, with the title of Scholasticissimus. It sems uncertain what was the cause of his leaving Italy for France, but the step was peculiarly fortunate for him, as his poetical genius procured him the most honourable reception. Princes, bishops, and persons of the highest ranks, became eager to confer on him marks of their esteem. He arrived in France during the reign of Sigebert, king of Austrasia, who received him with great respect. This being about the time of the king’s marriage with Brunehaut, in the year 566, Venantius composed an epithaiamium, in which he celebrated the graces and perfections of the new queen. It is also said, that he gave the king lectures on politics. The following year he went to Tours to perform a vow to St. Martin, whose image had cured him of a complaint in his eyes. He then went to Poictiers, and was invited by St. Radegonda, the foundress of a monastery there, to reside in the capacity of her secretary; and afterwards, when he became a priest, she appointed him her chaplain and almoner. He resided here for some years, employing his time in study and writing, and edifying the church as much by his example as by his works. He was much esteemed by Gregory of Tours and other prelates, and was at last himself raised to be bishop of Poictiers, which dignity, it is said, he did not long enjoy. He died about the commencement of the seventh century, some say in the year 609. His works consist of eleven books of poetry, mostly of the elegiac kind, and generally short: hymns adapted to the services of the church: epitaphs, letters to several bishops, and some to Gregory of Tours: courtly verses addressed to queen Radegonda, and her sister Agnes, usually sent with presents of flowers, fruit, &c. four books of the “Life of St. Martin,” in heroic verse: several lives of the saints. Editions of his works were published at Cagliari in 1573, 1574, and 1584, and at Cologne in 1600: but all these are said to be incomplete and incorrect, yet they shew the respect paid to him as the best Latin poet of his time. In 1603 Christopher Brower, a German Jesuit, produced a very correct edition, with notes, printed at Fulda, and reprinted at Mentz, in 1617, 4to; but this contains only his poems. His other works are in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” of Lyons, 1677. The most complete edition is that of Rome, published under the title of “Venantii opera omnia quae extant, post Browerianam editionetn mine recens novis addiiamentis aucta, not. et scholiis illustr. opera Mich-Ange Luchi,” 1786—87, 2 vols. 4to.

, a pious divine of the church of England, was the son of the rev. Richard Venn, rector of St. Antholiri’s, London, who distinguished himself as a noted disputant in his day, particularly in conjunction with bishop Gibson, in opposing the promotion of Dr. Rundle to a bishopric, on account of a conversation in which the doctor had expressed sentiments rather favourable to deism. Mr. Venn also assisted Dr. Webster in writing the “Weekly Miscellany,” a periodical publication which, under the venerable name of Richard Hooker, laboured zealously in defence of high church principles. He died in 1740; and a volume of his sermons and tracts was published by his widow, the daughter of Mr. Ashton, who had been executed in the reign of William III. for being concerned in a plot to bring back the Stuart family.

Mr. Henry Venn was born at Barnes, in the county of Surrey, 1725. He was educated, partly under Dr. Pitman, at Market-street, and partly under the reverend Mr. Catcott, rector of St. Stephen, Bristol, a Hutchinsonian divine of great ingenuity and learning, the author of a curious treatise on the deluge, and a volume of sermons. In 1742 Mr. Venn was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge, proceeded to the degree of B.A. in 1745, and to that of M.A. in 1749. There being no fellowship vacant in his own college, the fellows of Queen’s unanimously elected him a member of their society, in which he continued till his marriage in 1757. The lady to whom he became united was daughter of Dr. Bishop of Ipswich, author of an Exposition of the creed, and a volume of Sermons preached at Lady Moyer’s lecture in 1724.

, abbot of St. Cyran, famous in the seventeenth century as a controversial writer, was born in 1581, at Bayonne, of a good family. He pursued his studies at Lou vain, and formed a strict friendship with the celebrated Jansenius, his fellow student. In 1610 he was made abbot of St. Cyran, on the resignation ( of Henry Lewis Chateignier de la Roche-Posai, bishop of Poitiers. The new abbot read the fathers and the councils with Jansenius, and took great pains to impress him with his sentiments and opinions, as well as a number of divines with whom he corresponded; nor did he leave any means untried to inspire M. le Maitre, M. Arnauld, M. d'Andilly, and several more disciples whom he had gained, with the same opinions. This conduct making much noise, cardinal Richelieu, who was besides piqued that the abbot of St. Cyran refused to declare himself for the nullity of the marriage between Gaston, duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis the thirteenth, and Margaret of Lorraine, confined him at Vincennes, May 11, 1638. After this minister’s death, the abbot regained his liberty, but did not enjoy it long, for he died at Paris, October 18, 1643, aged sixtytwo, and was buried at St. Jacques du Haut-Pas, where his epitaph may be seen on one side of the high altar. His works are, 1. “Lettres Spirituelles,” 2 vols. 4to, or 8vo, reprinted at Lyons, 1679, 3 vols. 12mo, to which a fourth has been added, containing several small tracts written by M. de St. Cyran, and printed separately. 2. “Question Royale,” in which he examines in what extremity a subject might be obliged to save the life of his prince at the expence of his own, 1609, 12mo. This last was much talked of, and his enemies drew inferences and consequences from it, which neither he nor his disciples by any means approved 3. “L‘Aumône Chrétienne, ou Tradition de l’Eglise touchant la charité envers les Pauvres,” 2 vols. 12mo. The second part of this work is entitled “L'Aumône ecclesiastique.” M. Anthony le Maitre had a greater share in the last-mentioned book than the abbot of St. Cyran. He published some other works of a similar cast, but his last appears to deserve most notice. It is entitled “Petrus Aurelius,” -and is a defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Jesuits. He was assisted in this book by his nephew, the abbé de Baicos, and it seems to have done him the most honour of all his works, though it must be acknowledged, says the abbé L'Avocat, that if all the abuse of the Jesuits, and the invectives against their order, were taken from this great volume, very little would remain. L'Avocat is also of opinion that M. Hallier’s small tract on the same subject, occasioned by the censure of the clergy in 1635, is more solid, much deeper, and contains better arguments, than any that are to be found in the great volume of “Petrus Aurelius.” The first edition of this book is the collection of different parts, printed between 1632 and 1635, for which the printer Morel was paid by the clergy, though it was done without their order. The assembly held in 1641 caused an edition to be published in 1642, which the Jesuits seized; but it was nevertheless dispersed on the remonstrances of the clergy. This edition contains two pieces, “Confutatio collections locorum quos Jesuits compilarunt, &c.” that are not in the third edition, which was also published at the clergy’s expence in 1646. But to this third edition is prefixed the eulogy, written by M. Godeau on the author, by order of the clergy, and the verbal process which orders it; whence it appears that their sentiments respecting him, differed widely from those of the Jesuits and their adherents. The abbot de St. Cyran was a man of much simplicity in his manners and practice: he told his beads; he exorcised heretical books before he read them: this simplicity, however, concealed a great fund of learning, and great talents for persuasion, without which he could never have gained so many illustrious and distinguished disciples, as Mess. Arnauld, le Maltre de Sacy, Arnauld d'Andilly, and the other literati of Port Royal, who all had the highest veneration for him, and placed the most unbounded confidence in him. But whatever talents he might have for speaking, persuading, and directing, he certainly had none for writing; nor are his books answerable to his high reputation.

, usually called the Younger, to distinguish him from the preceding, was born at Justinopolis, and of the same family. Where he was educated we are not told, but he soon became celebrated for his acquirements in canon-law and scholastic divinity; and these recommended him to the attention of the pope, Clement VII. who employed him as his nuncio at the memorable diet of Augsburgh in 1530, and entrusted him with a very ample commission. He was instructed to use every endeavour to prevent the holding of a national council in Germany, and to induce king Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, to oppose any proposition of that kind. Vergerius executed this commission with great 2eal, and gave every opposition to the Lutherans, by shewing his partiality to Eckius, Faber, Cochlaeus, and other enemies to the reformation; he also made Eckius a canon of Ratisbonne, a piece of preferment which, as the pope’s legate, he could confer. Vergerius executed this commission with such ability, that he was thought the most proper person to succeed the superannuated bishop of Rhegio, as the pope’s ambassador to Germany. He accordingly was sent, with instructions, openly to represent his holiness’s ardent desire to convene a general council, but secretly to take every step to prevent that measure. On the death of Clement VII. and the accession of Paul III. the latter recalled Vergerius from Germany, in order to be exactly informed of the state of religion in that country; and, says Sleidan, he also consulted with the cardinals, as to the prevention of a national council, until they should, by private and unsuspected contrivances, be able to embroil the emperor afhd other princes in a war. As a part of this plan, Paul III. resolved at length to send Vergerius back to Germany to profer a general council, and in the mean time to learn what form the Protestants would insist upon as to the qualifications, votings, and disputations, of such a council; and his object in this was, to be able to impose such rules and terms as he was sure they would never accept; by which contrivance the odium of not holding a general council would fall upon them. Vergerius was also instructed to exasperate the princes of the empire against the king of England, Henry V1IL whose dominions the pope had in contemplation to bestow upon those who would conquer them: and he had also a secret article of instruction to tamper with Luther and Melancthon, in order to bring them over to the cause of Rome.

In 1556 Vergerius returned to the pope, and reported, as the issue of his inquiries, that the protestants demanded a free council, in a convenient place, within the territories of the empire, which the emperor had promised them: that as to the Lutheran party, there was no remedy but absolute force and entire suppression: that the protestants would hear nothing of hostility to the king of England, and that the rest of the princes had equal repugnance. The only comfortable hint Vergerius communicated was, that George duke of Saxony (Luther’s greatest enemy) had declared, that the pope and the emperor ought to make war against the protestants as soon as possible,. Catching at this, the pope immediately sent Vergerius to Naples, where the emperor then was, in order to propose such a war, as the quickest method of settling the controversy. The emperor so far listened to this as to take a journey to Rome to debate the matter; and the issue was, that a council was proposed to be held at Mantua: but to this, from motives of self-preservation, the protestants could not consent. As a reward, however, for his services, Vergerius was made bishop of Justinopolis.

From this time to 1541, Vergerius appeajrs to have remained in Italy. In this last mentioned year, he was commissioned to go to the diet at Worms, where he made a speech on the unity and peace of the church, which he printed and circulated, and in which he principally insisted on the arguments against a national council. On his return to Rome, the pope intended to have rewarded his services with a cardinal’s hat, but changed his purpose on hearing it insinuated that a leaning towards Lutheranism was perceptible in him, from his long residence in Germany. The pope, however, was not more offended than Vergerius was surprized at this charge, which he knew to be absolutely groundless; yet this circumstance, probably arising from personal malice or envy, proved ultimately the means of Vergerius’s conversion. With a view to repel the charge of heresy, he now sat down to write a book, the title of which was to be, “Adversus apostatas Germanise,” against the apostates of Germany; but as this led him to a strict investigation of the protestant doctrines, as found in the works of their ablest writers, he found his attachment to popery completely undermined, and rose up from the perusal of the protestant writers with a strong conviction that they were in the right. He then immediately went to confer with his brother, John Baptist Vergerius, bishop of Pola, in Istria, who was exceedingly perplexed at his change of sentiment, but on his repeated entreaties, joined him in examining the disputed points, particularly the article of justification, and the result was, that both prelates soon preached to the people of Istria the doctrines of the reformation, and even dispersed the New Testament among them in the vulgar tongue. The Inquisition, as well as the monks, soon became alarmed at this, and Vergerius was obliged to seek refuge in Mantua, under the protection of cardinal Hercules Gonzaga, who had been his intimate friend; but Gonzaga was after a short time obliged by remonstrances from Rome to withdraw his protection, and he finally went to Padua, and thence to the Grisons, where he preached the gospel for several years, until invited by the duke of Wirtemberg to Tubingen, and there he passed the remainder of his days. In the mean time his brother, the bishop of Pola, died, and, as suspected, by poison, administered by some of those implacable enemies who were also thirsting for Vergerius’s blood. But he was now out of their reach, and died quietly at Tubingen, Oct. 4, 1566. Verged us, after his conversion, wrote a great many treatises, most of them small, against popery and popish writers, the titles of which are to be found in our authorities, but they are all of rare occurrence, owing to their having been suppressed or strictly prohibited by his enemies. Some are in Italian, and some in Latin. A collection of them was begun to be printed at Tubingen in 1563, but one volume only was published, under the title of “Primus tomus operum Vergerii adversus Papatum,” 4to. A valuable defence of Vergerius was published by Schelhorn, in 1760, “Apologia pro P. P. Vergerio adversus loh. Casam. Accedunt Monumenta inedita, et quatuor epistoltE memorabiles,” 4to.

In 1526, he published a treatise “Of Prodigies:” consisting of dialogues, and attacks upon divination. He did not desire to leave England till 1550, and he would not have desired it then, if old age had not required a warmer and more southern climate. Bishop Burnet tells us, that “having been now almost forty years here, growing old, ha desired leave to go nearer the sun. It was granted him on the 2d of June: and, in consideration of the public service he was thought to have done the nation by his History, he was permitted to hold his archdeaconry of Wells, and his prebend of Nonnington, notwithstanding his absence from the kingdom.” It is said that he died at Urbino in 1555. Although a zealous papist in some points, he approved the marriage of the clergy, and condemned the worship of images; nor was he at all disgusted with the alterations that were made in the affairs of England under Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and it has been observed that there are several things occasionally dropped in his writings, which did not please the adherents of his own church. His name of late has been written “Virgil” but, before the Basil edition in 1536 of his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” it is printed “Vergilius.”

, a learned converted Jew, of Metz in Lorrain, was originally educated in that religion, the rites and customs of which, it appears by his writings, he well understood; but by perusing the prophetical parts of the Old Testament, and comparing them with the New, he became convinced that Christ was the true Messiah, and embraced Christianity, according to the Roman Catholic form. His abilities recommended him to considerable promotion, and to the degree of D. D. from one of the French universities. In 1672 he published a “Commentary on the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke,” in which, besides a literal exposition of the text, collected from the monuments of the ancients, he took an opportunity to defend the doctrines of the church of Rome, which so advanced his reputation, that he was requested to write against the protestants, and much was expected from a man of his learning and an able reasoner. This, however, only led to another change; for, in examining the controversies between the papists and protestants, he became satisfied that truth was on the side of the latter. France was of course no longer a safe residence, and he immediately went to Holland, abjured the errors of popery, and soon after came over to England. Here he became acquainted with Stillingfleet, Sharp, Tillotson, Patrick, Lloyd, and other eminent English divines, and particularly with Compton bishop of London. Under this patronage, he was admitted into orders in the English church, and became chaplain to a nobleman, and tutor to his children.

In 1673 he revised his Commentary on St. Matthew and Mark, omitting what was in favour of the Romish church, and improving it in other respects. In 1679 he published his literal “Explication of Solomon’s Song,” dedicated to sir Joseph Williamson. This was so well received, that many of the most eminent of the clergy of England, and of the foreign reformed churches, encouraged him to proceed to a farther translation of the sacred writings. Accordingly in 1680 he published his “Literal Exposition of the minor Prophets.” But his principles were still unsettled, and meeting, in the bishop of London’s library, to which he had at all times access, with the writings of the English baptists, he became convinced that there was no foundation for infant baptism, and leaving the church, joined a small baptist congregation in Gracechurch-street, where he was publicly baptised. This is said to have lost him all his powerful friends, except Tillotson, who still preserved a respect for his talents. He now published an “Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles” in English, in which he endeavoured to defend his baptist sentiments. He preached also among that sect, but was not very popular, as he could not speak English fluently. His flock, however, raised him a salary, which he enjoyed till his death. He also practised physic for his maintenance. He is supposed to have died about the commencement of the last century.

There was another Lewis de Compiegne de Viel, also a converted Jew, and born at Metz, who published many learned pieces, particularly in 1679, in Hebrew, with a Latin version by himself, “Catechismus Judaeorum in disputatione & dialogo magistri & discipuli, scriptus a R. Abrahamo Jagel, monte Silicis onu^o,” with a dedication to Dr. Compton, bishop of London: this book was reprinted at Franeker, in 1690, in 8vo. He gave the public likewise a Latin translation of, and notes upon, rabbi Moses Maimonides’s book “De $acrificiis,” and his tract “De Consecratione & de Ratione irjtercalandi,” and Abarbanel’s “Exordium sive proo3mium in Leviticum,” printed at London, in 1683, in 4to. H,e had published also at Paris, in 1678, the eighth book of Maimonicles “De cultu divino,” with a Latin version, just before he left France, where he was the king’s interpreter for the Oriental languages. He was born a Jew, but afterwards embraced the Popish religion, which he at last renounced for the Protestant, and entered into the communion of the Church of England, whither he retired about 1679.

, a French biographer, was born December 24, 1652, at Paris, and was the son of James Bourgoin, king’s counsellor, and hereditary judge and warden of the mint in that city. He spent some years in the community of gentlemen established in the parish of St. Sulpice, with a view of concealing himself from the world, and having more leisure for study; but his merit discovered him, and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions in 1706. In 1708, however, he voluntarily withdrew from this academy, alleging, as an excuse, that his health would not permit him to perform the duties of it. He retired afterwards to a small apartment in the cloisters of the Metropolitan church, and there passed the rest of his life, contented with a little, free from ambition, employed in study and prayer, and enjoying the society of a small number of select friends. He continued a layman, but neither married, nor held any office in the state. He died December 2, 1737, aged eighty-five, leaving a great number of biographical works, translations, and small pieces. His biographical productions are, “The Life of St. Bernard,” 4to; “The Lives of the Holy Fathers of the Deserts in the East and West,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The Life of St. Theresa,” with “Select Letters” of the same Saint, 4to, and 2 vols. 12mo; “Anecdotes and secret Memoirs concerning the constitution Unigenitus,” 3 vols. 12mo; but this work was suppressed by a decree of council, as well as the “Refutation” of it, written by M. Peter Francis Lafitau, bishop of Sisteron; “The Life of Anne Genevieve de Bourbon, duchess de Longueville,” the best edition of which is Amsterdam, 1739, 2 torn. 8vo. M. de Villefore’s translations are, several of St, Augustine’s, St. Bernard’s, and Cicero’s works, all said to be faithfully executed.

He had three principal objects of pursuit; theology, classical learning, and history in all its branches. Historical research was his peculiar delight, including geography, navigation, commerce, and even the military art, as illustrating the history of men, and connecting the memorials of remote periods. To this taste, perseveringly indulged, we owe his various works, particularly those on ancient commerce and navigation, on which his reputation chiefly rests. Yet he was no impatient candidate for fame. During the whole period of his being under-master, which was no less than seventeen years, he published nothing that was at all considerable. One small publication was a letter to Dr. Watson, then professor of divinity at Cambridge (afterwards bishop of Llandaff) on the subject of a sermon preached by him in 1780; a production neither then nor afterwards publicly avowedi; though far from being unworthy of his principles or talents, being a very clear and able argument against such theories as tend to overturn governments, and against the spirit of opposition in those times. The, other tract was entitled “Considerations on Parochial Music” (1787); not written as pretending to any knowledge of the science, or talent for it, which he had not; but byway of improving its rational and devotional effects in parish churches. He had then become a parish priest, and it was natural for him to attend to every thing relating to that office.

But the author was still very far from anticipating the further advantage that he was to derive from it. Among the persons most highly gratified by this tract, was lord Sidmouth, then Mr. Addington, the friend and ornament of another illustrious school, Winchester. It powerfully recalled his attention to the various merits and long public services of the author; and with that promptness and liberality of decision, of which his short administration furnished more instances than many of the longest, he recommended Dr. Vincent to his majesty, as successor to his friend bishop Horsley, in the deanery of Westminster. The king did not fail to express his satisfaction in giving the appointment; and, at a subsequent opportunity, was pleased even to express regret, that the see of Rochester had not. as in many former instances, gone with the deanery. This appointment vacated of course the inferior situations of prebendary and master of the school, the latter of which he left, accompanied by the most gratifying marks of affection from those who had been under his care.

The principal works of Dean Vincent have now been distinctly enumerated; as forming an important part of his history, as a literary man; but he wrote occasionally in periodical works, in which he had no other interest, but such as arose from the general wish to promote the progress of sound literature, both sacred and profane; or to benefit the editors of works whose design was of that nature. His communications to the “Classical Journal” were not many, but va|uable, and regularly signed with his name. They were these 1. On Ancient Commerce No. v. p. 60. 2. On China, as known to Classic Authors No. xiii. p. 32. 3. On Theophilus, an African Bishop No. xiv. p. 382. 4. On the Geography of Susiana; Suppl. to No. xviii. p. 449. 5. Correction of an Error in the Periplus; No. xx. p. 322. The contributions of Dr. Vincent to the “British Critic” commenced at a very early period of that publication, and were never entirely discontinued till the close of the first series. The friendship with which he honoured the original editor of that work, together with his entire approbation of the design and principles, with which it was undertaken and conducted, made him at all times ready to give his aid to it, when his other occupations and studies would permit. As he was always completely a volunteer, so the choice of his subjects, as well as of his opportunities, was left entirely to himself. These communications were not marked with his name, because it was not suitable to the practice of the Review, but he had no particular wish to be concealed, and his biographer has accordingly given a list of his articles, with useful remarks, for which, on account of its length, we must refer to our authority.

, an Anglo-Norman poet, whose works are esteemed the most ancient monuments of French literature, was born in the isle of Jersey, in the early part of the twelfth century. Huet, bishop of Avranches, assures us that his Christian name was Robert, and this opinion has generally prevailed, although Ducange calls him Mathew. From the poet himself, nothing can be determined, for in none of his works does he once mention his Christian name, calling himself generally Maitre Wace, Clerc-lisant, or Clerc de Caen. Wace commenced his studies at Caen, a city which at that time had many celebrated schools, and afterwards travelled in France to complete his education, hut under what tutors, or in what places, does not appear. Whether however from being dissatisfied with his situation, or from the natural predilection of his countrymen in favour of the English government, it is certain that he returned to Caen, and there made his first essay.

Such a multitude of works from the pen of the same author engaged the attention of Henry II. who, to reward his merit, bestowed on him a canonry in the cathedral of Bayeux. Monsieur Lancelot, in his explanation of the tapestry of queen Matilda, preserved in the treasury of that cathedral, has contended that Wace borrowed several facts which he could not have found elsewhere from that valuable monument, but for this there seems very slight foundation. Dumoutier in his.“Nenstria pia” says that Wace was canon of Caen, but it is certain there was no chapter established in that city. That of St. Sepulchre, which still remains, was not founded till 1219. It is true, that in March 1152, Philip de Harcourt, bishop of Bayeux, founded three new canonries in his cathedral church, and to endow them, annexed the parish churches of Notre Dame, St. John, and St. Peter, belonging to the city of Caen; perhaps Wace being afterwards provided with one of these benefices, might have been called canon of Caen, because the chief place of his prebend was situated in that city; this conjecture acquires the greater probability on account of a practice still existing in Normandy of describing every canon by the name of the place appropriated to his canonry.

, an eminent Irish Roman catholic, and reckoned a great ornament to his country, was born at Waterford, Oct. 16, 1588. His first studies were begun at home under the tuition of his brother Matthew, who took him to Portugal in the fifteenth year of his age, and placed him in a seminary established for the Irish at Lisbon, where he applied to philosophy for six months under the direction of the Jesuits. In 1605, after having passed his noviciate, he was admitted among the Franciscans, and afterwards continued his studies at their convents at Liria, at Lisbon, and afterwards at Coimbra, in all which places he was admired for the diligence and success of his application. After being admitted into priest’s orders he removed to Salamanca, where he continued some time, and was made superintendant of the students, and lecturer in divinity, in both which offices he gave great satisfaction. In 1618, when Anthony a Trejo, vicar-general of the Franciscans, was advanced to the bishopric of Carthagena, in Spain, and appointed legate extraordinary to pope Paul V. upon one of those disputes which frequently agitated the Romish church, respecting the immaculate conception, the bishop, although he had the choice of many men of the Spanish nation, eminent for learning and talents in business, yet preferred Wadding to be chaplain of this embassy, although then but thirty years old, and a foreigner.

Accordingly, having introduced our divine at court, the bishop took him with him to Rome, where they were lodged in the palace of cardinal Gabriel a Trejo, the bishop’s brother, who employed Wadding in compiling or composing from the libraries and archives of Rome such arguments and proofs as related to the question before them; and he even visited Assisi, Perugia, Naples, and many other places fr the same purpose. Besides this, at the request of some who had perused what he had brought together with great satisfaction, he was induced to write a history of that legation, not indeed with a view to publication, but having intrusted the ms to some who were of opinion it ought not to be concealed, it was at last published by Maximilian de Bouchorne, at Louvaine, under the title “Legatio Philippi III. et IV. Hispaniae regum, ad sanctissimos D. D. Paulum V- et Gregorium XV. et Urbanum VIII. pro definienda controversia conceptions B. Mariae Virginia; per illustrissimum, &c. Anthonium a Trejo,” &c. Lonvain, 1624, folio.

But while this legation was going on, he removed from the cardinal’s palace, as enjoying there a course of life which he thought incompatible with his profession of Franciscan, and took up his residence at the Franciscan-convent of St. Peter, where he was honoured with the respect of many of the dignified ecclesiastics of Rome; and on the departure of the bishop to Spain, when the care of the legation was entrusted to the duke of Albuquerque, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, Wadding was appointed his assistant, and was, says his biographer, the life of the whole negotiation. He wrote three pamphlets on the subject of the immaculate conception, the titles of which we may be excused from giving. During the time he could spare from the business of this legation, he published an edition of some works of St. Francis, from Mss. in the public libraries, under the title of “Opusculorum St. Francisci Libri tres,” Antwerp, 1623. Before this time he performed what will probably be thought a more acceptable service to theological studies, in undertaking to print Calasio’s Concordance (see Calasio). Calasio died at Rome, wliile Wadding was there, leaving this large work in manuscript. Wadding, who saw its merits, regretted that it should be lost; and being unable of himself to defray the expence of printing, applied to pope Paul V. and to Benignus a Genua, the general of the Franciscans, by whose encouragement the whole was published at Rome in 1621, 4 vols, folio, under the inspection of Wadding, who prefixed to it a learned treatise “De Hebraic lingoos origine, praestaiitia et militate.” Pope Paul dying while the work was in the press, he dedicated it to his successor, Gregory XV. He published also, from original Mss. the works of some other Spanish divines, and wrote a life of Thomasius, patriarch of Constantinople, “Vita B. Petri Thomce Aquitani Carmelitse,” &c. Lyons, 1637, 8vo. But the most labourius effort of editorship was his rescuing from obscurity all the manuscript copies of Duns Scotus’s works, transcribing, collating, and correcting, and afterwards publishing the whole, in twelve folio volumes, at Lyons, in 1639.

, a learned nonjuring divine and able writer, was of a gentleman’s family in Warwickshire, and was born February 15, 1645. He was educated at the Charterhouse school under Mr. Wood. In Lent-­term 1660, he was admitted commoner of New-Inn at Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts October 15, 1664, and that of master June 20, 1G67. He was ordained deacon by Dr. John Hacket, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, June 6, 1669; and priest by Dr. Joseph Henshaw, bishop of Peterborough, November 19, 1669. He was instituted to the rectory of Martins-Thorpe in the county of Rutland, by Joseph, bishop of Peterborough, November 19, 1669. After that he lived in the family of sir Richard Temple at Stow, in the county of Bucks, and entered upon the curacy of that church April 12, 1676. In December 1684, he was presented by king Charles II. and instituted by William, archbishop of Canterbury, to the chancellorship of the cathedral church of Lichfield, together with the prebendary of Alderwas in the same church. In March 1684 he was presented by Henry, bishop of London, to the rectory of St. Margaret Pattens in London. Upon the revolution, being deprived of his preferments for not taking the new oaths, he practised physic for many years afterwards in the City of London with good success, and wore his gown all the while. In February 1693 he vvas consecrated bishop by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, Dr. Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, and Dr. Thomas White, bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings, at the reverend Mr. Giffard’s house at Southgate, at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon was present Mr. Wagstaffe was consecrated suffragan of Ipswich, and Dr. Hickes at the same time suffragan of Thetford. Mr. Wagstaffe died October 17, 1712, in the sixty- seventh year of his age. He published few sermons, but wrote many pieces in defence of the constitution both in Church and State, with great strength of reason and perspicuity.

Among these are, 1. “A Letter to the author of the late Letter out of the country, occasioned by a former Letter to a member of the House of Commons, concerning the bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension.” 2. “An Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation Book: with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance,” London, 1690. 3. “An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication of the Case of allegiance due to sovereign powers, which he made in reply to an Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance, &c,” London, 1692. 4. “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Sherlock written in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, wtiicb gives the account of Jaddas’s submission to Alexander, against the Answer to the piece entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government,” Lond. 1692. 5. “A Letter out of Suffolk to a friend in London, giving some account of the late sickness and death of Dr. William Sancroft late lord archbishop of Canterbury,” London, 1694. 6. “A Letter out of Lancashire to a friend in London, giving some account of the tryals there. Together with some seasonable and proper remarks upon it; recommended to the wisdom of the Lords and Commons assembled in parliament,” London, 1694. 7. “A Letter to a gentleman elected a knight of the shire to serve in the present parliament,” London, 1694. 8. “Remarks on some late Sermons, and in particular on Dr. Sherlock’s sermon at the Temple December the 30th, 1694, in a letter to a friend. The second edition, with additions. Together with a letter to the author of a pamphlet entitled A Defence of the archbishop’s Sermon, &c. and several other Sermons, &c.” London, 1695. 9. “An account of the proceedings in the House of Commons, in relation to the recoining the clipped money, and falling the price of guineas. Together with a particular list of the names of the members consenting and dissenting; in answer to a Letter out of the country,” London, 1696. 10. “A Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; proving that his majesty was the author of ' Eixav BawiAjw, against a memorandum said to be written by the earl of Anglesey, and against the exceptions of Dr. Walker and others. To which is added a preface, wherein the bold and insolent assertions published in a passage of Mr.JBayle’s Dictionary relating to the present controversy are examined and confuted. The third edition, with large additions together with some original letters of king Charles the First, &c.” Lond. 1711, in 4to. The two former editions were in 8vo, the first printed in 1693, and the second in 1697. 11. “A Defence of the Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; justifying his majesty’s title to Efxcuv 'BacriMw, in answer to a late pamphlet entitled Amyntor,” London, 1699. Mr. Wagstaffe also wrote prefaces before, I. “Symmons’s Restitutus: containing two epistles, four whole sections or chapters, together with a postscript, and some marginal observations, &c. which were perfectly omitted in the first edition of Mr Symmons’s book, entitled” A Vindication of king Charles I. and republished by Dr Hollingworth,“London, 1693. 2.” The devout Christian’s Manual, by Mr. Jones,“London, 1703. 3.” A Treatise of God’s Government, and of the justice of his present dispensations in this world. By the pious, learned, and most eloquent Sulvian, a priest of Marseilles, who lived in the fifth century. Translated from the Latin by R. T. presbyter of the church of England,“London, 1700. These two pamphlets are also of Mr. Wagstaffe’s writing, 1.” The present state of Jacobitism in England,“ibid. 1700;” A second part in answer to the first“which was written by the bishop of Salisbury, &c. &c. Wagstaflfe derived most credit from his endeavours to prove the” Eikon Basilike“to be the genuine production of king Charles; but on this subject we must refer our readers to the life of bishop Gauden, and especially the authorities there quoted. Mr. Wagstaffe had a son who resided at Oxford in the early part of his life, but afterwards went abroad, and resided at Rome many years in the character of protestant chaplain to the chevalier St. George, and afterwards to his son. He was there esteemed a man of very extensive learning. Dr. Townson was acquainted with him at Rome, both on his first and second tour in 1743 and 1768. He lived in a court near a carpenter’s shop, and upon Dr. Townson’s inquiring for him, the carpenter knew of no such person.” He did live somewhere in this yard some years ago.“” I have lived here these thirty years, and no person of such a name has lived here in that time.“But on farther explanation, the carpenter exclaimed,” Oh, you mean // Predicatore; he lives there,“pointing to the place. This Mr. Wagstaffe died at Rome, Dec. 3, 1770, aged seventy-eight. Mr. Nichols has preserved some jeux d‘esprits, and some epitaphs written by him, and there is a letter of his to Tom Hearne, in the ’.' Letters written by Eminent Persons,” lately published at Oxford, 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.

While in France he is said to have made a considerable figure in the learned world, and was applied to by Dr., now bishop Fell, to procure the collation of some valuable Greek Mss. of the New Testament at Paris, for the use of Dr. Mill, whose edition Dr. Fell patronised. In the beginning of the reign of James II. he returned home with lord Preston, and was soon after chosen preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s Inn. This, it would appear, was against the wish of the king, who, on the death of his predecessor, Dr. Claget, sent a message to the society, desiring them not to proceed to an election until they heard from him, but they returned an answer that they bad already chosen Dr. Wake. During his residence in France an incident occurred which occasioned his first appearance as an author, and his being known as an able writer both at home and abroad. Bossuet, the bishop of Meaux (See Bossuet) had now published his very artful “Exposition of the Roman Catholic Faith,” a copy of which came into the hands of Mr. Wake, who, in the preface to his Answer, gives a very curious account of the different alterations the work had undergone, in order to answer the real purposes for which it was written. He observes, that “the first design of monsieur de Meaux’s book was either to satisfy or to seduce the late mareschal de Turenne. How far it contributed thereunto I am not able to say, but am willing to believe that the change that honourable person made of his religion was upon somewhat better grounds than the bare Exposition of a few articles of the Roman faith; and that the author supplied either in his personal conferences with him, or by some other papers to us unknown, what was wanting to the first draught, which we have seen of this. The manuscript copy which then appeared, and for about four years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause, wanted all those chapters of the Eucharist, Tradition, the Authority of the Church and Pope, which now make up the most considerable part of it; and in the other points which it handled, seemed so loosely and favourably to propose the opinions of the church of Rome, that not only many undesigning persons of that communion were offended at it, but the protestants, who saw it, generally believed that monsieur de Meaux durst not publicly own what in his Exposition he privately pretended to be their doctrine. And the event shewed that they were not altogether mistaken. For in the beginning of 1671 the Exposition being with great care, and after the consideration of many years, reduced into the form in which we now see it, and to secure all, fortified with the approbation of the archbishop of Rheims, and nine otheV bishops, who profess that ‘ having examined it with all the care which the importance of the matter required, they found it conformable to the doctrine of the church, and as such recommended it to the people which God had committed to their conduct,’ it was sent to the press. The impression being finished and just ready to come abroad, the author, who desired to appear with all advantage to himself and his cause that was possible, sent it to some of the doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation to he joined to that of the bishops, that so no authority, ordinary or extraordinary, might be wanting to assert the* doctrine contained in it to be so far from the suspicion the Protestants had conceived of it, that it was truly and without disguise Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. But, to the great surprise of monsieur de Meaux, and those who had so much cried up his treatise before, the doctors of the Sorbonne, to whom it was communicated, instead of the approbation that was expected, confirmed what the Protestants had said of it; and, as became their faculty, marked several of the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition by the too great desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the doctrine of their church. To prevent the open scandal, which such a censure might have caused, with great industry and all the secrecy possible the whole edition was suppressed, and the several places, which the doctors had marked, changed; and the copy so speedily sent back to the press again, that in the end of the same year another much altered was publicly exposed, as the first impression that had at all been made of it. Yet this could not be so privately carried on, but that it soon came to a public knowledge; insomuch that one of the first answers that was made to it, charged monsieur de Meaux with this change. I do not hear, that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the relation, either in the advertisement prefixed to the later editions of his book, wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same treatise, or in any other vindication: whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of, or that it was too true to be denied, let the reader judge. But certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the design and genius of the whole book, but to be a plain demonstration, how improbable soever monsieur de Meaux would represent it, * that it is not impossible for a bishop of the Church of Rome, either not to be sufficiently instructed in his religion to know what is the doctrine of it; or not sufficiently sincere, as without disguise to represent it.' And since a copy of that very book so marked, as has been said, by the doctors of the Sorbonne, is fallen into my hands, I shall gratify the reader’s curiosity with a particular view of the changes that have been made, that so he may judge whether of the two was the cause of those great advances which the author in that first edition had thought fit to make towards us.” Such was part of the preface to Mr. Wake’s “Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” 1686, 4to, which he was induced to undertake, by having observed that the French catholics with whom he had conversed, had, from ignorance, or the misrepresentations of their instructors, entertained very false notions of the points in controversy between the Churches of Rome and England.

This tract, which is generally called Wake’s “Catechism,” was answered in “A Vindication of the bishop of Condom’s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, in answer to a book entitled, An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, &c. With a Letter from the said bishop,” 1686, 4to. To this our author replied in a book entitled, “A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator,” London, 1686, 4to. This occasioned, “A Reply to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; being a farther Vindication of the Bishop of Condom’s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux,” 1687, 4to. In answer to which Mr. Wake published “A second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux and his Vindicator. Part I. in which the Account, which hath been given of the Bishop of Meaux’s Exposition, is fully vindicated; the distinction of old and new Popery historically asserted; and the doctrine of the Church of Rome in point of image-worship more particularly considered. Part II. in which the Romish doctrines concerning the nature and object of religious worship, of the Invocation of Saints, and worship of images are considered, and the charge of Idolatry made good against those of the Church of Rome upon the account of them,” Loudon, 1638, 4to. While the second part of this treatise was writing, there was published “A full Answer to the second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. In a Letter to the Defender.”

Mr. Wake afterwards wrote several tracts in the controversy against popery, which was carried on with great zeal during the latter part of tbie reign of James II. Among these we may mention, 1. “A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, in the two gretu points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host,” 1687, 4to. 2. “A Discourse concerning the nature of Idolatry, in which a late author’s true and only notion of Idolatry is considered and confuted,” 1688, 4to. This was written against the “Reasons for abrogating the Test,” by Samuel Parker, bishop of Oxford. 3. “Sure and honest means for the conversion of all Heretics,” &c. 1688, 4to. This is a translation from the French, with a preface by our author. 4. “An historical treatise of Transubstantiation, wherein is made appear, that, according to the principles of that Church, this doctrine cannot be an article of Faith,” 1687, 4to. This was written by a member of the Church of Rome, and published by our author. 5. “Two Discourses of Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead,” 1688, 4to. 6. “A Continuation of the present State of the Controversy between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; being a full account of the books published on both sides,” 1688, 4to.

He took a very active part in that memorable controversy with regard to the Convocation, which we shall only notice so far as he was concerned, something having been already said upon it under the article of Atterbury. In 16i>7, there was published an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, “A Letter to a Convocation man, concerning the Rights, Powers, and Privileges, of that Body:” to which an answer was published the same year, by Dr. Wake, under this title, “The Authority of Christian Princes over their ecclesiastical Synods asserted, with particular respect to the Convocations of the Clergy of the realm and Church of England,” 8vo: and, this being attacked, the doctor vindicated himself in “An appeal to all the true members of the church of England, in behalf of the king’s ecclesiastical supremacy, as by law established; by our convocations approved; and by our most eminent bishops and clergymen stated and defended, against both the popish and fanatical opposers of it, 1698,” 8vo. In 1700, the celebrated Atterbury entered into this dispute with great vigour and resolution, and published an answer to Dr. Wake’s book, entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges, of an English Convocation, stated and defended,” 8vo: reprinted in 1701, with additions. The controversy novr grew warm, and several writers of considerable note engaged in it. Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, and Kennet, afterwards bishop of Peterborough, wrote animadversions upon Atterbury’s work; and Kennet’s piece against it was a particular reply to it, written under the countenance of archbishop Tenison. Hody, Gibson, Hooper, were concerned in it: Hooper was on the side of Atterhury; Hody and Gibson against him. But the most considerable and decisive answer to Atterbury was Dr. Wake’s large work, entitled, “The State of the Church and Clergy of England, in their Councils, Synods, Convocations, Conventions, and other public assemblies, historically deduced from the conversion of the Saxons to the present times, 1703,” in folio. This work was esteemed not only a full and sufficient answer to Atterbury, but decisive with regard to the controversy in general.

Of archbishop Wake’s kindness to father Courayer we have taken some notice in our account of that divine. His grace towards the end of his life became so much disabled by age and infirmities, that some part of the care of the church was transferred to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London. The archbishop lingered on in a very enfeebled state for a considerable time, and at length expired at Larnbeth palace, Jan. 24, 1737, and was interred in a private manner at Croydon. He was in the seventy-ninth year of his age, but the inscription on his tomb erroneously fixes his death in 1733.

In 1776 he was elected fellow, and continued the prosecution of his classical and theological studies through that and the following year. The first of his publications appeared in 1776, a small collection of Latin poems, with a few notes on Horace. In 1777 he gained the second of the bachelor’s prizes, a gold medal given by the chancellor. On the 22d of March, 1778, he was ordained a deacon by the bishop of Peterborough, and takes occasion from this event to declare that “he was so little satisfied with the requisition of subscription, and the subjects of that subscription themselves, that he afterwards regarded this acquiescence as the most disingenuous action of his whole life.” He then accepted a curacy at Stockport in Cheshire, whence he afterwards removed to a similar situation at Liverpool. Here he complains that the clergy, both conformist and nonconformist, paid little attention to him, and at the same time his dissatisfaction with the doctrine and worship of the church continued to increase. His dislike of the church was indeed now becoming inveterate, and devoid of all candour. Among his anecdotes when at Liverpool, he gives one of a church clergyman, who purloined the sacrament money; this clergyman had once been a dissenter, and Mr. Wakefield imputes his committing this crime to his having left the dissenters and conformed to the church.

Entering at length into the dangerous path of politics, he published “Remarks on the General Orders of the Duke of York,” in which he arraigned the justice of the war with France in terms which are supposed to have exercised the utmost forbearance of the ministry. But in his “Reply to some parts of the bishop of Lanclaff’s Address,” he passed those limits, and a prosecution being commenced, he was sentenced, upon conviction, to a two years imprisonment in Dorchester gaol. While here, his sufferings were as much as possible alleviated by the zeal of his friends, who raised a subscription of 5000l., which eased his mind as to a future provision for his family, and probably far exceeded what he could ever have been able to leave them, under any probable circumstances.

, a Carmelite monk of great learning in the fourteenth century, was born at Walden in Essex, about 1367. His father’s name was John Netter, but he chose to be denominated, as indeed was very commoil then, from the place of his nativity. He was educated among the Carmelites in London, whence he removed for the farther prosecution of his studies to Oxford. Here he continued some years, and received the degree of doctor in divinity, after which he returned to London, and took the habit of the Carmelites. Being introduced at the court of Henry IV. he became a favourite with the king, and was appointed the principal champion of the church against heretics, and especially those who had adopted the tenets of Wickliff, Huss, or Jerome of Prague. In 1409 he was sent by the king to the grand council at Pisa, where he is said to have been much admired for his eloquence and learning. After his return to England, he was made provincial of his order; and Henry V. admitted him of his privy-council, and appointed him his confessor. In 1415 he was sent to the council of Constance, and about 1419, was employed to negociate peace between Uladislaus, king of Poland, and Michael, general of the Teutonic order. In 1422 the king died in the arms of Waldensis, at Vincennes in France. He became afterwards a favourite with the young king Henry VI. and was appointed his confessor. In 1430 he attended the king to France, and at Roan was seized with an acute disease, of which he died Nov. 2, and was buried in the convent of Carmelites in that city. He appears to have been a man of abilities; Pits says that he was master of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in general a polite scholar. His principal work, the only one printed, is his “Doctrinale antiquum fidei ecclesias catholicse,” Paris, 1521—1523, 3 vols, folio, and reprinted at Saumur, Venice, and Paris. Mr. archdeacon Churton, in his valuable Lives of the founders of Brasenose-college, informs us, that the bishop of Lincoln, Russel, being harassed and fatigued, as he feelingly complains, with the multitude of heretics at Oxford in 1491, met with this book of Waldensis, and resolved to make extracts from it (vol. III. “de sacramentalibus”), for the more speedy and effectual refutation of the “insane dogmas, with which, he says, so many of his countrymen were infected.” Having framed his compendium with great care, by a written injunction under his own hand he ordered it to be preserved in the registry of the see, for the benefit of his successors in their examinations of “heretical depravity;” pronouncing an anathema at the same time against any one who should obliterate the title, expressive of the design of the performance and the name of the compiler. The original copy of this “touchstone of error,” which was completed at Woburn on the feast of the Epiphany 1491-2, is still extant in the library of University-college, Oxford.

, an eminent Puritan divine, was born at Hawkshead in Lancashire, in 1581, and was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge. After completing his studies there he went to London, and in 1614 became rector of St. John’s the Evangelist in Watling-street, where he continued nearly forty years, refusing every other offer of preferment. About the same time he became chaplain to Dr. Felton, bishop of Ely, who made choice of him the very morning of his consecration. He distinguished himself in the popish controversy; and, in 1623, held a public disputation with a priest of the name of Smith, before a very large assembly, and by consent of both parties, an account of it was afterwards published. He had likewise some encounters with Fisher, the celebrated Jesuit, and others who were deemed the most able disputants on the side of the church of Rome. In 1635 he was brought into trouble, for having preached a sermon in favour of the sacred observance of the Sabbath; archbishop Laud was so unwise as to admonish him for thjs, and afterwards had hitn prosecuted in the Star-chamber, fined and imprisoned. The parliament reversed this sentence, and condemned the whole proceedings against Mr. Walker, and he was restored to his living of St. John’s. In 1643, he was chosen one of the assembly of divines, and was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Laud, and one of those who took upon them to swear that the unfortunate prelate had endeavoured to introduce popery. In his sermons, too, before the parliament, he made use of those expressions, which tended to lessen the king in the eyes of the people; and although he was one of those who afterwards petitioned against his majesty’s death, he was also one of those who did not reflect how much their violent harangues and sermons had contributed to that event. He died in 1651, aged seventy years, and was interred in his own church in Watling-street. Fuller gives him a high character, as a man “well skilled in the Oriental languages, and an excellent logician and divine. He was a man of a holy life, an humble spirit, and a liberal ham!, who well deserved of Zion college library and who, by his example and persuasion, advanced a thousand pounds for the maintenance of preaching ministers in his native country.” He published, 1. “The sum of a Disputation between Mr. Walker, pastor of St. John the Evangelist, and a Popish priest, calling himself Mr. Smith, but indeed Norris,” 1623. 2. “Fisher’s folly unfolded, or the vaunting Jesuit’s challenge answered,” 1624. 3. “Socinianism in the fundamental point of Justification discovered and confuted.” 4. “The doctrine of the Holy Weekly Sabbath,” 1641. 5. “God made visible in all his Works,” 1644; besides several sermons preached before the parliament. We shall have occasion to mention another publication of Mr. Walker’s, when we come to speak of Anthony Wotton.

Resigning now the command of the regiment, he came to England, where he was most graciously received by their majesties, and in Nov. 1689, received the thanks of the House of Commons, having just before published an ac-' count of the siege. He was also created D. D. by the university of Oxford, and was nominated to the bishopric of Derry. But he was induced to return to Ireland with king William, and was killed July 1, 1690, at the battle of the Boyne, having resolved to serve that campaign before iie took possession of his bishopric. “The king,” says Tillotson, in a letter dated April 1689, “besides his first bounty to Mr. Walker, whose modesty is equal to his merit, hath, made him bishop of Londonderry, one of the best bishoprics in Ireland; that so he may receive the reward of that great service in the place where he did it. It is incredible how much every body is pleased with what the king hath done in this matter; and it is no small joy to me to see, that God directs him to do wisely.”

ject by bishop Atterbury, who was the and borrowed a fine allusion to prince

Being designed for the church, he had studied divinily with great care, and now was admitted to holy orders by Dr. Walter Curie, bishop of Winchester. In 1641 he left college to be chaplain to sir William Darley, at Bustercramb in Yorkshire. In the following year he acted in the same capacity to lady Vere, widow of sir Horatio Vere. It was during her occasional residence in London that he was enabled to discover his surprising talent in decypheringj and as this had an important effect on his future life and fame, it may be necessary to give his own account of the discovery. “About the beginning of our civil wars, in th* year 1642, a chaplain of sir William Waller’s, one evening as we were sitting down to supper at the lady Vere’s in London, with whom I then dwelt, shewed me an intercepted letter written in cypher. He shevyed it me as a curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in cyphers), and asked me, between jest and earnest, whether I could make any tiling of it; and he was surprized, when I said, upon the first view, perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new alphabet. It was about ten o'clock, when we rose from supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider it; and by the number of different characters therein (not above 22 or 23) I judged, that it could not be more than a new alphabet, and in about two hours time, before I went to bed, I had decyphered it; and I sent a copy of it. so decyphered the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at decyphering. This unexpected success on an easy cypher was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was somewhile after pressed to attempt one of another nature, which was a letter of Mr. secretary Windebank, then in France, to his son in England, in a cypher hard enough, and not unbecoming a secretary of state. It was in numeral figures, extending in number to above seven hundred, with many other characters intermixed; but not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate; but after some months resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it. Being encouraged by this success beyond expectation, I afterwards ventured on many others, some of more, some of less difficulty; and scarce missed of any that I undertook for many years, during our civil wars, and afterwards. But of late years the French, methods of cypher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many, tho' I have mastered divers of them. Of such decyphered letters there be copies of divers remaining in the archives of the Bodleian library in Oxford, and many more in my own custody, and with the secretaries of state.” The copies of decyphered letters, mentioned by Dr. Wallis to be in the archives of the Bodleian library, were reposited by him there in 1653, and are in the doctor’s own hand-writing, with a memorandum at the beginning, to this purpose: “A collection of several letters and other papers, which were at several times intercepted, written in cypher,' decyphered by John Wallis, professor of geometry in the university of Oxford; given to the public library there,” anno domin‘t 1653. This part of our author’s skill gave him afterwards no small trouble, and might possibly have been of very bad consequences to him, had he not had some friends in power, particularly the earl of Clarendon and sir Edward Nicholas secretary of state, who valued him for his great learning and integrity, and were sensible of his affection for the royal family, and his loyalty to the king, and the many good services he had done his majesty before the restoration. The doctor’s enemies soon after the restoration eiH deavoured to represent him as an avowed enemy to the royal family; and to prove this they reported, that he had during the civil wars decyphered king Charles I.’s letters taken in his cabinet at Naseby; and that the letters so decyphered by him were to be seen in the books of cyphers, which our author had given to the university. This report being revived upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, the doctor wrote a letter in his own vindication to his great friend Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford/dated April 8, 1685 which was as follows

In our authorities are other proofs of his innocence in this matter; but we presume it cannot be denied that he had been of service to the republican government by this peculiar talent. He had always joined with them, and in 1653 he had the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- street, granted to him. The same year he published in 4to, Truth tried; or, Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise of the nature of Truth'.“His mother dying this year, he became possessed of a handsome fortune. In 1644 he was appointed one of the scribes or secretaries to the assembly of divines at Westminster, to whose conduct and views he gives a very different colouring from what we meet with in most of the publications of that time.” The parliament,“he asserts,” had a great displeasure against the order of bishops, or rather not so much against the order, as the men, and against the order for their sakes; and had resolved upon the abolition of episcopacy as it then stood, before they were agreed what to put instead of it; and did then convene this assembly to consult of some other form to be suggested to the parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it, or so far as they should like it. The divines of this assembly were, for the generality of them, conformable, episcopal men, and had generally the reputation of pious, orthodox, and religious protestants; and (excepting the seven independents, or, as they were called dissenting brethren) I do not know of any nonconformist among them as to the legal conformity then required. Many of them were professedly episcopal, and, I think, all of them so episcopal, as to account a well-regulated episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable and advisable; yet so as they thought the present constitution capable of reformation for the better. When I name the divines of this assembly, I do not include the Scots commissioners, who, though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the debates, as they saw occasion, yet were no members of that assembly, nor did vote with them, but acted separately in behalf of the church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scots presbytery, but could never prevail with the assembly to declare for it. On the other hand, the independents were against all united church government of more than one single congregation, holding that each single congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a church, and choose their own officers, were of themselves independent, and not accountable to any other ecclesiastical government, but only the civil magistrate, as to the public peace; admitting indeed that messengers from several churches might meet to consult in common, as there might be occasion, but without any authoritative jurisdiction* Against these, the rest of the assembly was unanimous, (and the Scots commissioners with them) that it was lawful by the word of God for divers particular congregations (beside the inspection of their own pastor and other officers) to be united under the same common government; and such communities to be further subordinate to provincial and national assemblies; which is equally consistent with episcopal and presbyterian principles. But whether with or without a bishop or standing president of such assemblies, was not determined or debated by them. When any such point chanced to be suggested, the common answer was, that this point was not before them, but was precluded by the ordinance by which they sat; which did first declare the abolition of episcopacy (not refer it to their declaration), and they only to suggest to the parliament somewhat in the room of that so abolished, And this is a true account of that assembly as to this point (and when as they were called presbyterians, it was not in the sense of anti-episcopal, but anti-independents), which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living who can give a better account of that assembly than I can. To this may be objected their agreement to the covenant, which was before I was amongst them. But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said. The covenant, as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the parliament to the assembly, seemed directly against all episcopacy, and for setting up the Scots presbytery just as among them. But the assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms, being so worded as, to preserve the government of the church of Scotland, and to reform that of England, and so to reduce it to the nearest uniformity. But before the assembly could agree to it, it was thus mollified, to preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common enemy; and to reform that of England (not so as it is in Scotland, but) according to the word of God, and the exarnpleof the best reformed churches; and to endeavour the nearest uniformity; which might be as well by reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both. And whereas the covenant, as first brought to them, was against popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. they would by no means be persuaded to admit the word prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of reformation for the better in divers things, yet to engage indefinitely against all prelacy, they would not agree. After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the parliament, who then pressed it, suggested this expedient, that by prelacy they did not understand all manner of episcopacy or superiority, but only the present episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of archbishops, bishops, and their several courts and subordinate officers, &c. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an abolition of the present prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a reformation of the present episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this it was agreed to be expressed with this interpretation; prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. And with this interpretation at length it passed; and the Scots commissioners in behalf of their church agreed to those amendments. I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that interpretation; but this was the true intendment of the assembly, and upon this occasion."

In March of this year, 1644, he married Susanna, daughter of John and Rachel Clyde of Northiam, Northamptonshire. In 1645, the weekly meetings, which gave birth to the Royal Society, being proposed, he attended them along with Dr. John Wilkins (afterwards bishop of Chester), Dr. Jonathan Goddard, Dr. George Ent, Dr. Giisson, Dr. Merret, doctors in physic, Mr. Samuel Foster, then professor of astronomy at Gresham college, Theodore Haak, a German of the palatinate, and then resident in London, who is said to have first suggested those meetings, and many others. These meetings were held sometimes at Dr. Goddard’s lodgings in Wood-street, sometimes in Cheapside, and sometimes at Gresham college, or some place near adjoining.

, a worthy English divine, and botanical writer, was born in 1714, in or near the parish of Ireby, in Cumberland. He was of Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1740, and acquired some reputation as a sound scholar. Though possessed of good natural abilities, and no small share of acquired knowledge, he lived and died in an humble station. His disposition was so mild, and his sense of duty so proper, that he passed through life without a murmur at his lot. Early in life he married a lady near Portsmouth, where he at that time resided on a curacy. For fifty-six years they enjoyed the happiness of their'matrimonial connexion an happiness that became almost proverbial in their neighbourhood. After spending a few years in the south of England, he became curate of Simonburn, in Northumberland; and while here, indulged his taste for the study of botany, and filled his little garden with curious plants. This amusement led him gradually into deeper researches into natural history; and, in 1769, he published a “History of Northumberland,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which, containing an account of minerals, fossils, &c. found in that country, is reckoned the most valuable. In other respects, as to antiquities, &c. it is rather imperfect, and unconnected. His fortune, however, did not improve with the reputation which this work brought him, and a dispute with his rector occasioned him to leave his situation, when he and his wife were received into the family of a clergyman who had formerly been his friend at college. He was curate for a short time at Haughton, near Darlington, in 1775, and soon afterwards removed to Billingham, near Stockton, where he continued until increasing infirmities obliged him to resign. He then removed to the village of Norton, where he died July 23, 1793, in the seventyninth year of his age. About two years before his death a small estate fell to him by the death of a brother; and to the honour of the present bishop of Durham (but certainly not to the surprize of any one that knows that munificent prelate), when the circumstances and situation of Mr. Wallis were represented to him, he allowed him an annual pension from the time of his resigning his curacy. From a sense of gratitude, Mr. Wallis, just at the close of life, was employed in packing up an ancient statue of Apollo, found at Carvoran, a Roman station on the wall, on the confines of Northumberland, as a present to the learned Daines Barrington, brother to the bishop. In the earlier part of his life Mr. Wallis published a volume of letters to a pupil, on entering into holy orders.

, D. D. and F. R, S. was an English Benedictine monk, and a Roman catholic bishop also senior bishop and vicar apostolic of the western district, as well as doctor of theology of the Sorbonne. He died at Bath in 1797, in the seventy-sixth year of his age; and the forty-first of his episcopacy. He was the last survivor of those eminent mathematicians who were concerned in regulating the chronological style in England, which produced a change of the style in this country in 1752. Besides some ingenious astronomical essays in the Philosophical Transactions, he printed several separate works, both on mathematics and theology; as, 1. “Analyse cles Mesures des Rapports et des Angles,” 1749, 4to, being an extension and explanation of Cotes’ s '“Harmonia Mensurarum.” 2. “Theorie du monument des Aspides,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “De inaequalitatibus motuum Lunarium,” 1758, 4to. 4. “An Explanation of the Apocalypse, Ezekiel’s Vision,” &c. By the fire at Bath in the time of the riots, 1780, several valuable manuscripts which he had compiled in the course of his life and travels through many countries, were irretrievably lost.

In 1768, Mr. Walpole printed fifty copies of his tragedy of the “Mysterious Mother,” which, as usual, were distributed among his particular friends, but with injunctions of secrecy. The horrible story on which it is founded he professed to have heard when young, and that it happened in archbishop’s Tillotson’s time: but he soon discovered that it had appeared in bishop Hall’s works, and that it had actually been twice dramatised, however unfit such a shocking case of incest is to be presented to the public eye. Of this indeed the author was aware; “The subject,” he says, “is so horrid, that I thought it would shock rather than give satisfaction to an audience. Still I found it so truly tragic in the two essential springs of terror and pity, that I could not resist the impulse of adapting it to the scene, though it should never be practicable to produce it there. I saw too that it would admit of great situations of lofty characters, and of those sudden and unforeseen strokes which have singular effect in operating a revolution in the passions, and in interesting the spectator. It was capable of furnishing not only a contrast of characters, but a contrast of vice and virtue in the same character: and by laying the scene in what age and country I pleased, pictures of ancient manners might be drawn, and many allusions to historic events introduced to bring the action nearer to the imagination of the spectator. The moral resulting from the calamities attendant on unbounded passion, even to the destruction of the criminal person’s race, was obviously suited to the purpose and object of tragedy.” This tragedy, however, remained for some years tolerably concealed from the public at large, until about 1783, when some person, possessed of a copy, began to give extracts from it in Woodfall' s Public Advertiser, which produced the following private letter from the author, dated Berkeley-square, Nov. 8. 1783.

Strawberry-hill he bequeathed to the hon. Mrs. Anne Darner, and a legacy of 2000l. to keep it in repair, on condition that she resides there, and does not dispose of it to any person, unless it be to the countess dowager of Waldegrave, on whom and her heirs it is entailed. He died worth 9 l,Oqo/. 3 percents. This villaof Strawberry-hill, so often mentioned, was originally a small tenement, built in 1698, by the earl of Bradford’s coachman, as a lodging-house. Colley Gibber was one of its first tenantsand after him, successively, Talbot, Bishop of Durham, the marquis of Carnarvon, Mrs. Chevevix, the toy-woman, and lord John Philip SackvilLe. Mr W. purchased.it 1747, began to fit it up in the Gothic style 1753, and completed it 1776. He permitted it to be shewn, by tickets, to parties of four, from May to October, between the hours of twelve and three, and only one party a day. The best concise account of this villa, and its valuable contents, that has hitherto appeared, may be found in Mr. Lysons’s “Environs of London-.” A catalogue raisonnée of its furniture was drawn up by the noble owner, printed at Strawberry-hill m 1774, and is now anipng his works. He devoted a great part of his life and fortune to the embellishment of this villa, which has long been viewed as one of the greatest curiosities near the metropolis. la it he had amassed a collection of pictures, prints, and drawings, selected with great taste.

, a learned English bishop, and editor of the celebrated Polyglott Bible* was born at Cleaveland in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1600. He was admitted sizer of Magdalen college, Cambridge, under Mr. John Gooch, but in 1616 removed to Peter-House college, where he took a master of arts degree in 1623. About that time, or before, he taught a school, and served as a curate in Suffolk, whence he removed to London, and lived for a little time as assistant or curate to Mr. Stock, rector of Allhallows in Bread-street. After the death of Mr. Stock, he became rector of St. Martin’s Orgar in London, and of Sandori in Essex; to the latter of which he was admitted in January 1635, and the same day to St. Giles’s-in-theFields, which he quitted soon after. The way to preferment lay pretty open then to a man of his qualities; for, he' had not only uncommon learning, which was more regarded then than it had been of late years, but he was also exceedingly zealous for the church and king. In 1639, he commenced doctor of divinity; at which time he was prebendary of St. Paul’s and chaplain to the king. He possessed also another branch of knowledge, which made him very acceptable to the clergy: he was well versed in the laws of the land, especially those which relate to the patrimony and liberties of the church. During the controversy between the clergy and inhabitants of the city of London, about the tithes of rent, he was very industrious and active in behalf of the former; and upon that occasion made so exact and learned a collection of customs, prescriptions, Jaws, orders, proclamations, and compositions, for many hundred years together, relating to that matter, (an abstract of which was after wards published,) that the judge declared, “there could be no dealing with the London ministers if Mr. Walton pleaded for them.” Such qualities, however, could only render him peculiarly obnoxious to the republican party, and accordingly, when they had assumed the iuperiority, he was summoned by the House of Commons as a delinquent; was sequestered from his living of St. Martin’s Orgar, plundered, and forced to fly; but whether be went to Oxford directly, or to his other living of Sandon in Essex, does not appear. It is, however, certain that he was most cruelly treated at that living likewise, being grievously harassed there and once, when he was sought for by a party of horse, was forced to shelter himself in a broom-field. The manner of his being sequestered from this living is a curious specimen of the principles of those who were to restore the golden age of political justice. Sir Henry Mild may and Mr. Ashe, members of parliament, first themselves drew up articles against him, though no way concerned in the parish, and then sent them to Sandon to be witnessed and subscribed. Thus dispossessed of botli his livings, he betook himself for refuge to Oxford, as according to Lloyd, he would otherwise have been murdered,

After the restoration, Dr. Walton had the honour to present the Polyglott Bible to Charles II., who made him chaplain in ordinary, and soon after promoted him to the bishopric of Chester. In September 1661, he went to take possession of his see; and was met upon the road, and received with such a concourse of gentry, clergy, militia both of the city and county, and with such acclamations of thousands of the people, as had never been known upon any such occasion. This was on the 10th of September, and on the 11th he was installed with much ceremony; “a day,” says Wood, “not to be forgotten by all the true sons of the Church of England, though cursed then in private by the most rascally faction and crop-eared whelps of those parts, who did their endeavours to make it a May-game and a piece of foppery.” This glory, however, which attended bishop Walton, though it seems to have been great, was yet short-lived; for, returning to London, he died at his house in Aldersgate-street, Nov. the 29th following, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral, where a monument with a Latin inscription was erected to his memory, of which a broken stone now only remains, with a few words of the inscription, in the vault of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s. Dr. Walton was twice married. His first wife was Anne, of the Claxton family of Suffolk. She died May 25, 1640, aged forty-three, and was buried in the chancel of Sundon church, where a handsome monument was erected to her memory. His second wife was Jane, daughter to the celebrated Dr. Fuller, vicar of St. Giles’s Cripplegate. Dr. Walton had published at London, in 1655, “Introdu'ctio ad lectionem Linguarum Orientalium,” in 8vo.

, a celebrated writer on the art of angling, and the author of some valuable lives, was born at Stafford in August 1593. His first settlement in London, as a shopkeeper, was in the Royal Burse in Cornhill, built by sir T. Gresharn, and finished in 1567. In this situation he could scarcely be said to“have had elbow-room; for, the shops over the Burse were but seven feet and a half long, and five wide; yet he carried on his trade till some time before 1624, when” he dwelt on the north side of Fleet- street, in a house two doors west of the end of Chancery-lane, and abutting on a messuage known by the sign of the Harrow;“by which sign the old timber -house at the south-west corner of Chancery-lane, in Fleet-street, till within these few years, was known. A citizen of this age would almost as much disdain to admit of a tenant for half his shop, as a knight would to ride double; though the brethren of one of the most ancient orders of the world were so little above this practice, that their common seal was the device of two riding one horse. He married probably about 1632; for in that year he lived in a house in Chancery-lane, a few doors higher up on the left hand than the former, and described by the occupation of a sempster or milliner. The former of these might be his own proper trade; and the latter, as being a feminine occupation, might be carried on by his wife: she, it appears, was Anne, the daughter of Mr, Thomas Ken, of Furnival’s-inn, and sister of Thomas, afterwards Dr. Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells. About 1643 he left London, and, with a fortune very far short of what would now be called a eompetencv, seems to have retired altogether from business. While he continued in London, his favourite recreation was angling, in which he was the greatest proficient of his time; and, indeed, so great were his skill and experience in that art, that there is scarcely any writer on the subject since his time who has not made the rules and practice of Walton his very foundation. It is, therefore, with the greatest propriety that Langbaine calls him” the common father of all anglers." The river that he seems mostly to have frequented for this purpose was the Lea, which has it source above Ware in Hertfordshire, and falls into the Thames a little below Blackwall; unless we will suppose that the vicinity of the New River to the place of his habitation might sometimes tempt him out with his friends, honest Nat. and R. Roe, whose loss he so pathetically mentions, to spend an afternoon there. In 1662 he was by death deprived of the solace and comfort of a good wife, as appears by a monumental inscription in the cathedral church of Worcester.

Living, while in London, in the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, of which Dr. John Donne, dean of St. Paul’s, was vicar, he became of course a frequent hearer of that excellent preacher, and at length, as he himself expresses it, his convert. Upon his decease, in 1631, sir H. Wotton requested Walton to collect materials for a life of the doctor, which sir Henry had undertaken to write; but, sir Henry dying before he had completed the life, Walton undertook it himself; and in 1640 finished and published it, with a collection of the doctor’s sermons, in folio. Sir H. Wotton dying in 1639, Walton was importuned by King to undertake the writing of his life also and it was finished about 1644. The precepts of angling, that is, the rules and directions for taking fish with a hook and line, till Walton’s time, having hardly ever been reduced to writing, were propagated from age to age chiefly by tradition; but Walton, whose benevolent and communicative temper appears in almost every line of his writings, unwilling to conceal from the world those assistances which his long practice and experience enabled him, perhaps the best of any man of his time, to give, in 1653 published in a very elegant manner his K Complete Angler, or Contemplative Man’s Recreation,“in small 12mo, adorned with exquisite cuts of most of the fish mentioned in it. The artist who engraved them has been so modest as to conceal his name; but there is great reason to suppose they are the work of Lombart, who is mentioned in the” Sculptura“of Mr. Evelyn; and also that the plates were of steel.” The Complete Angler“came into the world attended with en. comiastic verses by several writers of that day. What reception in general the book met with may be naturally inferred from the dates of the subsequent editions; the second came abroad in 1655; the third in 1664; the fourth in 1668, and the fifth and last in 1676, Sir John Hawkins bad traced the several variations which the author from time to time made in these suhsequent editions, as well by adding new facts and discoveries as by enlarging on the more entertaining parts of the dialogue. The third and fourth editions of his book have several entire new chapters; and the fifth, the last of the editions published in his life-time, contains no less than eight chapters more than the first, and twenty pages more than the fourth. Not having the advantage of a learned education, it may seem unaccountable that Walton so frequently cites authors that have written only in Latin, as Gesner, Cardan, Aldrovandus, Rondeletius, and even Albertus Magnus; but it may be observed, that the voluminous history of animals, of which the first of these was author, is in effect translated into English by Mr. Edward Topsel, a learned divine, chaplain, as it seems, in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, to Dr. Neile, dean of Westminster: the translation was published in 1658, and, containing in it numberless particulars concerning frogs, serpents, caterpillars, and other animals, though not of fish, extracted from the other writers above-named, and others, with their names to the respective facts, it furnished Walton with a great variety of intelligence, of which in the later editions of his book he has carefully availed himself: it was therefore through the medium of this translation alone that he was enabled to cite the other authors mentioned above; vouching the authority of the original writers, as he elsewhere does sir Francis Bacon, whenever occasion occurs to mention his natural history, or any other of his works. Pliny was translated to his hand by Dr. Philemon Holland; as were also Janus Dubravius” de Piscinis & Piscium natura,“and Lebault’s” Maison Rustique,“so often referred to by him in the course of his work. Nor did the reputation of” The Complete Angler“subsist only in the opinions of those for whose use it was more peculiarly calculated; but even the learned, either from the known character of the author, or those internal evidences of judgment and veracity contained in it, considered it as a work of merit, and for various purposes referred to its authority. Dr. Thomas Fuller, in his” Worthies,“whenever he has occasion to speak of fish, uses his very words. Dr. Plot, in his” History ofMaffordshire,“has, on the authority of our author, related two of the instances of the voracity of the pike, and confirmed them by two other signal ones, that had then lately fallen out in that county. These are testimonies in favour of Walton’s authority in matters respecting fish and fishing; and it will hardly be thought a diminution of that of Fuller to say, that he was acquainted with, and a friend of, the person whom he thus implicitly commends. About two years after the restoration, Walton wrote the life of Mr. Richard Hooker, author of the” Ecclesiastical Polity:“he was enjoined to undertake this work by his friend Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, by the way, was an angler. Bishop King, in a letter to the author, says of this life,” I have often seen Mr. Hooker with my father, who was afterwards bishop of London, from whom, and others at that time, I have heard of the most material passages which you relate in the history of his life.“Sir William Dugdale, speaking of the three posthumous books of the” Ecclesiastical Polity,“refers the reader” to that seasonable historical discourse lately compiled and published, with great judgment- and integrity, by that much-deserving person Mr. Isaac Walton."

The life of Mr. George Herbert, as it stands the fourth and last in the volume in which that and the three former are collected, seems to have been written the next after Hooker’s: it was first published in 1670. Walton professes himself to have been a stranger to the person of Herbert; and though he assures us his life of him was a free-will offering, it abounds with curious information, and is no way inferior to any of the former. Two of these lives, viz. those of Hooker and Herbert, we are told, were written under the root of Walton’s good friend and patron Dr. George Morley, bishop of Winchester; which seems to agree with Wood’s account, that, after his quitting London, he lived mostly in the families of the eminent clergy of that time;" and none who consider the inoffensiveness of his manners and the pains he took in celebrating the lives and actions of good men, can doubt his being much ' beloved by them.

In 1670, these lives were collected and published in octavo, with a dedication to the above bishop of Winchester, and a preface, containing the motives for writing them; this preface is followed by a copy of verses, by his intiniate friend and adopted son, Charles Cotton, of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. the author of the second part of the Complete Angler.“The” Complete Angler“having, in the space of twenty. three years, gone through four editions, Walton, in 1676, and in the eighty-third year of his age, was preparing a fifth, with additions, for the press; when Cotton wrote a second part of that work. Cotton submitted the manuscript to Walton’s perusal, who returned it with his approbation, and a few marginal strictures; and in that year they were published together. Cottons book had the title of” The Complete Angler; being instructions how to angle for a trout or grayling, in a clear stream, Part II." and it has ever since been received as a second part of Walton’s book. In the title-page is a cipher, composed of the initial letters of both their names; which cipher, Cotton tells us, he had caused to be cut in stone, and set up over a fishing- house that he had erected near his dwelling, on the bank of the little river Dove, which divides the counties of Stafford and Derby.

the latter part of his life, dwelt in an p. 139. alms-house near the Gatehouse, at kind;“when he undertook to write the life of bishop Sanderson, which was published, together with several of the bishop’s pieces, and a sermon of Hooker’s, 1677, in 8vo. It was not till long after that period when the faculties of men begin to decline, that Walton undertook to write this life; yet, far from being deficient in any of those excellences that distinguish the former lives, it abounds with the evidences of a vigorous imagination, a sound judgment, and a memory unimpaired; and for the nervous sentiments and pious simplicity displayed in it, let the concluding paragraph, pointed out by Dr. Samuel Johnson, be considered as a specimen:” Thus this pattern of meekness and primitive innocence, changed this for a better life. It is now too late to wish that mine may be like his, for I am in the eighty-fifth year of my age, and God knows it hath not; but I most humbly beseech Almighty God that my death may: and I do earnestly beg, that, if any reader shall receive any satisfaction from this very plain and as true relation, he will be so charitable as to say, Amen!“Such were the persons, whose virtues Walton was laudably employed yi celebrating; and it is observable, that not only these, but the rest of Walton’s friends *, were eminent royalists; and that he himself was in great repute for his attachment to the royal cause will appear by a relation which sir John Hawkins has quoted from Ashmole’s” History of the Garter."

Dr. Henry King, bishop of Chichester, in a letter to Walton, dated in Nov. 1664, says, that he had done much for sir Henry Savile, his contemporary and familiar friend; which fact connects very well with what the late Mr. Des Maizeaux, some years since, related to Mr. Oldys, that

, an upright statesman, was the son and heir of sir George Wandesforde, knight, of Kirklington, in Yorkshire, and was born at Bishop Burton, in the East Riding of that county, in Sept. 1592. His family was very ancient and honourable, the pedigree beginning with Geoffrey de Clusters, of Kirklington, in the reign of Henry II. He was taught by his virtuous mother the rudiments of the English tongue, and of the Christian religion, and sent, as soon as it was proper, to the free-school of Wells, and there instructed in due course in the Latin and Greek languages. About the age of fifteen he was judged fit for the university, and admitted of Clare-hall, Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Milner. Here, it is supposed,his acquaintance commenced with Mr. Wentwortb, afterwards earl of Strafford, which grew into the strictest friendship and fraternal affection. Mr. Wandesforde is said to have made great progress at college in the arts and sciences, and the knowledge of things natural, moral, and divine; but applied himself closely at the same time to the study of the classics, and particularly to oratory, as appears from his subsequent speeches in parliament. At the age of nineteen he was called from the university by his father’s death, to a scene of important business, the weighty regulation of family affairs, with an estate heavily involved; his necessary attention to which prevented him from pursuing the studies preparatory to the church, which he had originally chosen as a profession, and now relinquished.

, a literary antiquary of great learning and accuracy, was the son of the rev. Nathanael Wanley, some time vicar of Trinity-church in Coventry. This Nathanael Wanley was born at Leicester in 1633, and died in 1680. Besides the vicarage of Trinity-church, it is probable that he had another in Leicestershire, from the following title-page, “Vox Dei, or the great duty of self reflection upon a man’s own wayes, by N. Wanley, M. A. and minister of the gospel at Beeby in Leicestershire,” London, 1658. He was of Trinity-college, Oxford, B. A. 1653, M. A. 1657, but is not mentioned by Wood. The work which now preserves his name is his “Wonders of the Little World,” 1678, fol. a work to be classed with Clark’s “Examples,” 2 vols. fol. or Turner’s “Remarkable Providences,” containing a vast assemblage of remarkable anecdotes, &c. many of which keep credulity on the stretch. As these were collected by Mr. Wanley from a number of old books, little known, or read, it is not improbable that such researches imparted to his son that taste for bibliographical studies which occupied his whole life. At least it is certain that Humphrey, (who was born at Coventry, March 21, 1671-2, and was bred first a limner, and afterwards some other trade), employed all his leisure time, at a very early period, in reading old books and old Mss. and copying the various hands, by which he acquired an uncommon faculty in verifying dates. Dr. Lloyd, then bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, sent him to Edmund-hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill was then principal, whom he greatly assisted in his collations of the New Testament. Hearne says, that during his stay in this hall, he attended but one lecture, which was in logic, which he swore he could not comprehend. Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, hearing of Wanley’s attention to matters of antiquity, induced him to remove to his own college, which he soon did, residing at the master’s lodgings, who, says Hearne, “employed him in writing trivial things, so that he got no true learning.” He certainly acquired the learned languages, however, although it does not appear that he attended much to the usual course of academic studies, or was ambitious of academic honours, as his name does not appear in the list of graduates. By Dr. Charlett’s means he was appointed an under-keeper of the Bodleian library, where he assisted in drawing up the indexes to the catalogue of Mss. the Latin preface to which he also wrote. Upon leaving Oxford, he removed to London, and became secretary to the society for propagating Christian knowledge; and at Dr. Hickes’s request, travelled ovor the kingdom, in search of Anglo-Saxon Mss. a catalogue of which he drew up in English, which was afterwards translated into Latin by the care of Mr. Thwaites, and printed in the “Thesaurus Ling. Vet. Septen.” Oxon. 1705, fol. He was soon after employed in arranging the valuable collections of Robert earl of Oxford, with the appointment of librarian to his lordship. In this employment he gave such particular satisfaction, that he was allowed a handsome pension by lord Harley, the earl’s eldest son and successor in the title, who retained him as librarian till his death. In Mr. Wanley’s Harleian Journal, preserved among the Lansdowne Mss. in the British Museum, are several remarkable entries, as will appear by the specimens transcribed below .

, an English prelate of great abilities and eminence, was born at Newark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, Dec. 24, 1698. His father was George Warburton, an attorney and town-clerk of the place in which this his eldest son received his birth and education. His mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Hobman, an alderman of the same town; and his parents were married about 1696. The family of Dr. Warburton came originally from the county of Chester, where his great-grandfather resided. His grandfather, William Warburton, a royalist during the rebellion, was the first that settled at Newark, where he practised the law, and was coroner of the county of Nottingham. George Warburton, the father, died about 1706, leaving his widow and five children, two sons and three daughters, of which the second son, George, died young; but, of the daughters, one- survived her brother. The bishop received the early part of his education under Mr. Twells, whose son afterwards married his sister Elizabeth; but he was principally trained under Mr. Wright, then master of Okehamschool in Rutlandshire, and afterwards vicar of Campden in Gloucestershire. Here he continued till the beginning of 1714, when his cousin Mr. William Warburton being made head -master of Newark-school, he returned to his native place, and was for a short time under the care of that learned gentleman. During his stay at school, he did not distinguish himself by any extraordinary efforts of genius or application, yet is supposed to have acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin. His original designation was to the same profession as that of his father and grandfather; and he was accordingly placed clerk to Mr. Kirke, an attorney at East Markham in Nottinghamshire, with whom he continued till April 1719, when he was qualified to engage in business upon his own account. He was then admitted to one of the courts at Westminster, and for some years continued the employment of an attorney and solicitor at the place of his birth. The success he met with as a man of business was probably not great. It was certainly insufficient to induce him to devote the rest of his life to it: and it is probable, that his want of encouragement might tempt him to turn his thoughts towards a profession in which his literary acquisitions would be more valuable, and in which he might more easily pursue the bent of his inclination. He appears to have brought from school more learning than was requisite for a practising lawyer. This might rather impede than forward his progress; as it has been generally observed, that an attention to literary concerns, and the bustle of an attorney’s office, with only a moderate share of business, are wholly incompatible. It is therefore no wonder that he preferred retirement to noise, and relinquished what advantages he might expect from continuing to follow the law. It has been suggested by an ingenious writer, that he was for some time usher to a school, but this probably was founded on his giving some assistance to his relation at Newark, who in his turn assisted him in those private studies to which he was now attached; and his love of letters continually growing stronger, the seriousness of his temper, and purity of his morals, concurring, determined him to quit his profession for the church. In 1723 he received deacon’s orders from archbishop Dawes and his first printed work then appeared, consisting of translations from Cæsar, Pliny, Claudian, and others, under the title of “Miscellaneous Translations in Prose and Verse, from Roman Poets, Orators, and Historians,” 12mo. It is dedicated to hig early patron, sir Robert Sutton, who, in 1726, when Mr. Warburton had received priest’s orders from bishop Gibson, employed his interest to procure him the small vicarage of Gryesly in Nottinghamshire. About Christmas, 1726, he came to London, and, while there, was introduced to Theobald, Concanen, and other of Mr. Pope’s enemies, the novelty of whose conversation had at this time many charms for him, and he entered too eagerly into their cabals and prejudices. It was at this time that he wrote a letter to Concanen, dated Jan. 2, 1726, very disrespectful to Pope, which, by accident, falling into the hands of the late Dr. Akenside, was produced to most of that gentleman’s friends, and became the subject of much speculation. About this time he also communicated to Theobald some notes on Shakspeare, which afterwards appeared in that critic’s edition of our great dramatic poet. In 1727, his second work, entitled “A Critical and Philosophical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles, as related by Historians,” &c. was published in 12mo, and was also dedicated to sir Robert Sutton in a prolix article of twenty pages. In 1727 he published a treatise, under the title of “The Legal Judicature in Chancery stated,” which he undertook at the particular request of Samuel Burroughs, esq. afterwards a master in Chancery, who put the materials into his hands, and spent some time in the country with him during the compilation of the work. On April 25, 1728, by the interest of sir Robert Sutton, he had the honour to be in the king’s list of masters of arts, created at Cambridge on his majesty’s visit to that university. In June, the same year, he was presented by sir Robert Sutton to the rectory of Burnt or Brand Broughton, in the diocese of Lincoln, and neighbourhood of Newark, where he fixed himself accompanied by his mother and sisters, to whom he was ever a most affectionate relative. Here he spent a considerable part of the prime of life in a studious retirement, devoted entirely to letters, and there planned, and in part executed, some of his most important works. They, says his biographer, who are unacquainted with the enthusiasm which true genius inspires, will hardly conceive the possibility of that intense application, with which Mr. Warburton pursued his studies in this retirement. Impatient of any interruptions, he spent the whole of his time that could be spared from the duties of his parish, in reading and writing. His constitution was strong, and his temperance extreme; so that he needed no exercise but that of walking; and a change of reading, or study, was his only amusement.

Several years elapsed after obtaining this preferment, before Mr. Warburton appeared again in the world as a writer. In 1736 he exhibited a plan of a new edition of Velleius Paierculus, which he printed in the “Bibliotheque Britannique, ou Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans de la Grande Bretagne, pour les mois’ Juillet, Aout, & Sept. 1736. A la Haye.” The design never was completed. Dr. Middleton, in a letter to him dated April 9, 1737, returns him thanks for his letters, as well as the Journal, which, says he, “came to my hands soon after the date of my last. I had before seen theforce of your critical genius very successfully employed o'n Shakspeare, but did not know you had ever tried it on the Latin authors. I am pleased with several of your emendations, and transcribed them into the margin of my editions; though not equally with them all. It is a laudable and liberal amusement, to try now and then in our reading the success of a conjecture but, in the present state of the generality of the old writers, it can hardly be thought a study fit to employ a life upon, at least not worthy, I am sure, of your talents and industry, which, instead of trifling on words, seem calculated rather to correct the opinions and manners of the world.” These sentiments of his friend appear to have had their due weight; for, from that time, the intended edition was laid aside, and never afterwards resumed. It was in this year, 1736, that he may be said to have emerged from the obscurity of a private life into the notice of the world. The first publication, which rendered him afterwards famous, now appeared, under the title of “The Alliance between Church and State; or, the necessity and equity of an established religion and a test-law, demonstrated from the essence and end of civil society, upon the fundamental principles of the law of nature and nations.” In this acute and comprehensive work he discusses the obligation which lies upon every Christian community to tolerate the sentiments, and even the religious exercises of those who, in the incurable diversity of human opinion, dissent from her doctrines; and the duty which she owes to herself of prohibiting by some test the intrusion into civil offices of men who would otherwise endanger her existence by open hostility, or by secret treachery. His biographer, bishop Kurd, remarks, that this work was neither calculated to please the high church divines, nor the low but, he adds, that “although few at that time were convinced, all were struck by this essay of an original writer, and could not dissemble their admiration of the ability which appeared in the construction of it.” “There was, indeed,” continues Hurd, “a reach of thought in this system of church policy, which would prevent its making its way at once. It required time and attention, even in the most capable of its readers, to apprehend the force of the argumentation, and a more than common share of candour to adopt the conclusion, when they did. The author ha^i therefore reason to be satisfied with the reception of his theory, such as it was; and having thoroughly persuaded himself of its truth, as well as importance, he continued to enlarge and improve it in several subsequent editions; and in the last, by the opportunity which some elaborate attempts of his adversaries to overturn it, had afforded him, he exerted his whole strength upon it, and has left it in a condition to brave the utmost efforts of future criticism.” The late bishop Horsley, in his “Review of the case of the Protestant Dissenters” published in 1787, says that Warburton has in this work “shewn the general good policy of an establishment, and the necessity of a test for its security, upon principles which republicans themselves cannot easily deny. His work is one of the finest specimens that are to be found, perhaps, in any language, of scientific reasoning applied to a political subject.”

In 1751, Mr. Warburton published an edition of Pope’s “Works,” with notes, in nine volumes, octavo and in the same year printed “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Middleton, inserted in a pamphlet entitled The Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated,” &c. 8vo. and “An Account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans, the Welsh Prophet, in the last Century;” the latter of which pieces afterwards subjected him to much ridicule. In 1753, Mr. Warburton published the first volume of a course of Sermons, preached at Lincoln’s-inn, entitled “The Principles of natural and revealed Religion occasionally opened and explained;” and this, in the subsequent year, was followed by a second. After the public had been some time promised lord Bolingbroke’s Works, they were about this time printed. The known abilities and infidelity of this nobleman had created apprehensions, in the minds of many people, of the pernicious effects of his doctrines; and nothing but the appearance of his whole force could have convinced his friends how little there was to be dreaded from arguments against religion so weakly supported. The personal enmity, which had been excited many years before between the peer and our author, had occasioned the former to direct much of his reasoning against two works of the latter. Many answers were soon published, but none with more acuteness, solidity, and sprightliness, than “A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy, in two Letters to a Friend,” 1754. The third a/id fourth letters were published in 1755, with another edition of the two former; and in the same year a smaller edition of the whole; which, though it came into the world without a name, was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and afterwards publicly owned by him. To some copies of this is prefixed an excellent complimentary epistle from the president Montesquieu, dated May 26, 1754. At this advanced period of his life, that preferment which his abilities might have claimed, and which had hitherto been withheld, seemed to be approaching towards him. In September 1754 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, and in the 'next year was presented to a prebend * in the cathedral of Durham, worth 500l. per annum, on the death of Dr. Mangey. About the same time, the degree of doctor of divinity was conferred on him by Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury; and, a new impression of “The, Divine Legation” having being called for, he printed a fourth edition of the first part of it, corrected and enlarged, divided into two volumes, with a dedication to the earl of Hardwicke. The same year appeared “A Sermon preached before his grace Charles duke of Marlborough president, and the Governors of the Hospital for the small-pox and for inoculation, at the parish church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Thursday, April the 24th, 1755,” 4to; and in 1756 “Natural and Civil Events the Instruments of God’s moral Government, a Sermon preached on the last public Fast-day, at Lincoln’s-inn Chapel,” 4to. In 1757, a pamphlet was published, called “Remarks on Mr. David Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion;” which is said to have been composed of marginal observations made by Dr. Warburton on reading Mr. Hume’s book; and which gave so much offence to the author animadverted upon, that he thought it of importance enough to deserve particular mention in the short account of his life. On Oct. 11, in this year, our author was ad­* Soon after he attained this pre- Neal’s History of the Puritans, which ferment, he wrote the Remarks on are now added to his Works. “vanced to the deanery of Bristol and in 175&republished the second part of” The Divine Legation,“divided into two parts, with a dedication to the earl of Mansfield, which deserves to be read by every person who esteems the wellbeing of society as a concern of any importance. At the latter end of next year, Dr. Warburton received the honour, so justly due to his merit, of being dignified with the mitre, and promoted to the vacant see of Gloucester. He was consecrated on the 20th of Jan. 1760; and on the 30th of the same month preached -before the House of Lords. In the next year he printed” A rational Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,“12mo. In 1762, he published” The Doctrine of Grace: or, the office and operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the insults of Infidelity and the abuses of Fanaticism,“2 vols. 12mo, one of his performances which does him least credit; and in the succeeding year drew upon himself much illiberal abuse from some writers of the popular party, on occasion of his complaint in the House of Lords, on Nov. 15, 1763, against Mr. Wilkes, for putting his name to certain notes on the infamous” Essay on Woman.“In 1765, anotber edition of the second part of” The Divine Legation“was published, as volumes III. IV. and V.; the two parts printed in 1755 being considered as volumes I. and II. It was this edition which produced a very angry controversy between him and Dr. Lowth, whom in many respects he found more than his equal. (See Lowth, p. 438.) On this occasion was published,” The second part of an epistolary Correspondence between the bishop of Gloucester and the late professor of Oxford, without an Imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated Laws of Honour and Society,“1766, 8vo. In 1776, he gave a new edition of” The Alliance between Church and State;“and” A Sermon preached before the incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign Parts, at the anniversary Meeting in the parish church of St. Mary-le-bow, on Friday, Feb. 21,“8vo. The next year produced a third volume of his” Sermons,“dedicated to lady Mansfield and with this, and a single” Sermon preached at St. Lawrence-Jewry on Thursday, April 30, 1767, before his royal highness Edward duke of York, president, and the governors of the London Hospital. &c.“4to, he closed his literary labours. His faculties continued unimpaired for some time after this period; and, in 1769, he gave the principal materials to Mr. Ruffhead, for his” Life of Mr. Pope." He also transferred 500l. to lord Mansfield, judge Wilmot, and Mr. Charles Yorke, upon trust, to found a lecture in the form of a course of sermons; to prove the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable introductory letters of bishop Hurd and the well- adapted continuation of bishops Halifax and Bagot, Dr. Apthorp, the Rev. R. Nares, and others. It is a melancholy reflection, that a life spent in the constant pursuit of knowledge frequently terminates in the loss of those powers, the cultivation and improvement of which are attended to with too strict and unabated a degree of ardour. This was in some degree the misfortune of Dr. Warburton. Like Swift and the great duke of Marlborough, he gradually sunk into a situation in which it was a fatigue to him to enter into general conversation. There were, however, a few old and valuable friends, in whose company, even to the last, his mental faculties were exerted in their wonted force; and at such times he would appear cheerful for several hours, and on the departure of his friends retreat as it were within himself. This melancholy habit was aggravated by the loss of his only son, a very promising young gentleman, who died of a consumption but a short time before the bishop himself resigned to fate June 7, 1779, in the eighty-first year of his age. A neat marble monument has been lately erected in the cathedral of Gloucester, with the inscription below *.

William Warburton, D. D. of what he esteemed the best Estab­ for more than 19 years Bishop of this lishment of it,

exquisite Learning. Was consecrated Bishop of Glou­ Both which taleuts cester, Jan. 20, 1760.

Bishop Warburton’s widow was re-married, at Wyke in Dorsetshire, in August 1781, to the rev. John Stafford Smith. B.D. his lordship’s chaplain, who, in her right, became owner of Prior Park. In 1788, a handsome edition of the bishop’s Works was carefully printed, from his last corrections and improvements, in 7 volumes 4to, at the v expence of Mrs. Smith, under the immediate superintendence of bishop Hurd. This edition was followed in 1794 by a “Discourse, by way of general preface to the 4to edition of bishop Warburton’s Works, containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” For many reasons this “Life” appeared to be unsatisfactory , and two very important faults were imputed to it. It was partial, and it was defective. It will however always be read, as the last, and evidently an elaborate production of bishop Hurd, and as the ablest apology that can be offered for the failings of his friend. Since bishop Kurd’s death, the characteristics of both the author and biographer were amply displayed in a volume of very curious “Letters” which passed between Warburton and Hurd during a long course of years. To these must be added, although we less approve the motive and the spirit which produced such a publication, a volume that appeared in 1789, with the title, “Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, not admitted in their works,” 8vo. Throughout Mr. Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes,” likewise, but especially in vol. V. may be found many interesting particulars of bishop Warburton and his friends, and many of his letters, contributed from various authentic sources.

, master of Sidney-Sussex college, Cambridge, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born of a good family in the bishopric of Durham, at a place called Bishops-Middleham. He was first sent to Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he became a scholar of the house, whence he was, on account of his extraordinary merit, elected into a fellowship at Emmanuel, and succeeded to the mastership of Sidney-Sussex college on Jan. 5, 1609. On April 29, 1615, he was installed archdeacon of Taunton, and was at that time D. D. and prebendary of Bath and Wells. On Feb. 11, 1617, he was promoted to a stall in the metropolitical church of York, where he had the prebend of Ampleford, which he kept to his death. In 1620 he was vice-chancellor of the university, and the year following was made lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. In 1622 he was at Salisbury with bishop Davenant, his intimate and particular friend, with whom, together with bishops Hall and Carleton, he had been sent by king James to the synod of Dort in 1613, as persons best able to defend the doctrine of the Church of England, and to gain it credit and reputation among those to whom they were sent.

The civil war breaking out, Ward was involved not a little in the consequences of it. His good master and patron, Dr. Samuel Ward, was in 1643 imprisoned in St> John’s college, which was then made a gaol by the parliament-forces; and Ward, thinking that gratitude obliged him to attend him, continued with him to his death, which happened soon after. He was also himself ejected from his fellowship for refusing the covenant; against which he soon after joined with Mr. Peter Gunning, Mr. John Barwick, Mr. Isaac Barrow, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, and others in drawing up a treatise, which was afterwards printed. Being now obliged to leave Cambridge, he resided some time with Dr, Ward’s relations in and about London, and at other times with the mathematician Oughtred, at Albury, in Surrey, with whom he had cultivated an acquaintance, and under whom he prosecuted his mathematical studies. He was invited likewise by the earl of Carlisle and other persons of quality, to reside in their families, with offers of large pensions, but preferred the house of his friend Ralph Freeman, at Aspenden in Hertfordshire, esq. whose sons he instructed, and with whom he continued for the most part till 1649, and then he resided some months with lord Wen man, of Thame Park in Oxfordshire.